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:

• Salvidrim! (paid) ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soetermans ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WolvesS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (NOTE this person's employer is not clear. Was added subsequently to this being filed by TonyBallioni in this diff. Worked on Studio71 and executive articles for sure)

They have directly edited the following articles:

• on behalf of the Shahidis; diff Justin Bieber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• created: John Shahidi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• created: Sam Shahidi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• created: SnackNation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Datari Turner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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.)

• Dan Weinstein (business executive) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- at AfD here

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)

• Reza Izad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- at AfD here

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)

• Studio71 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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)

Tagged as missing permission. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

I've been removed from AfC. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

This is the self-insight i was hoping to hear. Yes you are a human :) Thank you so much. Jytdog ( talk) 19:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@ Salvidrim!: - you should also withdraw your reviewer status from AfC. To both Salvidrim and @ Soetermans: full transparency would go a long way toward earning forgiveness. In other words, either of both of you could write up a couple of pages on what it is like to work for a paid editing firm? how you made contact? how assignments were made, how do you get paid? where you got your sources for the articles? were new sources created - i.e. published in "RS" just so they could be included? Get down to the nitty-gritty details and we'll all learn something.

As far as a "WP:Paid editing policy", I'll suggest anybody who wants to start a discussion. It might be added to WP:Paid editing disclosure or simply refer to it. The obvious things to include are:

• the bright line rule (no editing by paid editors in article space), which is a long time part of WP:COI - but almost everybody - including admins - seems to think they can ignore just because it is "just a guideline".
• no paid use of advanced tools
• (feel free to add some more here - but the simpler the better in order to get it passed)

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 19:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Smallbones Soetermans has been beautiful after all this emerged. Very upfront and completely understands what they did wrong. Please go read their TP. And Primefac withdrew the AfC privilege from Soutermans arlready -- that is done. In my view the only remaining issues are those around Salvidrim and progress on that is happening all above and below... Jytdog ( talk) 19:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Until English Wikipedia adopts an Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies (here are specific directions on how to do that), the currently enforced policy is Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which specifically says that of the details surrounding the paid editing, it is only required is that you disclose your employer, client, and affiliation. If EnWiki ends up adopting a stricter policy, then so be it. I don't intend on writing essays on the topic. However, some "nitty-gritty" details: contact was via e-mail & facebook, payments through paypal, we're talking amounts around 10$ to 20$, and lastly I can't speak about "where you get your sources" since at this time I haven't actually edited any article content against payment. Your assessment that "no mainspace paid editing is a brightline rule" also seems to be inaccurate, as the current "strongly discouraged" wording versus your perceived "clearly disallowed" spirit has been the subject of countless debates in the past that haven't resulted in "disallowing mainspace paid edits altogether" (I could be wrong on this, please point out the consensus if there is one I haven't found). Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Salvidrim!, I understand that this is a position you have held for a long time perhaps, but please step back from that for a minute and think about it, especially in light of this shitstorm and what you wrote above about being human and even you being affected by COI and about rigorously following the policies and guidelines around your paid editing work. The COI guideline is very clear that people with a COI are very strongly discouraged from editing directly, and should put edits through prior review on the talk page of existing articles or through AfC for new articles. What you are going through, is exactly why. This is an essential part of COI management in WP and protects everyone. Disclosure + prior review in light of the disclosure. It is also the standard in academic publishing. Please reconsider your position on this. Please. Jytdog ( talk) 19:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, hey, sorry if I wasn't clear enough above -- I would actually support a proposal to change the policy from "strongly discourage mainspace paid edits" to "definitively disallow mainspace paid edits", especially in light if the experience I went through which has somewhat opened my eyes to the fact that even the bestest of intentions doesn't absolve one from having to carefully manage COI. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 20:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It is lived policy for much of the community. Yes we need to get it that condensed into writing. Jytdog ( talk) 21:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• ( edit conflict) Their website explicitly begins With 10+ years of experience on Wikipedia. Assuming they're not lying about that figure, I can only see three possibilities; either:
  1. Despite their "full disclosure" claim, whoever's behind this is in fact an experienced Wikipedia editor who isn't disclosing their edits;
  2. One of the three paid editors Jytdog has named here as admitting connections to this site is actually operating the site, and hasn't disclosed that fact;
  3. This is a reboot of an earlier (and likely banned) paid-editing farm, given a fresh coat of paint.

None of these alternatives is very pleasant, and unless I've missed something extremely obvious there's something extremely dubious going on here. While I opposed the change to the Terms of Use and have long been firmly in the "better to allow it and have it out in the open" camp, I recognize that the community disagree with me. I can't see any permutation of possibilities here in which someone, somewhere, isn't acting in extreme bad faith; if the rest of us are expected to comply with policies regardless of whether we personally agree with them, this particular gang should be expected to as well. ‑  Iridescent 19:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure what he touts as "10+ years of experience" is just a way to say "we work with editors who have 10+ years of experience" but I agree that choice of words is very poor. For having personally interacted with the guy behind MisterWiki, I can tell you he's definitely not a Wikipedia editor but is a very much identified young guy working PR in the music industry (and others). I wouldn't have agreed to work with unknown or unidentified parties. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

The actual timeline goes like this.

• 12 October, other editor submits Datari article (probably paid, we haven’t talked about this person)
• 12 October, submission declined
• 16 October Soetermans starts working on the Datari article
• 19 October, Soetermans does the AfC “submit”

(based on what Salvidrim wrote here and what Soetermans wrote here, Soetermans didn't want the client to have to wait so asked Salvidrim offline to review -- the quote from Soetermans was "I asked Salvidrim asked personally to okay the draft version of Datari Turner on October 20th so Turner, Mister Wiki and I didn't have to wait for a month for the article to be up again.”. But look at the actual timeline above...

• 3:24 October 20 diff and diff Salvidrim accidentally (he says) reverted and then self-reverted the disclosure of paid editing on Soetermans userpage.

Meant to hit thanks, accidentally hit Rollback. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 21:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• 3:27 October 20 Salvidrim accepts the AfC submission - note that there was no PAID disclosure on the article, and Salvidrim placed at the TP in this diff

• Note that Salvidrim says here and here that he had been in no contact with Mister Wiki directly before then.

(and also on Salvidrim! (paid) now Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 21:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC))

• Nov 1 Salvidrim created the Savidrim! (paid) account and granted pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, page mover and confirmed user rights to his new paid account with edit note confirming my legit alt (intentionally not giving autopatrol since that has been controversial in the past) (TonyBallioni noted this)
• 1 Nov Salvidrim disclosed that he was starting to work for Mister Wiki on Studio71 note — 6 Nov Salvidrim uploads the Mister Wiki logo to WP and adds the branding to his disclosure page. he is all in, apparently.
• Nov 1 Salvidim (paid) uses the page mover right to move client's page to preferred branding. (noted by TonyBallioni)

• 21:36 25 Oct Izad (Studio71 executive) article created by WolvesS
• 21:36 25 Oct Weinstein (Studio71 executive) article created by WolvesS
• 2 Nov Weinstain tagged by JJMC89 for N

(and NPOV Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 21:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC))

• 2 Nov Izad article tagged by JJMC89 for N

(and NPOV Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 21:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC))

• 12 Nov Salvidrim discloses the two executives articles at his userpage
• 12 Nov Salvidrim draftifies Weinstein article using page mover right
• 12 Nov Salvidrim drafties Izad article using page mover right

(this is apparently when the complaining about waiting happens on the facebook chat disclosed here)

• 10:19 15 Nov Soetermans signs up for AfC
• 14:21 15 Nov Primefac accepts Sotermans at AfC (note, later removed here)
• 14:31 15 Nov Soetermans accepts the Weinstein article with no changes
• 14:34 15 Nov Soetermans accepts the Izad article with no changes
• 17 Nov JJMC89 tags Weinstein for N
• 17 Nov JJMC89 tags Izad for N

• The two bullets below are among the two that are most upsetting to me. Note this diligence on behalf of the client to get the tags removed, but zero diligence to protect AfC and indeed citing the corrupt AfC. And putting pressure on an independent editor who is looking out for the project. Upsetting.
  • 13:56 17 Nov Salvidrim asks JJMC89 at his talk page to remove the N tag, citing the AfC
  • 2:07 18 Nov Salvidrim follows up witih JJMC89

FWIW, I expected JJMC89 to either tell me how he wanted the page fixed for the maintenance tag to be removed, or to take it to AfD, which is what he ended up doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim! ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• 18 Nov JJMC89 nominates Izad for deletion
• 18 Nov JJMC89 nominates Weinstein for deletion

• 18 Nov salvidrim makes initial !vote at Izad article, notes his “integrity” and cites the AfC
• 18 Nov Salvidrim makes 2nd comment at Izad article, again citing his reputation
• 18/19 Nov Salvidrim makes initial !vote at AfD for Weinstein, notes his “integrity” and cites the AfC
• 19 Nov Salvidrim makes 2nd comment at Weinstein AfD

• 19 Nov JJMC89 notes on Jytdog TP that Salvidrim is editing for pay, for the list at VPP - that kicks off a dialogue with Salvidrim in which all this became clear

• 19 Nov Jytdog asks at Izad AfD and asks at Weinstein AfD if Salvidrim is being paid for this AfD work
• 19 Nov Salvidrim gives more-or-less yes answer at Izad and at Weinstein, discloses that the client wanted the tags removed and putting through AfC was Salvidrim’s solution
• 19 Nov after figuring out the AfC timelines Jytdog noted at Weinstein AfD and at Izad AfD that AfC review was tainted
• etc.

5 bullets below added in this diff. Not sure this is the best outcome of these matters and am posting here so others can review. Also the continued and immediate lobbying by Salvidrim is hard to understand in light of everything that else that has been happening. Jytdog ( talk) 17:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• 20:50 Nov 20, User:DGG starts to close the AfD and deletes the Izad article (that is a link to the deletion log). At the AfD DGG per the history hits a snag with the formatting in the AfD (Salvidrim had added a hat that messed up the closing bracketing).
• Apparently DGG made a mistake using the deletion tool and deleted a bunch of stuff (see DGG deletion log)
• 20:53 Nov 20 Salvidrim (not paid) opens discussion at DGG's talk page about the Afd formatting snag; see section here and that evolves into discussion about the mistake DGG made using the deletion tool, which also includes Salvidrim suggesting to undelete to keep redirects related to Studio71, which DGG agrees to do in the context of fixing the other errors (see deletion log above for the Izad thing)
• 20:54 Nov 20 Salvidrim (paid) creates a redirect at the Izad article after DGG undeletes it. (so the talk page is deleted, the article page is not)
• 21:02 Nov 20 Salvidrim (paid) added the pictures of the two executives to the Studio71 article.

Your post just made me notice the Reza Izad revisions were mistakenly ALL restored. The intent was for it to be deleted, and a single revision for its recreation as a valid redirect to the article where he's mentioned. The other previous revisions should all be deleted per the AfD. (Obviously I won't fix it myself). The AfD closure then re-closure really made a mess of things for sure.

As for the edit to Studio71, it wasn't paid or asked for, but I still think that there is no reason not to promote the use of good freely-licensed pictures in the article where the people depicted are mentioned (it's hardly uncommon for company articles to include freely-licensed pics of key founders), and I only did it with Salvidrim! (paid) due to the past association existing. I consider this remedial edit a form of apology for the mess and scrutiny that the two human article subjects had to go through by my fault, when they should have remained declined AfC drafts instead. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 17:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Remember the whole "judgement" thing that this all about? C'mon man. Jytdog ( talk) 17:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• See also

Thread at Soeterman's TP

thread at my TP with Salvidrim

thread at WolvesS' TP, which I have only just opened.

No point reaching out to Jlauren22, the creator of the Datari article, as this is very clearly a throwaway sock.

3 further events added below, in this diff Jytdog ( talk) 04:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• 00:00 21 November -- Salvidrim removes all advanced user rights from the paid alt account in response to discussion below. Diff stating that and acknowledging mistakes, log
• 18:12, 21 November 2017 -- Salvidrim posts in new section. I won't try to summarize it.
• 19:38, 21 November 2017 -- TonyBallioni opens Arbcom request

-- I also want to give kudos to User:JJMC89 who handled all this with a cool head and with grace. Jytdog ( talk) 20:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And I will add. It is so mind-numbingly mundane to get drama from paid editors over fucking tags. All this fucking drama over fucking tags. And people trying to get fucking paid to remove fucking tags. What a waste of... everything. Jytdog ( talk) 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oh geez. Yeah. Umm. That's less than ideal. GMG ^talk 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

Hi everyone, I just had evening class and I'm heading home currently. I've been trying to follow the discussion. Are there any questions people want answered specifically? I'll try to reply tomorrow. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for checking in. Not from me. Jytdog ( talk) 21:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Soetermans: I think Salvridimi completely misunderstood me above. I'd just like to get some basic facts about how paid editing works on Wikipedia, from the paid editor's side of things. Could you could write up a couple of pages on what it is like to work for a paid editing firm? how you made contact? how assignments were made, how do you get paid? where you got your sources for the articles? were new sources created - i.e. published in "RS" just so they could be included? Who did you contact at the paid editing firm? How much were you paid for an article? How many co-workers were you in contact with on-Wiki? What were your instructions? What were you told before you signed up? Did they mislead you on this?

Do you now think there should be a clearer " WP:Paid editing policy"?

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 01:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ Smallbones, sure, I don't mind. Where and how would you like to see it? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've been sideways following both the discussion here and at Jyt's talk. So, after a good deal of thought, here's my down and dirty. Even if every single other aspect of the checks out as 100% above the table, Salvidrim! using their access to assign advanced rights to an account specifically registered to make paid contributions is an abuse of the tools. Full stop. Actually using them only makes it worse. No user who showed up at PERM with I'm a COI editor, and I'd please like some extra buttons so I can push them to make myself some money is going to get them. They wouldn't get them because no clear minded sysop is going to give it to them. This account got them here because we didn't have a clear minded sysop; we had a sysop with a conflict of interest. This alone is enough for me to strongly suggest resignation as an act of mercy to save us the trouble.

Besides that, essentially I have a conflict of interest, but you can trust me because I'm a sysop, explicit or implied, is a flagrant abuse of position. COI does not have a good intentions clause. The question of your integrity is already settled when you decide to heavily weigh in on an AfD that you wouldn't have know about to begin with if you didn't have a COI. With only these two points considered, I would plead with you personally to resign, because I don't like ArbCom, I've never filed a case there ever, much less to desysop someone, and I would much rather never have to figure it out, but if no one else does, I will. GMG ^talk 23:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I don't believe I've ever said something analoguous to "I'm paid but trust me, I'm an admin", although of course it's impossible to avoid people gathering that fact implicitly. As for the rights I've granted my alt: Confirmed is standard and basically meaningless; rollback is a convenience (redundant with Twinkle which anyone can use); pending changes reviewer I agree should go (I didn't really give it a second thought), removed it now; autopatrol has alway been no-go (and with the "no direct mainspace creations" policy likely to pass soon, won't serve any purpose anyways); so I guess the only user right that really is the object of debate is page mover, which I can't see how paid editors could really abuse, the only usefulness in my eye is for draftifying pages without having to get someone else to G6 the leftover mainspace redirect, and perhaps moving drafts out of user sandbox and into draftspace without having leftovers in userspace. If the concern is user/draft moves to mainspace, that's not okay whether or not a redirect is left behind, meaning page mover has no impact. So if it's really a point of controversy I don't mind removing it and having to CSD leftovers, I just don't think it's a problem either way. :) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 23:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't accept this. Back-channel communication with spammers is a terrible idea. Especially for an admin who is also engaged in paid editing. I mean, really, objectively terrible. Guy ( Help!) 23:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What? What "backchannel communication with spammers"? Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 23:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) You directly executed a round-robin move on Studio 71 to Studio71. This is a stylization change, which is not an uncontroversial move (I've been taken to move reviews over periods in titles before.) This is what your client was branded as, yes, but that might not be what community consensus and our naming conventions determine that it should have been named. By granting yourself page mover access, you were able to bypass review of this move by other editors either at WP:RM/TR or at a full RM. This was a use of tools you granted your paid account from your personal admin account to bypass a community review process in order to make the page title match the preferred brand stylization of your clients. This was not just something that you did accidentally, you were specifically paid to execute that move, and had granted yourself page mover rights 4 minutes before making the disclosure that you were paid to move the article. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, the fact I honestly believed the move to be totally uncontroversial similarly highlights how much I let the COI influence me despite beliving myself true and uninfluencable. I removed all user rights from the alt. Community processes provide absolutely necessary oversight which should not be bypassed by paid editors. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 23:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) No, don't thank me. I'm not doing you a favor. I'm not doing anything that gives me any pleasure either. But I don't think you understand. What I am saying is that you have made a series of decisions that calls into serious question your ability to use the tools in an impartial and responsible manner, and a series of decisions that eliminates the confidence in your ability to exercise the measure of community trust given to you. I am not offering constructive feedback to help you improve yourself as a person or an editor. I'm certainly not offering feedback that will allow you to more effectively make personal gain off of Wikipedia while you hold one of the higher positions of community trust the project has to give.

I am telling you that you will either resign the tools, or I will set in motion a discussion to have them taken away from you. The only acceptable responses are "Yes, I will resign the tools" or "No, you will have to take them away from me". GMG ^talk 00:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

My answer is that I don't think this single fuckup in which I wrongly believed myself "too good to mishandle COI" means I am incapable of fulfilling adequately the duties of an admin. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 00:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Roger that. GMG ^talk 00:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

hey User:GreenMeansGo, I appreciate your passion on this. I do. My sense is that Salvidrim is looking at this mess (and I really think he is looking at it) and where it came from with respect to how he thought about himself and about how Wikipedia works, and is rethinking things... and he is doing that in public, and in the glare of a lot of attention. Which is really fucking hard. Please give this some time.... Jytdog ( talk) 01:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

As it happens I'm busy this week. Happy Thanksgiving. Should be plenty of time to consider where the priorities are. I'd like to find some answer that resolves this without me having to read for three hours about how to file an ArbCom case. An answer that involves both paid editing an the mop is not one that resolves this. GMG ^talk 01:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Salvidrim!, would you be willing to pledge to completely and unconditionally abandon any paid or WP:COI editing, and not to use your admin rights in connection with any WP:COI editor? That might go a ways toward addressing some of the concerns raised here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly the question I have been asking myself. I'm likely going to end up doing just that, but please let me think over my shit for a day or two. I'd rather have a well-thought-through commitment than a hasty one. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 01:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I know you said you were busy @ GreenMeansGo:, but would you care to share your thoughts on how acceptable you think this proposal to be? Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 01:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If you need to think about it, then block your paid account and remove all rights in the interim, but understand that the fact that you need to think about it means I've probably lost all respect for you for the foreseeable future. GMG ^talk 01:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If the fact I prefer to carefully think things through instead of taking rash emotional decisions makes you lose respect for me... whatever. Let me sleep on it at least. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 02:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

GMG really, there is no need for big drama. We can wait a few days. If you take some time and learn about Salvidrim you will see that this is not a small thing for him, to have this go so awry. On the bell curve of community opinion about paid editing, he has been -- very publicly (e..g here in an Arbcom election Q&A -- over on the positive-towards-it slope for a long time, and i think his lived experience has given him some things to think about. To really think about. Please give him space. Please. Jytdog ( talk) 02:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, the fact that I'm surprised to find you on the other side of the argument actually makes me take your position more seriously. But I have to disagree nontheless. I think there is a precise and regrettable need for exactly this drama. I don't think I need to tell you this in particular, but maybe it helps to have it said.

I am not at all comfortable with user with COIs having access to specifically OCRP, the admin toolkit, and AfC, in that order and across the board. Having someone actively use that access to further paid editing is beyond toleration in a way that involves little nuance. Trust is far and away our most valuable commodity. It's something we stockpile because it's what makes this thing work. It's valuable precisely because it's not for sale, and putting a price tag on it doesn't just affect individual users and articles; it affects the bedrock of trust.

None of this is in the interest of attacking any individual. We've already lost one long time editor, probably permanently, and we seem certain to here to lose a sysop. No one wants to see these things happen, but it is an acceptable if lamentable loss if it is necessary to protect the integrity of trust, because the integrity of trust is more important than any one contributor. GMG ^talk 12:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

My remarks to you here have been just asking for you and other folks to not make immediate demands on Salvidrim nor to escalate immediately. Two reasons for that -- the first is to give Salvidrim time to think, and the second is because we don't know what he will come back with, per my note below. While what has happened in the past is very clear (and I ~think~ we have laid out all the key events and interactions, but I should spend some more time to see if i have missed anything), the question of what Salvidrim intends to do in the future is something that everybody in the community will be thinking about and will change how this looks in the eyes of the community. It will. That is how this place works.

In general, when the community considers taking actions against editors (blocks, bans, and i would say even removal of privileges) it is about preventing future harm. I brought KDS4444 to AN because he had no insight into the problems he was causing - he didn't understand COI and what it was doing to him when he edited under it nor why people were reviewing his paid edits -- and the disruption over managing his ever-growing pile of COI edits was never going to stop in my view. With regard to what he did at OTRS, future damage was prevented by removing his access, and the harm he caused WP in the eyes of the people with whom he interacted there cannot be redeemed... but what bothered me the most was the place in him from which the decision was made to abuse OTRS that way. That was unredeemed as well. I don't want a person like that in the community.

If Salvidrim comes back here and says that he will give up paid editing and he really sees all the harm he has caused, and "the lights are on" with respect to the place in him where these bad judgementa and actions came from, I don't think I will support a desysop. The way I think about people, I trust people more who make mistakes and are able to a) see the mistake, and b) see why they made the mistake; c) can articulate that clearly and without bullshit.

I do get it that for some people what Salvidrim has done is an irredeemable breach of trust and they want his bit stripped no matter what decision he comes back with.

I also think that if he wants to keep the bit, him doing that by resigning it and getting re-certified through an RfA is probably the best thing for him and the community.

If he wants to keep the bit and won't voluntarily resubmit to RfA, and this becomes an Arbcom case, a lot will depend on how the case is brought and conducted (will it be "hey look at this" or "you must strip his bit!") and there are serious risks in my view (i think about risks a lot and try to manage them!). First, if it becomes ugly and antagonistic, it will probably harm relationships among editors here long term. Second if the outcome is that he keeps the bit, it risks confusing and de-solidifying the community consensus around these specific issues. And third, there has always been a faction of the community that doesn't care about paid editing (it is getting smaller and weaker in my view) but one of their lines of arguments is that people who do care about it are moralistic witch hunters who themselves cause disruption. If he comes back "with the lights on" and the Arbcom case gets ugly, and he keeps the bit at the end of the case, that line will be able to sing much louder. Which in my view is not good for the long-term effort to move community consensus toward stronger and more clear COI management. (and all these risks of badness are why i think Salvidrim should voluntarily resign the bit and go through a new RfA - if he decides to keep it and won't do that, I think there will be an Arbom or some other case ... and this is really not good for anybody and will require yet more time on this matter. I am very much hoping he sees this)

Of course if there is an Arbcom case it could be conducted well and ends in a way that clarifies and consolidates consensus too.

Those are the kinds of things I am thinking about. Lots of "ifs" on top of other "ifs". But very much with an eye to long term movements in community consensus around COI management and paid editing, as well as what is best in this specific situation. Trying to think through all those things. We all look at things differently.

But more than anything, we should just be waiting at this point, and discussing various options if people want to. Not making demands or escalating ... not until Salvidrim comes back and lets us know his intentions for the future. Jytdog ( talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There are, at this point, more than a dozen calling for a resignation. Most after my own comments, but my comments stand on their own, and I would have no qualms about being a lone standard bearer were it the case. There is no resolution to this month long sustained poor decision making that is not a resignation or an ArbCom thread. If they want to stop paid editing, then they are welcome to do so, regain the community trust, and get it back. But there is no world in which we allow someone to have the bit when it's not even clear they can be trusted to have access to AfC, and were this not a sysop, they probably would have already lost AfC as well as OTRS without a thought. I'm sorry they made the decision that their standing in the community was worth a few dollars, but that's the decision they made, and have repeatedly not seen any issues with glaring problems until they are spelled out for them in grotesque detail. GMG ^talk 16:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I think he is horrified with what he has done now that he sees it. Being human is weird that way - we can do that to ourselves. I agree that an Arbcom case is very likely if he doesn't voluntarily resign the bit. Jytdog ( talk) 16:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Reiterating my earlier note for all parties in this thread so it doesn't come as a surprise: I'm planning to write up this case and the paid editor/OTRS case for the upcoming Signpost. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know when your deadline is, but if it's got at least a few days, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have that haven't been adressed here. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 01:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Negative three days, officially. I guess nothing at this time, maybe after you make your decision on what next steps to take. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I ask everybody to make sure you have read this diff and this diff by Salvidrim, in the midst of this flood of words. I think this thread is kind of done until we hear back from him. Jytdog ( talk) 01:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion is "done". While disclosed paid editing by administrators is still a grey area, engaging in the further previously undisclosed activities and favors as Salvadrim has done, even if he now agrees he fucked up, means he has for all intents and purposes probably lost the community's trust. I think that would be how this would play out if it went to AN, ANI, or ArbCom. This is especially true of someone who ran for RfB four months ago under a platform of "what the hell". Why run for RfB? Was he a paid editor at that time? My sense is that if this whole scenario went to AN, ANI, or ArbCom, what would happen for Salvadrim would be a de-sysop and a topic ban from AfC and NPP. Softlavender ( talk) 03:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I hear that, totally. But the situation is not stable right now. (please just have a look at his current userpage, for example) Please consider --Salvidrim might come back here and say - "I intend to keep on editing for pay, and I want to keep my admin bit." He might say - "I am going to stop editing for pay and I will not start again without getting prior consensus. Please forgive my breach of trust and let me earn it back." He might say, "I am giving up my bit and becoming a paid editor." Or something very different. I think folks will have very different responses to each of those, don't you?

(btw, I didn't say "done", I said "kind of done until we hear back from him."...) Jytdog ( talk) 04:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree the ball is in his court, but at the end of the day the situation boils down to this: did Salvidrim! in his actions cause a breach of the community's trust in such a way that in order to function as an administrator he needs to show he still has it through a new RfA. I think he has, and that he should resign and resubmit to an RfA with all of this out in the open if he thinks he still has the community's trust. If he thinks this isn't necessary, the only forum that can resolve that question is the Arbitration Committee.

This is true even if he says he will not edit for pay in the future, because a breach of trust did occur on the meatpuppetry and the assigning himself user rights which were used to bypass community processes for actions he was directly paid to make. I don't want to pile on, and I do respect that he is taking this seriously and is thinking about all of his possible responses. I also appreciate how focused you are on him as a person, Jytdog, which is something we sometimes miss in these discussions. I don't think we can have much more conversation here about what to do until he lets us know what he is thinking, but I also think it is important to him to make clear that it is very possible that the next step from here is an arbitration case request: AN or ANI really can't do anything in regards to the trust question. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Briefly, I think this is a good plan: resign sysop and stand for new RfA. Softlavender ( talk) 04:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely with TonyBallioni here. Paid editors reviewing and accepting each other's AFC submissions shows a serious lapse of judgment that I think is incompatible with the community trust required to remain an admin - and I think the only honorable response here is to resign the admin bit and re-run for RFA. (And I'll echo Tony's suggestion that, failing that, an arb case request seems likely.) Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I too agree with TonyBallioni, and echo the calls for a resignation of the bit and a re-rerun at RfA. I have no trust in the editor, and their access to OTRS is now concerning (given we've all been shown how easy it is to solicit work from there) -- There'sNoTime ^{( to explain)} 08:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'll keep this brief because I said enough over the KDS4444 issue that resulted in an indef block and ban: In no way is holding advanced rights of any kind compatible with editing for money or reward or helping anyone else to do it. It would be putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. It dosn't matter what good he might have done for the project, Salvidrim! has lost the trust that was invested in him as an admin - just for starters - and any other trust as an editor has gone with it. The choice is clear, either he hands all his tools in, or Arbcom will do it for him and the end result there may even be a block and a ban. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

On the nature of paid editing

Hi everyone,

Just for readability's sake I'm going to start a subsection in this discussion. I've been thinking a lot about paid editing and COI. I'm not trying to be melodramatic here, but my reputation on Wikipedia is important to me. I've been talking with @ Jytdog on the matter on my talk page, and I agree, I completely fucked up with the AfC thing, thinking that notability would somehow take precedence over neutrality and transparancy. One of my paid articles, Datari Turner, is up for deletion; @ Smartse said they're wondering about the notability of the articles on John and Sam Shahidi. To try and avoid any confusion or any other repercussions, I have some questions.

• WP:COI says that "COI editing is strongly discouraged", and WP:PAY says that paid editors are "very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". Instead, paid editors should use {{ request edit}} or by posting a note here at COIN. Instead of being actually paid to edit, paid editors would get paid to ask others to do the editing for them. For instance, I've been asked to expand and update the article on Norwegian design duo Arne & Carlos (see diff). That took me a little while to get done, and I think it would be unfair to ask other editors to do the work for me and me getting paid for their work. Is there another possible way to communicate any paid edits? What about using drafts first? Or a "paid articles for creation"?
• What is the use of a COI maintenance template, when it's already established that there's paid editing been done? The documentation says "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." WP:WTRMT No. 6 says "Some neutrality-related templates, such as {{ COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and {{ POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed". Should there be an additional discussion, even when a paid editor has disclosed they have been to do paid editing on the article?
• I fucked up with the AfC situation. For my actual paid edits, I have been transparent about them, and I've tried to be neutral and objective while writing them. Now I'm wondering, is it actually possible for an experienced editor to do paid editing? It's not even that I want to do paid editing at this point -- I've been an editor for over ten years and were paid to edit seven articles since October 2017 and there's this whole mess -- but there are plenty of people and companies out there that are notable by Wikipedia's standards, but don't have any volunteer writing about them. I thought I could help improve Wikipedia, help them out and make a little money on the side. I thought I did. I'm honestly asking, because I don't know anymore. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

thinking that notability would somehow take precedence over neutrality and transparancy I don't think this is the most important point, but I'd like to point out that both articles you reviewed would have taken me two minutes to decline as non-notable. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. With those AfC moves, I wasn't being payed (I wasn't even asked to do so by Mister Wiki), but I wanted to help Salvidrim! out. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• @ Soetermans: I'll just say that it is possible to do paid editing. Not ideal, but possible. But it does mean that your actions are in some way presumed to be potentially compromised, and it requires oversight (of the ordinary type, not WP:OVERSIGHT) by someone who is impartial. It also means that you should not be involved in functions that involve that oversight capacity, as AfC does. The real problem with COI not not necessarily malicious bad faith editors out to abuse Wikipedia. Those are fairly common and usually exceptionally easy to spot. The more difficult problem is that a COI can make good faith editors do corrosive things unknowingly and with the best intentions. I think that, more than anything, is probably what happened here, and all this is a good example of how paid editing is possible, but doesn't mix well with also being a volunteer who at some level occupies a position of respect. GMG ^talk 13:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith towards me. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• • The COI template is a request for an independent person to fully review the content in question. As the quality of paid editing is generally very poor this is generally required. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Soetermans:( edit conflict) I think it would be unfair to ask other editors to do the work for me and me getting paid for their work. This is a very valid question. Take a read of WP:BOGOF ("buy one get one free") for Bri's take on it. As you noted, {{ request edit}} is available, but don't expect a quick response!

Templates are primarily there to alert the reader to potential problems. The fact that paid editing has been disclosed means that there can be no dispute about the relevance of adding {{ coi}} and there is no need to explain why it is necessary. In other cases the coi may be less clear and rquires a note to explain. Even if there are no obvious problems with the current content, unless the subject has been researched by another editor it's impossible to know whether or not the article is written from a NPOV. Obviously that takes time...

It certainly is possible for an experienced editor to write for pay, but you have to tread very carefully and be aware that some editors consider it distasteful, regardless of policies and guidelines. CorporateM was pretty successful, but saying that he was hounded away from editing in the end. I understand how you can see this could be a win-win, but the volunteer time that is required to ensure that content is neutral is considerable and inevitably when we have money on our minds, judgement is compromised - poor sources are more likely to be used, notability standards lowered and content leers towards promotion. I don't think that there is anyway round that. SmartSE ( talk) 13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOGOF makes perfect sense, even when it's done by a disclosed paid editor. Other editors still need to double-check if the article is at all notable, or if it has any promotional/advertesing tone to it. So WP:PAY, in my opinion, is a bit vague. Paid editors are strongly encouraged not to edit COI articles directly, but can request edits. It's almost like paid editors are more like paid Wikipedia lobbyists. Does that make any sense at all?

Well, the COI maintenance template goes back to the first point, in that other editors still need to check the article. I get that. While I can proclaim I'm being as objective as possible, there's still a COI.

If paid editing is possible, I think it can only be done with extreme patience. How does the community feel about only allowing drafts for paid edits, for COIN to go over? I know this still sounds like the community and COIN still has to do more work, but in that case, there's direct oversight. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry, but this, just yesterday, is just taking the piss. Context: Special:Undelete/OverTheTop, Special:Undelete/OverTheTopSEO, Special:Undelete/OverTheTopSEO.com, Special:Undelete/OverTheTop (company), Special:Undelete/Over The Top (company), Special:Undelete/Over The Top (digital agency), Special:Undelete/Over The Top (digital marketing), User:Larddwe, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scorpion293, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamesflare, User:Simonconrads, User:Willo523, User:Lizziehnazo.

• overthetopseo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Blacklisted and regex salted. MER-C 13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If I actually had done some research first, I would've known that trying to create an article on Sheetrit was near impossible. I understand how that might've come across, and I apologize. As you can see from my contributions, I decided to hold off on making any possible COI edits after this statement, including Arne & Carlos, which I was still working on. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

With respect to paid editing, our readers expect us to be independent of the topics we write about. If we become less and less independent our reputation will be harmed. Paid editing thus does not risk harming **just** your reputation it risks harming the reputation of all of us, and thus why many of us are against those with advanced privileges being allowed to take up the practice. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Using AfC help reduce promotionalism, because it adds an extra layer of scrutiny before NPP. But it does not decrease the burden on the community, because it requires that extra round. Most article submitted to AfC, especially by obviously promotional editors, require multiple rounds of review at AfC before they're ready to go into mainspace--and promotional editors tend to resubmit articles many times without improvement, and thus require multiple unproductive reviews, and finally the extra step of using MfD to remove them one at a time. Outside COI editors trying to promote themselves will often give up after a few tries; paid editors in the past have sometimes argued to the last ditch to keep the work from being deleted (I think some of this may be due to the typical contract offering refund if removed before X months-- which gives an obvious incentive to use every tactic to delay, even for the most hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Salvidrim

Not going to make any resignation announcement today, or tomorrow, or this week. See User:Salvidrim!. I'd be happy to come to an agreement on some level of community sanctions w/r/t paid editing (such as no more paid edits, no approving paid AfCs/edit-requests/PERM-requests or whatever else needs to be agreed upon) but many commenters above have said there were not interested in discusing that: they want desysopping by shame or by force. I still don't think the COI mishandling (resulting in the AfC collusion or alt-perm assignment) requires desysopping; the AfC collusion could have happened with or without the admin tools, and the alt-perm mistake was acknowledged and reverted (and not particularly griveous or requiring an emergency desysop). I don't think there was a pattern of abuse of tools of behaviour unbecoming of an admin (which is what ArbCom usually looks for). I do think there was a mishandling and underestimating of how strongly and openly COI needs to be tackled and reviewed, and am happy to discuss what restrictions should be put in place to ensure it doesn't become a recurrent problem. This is probably the last I'll say for a while on-wiki unless there is agreement to resolve this with community sanctions (to be agreed upon), or if I end up having to defend at ArbCom. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 18:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Noting for the record that the Mister Wiki Arbcom case request was opened by TonyBallioni in the last 24 hours ( permlink). ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

yep, at 19:38, Tony Ballioni filed an Arbcom case request. I cannot say that I disagree with that, based on the post above. Jytdog ( talk) 22:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Arb votes are now <8/0/1> which makes the opening of a case mandatory, if I understand the process. Not sure why it hasn't kicked off yet; several arbs made it clear they want it to proceed quickly. Reading the tea leaves, maybe a result will be at hand by end of year. ☆ Bri ( talk) 00:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

This is becoming almost a repeat of the user:KDS4444 case. The community does not want want a desysopping by shame or by force, they just want the natural consequences of abuse of trust to be carried out. Notwithstanding, it will also serve as an important example and warning to all other would be paid editors. On Wikipedia, rank does not have its privileges, so please don't be lulled into a false expectation of leniency because you are an admin - in fact many editors would demand even harsher treatment of those with positions of trust. You don't have much choice - you are not in a position to dictate the terms of what happens next, plea bargaining doesn't come into it. With your action you have lost the community's trust vested in your access to special user rights. KDS couldn't have his sysop bit removed because he wasn't one, but all his others, including OTRS were revoked, with everything terminating in an indef block and ban. That's what will be called for at Arbcom if you prefer not to fall on your sword. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 22:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Seeking to avoid doing the decent thing is so very 2017, isn't it? Guy ( Help!) 22:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Salvidrim you misused your admin tools by giving your new "paid" account special privileges. This was a completely "involved" move. You combine that with exchanging approvals at AfC with a paid editor from the same firm with the belief that this should technically get one around policies regulating paid editing and yes we have an issue.

Do we need to explicitly spell out every single thing a paid editor is not allowed to do? This is like KDS arguing "well you have no rule against me using OTRS for making money from those emailing in asking for help". Some things we simple expect admins to know. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• This might be a teachable moment for the community at large thinking about paid editing. From private discussions with other editors who have considered this, I think there are definitely under 5 people doing successful inside-the-lines paid editing. Yet here we have two cases in a row where we have lost otherwise productive and valuable community members because they were unable to follow the guidelines around paid editing. At some point do we revisit the cost-benefit equation? ☆ Bri ( talk) 00:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you willing to name those 5ish? I might have some to add... Jytdog ( talk) 01:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

We do not need a cost/benefit study. We're not that desperate for editors that we have to put the foxes in charge of the henhouse or be lenient with those that only eat chicken or two because they were hungry. Humour apart, the only way to combat paid editing is to outlaw it completely. 99% of it is underground anyway, and we're not doing too bad at smoking some of it out, especially if it involves users abusing special privileges. Paid editing has more than enough hallmarks to raise sufficient curiosity. If we can continue to catch enough of it, it might be a signal that paid editing doesn't pay, particularly when they find themselves having to refund their customers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 06:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment moved to talkpage #Evolving paid policy per consensus ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• This noticeboard is not the place for extended discussion of policy. Please. Jytdog ( talk) 16:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• JacobMW ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I didn't know where to put this so feel free to insert it at the top of the case. JacobMW, Jacob Pace is the self-identified proprietor of Mister Wiki. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Arne & Carlos

Would someone like to take a look at Arne & Carlos, where I removed an ill-written and wholly promotional paid piece by Soetermans, made (as is disclosed above) in violation of our Terms of Use, and was immediately reverted by SkyWarrior. If editor consensus here is to ahead and let this turn into Wikipaidia, then I for one am done with it. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I’ve reverted per NOTSPAM: those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. and WP:ONUS. The content was challenged, the burden is on those wanting to include it to achieve consensus for any additions on the talk page. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ TonyBallioni, let me start by repeating what I've said before, I'm not going to edit anything that has to do with my previous paid editing and the fuck up I've done. I've also said that I've waived any fees I would receive for editing Arne & Carlos. What I don't understand -- and again, this is by no means intended to try to change anyone's mind on the matter -- is how the entire expanding of the article is considered spam. Isn't there anything worth salvaging? I've used reliable sources, and try to describe the history of the design duo. If you think it's one big promotional piece, so be it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:BOGOF for one view on this issue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) It’s a question of weighting and choosing how to present information and deciding what reliably sourced information should be included and which is just noise. For example: Amazon every Friday sends me an entirely neutral email explaining what content Prime video has so I have some idea of what to watch when I have friends over for a movie night. While it is entirely neutrally worded it is still promotion: Amazon is selectively presenting to me what TV watching information I am using and also trying to get me to use Prime video rather than the myriad of competitors. Any content that is written by a contractor for a company about that company neccesarily is going to be promotional, even if neutrally worded, because the purpose is to increase exposure and knowledge of the company on the 5th most viewed website in the world. It is also likely to highlight areas that the company would themselves think the most important. Content must be written by contributors who are not here to promote the subject so it is an encyclopedia article rather than a business directory entry. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I see your point. While at the same time I do think there's definitely some stuff worth keeping, I can't trust my own judgement in this matter. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Soetermans, to try to answer your question above: in my opinion not all that you had written was "bad", but the overall result was precisely what we are used to seeing in a paid piece, with trivial detail, self-references, and unsuitable tone. I reverted it outright for several reasons:

• It was, as you have explained above, written – inadvertently, I believe – in violation of our Terms of Use
• Our COI guidelines strongly discourage conflicted editors from editing articles directly; in practice, after the deed is done the only form that that discouragement can take is reversion
• It is far simpler and more productive to expand a short stub than it is to cut down a long screed (though I often do that too); despite WP:BOGOF, I was in the process of adding back a couple of reliable sources you had used, and a little detail from them (including some that you had missed) when my previous edit was reverted by another editor. I stopped at that point, I'm afraid.

I also agree with what Tony says above – that a well-written advertisement is still an advertisement because its purpose is still to advertise. I apologise for my "ill-written" comment above, based on little more than the addition of a superfluous "s" to the invariant noun "reindeer". Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Bravo Telecom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BT.team ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meding46 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Moved from Talk:Bravo Telecom

Although I am reticent to get involved with "cleaning up UPE/COI" while, as y'all probably are aware already, I am a party to a ArbCom case request likely to go through, I stumbled upon this situation by complete coincidence and it would probably be negligent of me not to ignore it altogether... so I thought I'd post it here for a look by the good folks at COIN. ;)

I stumbled upon this series of edits to Bravo Telecom in 2015 by BT.team (clearly COI/UPE and should possibley be corphardblocked although it's never edited after this 2015 spree) and a previous attempt days earlier by Meding46 as well (see the edit summary of their first edit to the page), which apparently highjacked an article about a Saudi telecom company ( http://www.bravo.net.sa), replacing it by an article about a (probably non-notable) Canadian one ( http://www.bravotelecom.com). Not sure what should be done but I can at least leave my thoughts here and tag the article appropriately. IMHO the revisions for the Canadian topic should be histsplit into their own page, then tagged & deleted (or draftified) and the "Bravo Telecom" be restored to the prehighjacked version (and then AfD'ed if necessary)? I do think however that even if both the Saudi & Canadian companies are determined non-notable and deletable, the revisions for the two topics should be histsplit before deletion anyways. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 03:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• So.... is this getting ignored because I'm the one who reported it and I'm a pariah traitor to COIN, or is "an article being highjacked by a similarly named company" just not worthy of intervention? :P Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 03:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I restored the pre-hijacked version. And I am inclined to send it to AfD (BTW the hijacked version deserves the same). Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I mean, both topics are probably deletable at AfD, I'm just concerned that an actual histsplit might be needed since they are explicitly separate topics, even if both end up deleted. I'll be happy to perform the histsplit myself, I've experience with that, I just wanted opinions here before waltzing in. :) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 19:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Meding46 has attempted to highjack the title again. Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 20:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Leon Recanati (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Raphael Recanati (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Leon Yehuda Recanati (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Recanati (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thomas Kaplan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Flamingoflorida ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.28.128.154 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has over a period of months added unsourced family information (names of non notable relatives), for which they were warned in June. In the current interchange [5], the rationale is that they're removing libelous content, without specifying what that may be. The appearance is that this is a family member who's decided to oversee the bios, with or without proper sources. Whether there are other such edits to unrelated Miami articles may be worth checking. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 06:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I will be very direct we are a private family there is a conflict of interest of course but on the other hand using articles not well researched and sometimes decades out of date is not proper sourcing and several major mistakes where made on every article some useing vague information and some that is private about children and medical information I have no desire to put flattering information put on the other hand I want a concise accurate history of the family and family members there are many things that there are no published sources for as for not notable relatives they are already all over those articles if they must be there then at least it should be accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Flamingo is, in essence, edit warring by continuing to add this [6]. They have, in fact, admitted to being a family member in previous conversations. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 06:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I wish that the sources where accurate but most articles about non notable people aren’t checked to the standard for a biography I’m not edit warring I’m making the bios concise and accurate as possible as many people in the family are directly affected by what is written Flamingoflorida ( talk) 06:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Flamingoflorida Flamingoflorida ( talk) 06:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A person finally made the articles neutral and non personal I have no need to change them so there is no more conflict of interest Flamingoflorida ( talk) 07:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Contrary to the above, Flamingo is continuing to edit his family's bios. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 07:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am fixing minor points to make the info box match the rest of the article as I would for anything else I am not adding any info that is not sourced Flamingoflorida ( talk) 07:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

There seem to be numerous examples of Flamingoflorida adding content w/o a source such as this Flamingoflorida's "source" appears to by word-of-mouth by the article subjects as mentioned in this entry on my talk page. Jim1138 ( talk) 09:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The same is true of other edits to the family's bios, like [7] and [8]. There's a predisposition toward original research, some of which is supported by sources, but there's sometimes no distinction: [9]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 13:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the word of of mouth information and the information was already on Tom Kaplan article Flamingoflorida ( talk) 19:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) The 2 edits you was only minor changes

https://www.geni.com/people/Leon-Recanati/6000000016422573923

Here is proof and in 1900 northern Greece was ottoman and in 1945 there was no Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC) https://www.geni.com/people/Daniel-Recanati/6000000008074925477

I have now added birth and death dates from outside information Flamingoflorida ( talk) 19:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The business information on the family is public and the sources are most accurate but the personal lives have been been published in anything other then puff pieces Flamingoflorida ( talk) 21:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• The promise of a few hours ago to not edit the articles was meaningless. I've just reverted two unsourced additions of birth and death dates [10], [11]. Perhaps Flamingoflorida has WP:RELIABLE sources that will support these. At this point he surely understands the requirement for such references, as his edit history includes removal of content from multiple articles because sources were lacking. He also understands that first person knowledge is not acceptable. My proposal is for a topic ban, since the explanations and warnings of several experienced editors, going back some six months, have been to no avail. If this isn't the proper venue, I can open a second discussion at ANI. As I've suggested above, the concerns cover more than the family articles, but are most intensively focused there. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 22:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.geni.com/people/Raphael-Recanati/6000000008451369373 https://www.geni.com/people/Leon-Recanati/6000000016422573923 The sources are here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingoflorida ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Check the articles now Flamingoflorida ( talk) 22:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• If one out of every three or four edits, or indeed even one out of ten are unsourced or require badgering from other editors to meet guidelines, we have a problem. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 22:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Flamingoflorida: These issues are exactly why we strongly encourage people with a close connection to a subject not to directly edit there. Would you consider making suggested changes on the article's talkpage instead? ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've also suggested that here [12]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 22:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am adding sources cleaning grammar and checking against the sources I am not touching the meat of the article ie business or philanthropy if there must be these they should be accurate and concise Flamingoflorida ( talk) 22:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Two editors have suggested (in my case, urged as an imperative), that you leave the articles alone. That means completely. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 23:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added a reliable source there is no one e;se who will research these sources but me Flamingoflorida ( talk) 23:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Flamingoflorida: what you're doing is considered disruptive by at least two other editors. Please stop, add the sources to the talkpage, and ask someone else to make the change. You can easily do this with {{ Requested edit}} ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I will try to do that and ask you to help when I need it I don’t want disrupt anybody and bother anybody I just want a fair even articles involving my family many of the articles where puff pieces that not accurate Flamingoflorida ( talk) 23:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to hear, and good luck! Please don't be frustrated if it takes a little while for the requests to be answered. It's a volunteer-run work. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Language Creation Society (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mendaliv

• Mendaliv ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see discussion at WP:ANI, and direct discussion there for the sake of non-duplication. All involved have been ANI-notice'd. Mendaliv suggested it should be here too, so I am crosslinking as a courtesy and to encourage neutral review. Sai  ¿? ✍ 18:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Saizai: When you post at a noticeboard like this, you are asking other editors to give you some of their time to help you resolve a question. It behoves you, therefore, to follow the posting guidance at the top of the page, and to make the other editors' task as easy as possible.

You are guided thus:

• Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list.

So please don't expect others to follow pages of discussion elsewhere. Or at least don't be surprised if they choose to ignore your post.

For other readers, Saizai ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has self-identified as the founder of the Language Creation Society. He has made four edits to Language Creation Society and wants to know if the editors here think that justifies the {{ COI}} tag that the article now sports. In addition, I assume he wants guidance on how appropriate it would be for him to be editing the article at all. i should add that there are also other editors involved on the talk page who probably deserve similar consideration. HTH -- RexxS ( talk) 20:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note that the {{ coi}} template has been removed following edits by other editors, and I am comfortable with its removal at this point. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 07:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

saizai

@ JzG: has told me to not edit the article at all, and reverted my edits (which were based on text originally added by @ 7&6=thirteen: and @ Adoricic:, as e.g. below:

• Text about the film
  1. 7&6=thirteen: [added text
  2. saizai: condense colanging film references (description at top, only mention of LCC7 premier in LCC section), keep w/ other text; make language a bit less awkward / fix number agreement
  3. saizai: rm extra space
  4. saizai: + Okrent @ LCC2; filming at LCC6
  5. saizai: (m) add period
  6. saizai: + conlangs infobox at bottom; move citations to below external links; change YT link from JQ's LCC talk (why that?) to all-LCC playlist (though it could also be removed
  7. saizai: make external link subhead of refs, like notes & citations
  8. JzG: Reverted edits by Saizai (talk) to last version by John Cummings

• Text about the history
  1. Adoricic: Added to the initial intro, added officer positions, moved "Conlanging film" under LCC heading
  2. JzG: no source, mostly not notable
  3. saizai: Undid revision 816776577 by JzG(talk) + source, clarification on UCB-LCS vs LCS 501c3
  4. saizai: correct dates, add ref for ucb-lcs, fix cite format
  5. saizai: separate refs
  6. JzG: Reverted to revision 816789943 by Saizai (talk): A Google doc is not a source Wikipedia can use
  7. saizai: Undid revision 816824194 by JzG (talk) a) edit goes way beyond stated purpose; b) that doc is the official AoI source; c) replaced w/ non-GDoc source
  8. JzG: vanity namechecks, primary and affiliated source.
  9. saizai: Manually undid revision 817174209 by JzG, minus the names, but leaving the reference and change to c3

I would like to know specifically which of my edits are improper. I believe that they are neutral, being mainly syntactic, cleanup, or fully sourced facts to correct some misleading or incorrect text.

Please note that I did not add any "namechecks"; that was Adoricic & 7&6=thirteen, whom I don't know and AFAICT have no LCS affiliation. I did remove names, as a way to cure the issue of JzG's revert while keeping accurate non-"namecheck" info about the organizational history. (As reverted, it read as if LCS is still a student group, and/or as if the other founders were part of the student group, neither of which is true.)

I would also like to know whether it is proper for JzG to threaten me from making any edit of the article, even banal ones like most of the above. I am trying to abide by the COI policy in good faith, and make simple edits that are not POV-ish. AFAICT, there's nothing wrong with doing so. Sai  ¿? ✍ 16:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

How about this: don't edit the article on the group you started. If you want to propose changes, do it on the Talk page. That is not a remotely contentious view around here. "Imroving" the article is promoting your group. Don't do that. Guy ( Help!) 16:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You asked which of you edits were improper. My answer is all of them. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)