It's obvious that Abington Friends School is quite notable. It's also filled with copyvio and reads like an advert. Request help weeding it out.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [1] [2]

BTW, this is a content issue, and nothing to do with admins, so should not be here on AN.

Someone pls archive this? Ta. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here I was topic banned on Falkland Islands topics. After more than 6 months I would like to take up the Standard Offer and ask that the topic ban be lifted. In doing so, I would draw attention to the fact that it has been acknowledged that I remained WP:CIVIL throughout the episodes that led to this ban. I did make an attempt at an appeal some months ago and at that point had somewhat of a Damascus moment in response to a remark made by User:FOARP and in further conversation with User:Dpmuk. I realised that an error in my conduct was to vociferally respond to accusations made by other editors, and now realise that is fundamentally a mistake, giving the impression of a battlefield mentality. I have edited trouble free after taking a wikibreak (to be honest after retiring with the full intention of quitting for good) and on my return I have edited in some quite controversial areas without any hint of the problems that lead to my topic ban. For example at Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis my comments in response to a post at WP:NPOVN were well received by all sides ([3]). I have been receptive to feedback on my behaviour (for example from User:EatsShootsAndLeaves here) and have managed to edit constructively acknowledging my mistakes. I have a mentor User:Nick-D, whom I consult over any problems I have, and at Nick's suggestion I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics. My intention is to resume a number of articles I have in my sandpit José María Pinedo, Esteban Mestivier, Antonina Roxas, which are articles on notable subjects in early Falklands history which have been requested by the Falkland Islands workgroup for some time. To be clear my intention is to resume content creation, which was always what I most enjoyed in Wikipedia Matthew Brisbane being an example of the sort of article I like to create. In the interests of full disclosure, I do have problems with PTSD stemming from service in the Balkans with the British Army. I do struggle with depression and I have been diagnosed with an acute anxiety disorder. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supportive of the topic ban being lifted on the condition that WCM sticks to 1RR on articles concerning the Falkland Islands as he's promised above. I've been keeping an eye on WCM's talk page and have discussed a few issues with him, and it's clear that he's now approaching discussions and disagreements in a calmer and more productive fashion. As such, I think that there should be few risks involved with him editing Falklands-related topics again. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've not had a chance to look into their recent actions but I'm fairly sure I was on the fence last time they asked and as they've not come to my attention since I'm happy to try lifting the topic ban. Dpmuk (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting topic ban - if it causes a problem in the future, it's easily dealt with; and I get the impression that WCM knows that, and knows people will keep an eye on it. No concerns. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting topic ban - Wee Curry Monster's knowledge and insight will be valuable on Falklands pages, and the above demonstrates that there is little risk of future behavioural issues. Kahastok talk 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting topic ban. It's an obvious net positive for the encyclopedia, and the steps taken (as outlined in the appeal) seem adequate to prevent it from causing any problems. I've also reviewed WCM's contributions in another dispute he's recently been involved in, and do not see any ongoing significant problem in behaviour or approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I started doing some general cleanup in some of the articles you contributed to and your statement that your intention is to resume content creation raises some issues that I don't think you've addressed before. We recently cleared out a lot of word-for-word copy violations added by a different editor, unrelated to you, that are relevant here because they involved most of the pages that touch on Falkland Island topics. My concern is that, while helping, you restored copy-violating text in order to work on it, and I'm hoping that you agree that in the future, it's better to work on that material somewhere other than the mainspace and that copy vio problems should be treated with sufficient care. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it relevant to raise a May 2012 edit here? Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of copy vios seemed relevant enough to this editor to complain about being muzzled about a week ago, so I had a small concern. I hope it turns out to not be relevant. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are misplaced, I am fully cognisant of WP:COPYVIO, in fact if you ask User:Moonriddengirl I have done my fair share of removing them. The only reason for not dealing with the incident you refer to was I was not permitted to; initiually I was observing a self-imposed absence from the article in question and subequently the topic ban. If you dig a little further you will find some of the material you have removed was written by me in 2007, more than a year before that paper was issued. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. (I'll note that I haven't removed any of your material from 2007 for Copyvio reasons.) And if you're making a clear acknowledgment that editors should not use the unattributed words of others and the importance of proactively keeping any Wikipedia:Plagiarism out of the mainspace then that will put that concern to rest going forward. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting topic ban – Wee Curry Monster's highly competent, knowledgeable and valuable contribution to a variety of Falkland Islands topic articles (not only) has been missed during these months, and I have no doubt that lifting the ban (which was hardly justified too) would be beneficial for Wikipedia. Apcbg (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I apologize but I have to be blunt: Wee Curry Monster is a highly pro-British biased editor concerning topics such as the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar. This wouldn't be a problem if his behavior was acceptable, but WCM seems to believe to be above Wikipedia's policies and goals, or at least he has his own interpretation for them and rejects other views.

User:Elaqueate has been doing some cleanup in the FI-related articles, addressing major issues to WP such as copy vio and original research. This has been faced by User:Kahastok opposition, as can be seen in FI sovereignty dispute's talk page.[4][5] I know Wee Curry Monster enough as to know that these interventions are the ones that motivates him to return editing on this topic: it is not articles themselves but the discussion of original research and sources what he feels urged to resume. The supreme example of this is Pascoe and Pepper's Getting it Right (originally from here but now removed). He revealed to User:Nick-D and User:Diannaa that this source copied content from WP, written by himself. This paper has been repeatedly pointed out as a self-published source; and not withstanding all this, WCM would defend this source at all cost (see [6][7]). What I'm trying to say is: his behavior is not only problematic in articles themselves but also on talk pages, project pages, etc. How are admins intending to keep an eye on this?

Also, I'd like to point out that WCM and Nick-D have been wiki-friends (and it seems outside WP too) since before I started editing. I don't think that he's the most appropriate person to be his mentor, as it seems that a) WCM has been receiving Nick's advises since long time ago, and b) a pre-established friendship creates a conflict of interests on Nick-D's assertion about Wee Curry Monster. --Langus (t) 19:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting topic ban I was distantly aware of some of WCM's sub-optimal stuff that got him banned. We move on and grow, and everyone has the right to a second chance. Give him it. --John (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting topic ban. Having interacted with WCM prior and post his topic ban, I can assure that there has been a significant positive difference in his behavior towards others. He has genuinely learned from his mistake about being vociferous in discussions, and how that can be misinterpreted as battlefield behavior. I further consider that lifting the topic ban would allow Wee a chance to respond to the allegations of original research. If problems arise after the lifting of the topic ban, then those should be reported at AN/I or through an RFC/U. With regards to Langus' concerns, I also encourage the parties to make better use of WP:3O and other dispute resolution methods (and abiding by them, ultimately per WP:DGAF) in order to avoid unproductive discussions.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose OP's assessment of their actions is not fully truthful. Please observe their actions with respect to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel and see that they have not been following WP:CIVIL and have conducted themselves more in line with battlefield mentality. Being that this conduct was less demonstrated less than a month ago, I see no reason to believe that they've learned from their previous mistakes Hasteur (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually that was exactly the dispute I thought of when first considering this proposal, and my initial remembrance was that WCM had caused serious problems there. But, when I went and reviewed all his posts there in detail (my memory isn't so great these days), I discovered that there were a number of people (on both sides) engaged in battleground behaviour (one of them was desysopped and one of them was admonished, though others also behaved badly), and WCM's edits there were not seriously problematic, even though I disagreed strongly with his comments and personally thought his participation was unconstructive. Unconstructive is not the same as disruptive or a significant problem, hence my opinion offered here earlier. (He struck some of his stronger comments there, which I think showed an ability to step back that is reassuring in this context.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This seems exactly why wikipedia has a Standard Offer. There are issues. An editor is confronted and must take a series of actions to improve and turn a corner. This has occurred and the second chance is appropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support handing over the WP:rope, on the condition that WCM abide by 1RR. While this user has some problematic behaviours in the past, they seem to have engaged in a good faith effort to be more WP:civil. If WCM ends up betraying our trust, it shouldn't be much of a problem to impose sanctions, given the history of a topic ban rescinded only with reservations. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

There's been no edit here for 48 hours (i.e. it's ripe to get archived). Are we ready to close this? Kahastok talk 21:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I've closed it. 28bytes (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help move Riddarholmen Church to Riddarholm Church. The grammatical (Swenglish) interpretation of the Swedish name is incorrect. It's like Church of the Noble Island now, but should be like Noble Island Church. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a reference to a reliable source, thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Google Books ngram supports the claim. Why isn't this discussion at WP:RM? Favonian (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was overwhelmed here and did not have time then to research the page and try to find out how to do this right. It looked extremely time-consuming for what I had hoped was as rather simple thing. Sorry!

Shall we move this there? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing some NPP when I came across this. It was created by User:Stanfordpandabot. I purposefully did not notify them as I am not necessarily seeking intervention by a sysop and it could be confusing to (them?), but rather asking for information on how this needs to be handled, if at all. On the user page it states that the account is shared between multiple people, however they also claim to be students. Is there some kind of action needed here? Quite frankly the article is borderline non-notable but perfectly referenced, and the account's editing patterns seemed like so many other paid ones (Wiki-PR and friends) which is what initially caught my eye. But AGF and all that. If we somehow allow students to share accounts then I guess there's nothing to be done here. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't biting anyone nor ignoring something that required action. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notified, [8] 88.104.24.150 (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To my knowledge, we don't allow that. Perhaps the education project team could be useful here? Pinging User:Ragesoss - it's important to find out whether it's an approved educational assignment (and we know whose hand to lightly slap) or not. Thanks for reporting it, and for your NPP work :). Ironholds (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't allow students to use multiple accounts, but they commonly do anyway if they aren't receiving guidance from established Wikipedians. I'd guess that this is a legitimate in-progress class (since somehow I do know off the top of my head that the mentioned professor is in fact a professor at Stanford, and that he does teach that class,) but one that hasn't received formal guidance. It's fairly common for instructors to hear about the idea of a Wikipedia-based assignment without realizing that we do offer hands-on support. I think it's fairly likely that the professor mentioned is using some sort of assignment that involves Wikipedia, and that he didn't realize we have course pages/in-person support/etc. I'll reach out to the students and professor at some point later later today or tomorrow as I have time, but if someone else really wants to beat me to it, please feel free (though please do let me know if you do.)

Tangentially, we don't quite have a formal process for approving student assignments, and since we can't really stop them currently easily, I'll usually grant course instructor privs to anyone is actually a course instructor, even if I don't agree with their instructional design and/or think it's going to be a trainwreck and even if the instructor refuses to take feedback - that way if it turns out to be one, the mess is much easier to clean up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the outreach and explanation, Kevin. It'd be nice if we did have such a process - that way we could drive informal assignments towards the education programme and some actual structure and support :/. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made contact with the professor, and will be reaching out to the students today or tomorrow. (Broken foot has my on the slowside still.) Ironholds: I agree with you wholeheartedly that such a process would be nice. There's a lot of stuff about the USEP that isn't ideal. Unfortunately, with the amount of stuff I'm juggling in my volunteer time currently, I just don't have the time or energy to put in to a significant revamp of how the USEP currently functions. I suspect this is true of most other involved volunteers. I agree it needs a revamp, but without more support on the compensated end, anything that happens for now is going to be of the half-assed variety - which really is unfortunate. I think the USEP has a huge amount of untapped potential, but it'll take a lot of thought to get right, and likely a systematic revamp and series of RfC's to get everything implemented - and I doubt that anyone who isn't WEF or WMF staff even potentially has the spare capacity to get it ship-shape. Sage and Jami do a lot of important work, but a lot of it is patching holes in the ship more than anything else. (And we certainly do try to drive informal assignments towards the education program even as it stands currently.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had some back and forth with the professor involved. It appears likely that these are his students (but that hasn't been 100% confirmed yet.) If these are his students, they're innovating within the context of a larger assignment (which does allow for innovation,) but we shouldn't expect to see any additional groups of his students. If too many issues are presented by them, he's willing to state that Wikipedia cannot be used as part of his assignment in his class, but for now, please just treat this set of people as you would any other set of new good faith contributors to Wikipedia (which obviously includes taking actions like AfD'ing etc, if warranted.) It's unlikely that they're commercial spammers as was initially suggested, but very likely that they don't understand many of our policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This admin has been editing on behalf of paying clients. He has created articles for paying clients. He's lied about his activities and misled the community. He's also attacked other editors and admins for conflicts of interest while refuses to disclose the full extent his conflict of interest activities. Why is he allowed to retain his administrative tools and to continue to edit here? Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candleabracadabra To start a discussion, I think it would be appropriate that you made your allegations concrete and provided diffs and other evidence you may have. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples that I am aware of include:

• Aaron Wall
• Ugo Colombo (real estate)
• Bob's Discount Furniture
• He has a COI with Vanessa Fox, an article where he has done extensive work
• BLP attacks on an industry rival: Jeffrey A. Citron (Jehochman is associated with competitor Broadvoice) Another problematic edit [9]
• The original Argox article. Adding links to his client [10].
• PSC Inc.
• Intermec
• Lyrtech
• Virtutech
• He was warned about it in 2005: "Hello, it looks like you are using wikipedia for advertising. Please don't do that. Thanks. Kim Bruning 17:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)" Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit showing he was aware that advertising clients is against policy.
• He's been involved in trying to influence the COI editing rules even though he has a clear conflict of interest as his company is in the business of promoting companies and making paid Wikipedia articles.
• Removes warning about his COI editing (in regards to COI policy) Irony of ironies.
• edit Saying he doesn't do COI editing because it isn't cost effective. No regard for policies? No effort to clean up the dvertisements he created?
• His statements to 28 bytes about "lying by omission" are also relevant.
• Says he doesn't do paid editing while failing to disclose the articles he has created for clients.

Also:

• Barcoding Inc.
• IntelliTrack
• DAP Technologies
• Roper Industries Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out by others, many of these (possible) COIs edits are relatively old. I have set up a list over last edits by Jehochman to the articles I could access:

• PSC Inc. 2006
• Lyrtech 2006
• Roper Industries 2006
• SunRocket 2006
• Jeffrey A. Citron 2007
• Intermec 2007
• Virtutech 2007
• Bob's Discount Furniture 2009
• Vanessa Fox 2009
• Ugo Colombo 2013

Iselilja (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it's your position that Jehochman has no duty to clean up the advertisements he created, no duty to disclose his history of paid editing, and that creating advertisements is okay if you can get away with it for long enough? Is your position supported somewhere in policy? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This was raised on Jimbo's page, and ArbCom was the recommended target. Why raise drama here? ES&L 13:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because ArbCom isn't the first stop in dispute resolution, and much of the accusation is false. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been paid to edit any articles. When I first arrived at Wikipedia in 2005 and 2006 I wrote about topics that interested me, including my employer and some companies we did business with. After a while I discovered this wasn't a good idea and stopped. If you look at the old versions of the COI guideline you will see that it was very different in 2005, and as a newbie I wasn't even aware it existed. This is all a good example of "don't bite the newbie". Somebody who comes here and naively does things the wrong way should calmly be shown the right way so that they become a productive editor. As for anything recent on the list, it is a false positive. Thank you for your understanding. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about YOUR statement about lying by omission? Can you disclose all the articles you created about clients and other editing you've done about subjects in which you have an association or conflict of interest? Does anyone else at your firm edit Wikipedia articles related to companies you do business with and have they in the past? Please disclose. We need to clean up the advertisements and promotional work you've done. By your own standards there are also serious problems with your continuing here as an editor and an administrator. You clearly state that you don't do paid editing but you clearly have. By your own standards you've been quite dishonest with the community and misled us to get admin tools and other privileges. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that this is retaliation for that other disagreement. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I will not fight with you. The first step in dispute resolution is to go to my talk page and ask me to explain. Incredibly, nobody has done that yet. Apparently the intention is to fight, not to resolve a dispute. If that's the way things are going to be, I will not participate. If any editor wants to come to my talk page and ask questions, they are welcome. All of this is very simple and routine. There is no need to make a fuss. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have removed posts form your talk page about your paid editing and conflicts of interest. Please disclose all the COI editing you've done here so that it can be examined and cleaned up as necessary.

Why didn't you disclose your history of creating and editing articles on clients during your request to be an administrator? Do you think that this activity is relevant to evaluating your judgment and actions on Wikipedia? Is it appropriate for you to lie by omission?

I have no cause to retaliate for anything and I don't have any conflict of interest in this matter. This discussion is about you, Jonathan Hochman, your history, and your refusal to fully disclose your history of conflicted edits and any ongoing activities at your firm. Please come clean. What connections do you have with Ugo Colombo? If you can't be honest with the community, I think you have to be banned to prevent further damage to Wikipedia and its reputation. You've done a great deal of harm using it for promotion and profit while misleading your fellow editors. I see no sign you've changed your ways and your efforts at distraction and diversion are not helpful. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

−

• Wikipedia allows anonymous editing. You have no right to demand disclosure of my real life associations. My answer above is my answer. As for Ugo Columbo, I've already posted notes about that on my talk page. And no, I have not removed posts from my talk page in the last few days. Nobody has posted and question to me at all. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC),[reply]

Don't forget to stop beating your wife too, ok? (I'm surprised there's still a redlink to WP:WIFE - maybe I'm just missing it) ES&L 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jehochman, I have not accused you in being paid. I don't know if you were paid or you were not, and I am proud I have never made a false accusation against anybody. I accused you in spamming, in COI editing, in writing articles on behalf of you clients, and in lying. I've proven all those accusations with more than one diff. Now, you keep saying "much of the accusation is false", Prove it!76.126.141.41 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going to ArbCom would be premature

In my open letter to Jehochman, I outlined some steps he could take that I believe would allow him to avoid an RFC/U or ArbCom case. Among these steps is adding the {{connected contributor}} template to the talk pages of the articles he has a COI with (whether they were paid edits, or simply an article subject he happened to be interested in that "happened" to be about the CEO of his client's key competitor), and letting the conflict of interest noticeboard know, so that neutral editors can take a look. I don't believe an ArbCom case would be wise at this point; Jehochman has already started a conversation with ArbCom about my open letter, and after a long and candid email discussion between the two of us (which he cc'ed to ArbCom) an arbitrator let us know that this was not something within their remit. (They're not going to sanction an administrator for undisclosed paid editing and lying by omission, for the simple reason that there's no policy against it.) So, if anything, an RFC/U would be the appropriate next step, but again, I believe Jehochman can avoid even that if he acts appropriately here. Let's give him a chance to tag these articles himself before escalating. 28bytes (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While true, I've been pretty unhappy with his clear COI when it comes to discussions about paid editing (which he defends without noting his job involves SEO and has indicated he's been involved in matching paid editors to his clients). If the solution is disclosure, I'd prefer that he A) also disclose those pages where he's been involved in setting up matching his clients to editors and B) also make it clear when engaged in discussions about paid editing and SEO. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the least of the concerns. His articles need reviewing. Frankly something like a WP:CCI for advertisers is needed. It's very easy to put up wiki articles citing a press release or two and they'll last for years or even close to a decade on the wiki. Most such pages are low traffic and thus unlikely to see much improvement from their initial PR state unless a concerted effort is made. The claim that this is somehow an old dispute should be seen in light of the facts regarding the durability of such PR acts, which is easily measured in years. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw the open letter yesterday, and I admired it. I think it's very reasonable to either expect Jehochman to go back over his contributions and check them, or for other editors to do it if he does not. Until that happens, I don't see any need to escalate the dispute resolution process. By the way, I was sorely tempted to put my comment under a heading something like "Tryptofish states the obvious", but I'll restrain myself to simply saying it like this. Take-home lesson for Jehochman: something about glass houses. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      If I were Jehochman, I would have given up my administrative tools. Then I would have apologized. Then I would have cleaned up the mess I created, and then I would have retired.76.126.141.41 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think an editor that isn’t man or woman enough to edit under their username is in any position to lecture others on the right thing to do. Iselilja (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If I in my turn were 76.126.141.41 (talk · contribs), I would have edited logged into my main account, here and on Jimbo's talkpage. Unless my main account was blocked, of course. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Jehochman knows exactly who I am, including my real name, but you know what, if you disagree with IP editing you should start not with attacking me, but with changing Wikipedia policies. Besides I lecture nobody. I only stated what I would have done if I were in his shoes. 76.126.141.41 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

28bytes, re ArbCom's statement that they're "not going to sanction an administrator for undisclosed paid editing and lying by omission, for the simple reason that there's no policy against it", could you obtain ArbCom's permission to repeat here exactly what was said in the relevant e-mail (assuming that the above quote is a summary of their message in your own words)? Or alternatively, could someone from ArbCom come here and say what exactly they said? Andreas JN466 16:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was unclear; that was my interpretation of the situation and of ArbCom's remit, not the arbitrator's. The gist of the arbitrator's comment was that there was not (at this point) anything they could do anything about. In my experience they almost always require an RFC/U before acting in situations like this. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I still think it would be good to have a clear statement from ArbCom about this matter. It is a simple question: does Wikipedia have a policy against undisclosed paid editing or doesn't it? I think the community is owed that much clarity at least from the elected body that has supreme responsibility for interpreting and enforcing Wikipedia policy. Andreas JN466 17:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the interaction I was mentioned in (2005), Jehochman wasn't using wikipedia for its intended purpose it looks like (see edits previous to my comment) . But that was a rather long time ago; I would initially assume their behaviour has changed since then? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC) speak of the Kim, and they shall appear[reply]

That would be charitable, but Jehochman's very recent pursuit of another editor that had done essentially the same as he – also years ago, and arguably much more minor – and his accusing them of "lying by omission" are flatly untenable behaviour. Andreas JN466 17:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kim, do you believe Clay Johnson (technologist) 2010 was a long time ago?

Ugo Colombo (real estate) Do you believe 2013 was a long time ago?76.126.141.41 (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Do you really believe this is a problematic puff piece? WilyD 17:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a Wikipeida admin should write unreferenced biographies of living people that read if not like outright WP:VANISPAM then "merely" as WP:NOTDIR-violating entries? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Mr. SEO admin got that page started (possibly throwing off any New Page Patrollers), the opportunity was immediately capitalized by some mysterious IP Special:Contributions/50.1.84.43, who significantly expanded the page into your typical VANISPAM. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, everybody, don't fight on a thread named for me.  :-) I am very happy to work with 28bytes or any other editors to ensure the quality of Wikipedia articles. As I stated before, when I arrived here in 2005 and for a time thereafter, I made some edits that I subsequently realized were not good. Long ago I reviewed my own work and took steps to clean up problems. I removed some content that looked like possible advertising. I believe I prodded at least one article, and additionally I may have asked uninvolved editors or administrators to review some articles. This happened 7 to 8 years ago and I just don't remember all the exact steps or timing.
• The articles listed above include all the articles that presently come to mind, plus some that are not problematic at all. Nevertheless, our standard should be "looks suspicious" not "actual problem". Since somebody listed them as suspicious, I encourage checking all the listed articles. The number is not very large. Out of an abundance of caution, I will not touch any of these articles.
• Over the coming weeks I will review my (very long) edit history and see if anything has been missed, and if so, I will report it for review.
• Editors are welcome to visit my talk page at any time and politely question the quality of my edits. Please keep in mind that anonymous editing is allowed at Wikipedia. While I have chosen to identify myself and my profession, I do not consent to other editors auditing my client list or my personal associations. If people pose questions of that nature, I will decline to answer. Every editor has the right to decide what information they disclose about themselves, or to remain completely anonymous. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for your help, and I am sorry for any trouble I have caused. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this?

I was tempted to close this myself, but concerned that some might see that action as attempting to prematurely end investigation into this matter. Having read most of this thread, and many of the links, I do see some questions worth asking. However, I agree with User:Jehochman when he notes that these questions should have been posed directly to Jehochman at his talk page. Were that to result in a stonewall, it would be proper to escalate here, but as Jehochman has indicated a willingness to respond to questions, I think it would be best to do so on his talk page, and return here only is the answers are not satisfactory. Some editors buy into the paradigm that one should start with discussion on article or user talk pages, and escalate only when that process fails. This is a perfect example of trying to jump the process, without even attempting to converse with the editor. Does anyone disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Jehochman is willing to tag the articles that do have legitimate COI issues (so that reviewers don't waste their time on "false positives") I agree that we can close this. What do you think, Jehochman, are you willing to meet us halfway by doing that? 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of a feather... I was wondering when you'd come to his help. Did you tag your articles with COI appropriately? Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it! That is uncalled for. This thread is about me, not him. Jehochman ^Talk 18:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to tag all of them. Somebody independent of me should at least glance at each article listed because they are either about companies/people who were in the same industry where I worked, or else some unknown editor asked me for help, which apparently looked suspicious. The list is not very large. If after a first glance it looks like a false positive, or like a huge amount of work might be needed, the editor can ask me for my thoughts and I'll provide whatever useful guidance I can. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, close this. Obviously, this has been "escalated" by both the rhetoric used and the forum. It's all so dramatic but, if you all are really interested in working through it -- go to his talk page and talk to him (and not at him). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked user Swiss National Library (talk) and bring the block here for review.

This account was set up for GLAM purposes, and gave the names of two operators, one of whom also edits as user Micha L. Rieser (talk · contribs). They were told about the username policy, and invited to request a change of username such as "Michael at SNL", but declined, saying that this was a SUL account, already in use at de-wiki and Commons. Discussion ensued at WT:GLAM#Usernames for GLAM participants, where Micha Rieser said "We have now decided that we will not contribute to the GLAM project in the English Wikipedia."

Since the policies WP:ISU and WP:NOSHARE are unambiguous: "Sharing an account... with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the account being blocked", and since User:Swiss National Library has said "The account is already used by more than one person and always will be" (diff), I have blocked the account.

I would like this thread to be about this block: discussion about whether it is necessary to change the username/shared account policy to allow shared accounts for GLAM institutions should be in only one place, at WT:GLAM#Usernames for GLAM participants where there has been little participation so far. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original blocking admin on this account before a request to unblock was granted temporary. I am in support of WP:NOSHARE and do not feel that an exception should be made for GLAM or any other outreach such as it. --AdmrBoltz 21:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the policy is currently written this block is unexceptionable. The user stated that the account had been and would continue to be used by multiple people. That is clearly unacceptable under our policy, recently reaffirmed. Whether this should be a specific exception can be discussed elsewhere. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block. While I can understand why an institution might initially desire a single account for multiple people, I believe our explanation of why this is problematic should be convincing. The burden is on them to identify a good reason for the exception which overrides the problems it causes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, grounded in a policy with no need for change. Miniapolis 00:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]