Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 76

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 ← Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 → Archive 80

User SAS81 - Deepak Chopra's employee

User:SAS81 said "I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

More recently this user has attempted to obfuscate his/her financial relationship with Dr Chopra, claiming that "We don't argue for the sources being true or not, we just store them and present them and make sure they are being presented without bias. We do not advocate, endorse, refute, or promote. We're more like a library."

They have been promoting their employer, Dr Chopra, at great length on Talk:Deepak Chopra, and have recently been the subject of an arbitration enforcement request (not made by me).

They have now left a nastygram on my talk page, ("I look at this as a personal attack on my professional integrity"), in reply to me pointing out on Talk:Deepak Chopra that their representation of themselves as an independent researcher/librarian is inconsistent with their being an employee of Dr Chopra.

I request the user be topic-banned from pages relating to Deepak Chopra.

Thanks.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, nice to see everyone again. I'm unsure of the claim here but I am here to answer anyone's questions. My COI declaration is here. I've also participated in a previous COIN here.
I think BM is claiming that I am not really apart of an archive and repository and that I am somehow using that as a cover for something nefarious. I'm here to clear up any confusion but I must say, these continual personal attacks (I'm dishonest, etc) are not warranted and are especially without evidence. I requested BM and I have a side bar chat on his talk page to see what we could resolve. This COIN is his response.
There was an AE that was filed against me, and the admins who weighed in agreed with SlimVirgin's assessment that I was not the problem, but rather personal attacks and hostile editing environment was. I also see that my presence is causing plenty of drama which makes me feel uncomfortable so I am reaching out to a few editors who have some pretty harsh words to say about me and see if they can be addressed in user talk pages instead of the article talk page which is causing a distraction to the editors there who are getting worked up into a frenzy over my presence. I plan on laying for low other than that. I'm actually happy with the level of progress the article has and it really speaks well to the Wikipedia community seeing it evolve to the NPOV I was requesting. SAS81 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
From what I've read you are an archivist, or sort of librarian I guess, working for a document archive operated by a group at least partially funded by Chopra, who sits on the board of directors. Have I got that right? Also, from what I understand, the archive tends to include documents of a type which relate to the type of activities in which Chopra has engaged himself.
If I'm right in all of that, then I can see no reason to have any reservations about you, any more than I would have reservations about any of those who I have had contact over the years who work at some libraries of Catholic or Luthern or other theological schools in my area. In fact, I would be overjoyed myself if someone from one or more of those schools were an active editor here, as it would make it that much more likely that the content relevant to those areas would be brought to a high level of quality. Good to have you here. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
John Carter I know User:SAS81 talks about how he is part of an independent archival group. However on numerous occasions he has also mentioned that he "represent his direct interests" on Wikipedia"[1]. "'I've been requested by Dr. Chopra to directly represent his interests on Wikipedia"[2] I am not sure how someone who is representing his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere can be an independent archivist. In addition in SAS' first user page he said "Hello. I am a representative from Chopra Media. We have genuine concerns about this article." [3] It does not seem like a true independent archivist would be from ChopraMedia. In addition SAS mentioned "Currently, our only active editor is me, SAS81. We will be adding more in the near future and our goal is to build the archive using experienced Wikipedia editors as our primary research team." This sounds a bit scary too me. This seems like a slippery slope. Someone or an organization who has a lot of money could hire a lot of people who can then spend all day looking up Wiki Policies, to browbeat talk pages. I They do not need to even edit the actual page, because they will be the consensus.
I appreciate the idea of Chopra having a archive that is open and handled by a number of professionals whose stated goals are to provide neutral information, and I appreciate SAS81 and Dr. Chopra in providing pictures and information. I believe SAS81's strong COI being the Direct Representative of Chopra on Wikipedia should limit his involvement to providing this information and not deciding through the talk page how Dr. Chopra's article should be written.
I propose limiting SAS81 to providing sources, pictures and the like, if he is willing, but not being able to propose how these sources etc. are used. I am worried that if we permit SAS81 to continuing editing without formal restrictions, other people from his organization will also join and be able to create a false consensus. It may not be this particular archival group that will do this, but if we don't set boundaries who is to say we might not be dealing with this same situation in a week or two with an anti-global-climate change group.VVikingTalkEdits 03:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It is my perception that when Balaenoptera M. says that the "archive" (ISHAR) that SAS81 claims to work for is a smokescreen that is because SAS81 has constantly represented this archive as being entirely neutral and nonbiased and not connected to Deepak Chopra at all -except for funding. SAS81 has definitely hidden the nature of this archive which appears more and more- as the details come out- to be a New Age compendium and co-ordinating locus for a pseudoscientific assault on wikipedia. None of this matters in regards to good editors following good policy. But things are far from that simple. As VViking points out coordinated "researchers" could source flood Wikipedia fringe articles to "correct" them. Just yesterday a YouTube video was released where Deepak Chopra speaking about his current efforts to influence Wikipedia said: "I am definitely going to pursue this correction of behavior of some very bigoted, prejudiced people on Wikipedia who seem to have an agenda, who are skeptics, but they're not even skeptics." - "They're cynical angry people who have an agenda and I don't think they should be getting away with it." "If this is not resolvable Wikipedia should not exist."

So Dr. Chopra vowing to correct Wikipedia has hired a representative to sit on the Deepak Chopra article and they have formed a team that is creating this anti Wikipedia Trojan Horse "archive". It is not so much the new age topics that are off key. They are fine when seen as new age products and hobbies but not so good as the latest revolutionary life saving alternative medical and science breakthrough that you must have to be complete. If you know what I mean. I have asked SAS81 about this and SAS has refused to simply reply briefly and contribute any clarification. All aspects of this part of Deepak and SAS81's plan to "correct" Wikipedia is kept below the surface. Which is not showing good intent imo. SAS81 has had no trouble over the last few months claiming that the archive was wholly unbiased. I believe this is the suspected smoke screen -of ISHAR- that Balaenoptera has complained about. To my way of thinking people can set up what they want. The issue here is that SAS81 has not been forthright in this issue while painting himself as totally forthright. Balaenoptera is trying to point that out. I am sure that it is at least in part out of real concern for keeping Wikipedia free of organized stalking and big money interests. A concern that I also share. Big money is becoming a more common way to influence information to the liking and benefit of the "big money" holders. Another thing. When SAS81 says that the "admins who weighed in agreed with SlimVirgin's assessment that I (SAS81) was not the problem" but "personal attacks and (a)hostile editing environment was" Slimvirgin may have made this assessment but Slimvirgin's is certainly not the only opinion about what has been the problem. And not a single admin said that they agreed that SAS81 was not the problem,and that personal attacks and a hostile editing environment was. This is twisting of the real situation and it is a good example of SAS81's manipulating the narrative for outcome based reasons.. which I have seen a lot of and it usually comes surrounded with a ton of syrup words. What I saw instead of admins giving SAS81 a pass and approbation was Ed Johnston saying OK no action for now but- "My guess is that future problems may lead to a quick reevaluation." I was opposed to a ban because I just hate to see anyone be restricted. But I have to consider something like the limitations VViking proposed as being a possible wholesome solution to the disruption and continuing troubles that SAS81 claims is making him uncomfortable. The disruption is making a lot of people feel uncomfortable. It is not like the quality of the Chopra page lives or dies by having a paid COI sitting on it every day. I think as a model for the future of this and other Wikipedia articles it is not a healthy way to go and sooner or later it will have to be dealt with.Ptarmigander (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • “representing Dr. Chopra’s direct interests” does not mean anything other than the genuine and very real BLP and NPOV concerns on his article - which I have stated numerous times and I believe everything I have stated is consistent with that. If there is any other interpretation - then it’s just a misunderstanding on an editor’s part or a miscommunication on my part. I’m human and also in a stressful situation at times dealing with this problem. I also have to communicate to multiple points of view at the same time. I believe if good faith is offered - it won’t be hard of us to find common ground. It’s frustrating for me when some editors jump to their first gut reactions of what they assume a ‘Chopra representative’ means and do their darndest to protect the encyclopedia from it.
  • I have evidence supporting my integrity. My evidence is the current state of the lede section. I give it a thumbs up on neutrality and have no need to address the lede anymore. I’ve made no direct edits to the article, however other neutral and very distinguished editors have, and they have all made similar adjustments and removed the same issues I was raising, almost to the letter. So If I was promoting something, or had some hidden ‘maharishi’ message or whatever it is that some of the suspicious editors are thinking - then the evidence of that would also be found in the lede section. Therefore I believe I have genuinely helped to make the page better and by default, helped improve the encyclopedia. The neutrality of the current lede section is my proof. I challenge any neutral editor to pull the lede section from 45 days ago and compare it to now and not honestly say it is a very respectful improvement becoming of a respectful encyclopedia.
  • I’ve also stated that my goal was to raise the article to a ‘good article’status - something I thought possible and SlimVirgin came very close. I hope no one thinks I would be as naive to think that I could have a good article status using promotional material winning consensus with some pretty hardcore editors who are not shy about their criticisms of the subject matter.
  • I appreciate John Carter’s support - and hoping he can appreciate. ISHAR has an obligation to adhere to the ethics we claim to uphold. That claim is to uphold NPOV on our own archive - to the best of our ability.
  • I’m agnostic to most of the information on our archive. As we scale, I’m hoping the majority of our staff will also be agnostic to the subject matter but naturally I have no control over what people believe, and either does any other Wikipedia editor. As a matter of irony - the things I’m the least agnostic about in our database are subjects of a biographical nature - things like simple facts. Please understand that I was addressing very serious mischaracterizations, misframings, misrepresentations of a living person. Not only that, but I was doing it with a very clear intention to diffuse a situation that I believe is also in Wikipedia’s best interests, as well as Dr. Chopra.
  • Dr. Chopra is not a spokesperson for ISHAR. I can’t take responsibility for his voice on blogs, twitter, CNN or any channel for that matter. He does not inform our directive. He has graciously funded us through the Chopra foundation, and has been a champion for our mission, ethics and approach. He also has access to individuals and institutions that I can only honestly say are extremely lucrative from a archiving perspective. Because of Dr. Chopra, ISHAR is going to be able to make a significant contribution to the Wikimedia Foundation, via images, transcriptions, journals much of which has never even been digitized. I hope some editors can start looking at knowledge through the lens of anthropology or sociology instead of philosophy, as that is how ISHAR should also be appreciated. At the end of the day, we are just presenting knowledge on the archive as it is recorded - that’s it.
  • Let’s talk about the elephant in the room, and maybe you can come to see our intentions in a new light. Consider how ISHAR could be in the best interests of not only wikipedia, but editors who are champions of WP Fringe or Project Skepticism. ISHAR has very very strict ethics to strive towards. So if there is an editor from ISHAR on an article which could be fringe - skeptic editors can trust that we’re NOT sockpuppeting, harassing, making personal attacks, meatpuppeting, advocating, woo pushing or collaboratively harassing opposing editors. There will NEVER be more than one ISHAR editor on an article at a time and all of our editors will be transparent. They will know that we know the difference between bullshit and proper sources. They will know that they can ask us questions and receive verifiable answers. We get that there is a problem, which I believe is on both sides of this ‘battleground’ that has been played on Wikipedia on articles of a controversial nature. But if you’re suspicious of ISHAR, fine I get that - but better the devil you know.
  • Although I’m representing Dr. Chopra’s concerns, I’m also here as a Wikipedian who believes in the principles of Wikipedia and the process therein. SAS81 (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This well thought strategic response from SAS81 is almost pure public relations and beguiling bribery. The intent is to appear exceedingly respectable and represent himself as unbiased and objective as possible. Funny thing about Wikipedia though, it is like an intent detector. What people are up to sticks out.

It has taken months to expose that this incursion from the Chopra camp is a plan to put ISHAR editors on Wikipedia articles to "correct" them. According to SAS81 Wikipedians should feel gifted by this Trojan Horse... with it's glowing claims of the ethics and purity and all the benefits that ISHAR has to offer. Is anyone else getting that culty feeling? "Consider how ISHAR could be in the best interests of not only Wikipedia, but editors who are champions of WP Fringe or Project Skepticism" "if there is an editor from ISHAR on an article which could be fringe - skeptic editors can trust (us)." "There will NEVER be more than one ISHAR editor on an article at a time" "skeptic editors can trust" that ISHAR editors are NOT doing ANYTHING wrong. "NEVER sockpuppeting, harassing, making personal attacks, meatpuppeting, advocating, woo pushing" Skeptic editors and all Wikipedians will know that ISHAR "knows" what's what.. They will know that they can ask ISHAR. They will know that they can trust ISHAR. ... I get it. Accept ISHAR. Having COI editors from ISHAR sitting on Wikipedia articles is going to be a blessing. Lots of perks. Wikipedia will be "corrected".Ptarmigander (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to go on record saying this kind of response and attack is completely inappropriate and unwarranted. Ptarmigander I get your not a fan of Dr. Chopra - however you have no evidence nor any reason to adopt this stand with myself as an editor. I find the 'culty' reference an especially offensive aspersion and I ask that you retract such a statement. SAS81 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
If problems arise, we can always block SAS81 or other ISHAR editors. If Chopra were to choose to politicize such blocks we will have this record and others to fall back on. WP:AGF regarding this editor seems required in this instance. Mind you, as recent evidence shows, I can make a pit bull look laid back when I get pissed off and I am going to be watching pseudoscience articles as much as any others, including those directly and indirectly dealing with Chopra as well as all others, and I will also be checking the databanks I have available to me for related material as well. There is no good reason to reject the potentially very valuable sources even if they wind up being perhaps sometimes less than objective that this editor can doubtess produce And I personally would love to see this serve as a success story which might help bring in editors from libraries or archives of other similar religious groups or orders or state libraries or whatever. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

John Locke here makes good points and I agree with many of them. I am not about restricting any opportunities for Wikipedia. And outside of Wikipedia I am sure Wikipedia is not going to restrict ISHAR. That part of this is easy peasy.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@SAS81 Oh here we go. First of all let me make it clear that I admire Deepak Chopra. He is an outstanding businessman. A lover of Rumi. A pioneer of Vedic enlightenment science. Well maybe the last is a bit touch and go. But does he deserve any less than an "A" for effort there? I don't think so. Sincerely. Let me also say that when I see pictures of him I am reminded of a dearest friend of mine whose dark and deep eyes were always a steady and substantial comfort to me. I have a warm spot in my heart for Dr. Chopra. Furthermore I am not a skeptic. I have a head full of woo like many people and many of the things that Deepak Chopra talks and writes about are plenty interesting to me. Nor am I a bigot. But the idea that SAS81's exceedingly wealthy employer might decide that I am a bigot and then try to "correct" me is daunting. Chilling even. This is why I do not want to come to SAS81's talk page. I have no interest in flaring a disagreement with SAS81. I am a poor senior-citizen who must labor on my own after retirement age to support multiple families. So the idea of being sued by Deepak Chopra because he thinks I am a bigot and he doesn't want me to "get away with it" is scary and intimidating to me. So part of me thinks "where can I retract what I said?" "I am so sorry". It is part of my character that I would be regretful for saying any insult. I do not use harsh words. Am I being accused of it? .. From the bottom of my heart I feel that if SAS81 feels genuinely offended in some way from something I said then I am sorry SAS81 feels that way. But then also there is my "gut' feeling about it. That part of me thinks SAS81 ought to just notch back on the theatrics. That part of me thinks SAS81 doth protest too much. I am not calling any person or group a cult. I have no idea who SAS81 is or what structure or beliefs are core to ISHAR. And I have made NO comment on that. I certainly don't think Dr. Chopra is involved in any cult. I don't even think he is a "guru". So I would appreciate SAS81 not trying to act as if I did say he/she or ISHAR is a cult. SAS81's implications that I did feels to me to be an attack of some sort. But I guess I can handle it. Fresh Start and all. What I meant precisely by my words was that when I read statements that seemed to be saying that ISHAR- a shadowy unknown group at this time- was claiming that they knew what was good for Wikipedia. That they had such lofty ethics. That they were absolutely trustworthy, super competent and knew better than (so many)others. That they had such great gifts to bestow on Wikipedia... It sounded like something I had seen in a science fiction movie. Where a group of persuasive guides or shepherds of humanity make up their mind that they know what is best for humanity. Because they were so ethical and pure and objective and powerful (with such resources) and benevolent. You read what I wrote before so you know what I was feeling. It was scary. VViking said the same thing: "This sounds a bit scary to me." He says "scary" I said culty. same thing really. But sure I apologize if SAS81 felt insulted. I did not mean SAS81 or his "archive" was a cult. It was the way SAS81 described how he envisioned ISHAR as being of such incredibly beneficial service to Wikipedia, it's editors and specifically to it's so called "skeptic" editors. A bit spooky and presumptuous. My advice in all this for Wikipedia is to proceed with caution. Let ISHAR show what it is in the real world. Then write a Wikipedia page about it.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The article about Deepak Chopra has been placed under the Arbitration Committee's system of discretionary sanctions. This means that uninvolved admins may apply certain restrictions on editors for violation of the content or behavioral policies in relation to that article; violations would include posting personal attacks against editors or the BLP subject. The place to post complaints is Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement, not here.

A complaint was made recently about SAS81 and was closed with no action. He was asked to post a little less on the talk page, and he had already agreed not to edit the article. Continuing to discuss him, and at such length, doesn't seem necessary or fair. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User:SAS81 claims "Those who are forming ISHAR have convinced Dr. Chopra that the best way to solve these NPOV and BLP problems is working within Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, and given that scenario, issues of violations of NPOV are self correcting."

I think it is the other way around. Dr. Chopra is paying User:SAS81 to edit Wikipedia. The Founding Advisor of ISHAR is Deepak Chopra, MD. The website was created in part to lend support to help rewrite Wikipedia. This is no library. So far their service is only to Wikipedia under the direction of Deepak Chopra. I think ISHAR was only very recently created by Deepak Chopra to cleanup the Wikipedia page on Deepak Chopra. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already addressed those concerns in my above post QuackGuru. What your mentioning is false and does not reflect the intentions of ISHAR. Those are what I would call conspiracy theories. I call them conspiracies because there seems to be lots of paranoia. If what you are saying is true - then I'm sure if you give ISHAR enough WP:ROPE we will surely hang ourselves on it. SAS81 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Conspiracy Theory is a derogatory comment that implies the holder of the theory (in this case QuackGuru) is paranoid. Calling someone paranoid is also a "derogatory" that discredits their mental standing. Thereby discrediting their view. The "conspiracy theory" term is used not only to discredit individuals, but also to discredit the very discussion of specific topics. Professor Rebecca Moore says: "The word 'conspiracy' works much the same way the word 'cult' does to discredit advocates of a certain view or persuasion." Wouldn't you agree? Ptarmigander (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Ptarmigander, there doesn't seem to be any point in continuing this. The OP asked that SAS be topic-banned, but uninvolved admins at Wikipedia:Arbitration Enforcement have already decided against that course of action. That is the place to make further requests, if there are grounds to do so in future, not here. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
OK> Feels like your riding me Slim. But thanks for the guidance.Ptarmigander (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
User:SAS81 claims "What your mentioning is false and does not reflect the intentions of ISHAR.". ISHAR has no physical address and no phone number. So when was ISHAR started and who founded ISHAR? According to ISHAR "ISHAR’s researchers are all Wikipedians and are responsible for improving the encyclopedia in strict accordance to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia’s guidelines, acting under the principles of Wikipedia GLAM." So all the researchers at ISHAR are Wikipedians? This is odd and suggests the researchers at ISHAR are focused on Wikipedia.
The Founding Advisor of ISHAR is Deepak Chopra, MD[4] according to the ISHAR website. What I am mentioning is true and you have not fully addressed the concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The wording in the Deepak Chopra lede is worse than before. The part "has been described" is unencyclopedic. QuackGuru (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The AE discussion seems quite dispositive and has domain over this topic, and further rancor here is contrary to logic and common sense (in a fully scientific way, of course). Such COI as exists is now fully known to the community, and use of such wording as "has been described" is used in a great many articles where we do not wish to assert something in Wikipedia's voice which is not an empirically determinable fact. That you find that wording "unencyclopedic" is unfortunate, as you must most assuredly feel the same about a great many EB articles as well. Collect (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Collect and SlimVirgin, this editor has been very upfront about their COI, announced their POV and tried to support it with sources without ever editing the article itself. I don't know what more we can expect from them. Also, wasn't this COI already settled a long time ago?
@Ptarmigander, with all due respect (and I mean that, having followed more than a few of your posts), I think you're stretching a bit in characterizing SAS81's statements as an attack. I detest personal attacks (having been on the receiving end of some that offered to mutilate my genitals), but SAS81 said QuackGuru's sources were themselves conspiracy theories filled with paranoia, not that QuackGuru was. It's not reasonable to extrapolate from what SAS81 said that if A) Any materials QuackGuru puts forth reflect their personal beliefs, B) Those beliefs consisted of paranoid conspiracy theories, C) Paranoia is mental disorder, D) Conspiracy implies a discredited argument, then E) SAS81 is supposedly saying that QuackGuru is a disreputable lunatic.
Let's WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Nobody launched an attack here. If and when they do, though, you'll have my full support, Ptarmigander. The Cap'n (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Just When I Thought I Was Out, They Pull Me Back In. Hey Cap. I'm not the kind of guy who goes around with a hair trigger ratting on others. Not my style.Ptarmigander (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for for useful comments.

To clarify my concern:

  • SAS's initial statement was that they were Chopra's employee and Chopra's representative on Wikipedia.[5]
  • They now claim to be an independent researcher/librarian.
  • These things (Chopra employee, unbiased independent researcher) cannot both be true.
  • SAS's actual activity on the talk page is vigorous and verbose cheerleading for Chopra.

tl;dr: SAS has previously said that they are a Chopra employee, and his/her actions are those of a Chopra advocate. This is not consistent which the "independent researcher" pose which SAS is now assuming.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Balaenoptera musculus, please remove the personal attack (that I am tag-teaming) and the falsehood that I've been topic-banned from this (or any other) topic. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I do apologise re topic-ban, I was confusing you with User:Littleolive oil, another vigorously pro-Chopra editor. My bad.
Re the other term I used, I don't want to be uncivil of of course, so I'll retract that too.
I'll say rather that yourself and SAS are working together to support each other in promoting Chopra, both here and (in your case) at the Huffington Post.[6] Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Balaenoptera musculus, I'm not working with anyone to promote anyone, and I've already told you that I had nothing to do with the Huffington Post article. Please retract all the personal attacks and allegations and don't keep making them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Balaenoptera musculus - When I arrived and declared my COI - it was too premature to release or mention anything about ISHAR. Once I had clearance, I updated my COI for proper context and it was done as a courtesy. Either way, the distinction is silly. I've never been an employee for ChopraLLC, Chopra Center, or any Chopra organization but either way you slice it - I've still revealed my financial connection and relationship as required. The rest are all aspersions. SAS81 (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the isharonline.org Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository (ISHAR) domain name was registered on 2014-05-16. Yes, I've done my homework. User:SAS81 says "I've never been an employee for ChopraLLC, Chopra Center, or any Chopra organization." IMO that is a bit misleading. I think we can get to the bottom of this. The creation of ISHAR was originally started as a grant from the Chopra Foundation to build the 'integrative studies historical archive'. But what is the main reason for the creation of this organization? According to ISHAR, "Our repository is in service to Wikipedia and any institution where knowledge is stored.". Note: the part started by "we have been given a grant from the Chopra Foundation to build the 'integrative studies historical archive'" was replaced with other text on User:SAS81 user's page. Also, the following information on User:SAS81 user's page says: We have seed funding from the Chopra Foundation, and Dr. Deepak Chopra also serves on our Board of Advisors, along with many other academics, scientists, researchers, or advocates of Integrative research. I have other concerns. IMO the Chopra Foundation created the organisation ISHAR. No evidence to the contrary has been provided. COI editors and paid editors should be honest about their intentions and their disclosure. The ISHAR website has entire page dedicated for ISHAR Wikipedians and to Wikipedia. There is a connection between the Chopra Foundation and Dr. Deepak Chopra. There is also a connection between the Chopra Foundation and the Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository (ISHAR). Isn't ISHAR another organisation started by the Chopra organisation and therefore an extension of the Chopra Foundation? The part I am a employee of ISHAR. was deleted from User:SAS81 user's page on June 10, 2014. Originally, User:SAS81 wrote on April 16, 2014: I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Anything we are revealing now we are doing as a courtesy to the Wikipedia community and not because of any compliancy. Chopra Foundation is a non profit organization that raises money or attention for many causes and non profits. ISHAR is it's own non profit organization but as anyone who knows, filing a 501c takes a few months to process. As a non profit, our company records will be transparent and I encourage the debunker crowd to have at it when they are ready. EDIT: Per Jydog's advice, I struck out the first comment because it caused confusion. Specifically I meant that anything about ISHAR, such as our website, board of advisors, etc that we have revealed so far we are revealing as a courtesy to the community here since we have not yet launched ISHAR nor have made a public announcement about our launch. We had no plans to release any information anywhere until launch in September. My statement did not refer to my basic COI requirements, those I have been transparent about. SAS81 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the statement above goes over the line. I am glad that you are avoiding editing the article, SAS, but whether we take your original statement that you are an employee of Chopra or your current statement that you are here at his request, you are POV on Chopra. Whether it is a WP:COI issue or an WP:ADVOCACY issue is kind of beside the point -- you should be careful and keep your nose clean. It is not a "courtesy" to be very open about the relationship, it is a requirement. All of us care very much about paid advocacy, including SlimVirgin who has been a leader on that issue. Whether the advocacy is from a profit or nonprofit, it is nontrivial - you are here for Chopra. Which is very close to WP:NOTHERE. In the heat of battle, please do not forget that, nor that the closer of the AE action anticipated it being re-opened soon. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Eleven Public Relations firms have recently released a pledge stating they commit to work within the rules of Wikipedia. They are now realizing how they can use Wikipedia policy to get what they want. Paid advocates with increasing skills at gaming Wiki policy -within the Wikipedia rules- can sit on a client's page with policy and sources argumentation until they reshuffle the article - and get a better deal. Thus pleasing their customers. Their success in this depends in large part on their skill with Wikipedia policies and also how many editors they can align with. Which is often dependent on convincing editors of their good intentions. This declared paid public relations advocacy is currently within Wikipedia policy. And it is a potential coming wave. One which will put a lot more responsibility and stress on the editors. They are the ones that must engage in battle negotiations with the increasingly Wiki-savy PR representatives. Representatives that are not only paid to be here but they understand how to work the system including the way editors can be set against each other by a skilled PR-actitioner. The PR firms are committing to transparency. Hoping that this will help their black hats appear a bit more white. Hoping it will get them in the door of the saloon on friendlier terms.
The more they can seem not so much out for their clients interests as interested in the quality of the page and upholding Wikipedia policy ... the better for them and their clients. The best strategy for them is to call their PR activities within Wikipedia a "win-win". Maybe even a big plus for Wikipedia. When a declared PR firm reveals that they are active on a Wikipedia page and have a conflict of interest editors at Wikipedia at least know that they are dealing with a Public Relations business which is of course not a pure and unbiased entity. The PR firms are not hiding anything about who they are and so they are not breaking their agreement. Nor are they breaking Wikipedia's current Terms Of Use. HOWEVER if they "misrepresent their affiliation with any individual or entity" that is a violation of Wikipedias Terms Of Use. In the case of SAS81 he/she has been adequate in addressing the COI connection to Dr. Chopra and Dr. Chopra to ISHAR ..but .. and the size of this "but" is what matters. Has SAS81 mis-represented his/her relationship to ISHAR by (1). Repeatedly claiming to be an entirely non-biased neutral archivist? And (2). Repeatedly claiming ISHAR is a wholly unbiased neutral academic entity? Is ISHAR being misrepresented? I don't think the issue is that SAS81's personal conflict of interest has been improperly declared I think it is an issue of whether while doing so there has been a "misrepresentation of affiliation". Which the Terms of Use strictly forbid. I think this gets at what is pertinent to any new COI complaint regarding SAS81 that would have legs. I suppose the challenge is- (since we know SAS81 is not an unbiased entity) deciding if ISHAR is the non-biased neutral, (near priceless gift to Wikipedia) that it has been presented as.. and if not has that been a misrepresentation of SAS81's affiliation?Ptarmigander (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair characterization of a larger issue of which this debate scratches the surface. SAS81 is just the most recent example of a reasonable editor, and Deepak Chopra is but one a multitude of militant battlegrounds. 198.228.216.22 (talk)| That is insulting and has nothing to do with SAS81's conflict of interest.

Although it does show the way some people project their hatred upon others.
Basically it is an easy issue. If ISHAR turns out to have any connection to any public relations or media relations then SAS81 has misrepresented his/her affiliation. As I pointed out before since SAS81 is paid to manage public relations for Mr. Chopra at Wikipedia. This is going to take some first class PR gymnastics.
If it turns out in any way that ISHAR is not a group of neutral unbiased researcher librarian types that are as unbiased as a dictionary. There is going to be a "misrepresentation of affiliation."
If it turns out that ISHAR is any kind of public relations vehicle for pseudoscience and fringe purveyors to gain more and better purchase on Wikipedia then this will be a "misrepresentation of affiliation".
If it turns out that ISHAR is any kind of a cover for inserting (or flooding) any groups- science studies and papers into greater acceptability and mention on Wikipedia. That would be a misrepresentation of affiliation.
And that would be a scandal. But since ISHAR is just purely unbiased librarian types. They are not up to any of this sneaky PR stuff. No worries correct?.Ptarmigander (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Contributions/198.228.216.22, that cartoon is fantastic for so many reasons.
@Ptarmigander, I feel like we're drifting pretty far from both the original point of this COI and the requirements of WP policy. SAS81's organization does not need to be non-biased, utterly neutral and nearly priceless, it just needs to be declared and follow certain rules. No entity is completely unbiased, and it's inevitable that the sources any editor finds, whether paid or volunteer, are going to reflect the bias of what perspective they're trying to support. That's why the onus is on the sources themselves, and there's already been plenty of (justifiable!) scrutiny over the sources that SAS81 has provided. Many were primaries, some were okay, some were good, some were not relevant, and we've used them accordingly. We focus on the sources themselves, not where they happen to be stored.
It is unreasonable to declare that SAS81 has lied about their affiliations because one thinks ISHAR is not as unbiased or impressive as SAS81 claims. Misrepresentation about affiliations is generally intended to cover someone claiming to be the spokesperson for an entity when they're not, or claiming they don't know an entity when they're actually its spokesperson. It's not generally used to interpret "you said your organization was unbiased but I think it isn't" as lying about affiliations. SAS81 may have a skewed perspective on ISHAR, but that's an opinion, not a falsification. The Cap'n (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"SAS81's organization does not need to be non-biased"

I entirely disagree.

SAS81 has based his/her whole standing and relationship with editors (and admins)here at Wikipedia on multiple and repeated claims that ISHAR is totally unbiased. So if that turns out to be a misrepresentation then un-true things seem to have been said by SAS81 about SAS81's affiliation -and for a long period.(months).
Who is SAS81 an employee of? ISHAR. You get it? If ISHAR has been misrepresented then that is a misrepresentation of affiliation. Your repeated defense of SAS81 is not looking unbiased either Cap. But you do what you think is best. Ptarmigander (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
For what it is worth, there is an unfortunate amount of crystal-ball gazing and conspiracy theorizing going on here. from everything that SAS81 has said, what I understand is true, is that:
  • regardless of who or what is paying him, SAS81 is a paid advocate for Chopra
  • ISHAR was formed at Chopra's behest and with Chopra's money (its current status)
  • ISHAR is still in startup mode - it is not fully-born - it doesn't appear to have a full board of directors yet nor to have received its next round of funding.
It seems to me that ISHAR could: a) slip right out of existence again; b) continue to be supported solely by Chopra; c) gain other sources of funding and become more or less independent of Chopra. But for now, it is still a startup, and nonprofit startups blink in and out of existence all the time.
When I say he is a "paid advocate" - I say this because this matches almost all his his behavior - including abiding by our COI rules by not directly editing the article - and it matches most of how he describes himself.. I think he has unfortunately sometimes not accurately described himself - and I think that lack of accuracy is not from bad faith, but from not fully understanding how things work around here and what we mean when we say things like "paid advocate"... and from wanting to be and be seen as a good thing in the world. I think he is an archivist who is a paid advocate. I am talking with him (not at him) to try to get this clarified better.
I think the best thing we can do is to encourage SAS81 to be transparent about himself and about ISHAR as it evolves. As SAS81 said, ISHAR's tax returns will be public record, so we will be able to see some things on our own. It seems to me that for now, there is nothing to know as things are still in flux, and we have to live with the ambiguity. It also seems to me that the speculation - especially the dark dark speculation, is not productive, and not a good thing for the community. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly support Jytdog's statements here. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
What's been good for the community has been to open this up and raise the community awareness. Something that was not happening just days ago. Now everything is different. The scales have fallen from the eyes and we are in a much better position to evaluate the situation from a wiser perspective. Since this is a community there may be many varied reactions. Nuancing it and picking at it may not help much. Essentially it is a waiting game. If SAS81 wants to go transparent and explain everything.. like a "librarian" or an impartial "researcher" that would be fine. And if you want to hold your breath waiting for that. That is your prerogative. Eleven major public relations firms have just penned an statement concerning Wikipedia- vowing to be more transparent and honest and behave in harmony with Wikipedia policies. The spirit of this is basically.. no sneaky stuff. So as we wait for ISHAR to reveal itself, I just hope that in the meantime ISHAR will agree to abide by the spirit of the same agreements that these eleven major public relations firms have agreed to. Whether ISHAR turns out to be a public relations trojan horse, a neutral non biased archive and repository like a "library" -that is a great gift to Wikpedia.. or some faster than light back and forth entangled bi-locality of the two, If there has been a mis-representation it will be up to Wikipedia administrators to decide about it when the time comes. Also of course the Wikipedia community will decide and the media and the public will decide. Any attempt to be sneaky and game Wikipedia and it's editors, after months of claiming non-biased academic neutrality for ISHAR could be scandalous. So lets hope it is all nothing. Just crystal balls and conspiracy theories and paranoia. Then we can all go back to where we were a week ago. Ptarmigander (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I hear you. From my perspective, the key thing is that each editor from ISHAR clearly describe him or herself as a "paid advocate" - paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of Chopra and his interests. Altho SAS81 has said some things seems that contradict that, his user page has always made it clear that this is his role here - the original description of "an employee of Chopra" or the current one "directly representing Chopra's interests" add up to the same thing - a paid advocate for Chopra subject to all our COI/Advocacy guidelines. Perhaps others have been thrown by (what I take to be) SAS81's confusion about what that means, but I think many have not forgotten. I haven't. And my hope is that SAS81 will get clear and stop describing himself as "just an archivist." If any ISHAR WP editors to come also self-declare as paid advocates accordingly, I don't think it matters a lot what ISHAR is or is not. It could be the rankest PR house in the world masquerading as an archive, or it could really be a sweet little library. The editors would all be declared paid advocates and subject to the same rules.... that is the way I imagine it will break, if we train the pioneer, SAS81, in our ways very well. And if ISHAR even keeps going. But I do hear your concern Ptarmigander. The price of liberty is vigilance. Let's just not turn vigilance into McCarthyism with a lot of speculation and unfounded accusations. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
You can help SAS81 morph without any accountability from saintly achivist to PR/media rep (which is now in process) if you want.. but it would not be moral to help anybody cover anything up.. or sweep anything under the rug.. or continue to aid in any deception- in the event that any deception or misrepresentation has been taking place. Quite frankly, imo, that would not be doing Wikipedia or even Deepak Chopra any favors. This could be much bigger than it appears on the surface. But no need to hurry to accuse.. or defend eh? more soon come. Ptarmigander (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's a little story. It is not about ISHAR because we do not know what ISHAR is yet.. but it is about how a person represents their affiliation to a new- non formed non-existent but soon coming business (that part is important):
Lets say you meet a person in your town. He says his name is "Pop" and he tells you about how he wants to start a business in town at a building you have some control over.. let's say you keep the outside clean and watch over it for the owner because it is right next door. Your new acquaintance is very positive and enthusiastic and he tells you about his proposed business. 'Pop's Place" he calls it. He says it is a Gourmet World Class popcorn stand with special formula organic non GMO super popcorn -with no hulls. No hulls? Organic? This sounds like a great idea and the town really could use such a family friendly business. So you spend months helping this person. You introduce him to the building owner and recommend him. You take him under your wing and help him understand how to obtain licensing, permits, and introduce him to the town movers and shakers. You share in his enthusiasm, give him good recommends throughout and tell everyone about the popcorn with it's amazing wonderful popcorn formula. It is a lot of work and effort to help Pop make an easy transition into your town.. but you feel like you are helping a good cause. Then it turns out.. opening day.. right in the center of town.. Pop's Place. It's a Gambling Casino. But they do have free organic "special recipe" popcorn throughout.
So even though the business is still called "Pop's Place" and they do have great popcorn - It gained purchase and came into existence through a "misrepresentation of affiliation".
And if Pop did that to me I would not be too interested in mincing words about it. Pop was not affiliated with "Pops Place" the popcorn stand. Pop was affiliated with "Pop's Place" the Gambling Casino. Pop misrepresented. Ptarmigander (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is the morph:
This is from SAS81's defense statement during Arbitration and Enforcement:
"I’m a researcher and representative to an archive and repository. We don’t advocate or promote what’s on or will be in the archive any more than The Los Angeles County Museum of Art is an advocate for Magritte’s ‘The Treachery of images’ or Wikipedia is an advocate for any article they feature." "I’m not paid to be an advocate and neither promoting nor advertising has anything to do with the scope of my work."
This is from SAS81 current User Page:
"..my main role is primarily a media representative for the archive."
Earlier User Page:
"I'm not a PR or a press agent and I feel awkward when I am referred to that way."
Better get some popcorn.Ptarmigander (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
First line of his current user page: "I've been requested by Dr. Chopra to directly represent his interests on Wikipedia ". That is all I need. Paid advocate. We know how to deal with those here. It is well defined thing. You are really over the top with the speculations. If you or others went down the rabbit hole with a confused newbie, that is on you. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, my discussion with SAS81 has met a wall of WP:IDHT so with sadness, I have to say that I believe his self-definitional confusion will continue. As long as:
  1. the disclosure as a paid advocate remains on his User page and he is therefore compliant with the Terms of Use; and
  2. he continues to follow the WP:COI guideline and, for example, not directly edit the Chopra articles or related articles,
the self-definitional confusion shouldn't matter. If one of those two things changes, we should get that corrected and if correction is not forthcoming, it would be time to take action. We should remain watchful for sure. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually a little ray of light popped out today... so not done talking with SAS81 yet... Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jytdog I appreciate your thorough consideration of this matter and I agree that, if it really is clear that SAS81 is acting as an advocate, that this is accurately presented both on their Talk Page and in their dialogues. I also think that ISHAR has not been important enough (either on off WP) to mandate detailed reporting... yet. If we start seeing it being referenced more on WP, we should definitely know more about it, either on their website or through SAS81.
@Ptarmigander, of course I'm not unbiased about SAS81. Neither are you. I'm a person and have a personal opinion. I endeavor to be unbiased when I work on articles, not when I'm determining what I think of a person's behavior. I've seen editors get driven off of articles of WP by vague questions about their legitimacy before and have had the same done to me when folks didn't like the side of an debate I chose. I don't like it when people don't assume good faith and work to quiet dissent. I'm certainly not claiming that's what you're doing, just explaining why I am paying attention to this discussion in general. I do find your comparison between SAS81 and a lying gambling-hall swindler a little unwarranted, but I see the point you're trying to make and think you're doing so in good faith. We may disagree on how to do so, but I think everyone here agrees on trying to make WP a better, more informative place. The Cap'n (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Elipsos

User's only edits are to the referenced article and seems to be a company and/or promotional account. Reported the user to WP:UAA but the username was ruled as not a blatant violation of the username policy. User has been warned about promotional editing yet continues to do so. Edits such as this. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 12:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

South Downs Planetarium & Science Centre

Users only edits are to the referenced article. Per the user's own talk page, user is part of a 'group account' in violation of Wikipedia policy. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 13:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I did notify them (as well as list them at WP:UAA) and they did post one reply and I offered to assist them in changing their name but have not yet gotten a reply. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:UAA they did request a username change. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Does the fact that they are editing as a group still not violate policy? ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 14:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It does indeed; but they are proposing changing their name to lucythebud according to WP:CHUS which will no longer suggest group usage; if it appears that there is such usage after the change, then we will still have a policy violation. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr Sudha Kankaria

Account seems to exists only to create article with same name as account. All edits made by account are to the article, or in userspace or talkspace pbp 16:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

George Perry (Neuroscientist)

I tried to resolve the COI issue by posting on the talk page, updated my user page and contacting the editor Logical Cowboy who placed the COI a few months back. If anyone can help me close this COI I would appreciate it. JShenk (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Conor Mccreedy

(I raised this as a sockpuppet investigation earlier in the month, and it was suggested that I also bring it to COI/N.)

In 2011 User:Rusty69t created an article about South African artist Conor Mccreedy. There was a dispute about it reusing text from Mccreedy's Facebook page: Rusty69t claimed to be the creator and copyright holder of the content, despite having said elsewhere that they had "no relationship with the subject of the article I am merely a fan of his work". When this contradiction and apparent COI was raised in a DRN thread, the Rusty69t account was abandoned. A year later User:Nshemesh edited the article, uploading a photo of Mccreedy as his or her "own work". Since then six other SPA accounts have appeared in order to work on Mccreedy articles and no others (with the exception of Nshmesh creating an article draft about a fansite developed by the same web developers who created Mccreedy's website, and two introductory biofuel-related edits from Biofuelfreak), adding content which seems in part to misrepresent or fabricate sources, and to state early biographical information with no sources, or remove sourced information which is "no longer" true.

User:Thandi moyo has claimed to be "an intern at the South Africa arts and culture council, i have been tasked to factually update the wikipedia pages of prominant South African artists" but has edited no other articles, has uploaded the logo of Mccreedy's non-art-related charity (claiming that evidence of Mccreedy's permission could be "provided on request"), and chose to make abusive personal attacks from a throwaway sockpuppet account when I raised a sockpuppet investigation against them.

I'm concerned that this article may have been written almost entirely by individuals with a close and biased professional connection to Mccreedy who are choosing not to disclose that connection, and that the use of multiple accounts is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. --McGeddon (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about what McGeddon is talking about, i'm only interested in Protecting African Lions (PAL), i noticed some errors in the Conor Mccreedy page as i do know lots about the artist especially PAL which i'm very interested in. I do know that the artist Conor Mccreedy is very active socially and i'm sure that's why many people choose to contribute to his page. --Michael J Palmer (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2014 (GMT+1)

500 years later

I have tried to clean up this article as it makes opinionated claims regarding the film and apparent racially motivated lack of support for its distribution. Another editor is repeatedly reverting my edits, it is all on the talk page. The links either do not work or are not relevant to what they are supposed to be referencing. ie using imdb trivia page as a source for a quote from California Newsreel, i have searched the web to find any proof of the quote and it being attributed to California Newsreel but the only places it exists are on pages linked to the film and its producers, and other reviews which have in all likelihood gotten the quote from either wikipedia, imdb,or the films own pages. I have stated this again and again but the other editor will not accept this and keeps reinstating links that have no need to be there as they have already been shown to either not work or be unreliable. Judging by his recent edits and his talk page i believe he has interest in promoting the content of the film above the integrity of the article itself, I have agreed that if there is proof of its distribution being limited due to racism then it should be in the article, properly referenced. But such claims have no place on wikipedia without actual proof - i previously explained i would be bringing this conflict of interest to light if he repeatedly reverted to his own preference for the article despite the poor links and referencing. My lack of editing seems to be more of a problem to this guy than the need for the article to be "good" - read his own talk page regarding what makes a good article and apply it to the reception section of the article and see if it holds any weight at all? If I have not done this properly I apologise but i am trying to do what is right by the article and wikipedia so i am trying to do this correctly Stevowills1 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do not you take time and try and learn how Wikipedia works. Brand new account and already filing WP:COIFor One this is not the correct place for a dispute over editing content, 2nd [WP:AGF]] and not pointless claims, and focus on learning how to edit. Brand new and already attacking editors (i been here for a long while) I promote what want, that is my business, the question is WIKIPEDIA POLICY and how we all fit in with our edits. Judging by your Single purpose account it is clear you are not a fan and only here to spoil the films. "Good" is that my good or your good or Wikipedia good? Then try and learn before you be so bold.--Inayity (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the good YOU refer to on YOUR user page. LOL at your condescending tone. See the talk page and please provide links to the emails you have. I do not have a single purpose account, i explained that i made the account because you deemed my editing without an account was not worthy of your pet page. I also told you i had previously edited multiple times on ip address but you ignore that to try to imply i am still not worthy of editing. I have backed up why i have taken the actions i have taken. I believe your personal beliefs of racism against Africans is fogging your view of what is right for a Wikipedia entry regarding the film. I haven't even seen it but wanted proof of the claims made in the article and could not (on links provided nor through my own searching or your own) find any. If your personal views are affecting the integrity of the article then surely conflict of interest is precisely the place for the discussion. Also on one hand you "pull" me for not using any wikipedia policy then when i do use one against your clear conflict of interest you claim i should not be as a new user!!! Stevowills1 (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a conflict of interest on the article in question - it's reasonably clear that User:Halaqah is [7]. There does not appear to be one currently, just a lot of poor history in the crappy article about a little noticed film. Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well thanks for that but let me correct you in a few areas. HALAQAH, is an Arabic word. Halaqah.com, Halaqah.net =/= Halaqah is a giggle if you know a little about Arabic. You would struggle to use that evidence in a serious court case. Halaqah just means forum. As for "a little noticed film" are you sure about that? more than 20 million people in South Africa (alone) just watched it.(including me, maybe that is also a WP:COI) LOL. --Inayity (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
When I say there's little question of something, I'm generally sure I'm right. I'd say [8], proves it - as the account wrote "Halaqah Media is the owner/author of this image and we are the research wing of Halaqah Media Films." Doubt me again, I dare you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well you put your back into that one and dug up the dirt.(respect) But I still actually doubt that Halaqah *User* could be the plc Halaqah.com, main reason being the edit history (which created a lot of good article I work on). People claim all things like this personality I am dealing with here User talk:JuneteenthDOC. But this is becoming an off topic. I am out.--Inayity (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan Wagner

I believe Techtrek is directly involved in working with Dan Wagner, and has been removing any edits which could put him in a negative light, however well sourced those edits may be. He has succeeded in having the page temporarily protected, which should not have happened. A cursory glance at his edit history shows that he has only ever edited the Dan Wagner page, prior to the few edits made to get the page protected.

Bothyventures has signed a comment left on Callanecc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page with "Andy Muldoon", thanking him for protecting the page. Andy Muldoon is a current employee of Dan Wagner, working with him at Powa Technologies and previously at Venda, and is also working to try to remove any content that puts any sort of negative spin on Mr Wagner. 89.242.91.197 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added bobfelicce to this as he reverted changes under the guise of vandalism. I believe him to be a venda employee and have presented evidence on his talk page. 66.249.93.141 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added setomorp as they have amended Dan Wagners page. This is a PR agency, as they describe themselves on Twitter with the same user name - "Guerilla online marketing arm of @worldwidepr" User talk:ol king col

Can second this, setomorp has been contributing to Christy Lee Rogers. Here is a Twitter conversation showing WorldWidePr working for her. He is also working for Dan Wagner. Boomboombangbang (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Techtrek has yet again undertaken a wholesale change of the page, removing sways of sourced material with no explanation and yet again failed to engage any of the other editors of page. Again I have challenged them on their talk page with no response. 66.249.93.141 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw this on user:OrangeMike's Talk page and did not realize it was also here. I found that the article had a mix of adverts promoting his company's products and negative material that was cherry-picked from the sources to present the BLP in the worst light possible, suggesting competing advocates. I suggested both parties rely heavily on the Talk page, edit with caution, and seek third-party input where they cannot find agreement. So far as I can tell, they have followed the advice. I was not comfortable in this case advising them that WP:COI strongly discourages PR reps from editing the page, since that would essentially hand over article ownership to their antagonist, and because the BLP problems are sufficient enough. CorporateM (Talk) 00:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Pulse Recording

Jpoindex is a single purpose account who is here to promote Pulse Recording, their clients and associated people and companies.
Connections between all these subjects:

Scott Cutler - Pulse Recording founder
Anne Preven - Pulse Recording founder
Josh Abraham - Pulse Recording founder
Gary Richards (music executive) - Pulse Recording client
Matt Rad - Pulse Recording client
Drew Pearson (songwriter) - Pulse Recording client
Jaden Michaels - Pulse Recording client
Bonnie McKee - Pulse Recording client
Oliver (band) - Pulse Recording client
Creative Nation - "In 2012, the company established a partnership with Creative Nation" (Josh Abraham)
Luke Laird - of Creative Nation

Writing style is promotional (eg "The company has proven to be a powerful force in discovering new songwriting talent, as well as becoming a successful creative hub for today’s best young writers and producers.", "Downtown Records, a company that is and has been at the forefront of music culture", "Richards is of a rare breed of industry entrepreneurs that has managed to sustain through the constant change of our business climate, with the stamina and anticipatory ear to propel electronic music into a whole new life.") and referencing is deceptive. Editor has stated, regarding Creative Nation, "I have a responsibility to make sure this page remains as a company page," [9]. This edit was made while logged out but the followup [10] makes it clear that it is Jpoindex. Stated "Someone has recently deleted a photo (Oliver_Publicity_Photo_2012a) that my company owns the copyright to." [11]. Uploaded Logo of Creative Nation [12] stating "I created it" and stated xe was the copyright holder.. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Mentors (band)

User claims to be a member of the band here and again here. He is a new editor and all of his edits have been to the band page or to For Those about to Rap'e, an album of the bad currently up for deletion. pbp 17:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Northwestern Michigan College

Editor Stevekellman is deleting contributions that I make as an editor to the wiki page for Northwestern Michigan College. He has an employee relationship with the institution that he had not disclosed. I protest that the deletion of my contributions were excessive. My information cited a verifiable source but did not include a link. I'd like to satisfy the need for a link, but have not learned the way to do this yet.

NMCheadacheNMCheadache (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

David Chesky

Oneafw4 appears to be exclusively interested in Chesky Records and its artists (though Kelly Padrick seems to be an exception). Many edits are to add links to Chesky titles listed on HDtracks.com, which - surprise, surprise - is owned by David Chesky. This goes well beyond what might be expected of a keen enthusiast or fan. I'll list this at Wikipedia:RSPAM also for obvious reasons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yelp, Inc.

I started working on this article following COI best practices about one year ago. It is the only article where I have a COI, and which clearly has enough source material to qualify for "Good Article" status, but for which I have not been able to bring up to GA while also following WP:COI, which prohibits me from making bold edits. This is because there has been so little consensus even over mundane things. For example, I noticed a related disambiguation page attracted edit-warring between user:Keithbob and User:Candleabracadabra.

Anyways, I abandoned the article for about three months, but I am trying to circle back to some of my COI works to bring more of them up to GA. Over the last three months, out of the editors that were involved in prior discussions on the Yelp page:

  • User:Candleabracadabra was blocked for alleged sock-puppeting not related to the Yelp page
  • user:North8000 has been banned by ArbCom for something un-related
  • user:Keithbob I would be a little uncomfortable with as the primary collaborator, since I have heavily edited pages where he/she allegedly has a COI and I was un-intentionally instrumental in him/her not gaining adminship
  • user:Wikidemon is less bold than the others, is a subject-matter expert and does appear to still be active

So I thought I would poke at COIN and see if there was anyone interested in putting some renewed, fresh eyes on the page and collaborating in a Bright Line(ish) way to bring the page up to GA. On the other hand, if the community is uncomfortable with me trying to bring the page up to GA, where there are so many un-settled content debates, I can also abstain if requested to avoid any discomfort, controversy, drama, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 16:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I can look at the page, but I have something of a prejudice, which is that I'm a loyal user of Yelp myself. If that doesn't bother you. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
In looking at this article, the only red flag I see is the "controversies" section, as controversies sections are not favored. However, it seems otherwise well-balanced and Yelp has had controversies. Why not add what you think is needed for the article on the talk page? Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's rated as Start class, but in actuality it is up to B-class standards and just needs a thorough vetting to bring it up to GA. I started a discussion on Talk here regarding the use of double infoboxes to get things started. The Controversy section has some issues as well, but it has been so long I do not remember what they were. I will need to spend some time researching and vetting to see what else is needed to get it GA-ready, but wanted to test the waters to see if my time would be well-spent doing so. CorporateM (Talk) 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm expected to do a GA review myself as I was the beneficiary of one, but I'm not sure this is the ideal article for that. There is an immense queue as you know. Also if the article is not stable it will not pass GA for that reason alone. Coretheapple (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The article is stable - it hasn't changed much in three months. However, I don't think it is all properly-sourced, complete or neutral. It usually takes about 3 months to get a review, but I'm just looking to get it ready for nomination. I could bring the page up to GA myself through bold editing, but on account of following WP:COI, I cannot get much done without a collaborator, so I'm basically just fishing in a very general way for anyone interested in working through improvements. CorporateM (Talk) 23:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well why not just simply put the changes that you are suggesting on the talk page? Then anyone so inclined can come over and include them, or not as the case may be. Yelp gets a lot of attention and I don't see why this article can't be considerably expanded. Coretheapple (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I intend to do. I've started the discussion with a very small item about double infoboxes. CorporateM (Talk) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft

I've punched out a first-draft/work-in-progress that should be pretty close(ish) GAN-ready version and shared it at Talk:Yelp#Draft. I know it's difficult to compare two versions of an article, especially when the article is already large and has over 100 citations, so I would suggest I propose changes section-by-section, but open to whatever format an editor wants to collaborate in. CorporateM (Talk) 17:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

BAYADA Home Health Care

While looking around on the internet, I came across a specific freelance job website and saw someone wanting to pay money to create an article about a "national home care company HQ in New Jersey" (I have links I can add to this message but am holding off). The posting was on June 20, 2013 (a couple months before the article was officially created). The offering also hinted there was an Articles for Creation page (which has since been deleted because of the age). The job offer also stated that they would give access to a resource list. Also on the offering page, they wanted an editor with a "strong writing background" and experience "submitting successful Wikipedia articles". --Bsadowski1 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. User:Beetstra actually brought this up a few months ago when initiating a notability discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BAYADA_Home_Health_Care. I created BAYADA's entry after seeing a call for help on the AfC page. If I remember correctly, the original RFC had been rejected for notability reasons. After a few searches, and reading their web site, I felt there were enough reliable sources to substantiate notability. With the original sources I found, plus even more I dug up during the notability defense, the discussion was closed with the decision to keep. I'm proud to have a good eye for content that adds value to Wikipedia, but had I seen the ad I probably wouldn't have done the article - nobody wants to be flagged as a hired gun. If you feel the article is in any way advertorial or one-sided, you are welcome to initiate another discussion.Timtempleton (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Advisorshares and fund.com

I strongly believe that employees of Advisorshares, fund.com and/or Arrow Invesment Advisors are editing the “Advisorsshares” and "Fund.com" Wikipedia pages. First of all, Advisorshares and Arrow Invesment Advisors are both based in Maryland and there have been an unusual amount of ip edits in the history sections that come from near both firms headquarters in Maryland according to Wikipeida’s suggested geotag sites. In fact one edit on the Fund.com page from March 20, 2014 the ip address 71.178.252.123 traced back to ARROW INVESTMENT ADVISORS using the WHOIS tool. Other IP address from around the firms’ headquarters in Bethesda Maryland, include: 50.242.249.233, 70.192.219.184, 96.231.135.99, 75.103.6.172, 96.231.154.15, 72.83.136.15

An account with the username “AdvisorShares” made an edit before it was banned on Feb. 14, 2014. There’s a large possibility that this was a paid employee of Advisorshares trying to put an ‘official’ entry, which is just firm marketing material. This account was quickly blocked by IronGargoyle.

These two usernames seem to be sock puppets of the same user (probably an Advisorshares or fund.com employee): UserNameUnderContruction which edited the “Advisorshares” page and “ETFinvestor” which edited the Fund.com page. They deleted basically the same sentence on May 26 and May 27 respectively. On the Advisorshares history it took away 331 bytes in the history and on the fund.com page it took away 337 bytes. Other possible sock puppets of this same user include, Babylon1894 and Jigsaw574.

UserNameUnderConstruction has been warned twice on their talk page that if they are a paid employee of a company whose page they are editing, they need to declare it. Both times they avoid answering if they are a paid employee or representative and claim that other users can’t make such assumptions. UserNameUnderConstruction has twice accused use "Sargdub" of being a sockpupppet of ETFCanadian on the talk pages of Advisorshares and fund.com, even though Sargdub has been a user since 2010 and is from New ZealandTempaccount45 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Gold Peak

User:Capasserby obviously registered from a fixed IP in Hong Kong (where the firm's HQ is located) only to tune the Gold Peak article. He successively deleted most of the content under the heading “Controversy”. He did so in several small bits in order to systematically avoid detection through automated tools. Obviously he accidentally reveals the exactly same IP several times over the course of several months, thereby proving it to be a static IP. A whois query reveals it to be from a Hong Kong IP network provided by CITIC Telecom International CPC Limited.

Related problems with his edits were noticed earlier.

I put a note on his talk page that he didn't react to. He keeps putting brand names and unsourced information in the article - the only one he ever touched. Kulandru mor (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Capasserby hasn't edited since the 30thApr (2 edits) and didn't login for 12 months before that. I wouldn't read anything into his non-responsiveness to your message. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It was the 1st of November 2013 I adviced him on to stay away from the Gold Peak article after noticing his destructive edits.--Kulandru mor (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Look on the bright side, they haven't removed controversial details since your warnings. Removal of promotional material can be done by anyone. I don't think such an infrequent editor/article will be blocked/locked. NB pls indent your responses with a colon, also referring to someone as an 'evil agent' in edit summaries is a bit strong! 94.195.46.205 (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (The Ra Material)

Editor is edit warring and continues to propose a specific link to the parent company of the material rather than direct links to the material that are freely provided within copyright.

Diffs:

  • diff=615493456&oldid=615475868 Comment: "Undid revision 615475868 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk) no, it conforms to WP:ADV; visitors should have a choice to see the donation & copyright notice"

Additional diff: &diff=615547319&oldid=615547210 Comment: "Undid revision 615540723 by Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) the one edit warring here is you, "immediate benefit" is quite vague, and can not conflict llresearch's benefits" --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry immanuel, but what are you doing here? I guess you will get a training from experienced users here -if they would like to participate in the discussion of course-; good luck anyways. 88.233.224.192 (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional discussion involving this user's potential conflict of interest: Talk:The_Law_of_One_(The_Ra_Material)#Edit_warring_over_The_Law_of_One_external_links_section --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The edit-warring is not good, clearly, but what is the conflict of interest here? Is someone editing the article affiliated with either of the sites that are being linked to, or the authors of the book, or anyone/anything else associated with the article? I'm not seeing where an actual COI is being alleged, so I'm wondering why this report is on this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Fletcher

A new user appeared yesterday under the name FletcherNathan. They immediately began inserting lots of positive material into the existing article about politician Nathan Fletcher, along with half a dozen pictures. The material is sourced (mostly) and is not outrageously promotional, but all of it is about good things the subject has done, or explaining the subject's rationale for his actions. I have toned down a few of the additions but have mostly left them in if they are sourced. The user FletcherNathan has been warned twice at their talk page, once about the username, once about COI. They have not responded and have continued to add material to the article at a rapid rate. I have also posted about this as the Usernames for Discussion board. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

avast!

That page badly needs some clean-up after the spate of paid COI writing. 188.27.81.64 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 World Music Awards

This is a pretty open-and-shut case...in a nutshell the 2014 World Music Awards was delayed by hours, never made a proposed airdate on NBC towards the end of May because of being delayed, and lost their host Sharon Stone at the last minute due to a payment dispute, and these two Monaco-specific IP's (where the show is based and was taped) and the above account want to keep removing the negative information, likely connected to the WMA body. The 2012 show was also not held due to other production and visa difficulties and they want to remove historical information about that too. Eyes here to make sure the back-patting and whitewashing are held to a minimum. Nate • (chatter) 03:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris Troutman

From July 2013 to October 2013 I wrote Gabe Zichermann and Len Forkas on behalf of WikiExperts. I'd like to thank Invertzoo for pointing me in their direction. I'd also welcome editors to examine my edits to those articles, as I think my work evinces I wrote neutrally. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Although I applaud your disclosure and just see fixable problems in your writing style as it stands, Len Forkas may present a problem. Although you wrote the content to the article before WikiExperts was banned, you only moved the article out of your userspace a little over a week ago, well after WikiExperts - as well as any edits on their behalf - had been banned. That by itself arguably could make the article G5able, especially given that, presumably, you weren't paid to keep an article sitting in your userspace. Although I have much less of an issue with WikiExperts than some other groups and no huge problem with the article existing, since we've had significant prior interaction my word should probably not be taken as gospel, and I would highly recommend reflexing this to AN or ANI for broader community review. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah... This makes my eye twitch a bit. Not out of anger, or revulsion, or any other negative emotion, but just because in general I'm not quite sure how to respond. My suggestion is to try out WP:AN about this. COIN is technically the right board to discuss this issue but I agree with Kevin that it should have more eyes on it than you'd get at COIN normally. -- Atama頭 22:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm going to remain silent on WikiExpert's business interactions with me, suffice to say that I was no longer contracted with anyone after October of last year. The Len Forkas article was not published at the time due to other circumstances. Since I had already written it, I saw no harm in just moving it to mainspace for free. If the consensus is to delete it, c'est la vie. I made the disclosure here in part so it could be linked to from the "connected contributor" templates on the respective talk pages. To paraphrase President Nixon: I welcome this kind of examination because people got to know, whether or not some editor is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I would still suggest taking this to AN, just because I'm honestly not sure what to do about it, and think it warrants wider examination. I suspect that Len Forkas is currently G5able because certainly moving it to mainspace was in the interests of Wikiexperts and the original edits were directly compensated even if you weren't explicitly compensated for moving it to mainspace yourself, but at the same time, I don't want to G5 it myself. Additionally, it's of fairly significant interest that you worked for Wikiexperts for some period of time in and of itself - mostly because as far as I know you are the first Wikiexperts contractor to out themselves or to be outed by someone else, despite the amount of controversy they've engendered. I commend you for disclosing it and don't think you should be blocked or anything of that nature (if I did, I'd do so myself,) this is just a pretty unique situation that I think would benefit from additional eyes. If you end up wanting to talk about your interactions with WikiExperts further I'm sure that would be of interest to many as well just because, unlike every other prominent paid editing group to have existed, we know very little about how they recruit/what articles they target/etc. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Chris troutman Would you be willing to give the extra mile and agree to put Len Forkas through Articles for Creation so that the evaluation of any untoward COI influence could be effectively scrubbed. I think a disclosure of your involvement with it and the context of it being a "Paid for article" would allow us to exercise more scrutiny on this submission and clear it of troubles. I would also suggest that you take a editing ban from the articles in question so as to not muddy the waters with your status as a previously PaidFor editor. Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hasteur and Kevin Gorman: No, I don't think moving mainspace articles to AfC makes any damn sense. Editors are welcome to read those articles and edit as needed. I think deleting either article would be an empty gesture serving only to disillusion me to Wikipedia admins but, these two articles are just articles, like all the others. I labeled both articles on their talk pages so I feel my part is done with this. Yes, I'm not going to edit those articles or even watch them anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest putting it through AfC. AfC is pretty much a broken process. I would not normally consider G5ing the one article that does qualify for G5, but there's a good reason we banned WikiExperts - although certainly less good of a reason than we banned Wiki-PR - and in theory at least G5ing as many of their article creations as possible is likely to hurt them monetarily, damage their reputation, and increase the likelihood of them eventually either agreeing to abide by our policies, or at least floundering businesswise. There are many G5able articles I choose not to G5 when I come across them, but G5ing something paid for by a blackhat paid editing company is much less of an empty gesture than most G5s. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps these should both go to AfD. The Len Forkas article in particular is of dubious notability IMHO. WaggersTALK 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Self-disclosure at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

We are currently engaged in very sensitive discussions at Wikipedia Talk:COI concerning the amendments to the Terms of Use and whether the current guideline should be superseded by the TOU, or strengthened, or done away with entirely. One of the primary participants in this discussion is User:TParis. Several users have expressed discomfort with TParis' participation because he has declined to make the disclosure that is required in the guideline: "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia."

The reason for discomfort is this: In November 2013 [13] TParis said that he had engaged in a "form of paid editing," specifically that Dennis Lo was written by me and published by someone else who paid me for it."

This issue has been raised on several occasions on the COI talk page and at TParis' user talk page, but that has produced only heat, recriminations and acrimony. TParis adamantly refuses to make a disclosure, and despite veiled references to his paid editing activities from time to time, it does not appear to be widely known. The failure to disclose has arisen because TParis is a leading voice against strengthening of the COI rules, and has edit warred to prevent the guideline from even mentioning the TOU.

The question is whether TParis should make a disclosure on the COI talk page, in the discussions of COI policy/guideline changes, of the fact that he was paid to write an article, which was published in Wikipedia, whether or not he actually used his own account for that purpose. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This link above points to a long section on Jimbo's page. Within that section, TP disclosed the work in question first in this dif and in response to request for clarification from Smallbones, TP added further clarification in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps. If you can fix the article link at the top that would be helpful too. I haven't been able to repair it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Figureofnine, I recommend that you strike the description of TP's views on what the COI guideline are; it is not relevant to the discussion, is inflammatory and more practically, will lead the discussion off the topic. The question is whether TP "has been paid to edit on Wikipedia" and thus has an obligation to disclose this in the discussion of the COI guideline. TP was paid to write an article. He has been a paid editor. The fact that he had a third party post the article, instead of posting it himself, simply he means that he followed the COI guideline by not directly editing an article where he has a conflict. Using compliance with the COI guideline as an excuse to say that there was no COI or paid editing, is, to be frank, twisted logic. I am not saying that the logic is intentionally twisted with the intention to deceive anyone, just that it is twisted logic. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)(copyedited as per markup Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC))
You're right - no point. I deleted it. struck it out, per your talk page suggestion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is simple. As Figureofnine, Coretheapple, and Smallbones have aptly harassed me on this issue ( [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]) the result is that there is no practical result of me disclosing at this point. All participants have been suitably notified. So what then purpose does disclosure serve? Simply as a means of power by these three. As Philippe from Wikimedia said the COI guideline is not meant to punish good faith editors. If there are any questions about my good faith participation in this project, the culmination of 25,000 edits, the UTRS system, TPBot, and whatever the hell else I do around here - then please raise them. Otherwise, fuck off. This isn't a matter of elitism, it's a matter of you having 25,000 edits to judge my participation in this project and you hounding me about edits I've never made. I'm not playing your power games. The timing of this report coincides with the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Conflict of interest turning toward an Wikipedia-wide RFC on the subject which I have been advocating for. It's retaliatory against me for highlighting the attempts to modify a guideline w/o consensus.--v/r - TP 21:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
TP, I don't like the harassment either, which is why I urged Figureofnine to bring this here instead of continuing to say negative things about you on various Talk pages across the project. I agree 100% that disclosure should not be used as a way to punish anyone and I agree with you 100%, that you have the right to participate in the discussion of the guideline; however for paid editors, that right comes with one simple responsibility - you are obligated to disclose that you have been a paid editor somewhere in the discussion. This COI thread is about you, not them. (You might have grounds for action under WP:HARASS but that would be a separate discussion on a different board; and as you know that would go better for you if your own nose were clean) I actually had no idea that you had done paid editing in the past. So please comply with the guideline. (btw, if you comply, then you take away the only legitimate stick they have been beating you with) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
and btw, I think you meant "amply" and definitely not "aptly"! :) Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Threads on any boards are not limited to the scope of the OP. See WP:ANI Advice. Complying wouldn't take away any stick at all, it would only empower them further. If the sentence in the guideline, which was passed under the radar by only 10 people w/o community input - once again, had a practical purpose I might comply. For instance, if it said that I had to post on the talk page once, and then only post a reminder each time the existing notification were archived. However, with the number of threads those three open on that talk page, compliance would mean I'd have to repeat myself every 10 lines of text. That's asinine and pointless.--v/r - TP 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
you seem to be not complying to make a WP:POINT. Again I recognize you are angry and frustrated; I have been hounded as you have and acknowledge that it sucks. I did say legitimates stick; if you continue to be hounded after you comply then they become open game for WP:HOUND. In any case, you should still do the right thing. I don't want to beat a horse, so I will stop here and wait to see what others have to say.... best wishes to you, TP. (btw I think your suggestion for how to comply is entirely reasonable; you could also just incorporate a link in your signature, like Alexbrn does, which I find elegant and simple) Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • TParis has disclosed that he has (once or thereabouts) engaged in paid contributions (not direct article editing). There's no point in asking him to keep repeating it on various pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
So your position is that [this disclosure on Jimbo's talk page in November 2013 is sufficient disclosure for participants in the COI talk page discussion in July 2014? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
TP acknowledged it elsewhere and you raised it on WT:COI. That's surely enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
respectfully, SlimVirgin, COI says "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." (emphasis added). I think the trio TP cites went too far and in the wrong way, but the "in the discussion" thing is clear. I had no idea of the disclosure on Jimbo's page (now buried deep in archives) nor what Figureofnine and others were complaining about on WT:COI, which was general indirect about "someone". Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the concerns people have always had with the COI guideline is that it would be used as a bully's charter. That was one of the reasons we could never get it strengthened or bits of it promoted to policy.

Recent developments are serving to show that those were valid concerns – that people are now expected to say who they work for (including when they're self-employed, which means outing themselves), or have to keep repeating that they were once paid to write an article that someone else posted, even if it was years ago. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

But if that is the case, if that is your position, isn't the proper solution to change the guideline rather than just pretend that part of it doesn't exist? I just don't understand the logic of your position. I wasn't privy to the enactment of this particular provision of the COI guideline, but it is clear as a bell as is TParis' attitude toward it, which he states eloquently here as "fuck off." Also I would caution editors to exercise care before swallowing uncritically the "harassment" claim that TParis is making. The diffs he provides are quite clear in being anything but (and none involve me). Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Figureofnine you and Core and Smallbones are part of the problem too. It is good that you brought this COIN but it would have been better had one of you done it much earlier. People get angry when they are hounded. TP is acting smallishly instead of rising above being pissed off but please don't take a stance that the way he has been treated is OK. And please acknowledge that you had a role in this - it was your continuation of it that prompted me to ask you what you were talking about, right? Going to drama boards is meant to be a wake up for everybody. Step back from your dug in positions and change, so we can all move on. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually my main problem with TParis, what has bothered me about him, is not this COI issue but his temperament. That I raised with him directly and at length at his administrator review. I didn't even raise the issue of his COI disclosure as I felt it would be fruitless, and also because it was in fact raised at his talk page and the editor who did so was treated roughly and his concerns were treated inadequately and, to be frank, in my opinion not very honestly. I do agree that it should have been brought to this board earlier, and I'm not entirely sure why it wasn't. Perhaps they expected to be told that they could just "fuck off," and that the COI rules don't apply to everybody. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall that provision being discussed (much or at all). I think if it's going to be used against good-faith, long-term editors such as TParis, we ought to think about removing it. My understanding is that it helps to prevent people who are only (or mostly) paid editors from swaying policies about paid editing. But we surely don't want long-term contributors being forced to reveal that they were once paid to write something, as though that somehow undermines their views. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin To remind you, this obligation became part of the guideline in this dif which was discussed on Talk here - the proposal was somewhat formally "closed". SV you actually !voted for it. I am not trying to pin you to the wall - people's thinking changes constantly. But the obligation to disclose in the discussion is pretty simple and pretty commonsensical. Would you please respond to the "in the discussion" thing? Also, please know that i am very sensitive to the hounding issue, which is why I urged Figureofnine to bring this COIN - to use the process suggested in the guideline instead of hounding. so let's try to make the process actually work. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I agree with the provision being used to stop people who are exclusively or to a large extent paid editors from having undue influence over the policies about paid editing. Someone who is here only or mostly to make money is obviously not going to support COI policies. But it ought not to be used to undermine Wikipedians who may have been paid for something once or twice, years ago. Common sense has to kick in. And given that it has now been posted on the talk page that this applies to TParis I can't see what more is needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually what you're referring to doesn't specifically mention him. But let's say it did. Then that page is archived. There is a new discussion. The guideline requires that the editor self-disclose in that discussion. What then? We're back where we're started. That rule says in black and white that something should happen, and it isn't happening. The fact that an administrator is involved makes it an even more high-visibility issue.
I think that we're stuck between something of a rock and a hard place here, and kicking the can down the road, saying "it's enough," or "let's not be literal," or "he's a good-faith editor and a sweet man so leave him alone" is not going to resolve this matter. We need to either change the rule or it is going to be an ongoing irritant and source of concern and frustration. I was not involved in the drafting of this rule, but its language is broad and sweeping, and I am certain that editors are in good faith going to be raising this issue in the future if there is no compliance. The fact that an administrator is involved only makes the frustration level higher and raises fairness issues. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
My larger concern here is that we all abide by the guideline we have. Core, Figure and Smallbones have blown off the guidance to bring questions to the user's talk page and if they don't get satisfaction, go to COIN. TP has blown off the guidance to disclose past paid editing in the discussion of the guideline And so we end up with a bunch of angry and frustrated people. It doesn't have to be this hard. Bringing this to COIN was the right first step. Now TP should bend and make the disclosure. And Core, figure, and smallbones should lay off. And then we can leave this distraction behind. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, if some users are more equal than others there is very little point in having a COI rule in the first place. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the rule itself is overkill, and insisting on a literal implementation of it is overkill piled on overkill. When I first started editing here, I removed primary research references regarding in vitro experiments from the Ciprofloxacin article, and was immediately set upon by people demanding to know if I had a COI. I later added a statement to another article showing that a "whistleblower" had been proven wrong, was reverted, and again accused of COI. In a discussion regarding acetominophen and asthma, in which Doc James and I agreed that the overwhelming body of meta analyses suggested no relationship and single editor wanted to quote extensively from a single study suggesting there was a connection, I was dragged into COIN. If Satan can point to a reliable source stating that the atomic weight of carbon is 12, that's good enough for me. And if Mother Theresea quotes a blog stating that the sun rotates around the earth, she's still wrong. I really think we're all better off focusing on the facts and having a reasoned debate, and leaving the witch hunts back in Salem. Apology for pointlessly provocative languageFormerly 98 (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps we shouldn't have a COI rule at all. Right now we're discussing a TOU rule that is imperfect but is policy. One alternative that might be presented to the community is to abolish that policy in favor of no rule at all. I think personally that it is better to have no rule than to have one that is not enforced, or enforced unfairly or unequally. If this rule is not enforced against a "good-faith editor," how can it fairly be enforced against a full-time paid editor? By all rights, they should be able to participate in COI policy discussions on an equal, non-disclosing basis. They claim quite emphatically that they are good-faith editors too. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

too many agendas here that have nothing to do with this topic. I will sit back and wait for other voices to chime in and suggest that you all do the same. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I drafted it, although what is now there was modified. My two thoughts 1) sure TParis can just say in that discussion a reference to that past; 2) the point is to just have it out there for things unknown to others, as CorporateM more eloquently said (in the adoption discussion), so if someone else whose interested in it already knows, feel free to link to TParis cmts on his 'form of paid editing' in that discussion (once) and then it's done and done, as far as the guideline being fulfilled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Alanscottwalker. I am uncomfortable posting a disclosure on behalf of someone else, which is why I have been urging TP himself to comply. If you are comfortable with that doing that, please proceed. Then the spirit of the requirement would be met. If you do so, it will be interesting to see if TP will allow it to stand; I hope so. I also wonder if it would make sense to have a persistent section called something like "Editors who have been paid editors who are participating in this discussion" on WT:COI where such postings could be made and would not be archived.... Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Ping does not work, if you add it after you sign. As I understand it the links have already been placed on the page, during the discussion and TParis has been identified in relation to those links. As for a section, someone like CorporateM seems to get on well with the light weight approach, of just saying it (it's as simple as saying 'I've been paid' or some such, once). Another editor showed up and did similarly. There should be little dispute that the past three weeks has been one continuous discussion. It would be different if the issues were separated by months, or there was a long break, or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so you now are saying that it is already sufficiently disclosed at WT:COI, in particular by Figureofnine's link to it in the midst of this section? Thanks. (and thanks for the note about ping) Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Belated, not done as easily as it could have been, not optimal, but done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)How can this be considered a disclosure of any kind when his user name isn't mentioned? One has to go from link to link to find out what we're talking about.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought the users name is in the next comment right after those links were posted.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in the form of a denial that it is paid editing. How can it be disclosure when the user denies that he has anything to disclose? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone reviewing that can decide for themselves - they have the information the guideline seeks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

we are approaching a rough consensus that TP's paid editing history is sufficiently disclosed in the discussion and that it is pointless to try to get TParis to actively comply. As for me I am not comfortable with the disclosure being both done by a second party and buried deep in a section about something else. I would like to implement my suggestion that we have a perma-section on WT:COI for disclosure of past or current paid editing. Here is a draft. Can everybody live with this? (specifically, the main disputants here: TParis, Smallbones, Coretheapple, and Figureofnine?) Again I am looking for a way to lay this to bed so everybody can move forward. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft section for WT:COI: "Participants in this discussion who have been or are paid editors"

(use "do not archive" tag here)

Here is a list of participants in discussions of the COI guideline, who have been or are paid editors. The starting list gathers various disclosures already made on this page. New contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be definitive and not speculative, and WP:OUTING, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS are enforced here as everywhere.

This list is not here to promote personal attacks or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants, but rather to satisfy the obligation in WP:COI that "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia."

Again, this list is not here to promote personal attacks or harassment, but simply to provide the necessary disclosure to other participants.

Those who disagree with the obligation to disclose should open discussions about changing that elsewhere. If the guideline is changed, the invisible "do not archive" tag can be deleted.

Listed in alphabetical order, with link to disclosure:


End of list. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on draft section?

Seems like a reasonable solution, given the refusal to disclose. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

NB: Figureofnine just let me know that my use of the use template didn't provide him a notification, so I just left notes on the Talk pages of Core, Smallbones, and TP asking them to respond in case it didn't work for them either. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The general idea seems workable, as it clarifies any potential conflict of interest with participants. Regarding the specific wording, I'd suggest making the preamble a lot shorter. For example:

In accordance with the guideline to disclose a history of paid editing when discussing a conflict of interest guideline or policy, the following editors have disclosed that they have received compensation for editing Wikipedia:
  • Editor 1 (link to disclosure)
  • Editor 2 (link to disclosure)

The guideline should probably clarify if it means any Wikimedia project, English Wikipedia, or something else. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Core! TP said OK on his Talk page; Core and FigureofNine have said OK here. We are only missing Smallbones. I would like to wrap this up with the consent of everybody so that this doesn't keep resurfacing... Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There were others who have weighed in on this in the past too, and it's not practical to expect unanimity. Why not just post it? We're not ratifying the Declaration of Independence. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
that is true. i have multiple goals here - one is to deal with the concern about TP's disclosure; the other is to channel concerns about COI through correct channels - it is best if the main players all agree so that we can really move forward and not get dragged back into this. i intend to give smallbones another day and then i will indeed go ahead and post. we have decent consensus here that this deals with the disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose any proposal to pin a list of names at the top of the page, for lots of obvious reasons, including that it will discourage people from posting. I might support a template that said something like: "When posting here, editors are asked to disclose whether they have been paid for their contributions to Wikipedia." SlimVirgin (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Even TP did not object... Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Lists of COI contributors are "pinned" at the top of numerous talk pages. That's how Wikipedia operates in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest adding a note at the end of the list:
Once a discussion has been archived from this page, any related disclosures can be removed, at the discretion of the editor making the disclosure.
Anyone who wants to leave their name up can; otherwise they can feel free to remove it. isaacl (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems pretty reasonable. "No no no he's not going to do it and I don't want him to do it even if he wants to do it and the guideline sucks" is not. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Core, please don't be inflammatory. We are trying to move forward. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually we seem to have just run into a brick wall. But let's get the jalopy in gear and move forward. Coretheapple (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
:) thanks. your prior comment that there are other Talk pages with pinned list of COI contributors is helpful. Do you happen to know any that you could cite. that would be very helpful. thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Far too numerous to mention. BP comes to mind, as does Chevron Corporation, as does Yelp as does Banc de Binary, to name four articles off the top of my head. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)And by the way, the respond to SlimVirgin's comments below, the lists on these talk pages are permanent lists. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, if you want to propose this, please post an RfC on WT:COI. It would be unprecedented that people wanting to comment on a guideline must have their names pinned at the top if they have done a certain thing. I support people disclosing when posting, but a permanent list is a bit disturbing. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I guess anyone can propose an RfC about anything. You can, I can. We can waste weeks arguing over this, with maximum disruptive effect, or we can resolve it now with the cooperation of the parties, who are more or less cooperating. I've had my differences with Jytdog, but he has come up with a workable solution. When we enacted this provision of the guideline, we did so without much thought to some editor adamantly refusing. It relied on self-disclosure which, by its very nature, doesn't work when people don't want to disclose. So he has come up with a proposal, here, at the appropriate noticeboard, that doesn't override the requirement in the COI guideline but has the intent of making the atmosphere on the COI talk page more amicable. But you know what, SlimVirgin? You go right on ahead. Disrupt the talk page with an RfC. The more that kind of thing happens, the less likely it is that the ToU, which I view as the least bad current alternative, is going to be subject to any kind of change. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking for myself only, I would be concerned if my name was on a "master list" like Wikipedia:List of Paid Editors, which could lead to harassment, advertising or other issues, but at the page-level is where a disclosure belongs and it is already accepted practice to use a Connected Contributor tag. Though whether Tparis belongs on it is up for debate, since only a tiny fraction of his editing is COI-related (POV Railroading is the appropriate defense), the tag itself I would think would be non-controversial. I am referring to this edit. Though I understand why Core reverted me, there is some irony in the community wrestling one editor into forced disclosure, while reverting another that does so voluntarily. Not an issue I intend to pursue, but... CorporateM (Talk) 19:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For better or worse, a list already exists. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Voluntary disclosure at the top of the page, as CorporateM has just done, should be non-controversial, so I suggest to start with this. Editors can choose this way to disclose their editing history, or if they prefer, they can follow another way. isaacl (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec_) ... and since there is a refusal to disclose, it brings us back to square one and the dispute is not resolved. CorporateM doesn't seem to be aware of it in his remark above, but I reverted myself and allowed this self-disclosure, as I felt it would do no harm, but that was with the understanding that it has no bearing on this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding someone refusing to provide disclosure: I think in this specific case, it's more that the person believes the facts have already been disclosed within discussion, so it seems moot to redisclose it. A central location for disclosure would help avoid this argument, and not become overly cumbersome or repetitive for discussion participants. It would not have to be a permanent list. isaacl (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and that's why your proposal or Jytdog's is the way to go, and in fact seems to have consensus support here and, more crucially, agreement among the persons affected or in dispute over this. What CorporateM has placed at the top of the page, of his own volition, is a nice gesture but doesn't really get us anywhere. (For the record, I would very strongly dispute the suggestion that there has been disclosure within the discussion.) Coretheapple (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The record is clear in that both viewpoints have been stated unambiguously; let's not rehash it. I disagree that CorporateM's disclosure doesn't get us anywhere; the editor complied with the guidance on the page, and provided a model for doing so, which can be followed by others. It seems to me the editor has made an excellent contribution to assist the conversation. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So we just add TParis to this? Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Core not sure what you are asking. And it would be super helpful if you could provide some examples of other articles where there is a pinned list of COI. SlimVirgin please try to work toward consensus. We have dropped the request that TP make a self-disclosure; the list of COI is an effort at compromise. Would you please bend and work toward compromise? You are the key outstanding voice and I would prefer not to claim consensus over your dissent..... I took great care to word the propose listing to avoid it being used as a weapon. Please. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I just was trying to understand Isaacl's point. I'll see what I can do about getting a comprehensive list (maybe a link to the template?). There must be dozens, maybe hundreds. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No, there are thousands. Over 4,200 talk pages carry the "connected contributor" notice, which is basically the same as this one we're discussing. See [25] Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

this has been rendered moot by CorporateM's edit here. I added TParis to that list in this dif with edit note "added TParis as per discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Self-disclosure_at_Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest and with extrapolation of TParis consent User_talk:TParis#COIN_proposal " I will wait a bit, then close this thread as OP. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but Smallbones, {{u|Coretheapple}], and Figureofnine, while you may be unhappy that TParis did not self-disclose, he did consent to being put on the list. I hope you honor that compromise going forward and not use the disclosure as a stick and that you work to prevent others from doing so as well. Hopefully we can all move on now. Thank you, everybody. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
As you wish, but to be quite technical about it, your version was the one that was agreed to. Why not just replace it? It has all the warnings about harassment etc. that were desired by TParis, and it contains links to the disclosures. You can add Frieda. Buy if you just want to go with CorporateM's, it's OK with me. Coretheapple (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My opinion is along the same line as CorporateM with a lot of the same concerns are SlimVirgin. However, I would rather have this list than have to repeat the same thing over and over at the rate that three editors keep opening new threads on that talk page. I only make this concession because Jytdog and Dank work so hard to compromise and I wouldn't want to obstruct that. However, if that list is ever used for harassment, I will remove my name immediately whether or not the harassment is directed at me. I suggest the editors concerned with it treat it as a good faith list rather than a list of bad people.--v/r - TP 22:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That list shouldn't be added to the page without consensus. It's not just about those two editors; it's also about editors in future, and about the principle of whether editors discussing a guideline ought to have their names pinned to the top of the page if they've been paid to edit. The two editors whose names CM added don't have the right to agree to it on behalf of everyone else.

    Jytdog, please open an RfC about this. It ought not to be decided upon here with only certain editors being informed of the discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So... I think this is done. I am done, at least. I acknowledge that SlimVirgin has made objections, but these objections don't deal with the key facts that a) the paid editors have assented; b) it is common to have such lists in the header of Talk pages, and the COI guideline explicitly calls for disclosure but lacks such a list; c) two of three editors (we still lack Smallbones) who raised concerns about TParis have said that this satisfies their concerns. Further, participants at WT:COI were notified of this discussion here at COIN by Figureofnine, here. I like my approach for a pinned section better than a header section because it has the warnings more explicitly stated, but CorporateM (one of the paid editors on the list) created the header himself and it has warnings, and I won't step over that. Again while I acknowledge SlimVirgin's concerns, her arguments have not gained consensus nor addressed the arguments for the consensus. Thanks everybody for participating. (I am not formally closing this as I am involved and there is an objection outstanding) Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I am done too. This is ridiculous. We all agreed to certain language, not the language that CorporateM, a paid editor, has drafted. I have replaced his vague language with the very specific language that we agreed to. In the interests of compromise I have not included the links that we agreed to include in this notice, which we have been forced to put at the top of the page because of the disgraceful reason that an editor, an administrator, refuses to comply with this guideline that he continually seeks to attack and undermine. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_76&oldid=1138419147"