Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 465: Line 465:
::::There certainly is emerging consensus on VPP against the use of permissions in the expectation of payment, but what is much less clear cut is about admins doing paid editing ''at all'', let's say without the use of tools. This is a general concern that is larger than just my own case and the ongoing RfC seems to be the appropriate venue for a "[[WP:Paid editing policy]]" to be hashed out. "Whether admins can engage in paid editing" is a question both you and I would much like to see the community agree on, sooner than later, for everyone's sake. I'm not saying "no" and/or "yes" to a new RfA and/or to resigning adminship to continue paid editing and/or to ceasing paid editing to continue admin duties and/or to retiring altogether ''right at this minute'' because I don't like making hasty, emotion-driven decisions in the middle of turmoil, but I'm not closing the door definitively on any option. And neither am I dismissing or disregarding your feedback. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::::There certainly is emerging consensus on VPP against the use of permissions in the expectation of payment, but what is much less clear cut is about admins doing paid editing ''at all'', let's say without the use of tools. This is a general concern that is larger than just my own case and the ongoing RfC seems to be the appropriate venue for a "[[WP:Paid editing policy]]" to be hashed out. "Whether admins can engage in paid editing" is a question both you and I would much like to see the community agree on, sooner than later, for everyone's sake. I'm not saying "no" and/or "yes" to a new RfA and/or to resigning adminship to continue paid editing and/or to ceasing paid editing to continue admin duties and/or to retiring altogether ''right at this minute'' because I don't like making hasty, emotion-driven decisions in the middle of turmoil, but I'm not closing the door definitively on any option. And neither am I dismissing or disregarding your feedback. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::I respect that re: time, but the concerns aren't just that you were paid to edit. It's that you intentionally went around our guidelines in a way that seems aimed to look like it's in line with our norms here but actually might constitute paid advocacy meatpuppetry. That is a major concern. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 18:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::I respect that re: time, but the concerns aren't just that you were paid to edit. It's that you intentionally went around our guidelines in a way that seems aimed to look like it's in line with our norms here but actually might constitute paid advocacy meatpuppetry. That is a major concern. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 18:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::Yes, a major fuckup. There's been worse, of course, but still. A major fuckup. Failing to realize what I saw as good-faithed collaboration amongst friends basically amounted to paid editing meatpuppetry. No avoiding that. <span style="font-size:12pt;background:black;padding:1px 4px">[[User:Salvidrim!|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:white">Ben&nbsp;·&nbsp;Salvidrim!</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 19:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:08, 20 November 2017

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:David Adjaye
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Bastion Collective
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:Boku, Inc.
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Martin Casado
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Cyberattack
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Derby della Lanterna
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:EMarketer
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Foster and Partners
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:Gibson Dunn
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:Roy Hamilton III
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Michael Meldman
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Overseas Development Institute
    Talk:Pacific Equity Partners
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Quarter Pounder
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Marc Rowan
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Diana Senechal
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Software
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation
    Talk:Stikeman Elliott
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:The Inter Faith Network
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:Union Pacific Railroad
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Bulat Utemuratov
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Romesh Wadhwani
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Wasserman (company)
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Andy Wright (music producer)
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Alice Zorn

    More spam socks

    The above accounts got CU blocked for spamming using a VPN. I've seen this abuse pattern before -- one or two spamlinks interspersed with lots of potentially legit edits (I didn't waste my time on detailed checks, I just blanket reverted them). After a semi-automated search through the domains they have added, I make the following observations:

    These domains were probably spammed and/or are used in other likely UPE "articles" (view said additions via the COIBot links):

    The following domains were almost certainly spammed:

    Thoughts on what to do with these? MER-C 08:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A sample of the fake news sites took me to the articles & creators listed above. Definitely looks like PR, needs deeper look. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Come to think about it, there was at least one more fake news site:
    The list of filtered (less than 20 live links) domains is here, starting with hydrocarbonengineering.com. MER-C 11:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This one is more of the same, including some of the same articles, which is what drew my attention here. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they've found a new webhost. Forgot to mention
    got CU blocked by being on the same VPN as these spammers. MER-C 05:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Damian Mingle

    This looks promotional to me. The author's other contributions also suggest possible paid editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur and also noticed that Sumitk c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously created Flyrobe. SmartSE (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Johns Hopkins Biomedical Engineering

    The editor has acknowledged that he is Miller (see here for example) and has in the past contributed positively to articles on which he has expertise. However more recently he has re-written the article on the department he heads and begun creating multiple redirects and articles for his colleagues (some of which have already been deleted as either copyright violations or non-notable). There are thus clear WP:COI concerns. In a recent comment on my talk page he says "My staff and I spend hours putting that material together", so I am also asking if this suggests WP:PAID concerns. Melcous (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank-you for the consideration and effort. Originally the article had a list of the faculty of the department, this was prepared as part all of the information we have for the strategic review and a new department director. The original history of the department had only been in a series of IEEE Historical interview of department directors.
    Everything on the page is absolutely historically accurate. The category of difficulty was originally called "faculty" not "noteable faculty". The page was modelled after the page of Oxford Department of Computer Science which is one of the most highly ranked departments in the world in computer science. BME department at JHU is highly ranked as well. Under "faculty" all faculty were listed, with no distinction (not called noteable). Rather, for the "noteable category" only National Academy award members were originally listed in page, only the 4-6 faculty were listed with National Academy under noteable.
    Also all of the areas of the discipline that BME faculty engage and teach classes were listed-These were part of the strategic vision taken from a report based on Nature Biomedical Engineering with a citation, as those became the areas that the strategic vision organizes around. The editor trying to make the article better changed the title of faculty to "noteable faculty" and removed all of the names, and as well all of the topics. Is it not possible to continue to have a BME webpage which emulates the Oxford Computer Science page with all faculty listed in a tenure category different from "noteable"?
    Thank-you for your consideration and deliberations. Respectfully Mim.cis (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Mim.cis this is not the place to discuss specific edits to the article - that's what the talk page is for. This noticeboard is for discussing the conflict of interest guidelines, that is whether you have understood them and are abiding by them. Melcous (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with conflict of interest, is that the person with the COI is not a suitable person to judge what should be included in the article. In my experience with academics here writing about themselves or their projects, about half of them try to say too much, and about half too little. It is appropriate for you to add the information to WP, but according to our current practice, you should write additional articles about faculty in the department using the Article Wizard in Draft space, and suggest additions and changes on the article talk pages. If you wan to write about specific subjects in the field, I think you can do it directly and we're glad to have you, but be sure you do not write them to emphasize JHU people. Incidentally, according to our WP:PROF guidelines, there may be more notable faculty in your department than you think--in addition to members of the National Academies, very highly cited researchers also meet WP:PROF, and I would be surprised if this did not apply to at least all the full professors in your department. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SEO and PR on hotels articles

    For more context see

    Fairmont, Raffles and Swisshotel have apparently hired SEO and/or PR firms to buff up their articles here. I'll add some more comments anon. One of the actors is Blueberry Hill, formerly named 3Q Digital Harte Hanks (the name of a SEO/SEM firm). I've added them to the Barbequeue sockpuppet investigation. Qwacker isn't yet named in any investigation I know of, and has been active editing today, so I'm inviting him now to comment on all of this.

    One of the more nauseating aspects of all this is an apparent retaliatory set of complaints lodged against Beyond My Ken which asserted that the articles were so well written they were beyond reproach and any attempted cleanup was focused on the declared-paid status of the editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, of course I will comment on this. No I am not some SEO or PR agency. I don't think what I edited was SEO-focused (just refs and 2 external links max). I am not a PR agency looking to ameliorate some brand's page either, I just pick up topics and search them exhaustively because that's the kick I get out of it. I liked editing those hotels' pages because they own or manage crazy buildings, and with my "slight" paranoia on free-masonry, I just dove in. Please do reproach things to my edits, I myself do not believe they are perfect, far (far) from it. I don't mind the mandatory investigation on my profile as I am not related to the other user you mention above, and I do not have other accounts on Wikipedia. I am available to answer more questions if you have any. --Qwacker (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your article creations and contributions mirror those of someone representing organizations and individuals who want to control their public image. The trade association Airlines for Europe, the Russian company Novaport, the Fairmont/Raffles chain and associated people, Régis Schultz a European corp executive, Sok Kong a Cambodian executive. More exec/philanthropist stuff, resorts, all this about a whiskey company, etc. -- you do realize your edits are public here? Nothing to say about that? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes those are pages I edited (among many others). I like to surf through Wk's categories, I discover all those economy-related topics I didn't know. A lot of the pages I edited were almost empty before I found them. I feel like I am enriching Wikipedia on topics I like and for which most users show little interest in. But again, I am not related to the companies or the people of the pages I edit, nor am I a professional writer in any way (you can delete them all, ok by me). --Qwacker (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that it is just serendipity that in your surfing through categories a large number of your edits happen to be to articles about hotels and other travel industry-related (not "economy-related") subjects? I suppose it's also a coincidence that your user name "Qwacker" might be an informal description of a duck, and that the "duck test" is a method of determining whether two accounts are WP:SOCKPUPPETS? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably also one of those coincidences that Blueberry Hill stopped editing in January 2016 [1], while you -- although you had 17 edits before January 2016 -- didn't start editing for real until then [2]? The coincidences start to accumulate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of UPE from Investigator87


    I did a quick cleanup at Oliver Isaacs but I could only take so much. Honestly it would be a good WP:TNT. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been proposed by another editor at Talk:Oliver Isaacs to WP:TNT the article due to unfixable copyvio issues. Other thoughts are welcome ☆ Bri (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like some sock/meat activity at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs. At least two WP:SPAs have appeared to register Keep votes, and two others that left comments were blocked by Berean Hunter from a CU investigation. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI open now here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditions --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    On the same AFD we have:

    whose set of oddball promotional article creations reek of UPE. I've already declined an unblock request from this user for a very suspect mistake so I'll hold off blocking for now. MER-C 01:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I concur that (Richardaldinho is likely a paid editor given the history of the articles. DGG had tagged some of them for G5, and I deleted one, but it was raised to me by Sro23 they are technically on a 2 week CU block for vote staking, not for UPE, so I've sent one of them to AfD currently. All of these articles meet the signs of UPE: [3], [4], [5] and in terms of article style remind me a bit of this group, but that could simply be the likely UPE. Regardless, I would support a UPE block based on spamming, but won't do it myself given that I deleted and then restored a G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Richardaldinho creations and cleanup includes stuff listed above. I'm a bit confused -- can we g5 these or not? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The G5 has been contested by an SPI clerk as he is only blocked now for vote staking. That might change depending on the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vierouchka. We can either wait to see how that SPI plays out, or PROD/AfD when necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tove Lill Løyte

    User continually adds unsourced information to the article despite despite multiple warnings. Claims to be the manager of the article's subject. Continues to edit despite COI warning. Bakilas (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:BLG Logistics

    I wrote a draft of an article about BLG Logistics. This is Paid Edit and also a translation from the de.wikipedia.org. The appropriate information/tags I have already attached.

    The draft is not promotional in my opinion. It has a detailed section about the company's history. In addition, the company’s present is shown. Figures are, unless otherwise possible, substantiated by the Annual Report or the Financial Report. This information is subject to financial supervision, misrepresentations would be punishable. Sometimes such corporate sources are only a supplement, because there are corresponding press articles, which are also indicated.

    About a feedback, what is ok and what should be changed if necessary, I would be glad. Atomiccocktail (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend waiting for AfC feedback and going from there. Please do not edit this article in mainspace. Have you read WP:Identifying PR to make sure you avoid common issues? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cpicciolini

    Editor (apparently the subject) continues to make edits after having been warned. Anyone with an article about them sees it as a promotional tool to be controlled. I warned the editor almost a year ago but the behavior continues. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jama masjid chalakpur

    I can see a clear conflict of interest in this user. This user has been persistently creating pages related to himself. For example: this user has created Jama masjid chalakpur which this user's username. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Software Toolworks

    I have, and have declared, a COI for these articles, having been the founder of Toolworks, although not associated with it or any software company since 1994.

    Is it permissible for me to make minor changes to this article, such as adding a lead section, references or graphics? What about clarifications that do not substantially change the meaning? I would like to polish it without burdening volunteer editors, but not at the risk of my reputation or the article's. Bilofsky (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is advisable that substantive changes, such as adding text, references, and graphics, should be proposed by you on the relevant article's talk page. Editing the article directly for anything bigger than fixing a typo puts you in a minefield that you really don't want to be in. Thank you for doing this the right way. If you have trouble finding other editors to review things you put on the talk page, talk to me and I'll do it. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sport 360

    Pages
    Editors
    Websites


    All of the articles listed above, which appear to me to be non-notable events and organizations, were created by the account Events360 who appears to be an undisclosed paid editor focusing on subjects closely related to Sport 360. I have proposed deletion for a couple of the articles, but would like to have others have a look and see if prod or AFD would be appropriat for any of the others. Peacock (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Worse, those articles appear to be single-sourced to sport360.com. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    One America News Network ‎

    Editor is a WP:SPA in regards to these two articles about companies owned by Herring Networks. They have only used talk pages twice, once several years ago to tell an IP never to edit the AWE article after the IP had reinstated some critical material[6] and once to reply to my question on conflict of interest on their talk page. Their answer their was unsatisfactory. As you can see on their talk page, I'd asked a general question about the text in WP:PAID that says "If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, either directly or indirectly, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." The response, in the section above my question, was "Freemediatv is NOT related to Herring Networks or any of its holdings." I have two problems with this. One is that "Freemediatv" could be the name of a website[7] and my question was about the editor using the name. Secondly of course is that the answer doesn't rule out getting some form of compensation. I asked a second time and got no response. The editor has also recently edit-warred suggesting they feel some form of ownership of these articles. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    At what point are we justified in adding Template:UPE to articles like this? Aside from the current activity OANN was originally created by a SPA who never edited on any topic other than OANN and AWE. Likewise there has been at least one SPA active at AWE. (I strongly suspect those two accounts are/were operated by the same person.) It's seems clear what's going on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting 24 hour block handed out at 3RRN. Block has expired. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest we topic-ban Freemediatv from these articles. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Abraham Zangen

    Appear to be paid editing. Refs added as an afterthought.

    The prior version of this Brainsway had issues.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like we have seen several things here lately driven by transcranial magnetic stimulation devices and technologies. Yes? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maximiliano Korstanje

    This article was started by a WP:SPA, Vanrobert99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Virtually all substantive edits are by a series of IPs with no history other than this article and adding his books to other articles, e.g. 186.129.165.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 181.1.250.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 190.104.232.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IPs geolocate to Argentina, where the subject lives.

    Most of the references are to his own work, including books published via notorious academic vanity press([8]) IGI Global.

    I would like some support for at least aggressive cleanup if not outright deletion, please. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Urban informatics

    Call me a nasty suspicious bastard, but this article is flagged COI and the WP:SPA user is very keen to include a book published by notorious vanity press IGI Global -to the point of rapidly reverting removal despite not having any actual activity on Wikipedia (example: [9] reverting in less than two hours, despite the user's last edit to Wikipedia being weeks before). [10] also adds an IGI published book. I smell a COI, and at the very least a massive dose of WP:OWN. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Will be indulging in a massive cleanup/CE soon.Winged Blades Godric 08:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kent Tate

    The entire five-year edit history of user account centers only on Kent Tate, suggesting that she is connected to subject in some manner. The article itself is promotional in tone, including an upload of an excessive number of images to Commons. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user does seem to be able to use talkpages in the past, and I've politely (non-template) invited comment here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I constructed this article and have been the primary contributor. I have made efforts to add content that is in compliance. If you can help me to resolve the problems on this page I would be very grateful. Cheri Brown (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Article has been draftified. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kuo-Chen Chou

    May be salvageable, but this looks like autobiography to me. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reedsy created by founder

    Creator has added a link to his userpage which self-identifies as founder of the firm. I think he best thing to do is draftify Reedsy and let it go through AfC. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bri::- Done Winged Blades Godric 08:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So this was just "re-floated" by User:Tomwsulcer bypassing AFC and the article history wiped clean, both of which I find problematic. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject Reedsy is clearly notable. I'm not affiliated with Reedsy in any way so there's no conflict of interest. I've been revamping Self publishing and saw the Reedsy link light up red, and scratched my head. That an earlier version had a COI problem is not relevant here. This is a rewritten article with appropriate sourcing and fluff removed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From a quick glance, I think clearly notable is a bit of an exaggeration here. I'd give it a 50/50 shot at AfD, at best, maybe 60/40 in favour of deletion. Bri, I haven't run it through duplication detector yet, but I don't see a clear copyright problem in terms of prose. It appears to be different, and wouldn't necessarily require attribution if it was written independently. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per above, I went ahead and did a BEFORE search and took it to AfD to see what the community thinks. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reedsy. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Methinks you're clearly wasting everybody's time here at Wikipedia. It's clearly notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tomwsulcer: When you created the article did you not include in the edit summary that it was "copyedited" and preserved references from the old version? This implies that you used the old version for reference does it not? You must attribute such material. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this relevant to the discussion? This noticeboard is Conflict of interest noticeboard. Regarding Reedsy, there's no conflict of interest at present. I floated the Reedsy article and I have no affiliation with Reedsy. You're wasting people's time here at Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the basis was the article created by a connected contributor, then it is relevant. Copyright is also usually very relevant on this noticeboard because there are questions of ownership of the material and reuse of text that might not be compatibly licensed. If you copied any text or remixed it in anyway from the previous article, you must attribute. If you did, you can place a note here and I'll make the edit summary attribution in a way that the draft can be deleted since there is a mainspace article. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no copyright issues with Reedsy. I wrote it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats not what was being asked: we know you wrote it in its current form. Did you use any or part of the text of the previous version/draft as the basis for the article and rework it? As Bri has pointed out, your edit summary suggests you did. If you did, there is currently a copyright issue until we attribute. Attribution is easy, and I can do it in less than a minute in most cases, and less than two when it is more complicated. We do need to make attribution if what the edit summary suggests is true, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hungarians in the United Kingdom

    User:Gabor Bartos has added himself as a "Famous Hungarian immigrants and Britons of Hungarian origin". I've had some email correspondence with him, where he admits he is the man concerned, but he is quite determined to have himself mentioned. Nigej (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    He'll have to understand that people don't get mentioned on Wikipedia simply because they want it. If he's notable enough to meet WP:NPOL, then someone not connected to him can write an article. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ MoCity and related projects

    Requesting second opinion/more eyes on this set of related articles. I think the artist has notability (hard to tease out from the incestuous media relationships) but maybe one or more redirects are in order? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ENKWMS

    This is a very infrequent editor, who began editing in 2013. On his talk page he describes himself as a music enthusiast.

    In 2014, ENKWMS left the following message here on an editor's talk page: "I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I was asked to make edits on this article by representatives of this person. The information that I am submitting is factual and significant."

    This editor created two draft articles, the first about a band called "Live Footage" ([11]) in 2013/2014, and the second about the musician Hill Kourkoutis ([12]), on July 6, 2016. Interestingly, Live Footage (band) was successfully created on July 19, 2014, and Hill Kourkoutis was successfully created on July 5, 2016 by a single-purpose editor.

    The concern about paid editing began following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadeus (record producer). ENKWMS began leaving messages on user talk pages--in one instance leaving his personal email address--inquiring about how to restore the deleted Amadeus article (see [13][14][15][16]). A caution about COI/paid editing was left for this editor here on Nov. 12, 2017. This editor denied any COI/paid editing here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nimir

    He has admitted to his closeness to the production team of this film, through this edit. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Username is the name of their website designer/host; automatic WP:CORPNAME block. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proware

    Observe the ancient paid editor in its natural habitat. Keep quiet, it frightens easily. This is paid editing from back in 2006 and could use a look. I doubt it meets notability. ~ Rob13Talk 15:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wessex Institute of Technology

    Bluntly, I think this article is a scam. I am unable to trace any good evidence that this is an actual degree-granting institution, it's "WIT Press" is listed by Beall as predatory, its conferences flag up hundreds of disparaging comments on the interwebs, and virtually the entire article is the wok of two WP:SPAs. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is wondrous, including three (3) pictures of the building and such essential academic facts as "local commoners have the right to graze their ponies" in the adjacent national park. I cut out the travel brochure stuff and a bunch of other badly sourced or unnecessary material. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    KDS4444

    KDS4444 has been community banned for leveraging OTRS access into solicitation of paid editing. Concerns were brought up during that discussion that undeclared paid editing may have occurred. We probably should have some due diligence in checking over at least his most recent contributions. I've listed three creations just to kick off a discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't see any evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Is there any evidence that I missed? KDS444 was very open about the articles they had been paid to edit. Of the list above, they specifically denied being paid to edit the now deleted Conso International Corporation article, and acknowledged payment for Tom Paradise. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, Paradise was declared. I have not done a significant look yet and just came across another editor's concern at AN. The specific comment was "how certain are you that all paid edits have been declared? I strongly suspect they have not." BTW I was not involved with the KDS matter at that time, and did not contribute there. So this is kind of fresh for me and unresearched. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that there was undisclosed paid editing going on, and I'm left thinking that if there was KDS4444 would have declared it as they declared other articles which would not have otherwise been identified. Part of the problem is that we can never be sure that an article wasn't paid for, but similarly if there isn't anything to go by - such as a job ad, articles created by users who should not have had that much skill on their first edits, or self disclosure - it is almost impossible to tell if it is the case. Thus I tend to fall back on simply general principles - if it is overly promotional or of questionable notability, we should address the articles under those terms, but otherwise just go with what works best for the project. - Bilby (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. I haven't wrapped my head around this yet, it is such an egregious abuse of a position of trust. Which is why I felt it must be brought up at the one noticeboard created explicitly for such abuses. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The actions on OTRS were abysmal. My difficulty here is that there no evidence of undisclosed paid editing, and no method of determining if it did occur. So I'm not sure of how this can proceed. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Heads-up: I'm planning to write up this case and probably the Mister Wiki case as a news item for upcoming Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--I will agree with Bilby on the point that KDS444 did not seem to have indulged in any UPE.Winged Blades Godric 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mister Wiki

    A newish paid editing company has been created called Mister Wiki (website). This company says that they honor the disclosure policy: "All of Mister Wiki’s jobs are fully transparent and disclosed on Wikipedia, in accordance with their paid editing guideline." (too bad they call it a guideline, but whatever)

    And indeed, the following two editors have disclosed editing for the company per this search:

    They have directly edited the following articles:

    rejected AfC submisssion was fixed up by Soetermans with disclosure and moved to mainspace by Salvidrim (Salvidrim said that this was prior to his being involved with them.)
    task was getting tags removed per this diff. Also per that diff, the strategy was to put through AfC. Was draftified by Salvidrim with disclosure, accepted at AfC by Soetermans (no disclosure, have an inquiry pending) (per this, not for pay, but via off-WP discussion among wiki-friends)
    same deal as above, task was getting tags removed per this diff. Also per that diff, the strategy was to put through AfC. Was draftified by Salvidrim with disclosure, accepted at AfC by Soetermans. (no disclosure, have an inquiry pending) (per this, not for pay, but via off-WP discussion among wiki-friends)
    just some minor tweaks, directly made.

    Am posting here so folks can review the created articles especially, as they have not undergone prior peer review.

    Have been having a long discussion with Salvidrim at my TP at User_talk:Jytdog#Re:_people_with_privileges_who_edited_for_pay. Inquiry at Soetermans' TP at User_talk:Soetermans#AfC_moves. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rgd File:Datari Turner studio.jpg uploaded by Soetermans, a) why is it hosted on enwp not Commons and b) where is the OTRS permission from the copyright holder? Bri.public (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagged as missing permission. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi everyone, I've tried to explain the AfC situation on my talk page. I am truly sorry for that mess. For the other articles, I'm just going to take a step back and let the community decide if they're okay. Further more, I've made edits to Arne & Carlos (diff), but I haven't received payment yet, which why I haven't added the disclaimer just yet. There is also an article in my sandbox on Overwerk, an article that has been deleted repeatedly. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dediced to not do any paid editing until this is resolved (I might still receive a fee for Arne & Carlos, when I do, I'll update my user page accordingly). I've been a longtime member of Wikipedia and do not want to risk damaging my reputation and credibility any further. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear. This isn't going well so far. The swapping of "favours" between Salvidrim and Soetermans is particularly concerning and they are clearly conflicted even if they are not specifically paid for the edits. I'm at a loss to think how such experienced users thought that this would be acceptable. I also find this edit to Justin Bieber problematic (better seen in this diff) as it placed undue weight on the topic Soetermans was being paid to write about into a highly trafficked article - a classic example of spamming. I need to look in more detail, but the Shahidi brothers don't appear to be notable independent of their company. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no excuse. When @Salvidrim! asked me I had my concerns (see this screenshot) from our Facebook messenger conversation). I thought that the articles were notable enough and that it would be okay. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni, that image was used by @Salvidrim! on Jytdog's talk page with my permission. I assumed it would be okay to use it here as well. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored it since both parties have confirmed on-wiki that they are fine with the release. That was not immediately clear from your post. Sorry for any confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I should've said so right away. Thanks for restoring the link to the image. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice to see how pally and keen you are to "help each other out". I'm seriously concerned about this, and will be investigating these edits -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be much less concerned about the Salvidrim/Soetermans interactions if Salvidrim were not an admin, and had he not recently run for RfB as well. It's possible that this should be brought up to the wider community. It's also possible that he should stop reviewing AfCs, and also stop NPP (if he is involved with that). Soetermans should stop doing either of those as well. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been removed from AfC. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am aware, mere removal from a list of participants doesn't stop you or anyone from reviewing AfCs or accepting drafts or moving drafts to mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right. Well, whatever the outcome of this discussion might be, I won't come near AfC for the time being. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal from the list means you can't use the AfC helper script, which makes accepts pretty annoying to do (though any autoconfirmed user can of course move drafts to mainspace.) Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 16:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added WolvesS to the list of users here since they also declared on these articles, and were the author of Dan Weinstein, one of the articles that was accepted by Soetermans. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, WolvesS authored both Reza Izad and Dan Weinstein (and wrote part of Studio71) before MisterWiki's involvement, directly on the behalf of Studio71 -- originally without declaration but after I pressed them by e-mail they've added the declaration you linked to. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it does further my suspicions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CMCreator900 that he is part of an undeclared paid editing ring, yes. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog: your update with this diff raises more questions than answers for me. I get how contractor relationships vs. employment relationships work, but I have very serious concerns about two editors working for the same firm (though technically unpaid for the specific edits) assisting each other and "returning the favour" to publish their articles from draft space. The claim that an administrator solicited another paid editor from the same firm to "return a favour" and AfC approve articles that he had been paid to contribute to is in my opinion just as troubling as the recent OTRS drama if not more so.
      This is stretching the limits of the TOU in my opinion and show why we need a clearer local policy on these things. At the very least, I think that admission is conduct unbecoming of an administrator and personally, I think Salvidrim! should resign the sysop bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When I brought the two drafts up to Soetermans we both expressed concerns about the appearance of collusion but both ended up thinking that because the drafts looked fine and we were acting in good faith, everything would turn out okay. This was an error of judgement: careless, naive optimism that good-faith justifies all. Yes, I fucked up by allowing a fellow paid editor to review the AfC drafts that another paid editor had created and which I was paid to clean up. No, an editor being paid to accept a draft (or accepting the draft of a fellow editor paid by the same outfit even if they are not paid themselves) is not okay and constitutes a perversion of the AfC process, whether the intent was truly to deceive and bypass policy or not -- as Jytdog has said, what matters is appearance, and there is no way that what transpired here can appear proper or rule-abiding. No, I don't think an admission of fucking up by thinking everything was fine when we shouldn't have is grounds for beheading. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably the most tense policy area of the community right now. We just site banned an OTRS agent for soliciting payments through that system, and there is currently a village pump discussion on people with advanced permissions not using their rights, but using their position within the community to evade scrutiny.
    You as a sysop actively asked an AfC reviewer to move an article you had been paid to edit out of draft space for you because you thought it's just kinda sad to leave the client waiting for potentially weeks and stated that the whole point of moving them back to draftspace was so that they could be afc-okayed and mainspaced again without the npov tags without having to go through WP:COIN. You also said before this that it feels like if someone was was looking for another reason to complain about paid editing, we'd be handing them one (Note: from FB messenger conversation both parties have agreed to disclose on-wiki).
    You knew this would be looked down on by the community, and you did it anyway. From a policy perspective you didn't use any of your rights, sure, but you did ask an AfC reviewer to use their position to review an article that you had edited for pay from the same firm that they were also being paid to edit Wikipedia from. Is that violating any of the written rules? Maybe, if you want the song and verse, Doc James gives an interpretation below. Regardless, I think what is clear is that you clearly broke the spirit of the rules of the single most controversial subject on the English Wikipedia currently with the explicit intent of benefiting a client, knew it would be controversial, and did it anyway. That is a breach of the trust we place in administrators and is why I think you should resign as a sysop. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    you did ask an AfC reviewer to use their position to review an article Soetermans reviewed those two drafts literally minutes after receiving the AfC rights. So it's seems like Soetermans got the rights to circumvent the process for Salvidrim. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 17:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paid editing does not JUST require the prior exchange of money for concerns to have occured. Our TOU states "any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation"
    • Thus one should be disclosing before the actual exchange of money. The disclosure should occur as soon as any expectation of compensation is present.
    • Doing something to help a partner make money with the expectation that they will help you make money in the same way is "compensation". This is the problem with paid editing and thus Sinclair states correctly "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
    • I support User:TonyBallioni request for Salvidrim! turning in the sysop bit. These sorts of activities have a significant potential to harm our shared brand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with TonyBallioni and Doc James. Nothing prsonal, but in my view paid editing and the sysop bit are mutually incompatible. Paid editing itself is a bone of contention, with a sizeable proportion of the Wikipedia community opposed to it entirely and for excellent reasons, I think going back to RfA with an open admission of editing for pay would be the only way to do this ethically. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Every on-wiki action I took against expectation of compensation has been properly disclosed on User:Salvidrim! (paid). Datari Turner predates any involvement with paid editing or any expectation of compensation or return-of-favours. However in the spirit of transparency if you'd rather I add it to the list nevertheless, I don't have any objections. I maintain that I don't think an admission of fucking up by thinking everything was fine when we shouldn't have is grounds for lynching but I understand that anti-paid-editing advocates might see this as further confirmation that paid-editing is a monster to be vanquished. If there ever is consensus that admins cannot also be paid editors no matter how much separation there is between the two roles, then of course I shall abide by that policy (and judging by VPP, it may well be heading that way). In the meantime, I won't already pre-decide which role I will hold on to (although if I had a gun to my head and 30 seconds to decide I'd cease paid editing and continue as an admin), should it become disallowed to do both. FWIW, I have been receiving nothing but praise for my admin actions as of late so I don't think there is any sentiment amongst the community that I am not fulfilling these duties adequately, all concerns stem solely from the dual roles and that's why I am keenly following the ongoing VPP discussion. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Salvidrim, starting to use the language of "lynching" and martyrdom here is not helpful to you, and is going very much down the wrong path. (this is exactly the path KDS4444 chose, and it led him to do things that led to an indefinite block at AN). Please be resilient, like we expect of admins, and hear the problem. You did not understand your own COI nor that of Soetermans, and you used bad judgement and based on that bad judgement you did bad things. You didn't respect your own COI - the structure of the situation - nor the processes that the community has put in place to manage COI. (As Guy says, it is a not personal -- it is structural) You thought you were above all that, and you did backroom dealings between the two of you on a process with advanced privileges, instead of doing things correctly.
    We trust admins to have good judgement - that is the essence of granting the bit and what gets hashed over at every RfA. An admin who believes they are "above it all" is dangerous for anything, but especially on paid editing where there is the active external interest affecting judgement.
    By putting yourself above it all -- above the COI management process -- you left yourself, and your office, and AfC, naked and exposed to that external interest, and you made corrupt decisions. The COI management process protects everyone, including you. But you have to submit to it.. to come into it. Down here with the community. Because you are in a structure where we trust you, and you are putting yourself in a position of conflict of interest by choosing to edit for pay, you in particular need to be so, so clear that you will allow that COI to be fully managed and will be rigorous about that. While I believe that you understand the ... way what you did looks, what I (and i think everybody here) is looking for, is that sense that you are aware that COI can and has affected even you. The way you keep bringing up doing things in "good faith" is showing me, at least, that you don't see that your good faith is maybe not so "good" when you have a COI (when you have a client you want to help). This is the actual heart of the matter. Please understand that. Please. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything you have just said, I fully agree with. I underestimated the COI by thinking naively that because nobody seemed to be intentionally being nefarious, everything would turn out fine -- perhaps you would call that self-delusion or magic thinking. I've disappointed many people for, in the end, a mere handful of bucks, and it really makes me sad and angry at myself for allowing myself to be put in a situation where I am facing the opprobrium of fellow community members whom I hold in high regard. I am ashamed that I thought myself a paragon of integrity and believed myself "stronger" than any COI and fully able to manage it rigorously and without flaw, which evidently was not the case, since I ended up being proven human after all. I thought I was better than this, but evidently I underestimated the difficulty of the challenge. I apologize unreservedly for the disappointment. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Le sigh. I am afraid you missed the point. The declarations you made would be sufficient for the normal grudging acceptance of paid editing, but that was not the point. This is about whether admins should engage in paid editing. I think it is unlikely that the community would be in favour, but the only ethical and honourable way to find out is to resign the bit and run another RfA on the basis of full disclosure of paid status. I urge you to do that. It is the decent thing. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There certainly is emerging consensus on VPP against the use of permissions in the expectation of payment, but what is much less clear cut is about admins doing paid editing at all, let's say without the use of tools. This is a general concern that is larger than just my own case and the ongoing RfC seems to be the appropriate venue for a "WP:Paid editing policy" to be hashed out. "Whether admins can engage in paid editing" is a question both you and I would much like to see the community agree on, sooner than later, for everyone's sake. I'm not saying "no" and/or "yes" to a new RfA and/or to resigning adminship to continue paid editing and/or to ceasing paid editing to continue admin duties and/or to retiring altogether right at this minute because I don't like making hasty, emotion-driven decisions in the middle of turmoil, but I'm not closing the door definitively on any option. And neither am I dismissing or disregarding your feedback. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect that re: time, but the concerns aren't just that you were paid to edit. It's that you intentionally went around our guidelines in a way that seems aimed to look like it's in line with our norms here but actually might constitute paid advocacy meatpuppetry. That is a major concern. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a major fuckup. There's been worse, of course, but still. A major fuckup. Failing to realize what I saw as good-faithed collaboration amongst friends basically amounted to paid editing meatpuppetry. No avoiding that. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=811297466"