User talk:CorporateM/Archive 4

Are you still looking for a mentor?

You're listed here as looking for a mentor. Is that still the case? (If so, I'm interested.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi John! I see Silver just invited you over to the Wikiproject. That's great! Indeed, I'm interviewing with BusterD right now, which sort of transformed into a conversation about paid editing in general, which is ok. Check out the string above with an identical title. King4057 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I did a close enough reading of interaction between you and BusterD. I think one ongoing conversation at a time is enough, so I think it's best that I defer to BusterD here. -- John Broughton (♫♫)

Wikimania 2012

My wife and I are planning to move to California in early July. Otherwise I'd probably go. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my wife and I are from California. Moved out here for trees, land and such. King4057 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Raleigh is much less developed than northern Virginia, where I live, so I can see an argument for it, and of course it's less expensive than living in California, at least within an hour's drive of a major city. But my wife and I miss the weather and, for lack of a better word, the "vibe" of living in California. (I lived in Berkeley for almost 20 years.) This will be our first move that wasn't job-driven. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone thought we were crazy because we quit our jobs and moved out here with nothing but 4 suitcases. We donated or sold almost all our worldy possessions. But we live in this tiny, shabby apartment with an entire wall of windows straight into the forest. We can go kayaking down a stream for miles 20 minutes from here. People are really friendly and not wrapped up in the hustle and bustle of 60 hour work weeks. The drawback? The BUGS! King4057 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You and I have an affinity for nature in common. After living the NYC area for 13 years, I moved up to Orange County NY just yards from the Appalachian Trail. Still a bit expensive, but nothing compared to the city. People are very nice and it's wonderful to live in a park then work in the city. I have prevailing winds to keep most of the bugs off of me. BusterD (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The mosquitoes here (Alexandria, VA) have been so bad that we've hardly used our deck, in four summers. I've got a lot of anti-mosquito devices to try out this spring, but I'm not enthused about that approach. With California, and the prevailing winds going east, if you're anywhere near the ocean, there is no problem with bugs. I'm looking forward to that change, among others, when we move. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

CREWE

Hey, sorry. It's been a long time and I've been sidetracked by like 4 other major projects. I'll try and take a look at it tonight and move it by tomorrow. Glad you like my RfC comment. Yours seemed fairly similar to it but got a poor reception. Maybe people really are biased against COI editors ;) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that :-p

I think the phrase "do nothing" was a little bravado. "Do something, but not anything super extreme," is a more digestible message. I also agree with the one oppose though that allowing broader direct editing may damage Wikipedia's reputation, even if it is reviewed by a neutral editor.

Request edits, Wikiprojects and Talk pages attract somewhat random neutral editors. But if anyone can approve it - this is how the media are already influenced by relationships with PR people. I'd hate to see Wikipedia go the same way, where relationships with a friendly content approver could get things by that shouldn't. King4057 (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a major upkick in a big discussion I'm finishing up so I didn't get to it yesteday. If it's not up by Monday I'll delegate it, maybe to SilverSeren or PaidEditorHelp desk (which might have a COI in this area... hmmm). But I want to get it done. Good luck with your mentorship! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 10:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You know in all honesty it should technically be AfD.

"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written—self-published sources cannot be assumed neutral."

But meh. No reason to ruffle feathers. The UK article seems to speculate both that Jimbo is willing to make concessions and that he's not. You can also use this if you want. Of course it's a topic that every Wikipedia editor has a COI on, so it's not fair to other active contributors in its current state. King4057 (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Take a looksee: I made the majority of your changes. I didn't move the PRSA quote from reception to justification. And I shortened your personal bio slightly. Otherwise I think I caught them all. Let me know what you think, or if I missed anything. diff of changes: [1] Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually what I felt was the change most clearly needed was to remove this:

Forbes contributor and PR/media strategist Peter Himler wrote of CREWE, "Let’s keep an eye on this, especially since Mr. Wales appears to have listened and may be poised to make some concessions to the PR industry."[3]

Far more authoritative and neutral sources say the opposite about Jimbo's position, such as Jimmy Wales himself and the UK article for Corp Comms magazine, written by a neutral reporter, rather than a CREWE advocate. No reliable source is needed for something like the number of members in the group, but speculation on Jimbo's position certainly falls under "likely to be contested."

This is probably my fault if I wrote it, but do we have a source for this? "improve the coverage, accuracy, and neutrality of articles about corporations in the encyclopedia." I happen to believe it's basically true, but... (again, I think this is my fault)

Finally, I feel the excessive use of quotes from CREWE members gives them a lot of air-time to voice their point of view. For example, "existing channels for addressing these issues--such as leaving a message on the article's "Talk" page--do not receive timely responses.[10]" We could add "Wikipedia has a {{request edit}} feature that allows editors with a conflict of interest to flag a neutral editor to review their request for a factual correction." After Jimmy Wales' quote about COI editors, we could add something like "historically many PR professionals have added puffery, spin or censored negative information to articles when they are directly editing them." This is not original synthesis, because I'm sure there are sources that make this generalization.

I hope you see I have the utmost civility and don't mean to be a grump, but I still feel like the article is written from a pro CREWE point of view. Not that my stamp of approval is necessarily needed. King4057 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you been reading the CREWE deletion process? Jimmy Wales slapped his dick on the table and some long-time editors are really unhappy about it. Jimmy is NOT a lawyer, but a salesman. A lawyer might have kept her mouth shut, even if she knew she were right. BusterD (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh - I don't know if I should join or not. I feel like I'd be diving into a mosh pit. Since there clearly won't be any consensus it will probably be kept anyway right? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I just prefer to read such stuff. This process started ten hours ago and will run at least 7 days, so I expect scores if not hundreds of editors to get involved. Paid editing is a topic likely to draw strong opinions. From our standpoint, we'll get a very good sense whether others think what you and I are doing is within social norms. BusterD (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The only wisdom I'm gaining from it right now is that Wikipedia is a mob. Lots of people attacking CREWE, rather than citing perfectly legitimate policy about the requirement for neutral sources. It also validates my complaint that the article makes Jimbo seem more sympathetic than he actually is. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You know it's interesting. The conversation is swinging more towards delete, but I also feel that - even by the hour - the personal attacks are decreasing and more intelligent responses are coming out. Maybe something for me to keep in mind that discussions will grow in sophistication over time and more intelligent responses are crafted slower. It is interesting to watch it unfold. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting situation

Here's a deletion procedure which might have gone quite differently if the editor who's been trying to improve the pagespace had been doing so after confessing an interest. Look at my keep assertion. What do you think? This is the kind of institution which would benefit from understanding the culture better. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, this pagespace, Cornerstone Barristers, represents the exact issue with embedded links. As references, these would be great, but inline with text, this is incorrect style. Here's another example I ran into at AfD: List of model railroad clubs. Note in the middle of the California entries how the style of linking changes? this is where I stopped after beginning to address this issue. Correcting this sort of thing is somewhat time-consuming, but not particularly difficult to understand or perform. BusterD (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the IP address didn't necessarily censor criticisms, create a false identity or do anything deceptive, so I AGF. I made edits for years without even realizing disclosure was a big deal. However my take is that it doesn't pass notability.

The notability guidelines talk about the need for in-depth coverage of the topic so a complete article could reasonably be made in compliance with verifiability. It's unfortunate because it sounds like they are notable by any real-life measure, but basically they haven't invested enough in publicity to get third-party sources. If they had a PR firm, they would pass GNG. My take. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a liberty to discuss this with the ip editor involved, and i've been notifying those who've asserted as you have concluded, asking them to read my assertion. Isn't it interesting you and I both agree the chambers is likely notable, but doesn't have very much sourcing support to justify inclusion? IMHO, the discussion hasn't focused on sources under the old brand name, and because the new brand is less than four months old, the procedure has short-changed the process. BusterD (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw that and now the new comment. By my read of the notability guideline, there's 2 elements to the spirit of the guideline. 1 is to avoid coverage of trivial subjects like your local pizza store. The 2nd is that there needs to be enough third-party sources to reasonably cover the subject. 1 doesn't appear to be a problem here, but the sources themselves don't have enough depth to create a reasonably complete article. Am I wrong? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with your analysis, but notice that one user has struck through his delete and changed to keep. This will likely end up a no consensus outcome, defaulting to keep. If so, by my assertion I took on an implicit personal responsibility to watch that page and improve it over time. This repair is one you and I will do together later on. And this is probably worth money to the chambers and my direct involvement probably made them some. However, I didn't do what I did because I wanted a reward. I got involved because it was the right thing to do, just as the nominator got involved for the exact same reason.

Look again at WP:GNG. There's a word you'll see a lot: presumption. Most notability guidelines provide a framework upon which an article can be presumed notable if sources can be be found and presented. But other cases will arise, say WP:MILPEOPLE where presumption is on the other foot. If you win the Medal of Honor or the Victoria's Cross, it is presumed sufficient sources exist to keep and expand, even when such sources are not yet presented. BusterD (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

To close this subject discussion, I'll add a link to this thread on the talk page of one of the editors who asserted delete. During the process he asked me to explain my rationale, so coming to the process after a keep closure (a surprise), I politely replied in his talk. Note the civility between us. I respect his position, he respects mine. Ideally, that's how Wikipedia works. One more editor I can trust. BusterD (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Diplomacy will be a key skill for me. By following Jimbo's advice to stick to Talk pages and be transparent, I make myself a target for anti-paid editor advocates. On the other hand, if every edit turns into a discussion around paid editing over time a lot of discussions will take place. That can be a good thing. I suspect you will be the target of a lot of criticism as well. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you know User:Writejustified?

Any explanation as to why a single purpose account apparently used to create company pagespace has suddenly chosen to edit your sandboxes today? I want to point out I'm your ally here. I'll listen to what you have to say before passing any judgement. I must say it looks shady. Is this unsolicited help? Otherwise? BusterD (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who Writejustified is... Lemme look at his/her edits. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The edits to my drafts are actually quite good. I won't complain. It's way too random for a brand new single-purpose account to take an interest in my drafts. Probably Gregory Kohls, someone from CREWE or some other paid editor that knows me. You can do a check user if you want. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The kind of edits the user made isn't important to me. It's not a brand new SPA. The editor created a user page as sandbox for company pagespace last September. I'm not a checkuser, but the user's IP says San Francisco, which is where the business is located. The business in question has some very shady edits associated with its mainspace page. I'll AGF that you don't know the editor, but I needed to ask. And it's not random. Your sandbox isn't linked anywhere. Two links total. As a general practice it's not normal for a stranger to edit one's sandbox (or even be aware of it). BusterD (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Got your message. I was never accusing you of editing during your meal. BTW, let's try to do as much of this communication as we can onwiki. Transparency is good. If you know the person responsible, I'd suggest you ask them to stay out of this. You might leave a note on the user's talk page. They're not helping, though they may think they are. When the pagespace is live, then anyone can edit, but in sandbox space, normally the work is still OWNED (an exception). By the way, I have reason to believe the person who wrote Benefit Cosmetics is an undisclosed paid editor in the fashion and beauty arena (specifically modelling). Further, I have reason to believe that multiple accounts were used by one editor in violation of policy. BusterD (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Asking for transparency when I'm sharing personal records, my address and what I had for dinner might be taking it a bit far :-D But I'll share here that the SF IP address gave me suspicions and I engaged in off-line outing. They got back to me and said they used the account for training purposes.(I'm just telling you what they said)

I don't appreciate it either, but lets keep in mind I can only be responsible for my own actions. I know a lot of paid editors in real life and I don't agree with everything they do. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 15:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I only ask you maintain your fully candid approach when dealing with me. Remember outing is a no-no. If I tended to characterize actions, it was intended to elicit a response. I appreciate your revealing what you discovered. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss

Hi David. I think a blog post on the subject of WP:BRD would be helpful not only to your readers, but also to your own understanding. As the essay tag at the top suggests, this is closely connected to BOLD and CONSENSUS, so a useful foundational subject matter. A bunch of folks come in here like bulls in their own china shops, and fail to understand the process which naturally follows. This might be a good topic at some point in the future. BRD isn't really a PPG, but does represent common practice well. (Switching gears) BTW, one way to deal with the non-free tagging above is to move Mark Monitor into mainspace. Use of a logo to illustrate a company's infobox is perfectly acceptable. It's only in sandbox space you'll get this objection. BusterD (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. MarkMonitor is just working out if we can upload the CEO image under Creative Commons to break up the text a bit. The logo image will be taken down by time we're ready for mainspace and I'll have to reupload.

What are your views on BRD as it relates to paid COI editing? It seems counter to Jimbo's "bright line" to stick to not directly editing articles. It also cites being for "experienced Wiki-editors," mentions the presumption the article is being watched and the possibility of hostility. For paid COIs the hostility would be greater, often the articles aren't well-watched and few of them have access to an experienced editor.

Of course - on the other hand - this relates to the common complaint that it's difficult to get anything done without direct editing. It's a good topic of discussion. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) you might be interested in the discussion Bit concerned about suggesting mainspace edits on the Paid Editor Help Talk page. It does appear that WP:BRD would be counter to the "bright line". Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   22:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Eclipsed. Buster responded on his Talk page as well, agreeing that BRD is not for paid editors, but interesting nonetheless. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.0.137 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for your ideas last month about inbound marketing Woz2 (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Thanks for the note on my talk page.[2] I ended up listing the article for deletion.[3] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Awww, too bad. He had some decent sources, but I suspect there were so many reliable sources issues that it would have been cut down to a short stub. If you ever bump into a seemingly honest COI, I'm happy to chip in now and then as a community service of sorts. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hello there! Just curious--have you heard whether the Maintaining a Neutral Encyclopedia when Users are Anything But panel has made the cut? I believe decisions were scheduled to be made on April 8, but it is possible that the announcements were pushed back a few days given the high volume of panel submissions. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No idea. It has quite a few votes. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

True. It is certainly a topic with broad interest, regardless of perspective. If you happen to hear anything over the next few days, do let me know! Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked Phil from WMF if he knows... User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good. I imagine that they will announce the schedule at some point this week. --Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The answer is April 15 User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. That makes sense, given that they have 400+ panel submissions to review. --Jeff Bedford (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:King4057/Eze Castle Integration has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eze Castle Integration, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! CorporateM, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Honeywell

Hi! I've read over your draft and I'm content that it is PAG compliant. I wanted to ask if you are bothered about the page histories being merged to preserve your edit count on this article? I'm happy to simply copy and paste your draft into the live article in one edit and credit your username in the edit summary, but if you would like a history merge that may be a little more difficult. Please note that my decision is not binding and another editor may choose to revert my action in which case I will not challenge that. In that event it will be up to you to discuss further changes on the article talk page. Pol430 talk to me 18:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is mostly a complete re-write anyway, it seems a copy/paste overwrite is an accurate edit history. Once moved, I'll add a connected contributors tag on the Talk page as well, like the one here, and a link to the diff. I may submit it for assessment anyway, so if you have any feedback on how to improve the article, above and beyond mere compliance, I'm interested. Thanks Pol. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've left the content of User:King4057/Honeywell Aerospace as it is. Not sure whether you want to redirect or just left it in situ. I don't have any specific feedback on the article at the moment. You've done a good of researching and writing it. Perhaps could benefit from a minor neutrality copy-edit. You could ask WP:GOCE to do it. I don't see any WP:NPOV violations, but it can't hurt to let the copy editors give it the once over. If there is anything else I can help with, just let me know. Best. Pol430 talk to me 19:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine work. I've been looking over your shoulder recently, and I'm concerned about the McKinsey & Co effort, but your pagespace creation is worthy and buildable. BusterD (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Buster. What is your concern about McKinsey? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll deign not to specify. When this response appeared on the COIN, I was encouraged. I'm not so encouraged now. BusterD (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I think it's time you start engaging at WP:AFD. You should read some of the discussions, then read the guidelines and policies. Then you should !vote on a few. It would be useful for you to know how that process works. My opinion only. BusterD (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.... I was looking at how to contribute to the AfC process too, but I'm not sure the best way to go about it. Primarily because my account is tied to a real-world identity. Many marketing professionals are very frustrated when their articles are declined or deleted. I also have to be careful not to give the appearance of advertising. It seems like I would put myself in a position to build real-world animosity among my professional colleagues by participating in areas they frequent and giving - most likely - undesireable responses.

I wouldn't mind helping other COIs, but I'm not sure how many will make the time commitment to accept help. I am interested in this issue that many company pages are imbalanced and Wikipedia lacks the demographics of volunteers that sympathise with corporate interests. In this area I could contribute and gain experience working with controversy, while balancing pages on a volunteer basis.

PS - When two consecutive sentences are supported by the same citation, do you need to actually post the citation for each individual sentence?

No.

PPS - regarding the article we discussed a while back, you should see the edit history. The content you said no force on earth could remove has been censored with nothing more but a few sockpuppets, misleading edit histories, self-revertions and other tricks. I can only reasonably suspect there is an operation out there that has specific expertise in undermining Wikipedia. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand there it goes. Edit protected on the PPS. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What page are you seeing? BusterD (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Eze Castle Integration, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job, David! BusterD (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Editors

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About says the co-editors are User:SMasters and User:Skomorokh. I was just about to send them an opinion piece on the Penn State Survey. BTW, I definitely will be in DC for Wikimania. Contact me after the schedule is announced and I can say for sure whether I can be at your session. Also, I'm a very reasonable guy, so I assume everybody will ultimately come around to my position ;-)All the best,

Smallbones (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones. It looks like User:Skomorokh might be retiring, so I pinged SMasters. They said they would select sessions for Wikimania by April 16th, so I'm not sure if that got delayed or if the session wasn't accepted. It garnered a lot of support so I suspect I'll see you in DC.

As a communications studies graduate I took courses in debate and philosophy in my college days. They taught me that your opposition never changes their mind, only the audience. ;-)

Anyways, I'd be interested in your feedback on my proposed changes to the COI guideline here. PR people keep complaining the guideline is confusing. I wrote a blog post complaining about them complaining (rather than helping improve it). Then I kicked myself. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mine got put on the "waiting list" so I assume that's a nice way of saying "no". Actually, it's not so nice, in that I'd better take the time to prepare something, just in case. But I will be there, and hope to see you. No comment on the SignPost? don't worry, I won't bite your head off - I'm already tired from doing that all day! Smallbones (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I enjoy our back and forth. Feel free to bite my head off all day long ;-)

I didn't see the SignPost story. Taking a look now. Still bugging the site editor at SocialFresh to post my blog on it. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good - I almost replied there, but the registration doesn't work, probably because I disable cookies. I generally don't sign on to sites like that. What I'd add is that they can really do anything they want by the current rules, including making jerks of themselves by adding POV material or taking out good, if controversial, material. It will take awhile to get banned in that case, but that's likely not going to be the major punishment. That would be that somebody "shames you" in the press. Who would be responsible for shaming you? a) you, b) the press, c) any person on the internet who can connect the dots or d) all of the above. It probably would not be the Wikimedia Foundation or a Wikipedia volunteer administrator. Smallbones (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The press doesn't do a great job at it... Just from the perspective that they often shame the wrong people for the wrong reasons or with wrong information. It would be great if they would talk directly to veteran editors to get perspective for their news stories. The media is one of the tools Wikipedia has to make it in a company's best interest to follow COI best practices from a risk management perspective, but it also scares people from being so bold as to disclose, since the media is ripe to paint it a certain way.

For example, Microsoft's paid editor didn't necessarily have ill-intentions, but got a lot of press attention in 2007. Some of the organization's busted by Wikiscanner later said they didn't make any edits officially, it was just random employees editing at work. The UK parliament got humiliated in the media for editing articles on sexual slavery and Pringles, but these edits were basically good. In the meanwhile, Pottinger's edits seemed like one of the most clear cases of inappropriate editing, but they managed to convince the media, who didn't review their edit histories independently or get into all the details, that Wikipedia is merely confusing. In some cases, especially in PR mags, it was Wikipedia's fault.

If there's one thing CREWE/IPR/PRSA should be asking from Jimbo, it's not to eliminate the Bright Line, but to stick up for them in the press if they follow it. My 2 cents. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You should be reading this thread at ANI

This editor has boldly announced he's taking pay, and will bring an article to FA for $1000 (which given the hours involved is a bargain). It would be just silly if the editor weren't a frequent FA accomplisher. Lately his behavior has gotten a bit pointy, and this addition to his user page sounds exactly like WP:POINT. BusterD (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking a look now. Isn't that also WP:advert? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting string. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I do agree with Cla that it is the process, not the editor that makes Wikipedia neutral. COI/paid editing is only troublesome when they break the rules and disrupt the process. It seems the only real problem people have with it is the distasteful "disclosure." User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Editor has confessed this was just a disruption in order to make a point. I find a lot of my friends on the other side of this issue. I appreciate you've demonstrated how such an editor might conduct him- or herself in a manner which follows SLPPG. They're not mentioning our names, but that doesn't mean they're not talking about you and I (a well-used triple negative!). BusterD (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I saw that. BTW, Jimmy Wales responded on Twitter to my latest blog post.[4] He disagreed with my portrayal of the "bright line" but said he likes my approach. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'm moving this week and might be away from keyboard for a while. Keep up the good work. BusterD (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

unhappy

Hi. I was unhappy to read your declaring of my support in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Paid_editing_versus_paid_advocacy. I left a brief note there suggesting you use more caution. I think this is pretty clear, and I shall now consider the matter closed and we can move on. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Pro bono help wanted

Hi King4057. I'm trying to get John N. Shive onto the home page as featured article on the centenary (Feb 13, 2013) of Shive's birth. I started it and got it on DYK and it's being reviewed as a GAN this week. Jump in if you can help! Main space is fine with me, or talk page if you prefer brightline contribs. Woz2 (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)