Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog
Stats for pending changes trial
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases
Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages
User:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js in case I need it
User:Risker/Mauricie

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
{{subst:W-screen}} {{subst:User:Alison/c}} Wikipedia:SPI/CLERK and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Indicators

Note to self: Research Laura Muntz Lyall (or persuade one of the Riggrs to do so), consider writing an article about the Forster Family Dollhouse in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Some day.

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I'm sorry, it was a stupid assumption. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no worries, AmaryllisGardener. Kind of refreshing to bump into someone who doesn't know me by reputation! I actually thought a bit about your suggestion, but I know I'm about to undertake a major project with the FDC, and I think I'm going to focus on pushing hard on the notability front as well, because I think that's the best way to start ridding ourselves of all this highly POV commercially focused editing that really is something of a worry. Risker (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risker. I was working on a disambiguation clean-up recently, and noticed you were doing something similar. Do you know what is best to do with userspace drafts? It started when I moved Ross Harrison to Ross Harrison (rugby union) and created a disambiguation page in its place. While cleaning up the links to the rugby union player, I came across and blanked User:TomBrady14 (see the page history). But was unsure what to do with User:Strinesian. Maybe a different approach is better, such as leaving a talk page message. If those users are around, they will also get pinged about this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably blank the page. It's pretty obvious from the user's contributions that he created the page on his user page and then copied it over to create the new article. Meanwhile, that data on his userpage is just confusing to anyone who winds up there. For both examples you give, it also looks like the users are long gone, so it's unlikely to result in any backlash. I'm not really working on dab pages; the one I made yesterday was because someone overwrote an article I was watching with...well, let's just say there's an AFD on the "new" content right now. I moved the original article back where it belonged, and created the dab page to make it easier for anyone to find it during the AfD. Once the AfD is over, I'll either delete the dab page (if the "new" article is deleted, because the dab won't be needed any longer) or I'll add some hatnotes to the articles if the AfD results as "keep". Risker (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that AfD. I'm guessing you will end up deleting that dab page. There must be an easy way to find pages that need disambiguation pages created. The same with biography pages without talk pages. See Talk:Phyllis Harrison-Ross. There was a time when someone with a bot went round finding and tagging those. Maybe someone still does, but not so often. Carcharoth (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone is wondering why I'm relatively unresponsive right now, and will be for the coming month or so, it is because I am very busy reviewing FDC proposals as a member of the Funds Dissemination Committee. I also somehow or other wound up being a "volunteer advisor" to the WMF Elections Committee (apparently this is the result of having been an effective member of that committee in 2013 - which does prove that the reward for doing good work is more work...), so I've been giving them some support to start off since they have shockingly little time to actually mount the elections for 3 members of the Board of Trustees, an FDC Ombud and 5 members of the FDC. Watch for the notices. I encourage everyone to vote, because these positions will all have the scope to affect this and other projects as we move forward.

So, in short, I won't be around a lot until at least mid-May, and won't be undertaking any projects that require extended attention. Risker (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the living people about whom we write. There is a deadline for them: it is the moment that Google puts our article about them in their top-5 results."

I just looked at your user page for the first time today. I could not agree more with the above statement. Spot-on. Editors need to be constantly reminded we are documenting individuals' lives, in what is often the most highly visible "bio" on the web. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. You may have seen this. If not, well, goes to the heart of the project's credibility and neutrality.--Scott Mac 15:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mac, it is a pleasure to see your name again; sad that it is in relation to such a challenging situation. I had a bit of knowledge of the twitter thing (although not about a lot of the other allegations in that report), but it's not something I felt I should include in the publicly visible RFAR; while I do have serious concerns about the specifics of this case, I do not see value in going out of my way to include off-wiki personal (although not private) information that was more appropriately forwarded to Arbcom on a non-public basis. I think probably what concerns me the most about this situation is that it was all so very predictable, and that talking to other functionaries who are more accustomed to handling more controversial blocks would have probably resulted in a different action and outcome. Risker (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reflection, my chief concern is for the individuals now caught up in the worst type of media storm. Don't know how much you know of UK politics, but this one's going to run for a while yet. Feel free to remove this thread, as even discussing it may be unhelpful.--Scott Mac 16:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may do that soon. I agree with you that this is going to be a rather awful media storm, although see my last sentence. It's also a predictable one. Risker (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to tread uninvited, but just a courtesy note that I did mention this at Jimbo's talk page. I agree with Scott's last sentence here. I too don't think any more individuals here should be involved unnecessarily, and it would be good if the case is actually opened sooner rather than later to further limit that possibility. Anyway, I digress, as that is something only the esteemed committee can control.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block. Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, I really did try to walk away, but I'm sorry - I have to say it. What you posted on Giano's talk was the biggest bunch of bullshit I've seen in a while. I know we have disagreed on things, but I NEVER thought I'd see you stoop to such things. I actually considered the fact that your account had been compromised. Please, PLEASE, read things before you post something like that again. — Ched :  ?  05:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, Giano threw the biggest insult at me that he could possibly have come up with, and he did it deliberately and with anger because I dared to challenge him. I have always told him that the line for me was using articles as weapons, and he did it not just once but repeatedly, and in a manner intended to provoke. If he had done it on Jimbo's user talk or some other non-article page instead of one being highly watched at least in part because of other seriously problematic behaviour by another wikipedian (sadly, because of a delay from Arbcom and conflicts with real-world responsibilities, I did not have a chance to file evidence on that matter, but I'm hoping that they figured it out themselves) - he likely would have managed to get the reaction he was looking for; in fact, he probably would have gotten a better one. Instead, he got himself reverted by a bunch of people who just recognized the edits for what they were and didn't ascribe any mystique to the person making them, who took him to the 3RR board, and he got himself blocked - exactly what should have happened. Well, this whole thing has pretty much been a PR disaster for Wikiepdia; but the answer was never going to be "so I'll stick in a bunch of extraneous hoopla into the article to try to make up for what happened before" - there were perfectly good reliable sources that would have pointed to the investigation, they just didn't imply that Jimbo was behind it all. I hope someone is able to figure out how to reference the BBC interview Shapps gave today; that would at least make sense for inclusion. Risker (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, I am sure there is a lot I don't have access to in regards to Shapps. All I know is what is view-able on wiki. You said something to the effect of "do you support inclusion of Jimbo's marriage" ... and that was NEVER something posted in the article. I have no idea what your relationship with Giano is .. nor should I. I am sorry if he insulted you - he shouldn't have. I even admit that anyone who engages in an edit war needs to be attended to. MY point is that at no point in time was there a "Jimbo's marriage" entered into the contents of the article. You questioned me about something that was never posted in the article, but rather you applied what was said in the wp:rs to the article and what I supported.

I don't care about "the investigation", because we can't see it. You stated something that was not accurate, accused me of supporting something that was never posted in the article. If people choose to make assumptions from facts, shame on them. Please don't accuse me of things that I have never supported..

In looking at the talk page for the article, ... I guess some people can support blindness - I can not. Giano stated facts .. plain and simple. Obviously some people don"t like those facts, but truth is what it is. I live in the US, so I really don't care about a minor official in the UK. What shocked me was you response to it all. — Ched :  ?  07:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just curious: How did Giano insult you? — Ched :  ?  07:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• and how is it different from how you've insulted me? — Ched :  ?  07:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• psst ... nobody "implied" Jimbo was "behind" anything ... but apparently some people "inferred" it. So it's a "kill the messenger" issue? — Ched :  ?  07:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK ... I'll leave it be. Whatever. Not an issue I care enough about to get my butt toasted. — Ched :  ?  07:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, just look at the diff Giano carefully chose in order to support...what exactly? That Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia? Just by making the internal link to Jimbo's BLP, he'd done that. The reference he used, which is very specifically all about Jimmy's wedding to a prominent member of the Labour Party, with lots of other prominent Labour people attending, and has nothing to do with Shapps at all, or allegations of socking, or anything even really about Wikipedia, was inappropriate. There are several contemporaneous news items that specifically refer to an ongoing investigation of the block/SPI - not least the one where ChaseMe gives an interview and says it is under investigation and that he has been chastised - which could have been appropriately inserted. The insult was here where he says "[o]ne can't help seriously wondering, Risker, if you have spent too long at the cosy heart of the exclusive Wiki-family and have ceased to be as objective and PR-focused as once you were." Now, you may not understand why I find that such an insult...but Giano most certainly should have. It breaks my heart to see someone whose work I have respected for years editorializing in the middle of a BLP, especially with the excuse that his edits should be seen as a statement from Wikipedia. And on that note, I have to get up in 4 hours so I'm going to walk away. Risker (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing the "heartbreak" mentioned above, I just want to say how sorry I am to see this happen (to all of you). I know it must hurt deeply ... for you, for Bish, for Giano. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risker, in the open Sockpuppet investigation block arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding Sockpuppet investigations block has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The CheckUser permissions of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) are revoked. He may seek to regain them only by the usual appointment methods.
2. The oversight permissions of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) are revoked. He may seek to regain them only by the usual appointment methods.
3. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block closed

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For bravery and integrity during the Contribsx ArbCom case. Vordrak (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For commitment to the truth and integrity during the Contribsx ArbCom case. Vordrak (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Risker, I know we have some differences on occasion, but I too want to thank you for bringing up the SPI block case and protecting Wikipedia's integrity. Pine✉ 19:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About this, two things:

• I have been struggling mightily with that editor to get them to see their COI and restrain himself. That post was remarkably lacking in cluefulness.
• There is a note on the top of the COI page that says "Editors discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages should disclose during those discussions whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia." The editor did not disclose.

That is why I wrote the note. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has disclosed his conflict of interest. It is on his userpage. That is what is required. If you cannot restrain yourself over this issue, the first step is to contact the editor directly on their user talk. At very, very most, you could say "please see Snowded's conflict of interest statement on his userpage". Your words and tone give the appearance of belittling Snowded's comments for the purpose of furthering your own personal dispute between the two of you, and that is not acceptable. More importantly, having a conflict of interest is NOT the same thing as "being paid to edit Wikipedia". If you do not understand that, then perhaps it is time for *you* to stop editing in this topic area. Risker (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Thanks for your feedback. I disagree with two things that you write. First I am not having a personal dispute with him; I have been working with him to manage his COI. Secondly, being an officer of a company and editing here = paid editing. I do appreciate your feedback on the hounding thing and will not unrevert you. Thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See now, that's where I disagree with you. Being an officer of a company and editing in relation to that company are obviously NOT a paid editing situation on Wikipedia. If they were, then Jimmy Wales, and every other member of the WMF Board of Trustees, would all be banned editors. Risker (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

risker paid editors are not banned in WP. They are allowed to be here if they follow the Terms of Use, which require that they disclose and that they follow project policies and guidelines. Our COI guideline says they should disclose and should not directly edit content where they have a COI, and instead should offer content on Talk pages to be reviewed by other editors for NPOV. So... Jimbo Wales should not directly edit content on WP or WMF, for example, but should offer proposed content on Talk pages for such content. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to your theory, they shouldn't be discussing COI either...since being a Trustee of this organization would put them in COI of discussing COI here. And see, you're doing it again. You're using your personal interpretation of the ToU to deprecate someone else. The ToU doesn't say what you think it says. Risker (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just to point out the simple fact that when the conflict started I immediately initiated a request for an independent admin review which I think is the right thing to do. That resulted in a warning to the other editor. Things blew up again when multiple aggressive COI notices were placed on multiple pages. The COI guideline does not say that editors may not edit pages, it says that they have to be very careful to comply with the rules and should consider not editing but initiating requests instead. The absolutist interpretation of what is a guideline not policy does not help. That said I appreciate what Jtydog is trying to do and I know its difficult but I think it is correct to say that there has been some conflict, the phrase 'struggling mightily' indicates that and was a surprise to me when I read it. But, I know the pressure on editors who take on tasks like COI so I'm personally relaxed about it and I'm trying to work with him/her. However the BLP policy is very clear that editors whose reputation is being challenged should be treated with more consideration that those doing the attacking. The result of all of this is that I plan to outline some possible practice guidelines for those interested in COI issues as soon as the current storm has died down. That contribution was in effect my first step into working on that.----Snowded ^TALK 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So much muddled thinking around COI - and yes David, my warnings to you became increasingly aggressive the longer you persisted in ignoring them. You are triply conflicted in all this, just like the other guy. You are not "above this" by any means. In any case, I will keep working with folks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And risker, trustees of an organization have a responsibility to discuss and manage COI in the organization. Your argument is absurd there. And I didn't say that David shouldn't participate in the discussion at COI, just that he needed to disclose his status as a conflicted editor in the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is absurd. But it is no more absurd than what you are saying. Your interpretation would prevent academics who have been published from discussing their subject of expertise. Snowded is not being paid to edit Wikipedia; he is not a paid editor. He is, in particular, not a paid editor when it comes to the topic of COI. Risker (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Risker you seem to be unaware that Dave is cofounder and CSO of a company that makes money providing consulting services in part using the cynefin framework or model, and that he claims (at least partial) credit for the originating the concept, and his company depends in part on his reputation including the explanatory power of that concept, and the thing he posted at AN about was this dif, that attacked the validity of a software product offered by his company and based in part on the cynefin framework. That edit was made by an editor with whom he has a personal dispute outside of WP, who also has a consulting company, and whose company competes with Dave's . Both editors have at least three levels of COI that perfectly clashed in that dif and everything that followed - the brief edit war, the discussion on the talk page, etc. Dave did do well bringing it to the community but that does not make his COI any less present. I will assume that you were unaware of all that, with regard to what you wrote here about the situation.Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. I am certainly well aware of the conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is not the same thing as paid editing. If you cannot understand that, you need to stop working in this area. Paid editing is things like Elance or other SEO organizations who specifically write for pay, or the PR department of a company. Conflict of interest is not the same thing. Again, if you insist that the two things are identical, which is exactly what you were doing in the edit I reverted, then you need to stop working in this area, because you misunderstand the basic premise. Risker (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is all getting pretty stressful. I have always acknowledged a COI and the second conflict looked inevitable backed off and asked for an independent review. I am an editor of long standing over multiple articles who happens to monitors two articles, one about me the other about a public domain framework, much cited which I created many years ago and which I teach at University and also present in public (mostly pro bono). The conflict was with another SPA editor whose few edits only relate to his COI and who brought an off wiki campaign to Wikipedia. He was warned for that on the independent admin review I requested and the whole thing calmed down. I now have Jytdog raising the temperature on the article, issuing me with multiple threats of ANI referral if I don't do what I am told and now repeating the unsupported allegations that got the other editor warned (linking software to Cynefin and the nonsensical suggestion I didn't create the framework - check Google Scholar). He also seems to be appointing himself as judge, jury and executioner as to the article's content. Advise would be appreciated (including telling me if I have done something against policy) ----Snowded ^TALK 20:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can help a bit here, because there is a widespread tendency to interpret the COI issue and related guidelines in a simplistic way, which is increasingly unhelpful for everyone. I'm a partner in a law firm. The firm is not notable enough for an Wikipedia article, but suppose I were at a larger firm and we had one. If I were to edit the article about my law firm, I would have a "conflict of interest" (the significance of which could be minor or major depending on the nature of the edits). However, I would not be a "paid editor," because my firm pays me to practice law, not to edit Wikipedia. Is everyone in agreement so far? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A much better expression of one of the points I was trying to make ----Snowded ^TALK 18:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your illustration, NYB. I am afraid, however, that it falls on deaf ears for those who imagine themselves pure as the driven snow. Risker (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully NYB and Risker, you don't know me from adam. I work at a university and work with conflict of issues every day there. I spend a lot of time working on COI issues here in WP and am very clear on what the ToU say and what constitutes conflicted editing here in WP. I know very well what the clear center of that is, and where the fuzzy boundaries are.

In general, editors here are way too emotional about this, and jump to conclusions way too quickly about what they think other people are thinking, and both of you appear to be doing that. Both of those - strong feelings and jumping to conclusions - have made most community-wide discussions about COI just about impossible. (not to mention the tension between the absolute value we place on anonymity and the concern many have to protect the integrity of WP wrt to COI editing - which stems from realworld relationships). I would be happy to keep talking here if you are willing to slow down and discuss. Otherwise, not much point. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. "Too emotional" is a fancy way of saying "your opinions are invalid". You're the one who is going on and on about this, not me; I suggest it is you who is taking this far too seriously and jumping to conclusions. You've made four edits to expand your opinions here since I last commented. Here's a question for you: is the subject Cynefin notable? If the answer is yes (I have no opinion on the matter), then that makes Snowded an academic subject matter expert (SME), just like the history or math professors (or the medical and biology academics) who write books or receive financial benefits for speaking in their area of expertise. The Board went to a fair bit of trouble to say that academic SMEs wouldn't be covered by the COI provisions because, well, they're academic SMEs. (Of course, the ToU doesn't explicitly state that, so they're still at risk. I believe I've made that point before.) And I'm pretty sure you brought a smile to the face of the readers of this page with your comments about your expertise on conflict management. Newyorkbrad and I were longtime arbitrators, and probably have a bit more understanding about the big picture of Wikipedia conflicts than you. Again, the problem I am seeing with your editing here is that you seem to be unable to differentiate between conflict of interest and paid editing, and it seems you're pretty routinely treating them as equivalent. They aren't. Please stop doing that. Risker (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, "too emotional" is what it is. I am discussing further as I struggle with your description and analysis of what went on here. For some reason you are not dealing directly with the financial interests in the simple description of the situation. Please note that Dave has clearly disclosed his financial COIs on his userpage so there is no OUTING concerns in this case. Founder and Chief Scientific Officer (CSO) of a company founded in part on using the concept; he also personally provides training and consulting on the concept. Those are facts, that = financial COI. With regard to "paid".... I understand that some may limit "paid" to mean freelancers who contract with clients to write articles for them, but someone whose job in a company is "corporate communications" or "social media" or the like who edits WP as part of their job is also "paid"; it is a very reasonable argument to say that a Chief Scientific Officer who edits WP about part of a company's technology/conceptual platform is also "paid". While the "paid" label is arguable (I will freely grant that) the financial COI is not, and in light of that the "paid" label is just quibbling of the kind that consumes way too much time here. I do understand that Arbcom has taken a very hands off approach to COI and I believe I understand why; perhaps the lack of willingness to address the financial COI in this case is part of that cautionary approach. But leaving it out of the description leads to an incorrect analysis. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, your edit was reverted because you decided to deprecate another user's edit by claiming that he was a paid editor. Even you now have admitted that your assessment is questionable, and is your own definition, not the one from the ToU or from the broad community. Can I be assured that you will stop making such claims against people in the future? Given the (not unreasonable) community perception of paid editing, calling someone a paid editor when they aren't is tantamount to a personal attack. You should only ever be using that phrase when you have incontrovertible evidence that User ZZZ has received direct financial payment for edits on Article QQQQ. Editing in an area where one has a conflict of interest is not the same thing as paid editing (if it was, then every Greenpeace member should probably be banned from editing any article related to the environment). Ironically, a lot of paid editors never return once the article is created and survives for a few weeks; once they've got their money and their positive review, that's pretty much the end of their activity. We do have some topic areas where there is no doubt paid editing has massively influenced content, even to the extent of creating notability requirements that are driven by the industries involved; I do agree that paid editing is a problem; however, despite my having pointed out one particular area where it is endemic several years ago, it seems nobody really has the willingness to take it on and start moving to clean it up. Of course, there are probably a lot of respectable editors who really don't want those articles to show up in their contributions. Including me. Risker (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am way past the revert - I accepted that at the very top of this thread and that is not what I've been talking about. As for the paid editing thing, that term only arose here because of the specific language at the top of WT:COI - it is not language I use generally because it is a huge distraction from the core issue of the actual conflict of interest at play. What is the area where you see paid editing as endemic? If it is not too much stepping-in-dog-poop I would be happy to have a look. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's probably very much stepping-in-dog-poop; I'll send you an email, since it's not even a topic I want to have discussed on my page. (Google searches give the darnest results...) If you're really "way past the revert", then can I assume you will not go around adding commentary to the comments of people who edit that page, accusing them of being paid editors when they don't meet the strict definition? If you can assure me of that, then I think we're done here. If you're unwilling to be conservative in your allegations, then there's still a problem. Risker (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

does that mean that the following accusation made early on by Jytdog will now be struck? I quote " As the founder and CSO of Cognitive Edge, you would be classified as a "paid editor" here for topics related to that company." Given the above I assume so and that I am entitled to claim to be a SME on the subject, although I am happy to accept that any edit by me on the article othe than those which are minor should be change requests on the talk page. If so I'm OK ----Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Risker the Snowded thing is just a current not-yet-done-cooking issue so no - you have nothing to be concerned about ongoing with me continuing to do that. (I see you are looking for a definite answer on the behavior thing, and you have it). (And Snowded my comment was reverted by Risker moments after I made it, so I don't know what you are asking about) Just want to add for everybody here that in my work on COI, I have generally found that when I ask editors who have a COI to disclose it and to refrain from directly editing content where they have a COI, most everyone has seen the value to WP in managing COI and has agreed to do both, without much fuss at all. A few people get "prickly" as you are doing, Snowded, but that is rare. I think the complicating factor of your dispute with the other editor might make this more intense and hotter than usual. But we seem to be done here. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this up with you on you Talk page, Snowded. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Risker,
Just what the section title says.
Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding Shirt58 - this looks pretty good. Thank you for your work on it. Risker (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in this article. I invite you to the RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for inviting me to participate, George Ho; however, I think I'll keep away from baronets for the sake of my own sanity. Risker (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risker, hope you are well! I've not been around for a while, but I noticed the discussions on Freedom of Panorama relating to the harmonisation of EU copyright laws. You commented here that you thought the wrong message was being sent. One of the things that I think is being missed here is that potentially photos that people uploaded to Commons many years ago may get retrospectively deleted. If this does run into the tens and hundreds of thousands, the motivational effect on those who uploaded pictures or use them to illustrate their articles, could be immense. I know from personal experience what it is like to have large swathes of images deleted (look at my user talk page on Commons for the deletion notices). If these changes take effect (and that is a big if) and if Commons (as seems likely) goes on a big deletion spree, then the practical effect is likely to be to discourage large numbers of (in some cases) highly active contributors to the point where they may even cease contributing. That may be in part because those enforcing the rules at Commons overlook the effect of their deletions, but it is something that should be considered, IMO. Can you think of any way to mitigate the impact on people who may not understand why their images are being deleted, if it does come to that eventually? I am going to raise this point on the Wikimedia-l mailing list as well. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the rule enforcers would be deliberately overlooking the demotivating effects of deletions; to be honest, I suspect that they depend on it to at least some extent to reduce the likelihood that the user will upload further problematic images. In order to survive, Commons has pretty much had develop a near-automated process and comparatively rigid copyright evaluation structures, and I'm not really sure the copyright focus is a bad thing. On the other hand, there is some pretty widespread questioning of some of the interpretations of copyright (including freedom of panorama), because Commons pretty routinely takes the hardest line it can take. It would be heartbreaking, though for images by contributors like Diliff to have to be removed from Commons; some images are used on dozens if not hundreds of articles. I would hope that we can come up with some sort of system that allows those images to be imported to any project that allows free use, although some of them will have to be modified considerably to meet that criterion. I don't have a good answer.

On the other hand, much as Wikimedia projects will be *diminished* by the absence of the images, the articles will still exist. They will be much less than they could be in a lot of cases, and I agree that the strictest interpretations of the proposed legislation will have a very negative effect on probably over a million articles across hundreds of projects. I objected to the word "must" in the proposed banner; I am not particularly opposed to the banners, though. I found the blacked out images on DEWP to be disconcerting (and since my German reading comprehension is questionable at best, I wasn't sure how to dismiss that), but I do understand its purpose. Risker (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully something can be done. I agree about Diliff's images. He was kind enough to do an awesome set of images of the Frieze of Parnassus for me way back in the dim and misty past. I'd be interested in his views if he sees the ping. Thankfully that sculpture is public domain by age, so no problems there. I still get annoyed that the Commons debates on the photographs of WWI memorials focused so rigidly on the issue of freedom of panorama in France. I wish I had more time to try and summarise the arguments there and try and see if anything might be possible there, but it is difficult to motivate oneself in the face of large and often faceless bureaucracy. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, already. Thank you. I just woke up, and I was going to do it via WP:DUCK, with some hesitation, as I supposed it could conceivably be somebody trying to get her in trouble. Apparently not. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Risker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The following website was added to the spam list back in 2011 [7]. The organization took the advice of the editors and made the necessary modifications to make the site more collegial and a bit easier to navigate for students. Is it possible to get the site removed from that list? Atsme^📞📧 00:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for bothering you as I know you're busy but I'm confused about your recent close at COIN and I was hoping you could clarify your thinking for me. The close appears to me to be based on two things: applying 2014 policies to 2011 disclosures and that COI doesn't apply to nonprofits. On the first point, that editor was twice notified at the time of those disclosures that she may have a COI and that her edits then were not recommended. I don't understand how bringing it up now is an application of today's policy on those disclosures. On the second point, there's nothing now or in the previous COI guideline that says nonprofits aren't included in COI; it seems to me that the executive director of a nonprofit could have motive to want their site included in External Links. And since it was made very clear that the editor was an executive director of a nonprofit back in 2011, it seems clear to me that the editors that informed her of the COI interpreted the guideline as applying to nonprofits.

Obviously I'm missing something because by my reasoning, the discussion shouldn't have been closed for those reasons. Would you mind explaining where I've gone wrong? Thanks very much. Ca2james (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the close. It's self-explanatory, actually. Volunteers don't have a COI - read WP:COI with regards to the definition of "interest". I think the outing on the templates may be more of an issue, but we'll see when OS finishes the review. Atsme^📞📧 02:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme was and is the Executive Director of a nonprofit company. Whether that is paid or unpaid, it is a position with fiduciary responsibility. I am asking you to please reconsider your close. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted with Jytdog when I was about to post this response to Atsme: What this new information shows is that, at least part of the time you were adding those links, you weren't acting in a volunteer role, and you did have a conflict of interest at the time, Atsme. This concerns me quite a bit; I assumed good faith that your statement that you were a volunteer was true, and now I feel somewhat misled. Instead, you were including your name and your position in the organization to argue from authority to add and keep those links; pointing that out is not outing. (There are several of your edits I've now seen that are not suppressed and include this information and I say this as one of the most liberal of oversighters: I wouldn't have suppressed them.) I'll have to go back and correct my close now. As to your post above, the website is not on the spam blacklist on this project nor is it on the global spam blacklist, so there is nothing to remove. (Hint: if there is an external link to a blacklisted site, the page will not save.)

For Ca2james and Jytdog, the 2011 rules do still apply for edits that were made during that time; simply review the articles in question from an objective point of view and determine if the external link is useful and would meet our policy for inclusion. If not, they should be removed, but some of them may be of high quality as "further reading". Risker (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your clarification and for updating the close. I didn't realize you were operating under an incomplete set of facts when you first closed it; knowing this explains why you made the close you did. Also thanks for explaining next steps with these links. Ca2james (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know that she's not only the executive director. The evidence also suggests that she's the founder.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The exact nature of her association with the organization is pretty much immaterial at this point; anyone claiming to be an executive director of an organization is acting in something other than a volunteer role, even if they aren't paid. The conflict of interest was confirmed at the time of the edits (and is reconfirmed now). There's no percentage in being vindictive, though; our job is to produce a good encyclopedia, and sometimes that means using information that is provided by people who have more than just Wikipedia in mind when they add links or information. I recognize the difficulty here: if this is a topic area where one has little knowledge, one might make an inaccurate assessment of the value of certain information (weighting it either too positively or too negatively). Perhaps involving a relevant wikiproject or a subject matter expert might be an idea. Risker (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out a piece of information that was contained in the evidence at COIN. There is a COI. But no big deal. You have pointed out to atsme that she does have a COI. Now the external links in the highlighted articles can be reviewed to see if they meet current polict standards. In addition the website in question was also used as a source in a few of the articles. A few if the sources were written by the individual that Atsme has claimed to be. Where applicable these sources should be checked against current Reliable sourcing criteria.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not paid - in fact, I contributed $$ to EWS the same way I contribute $$ to WP. Being on a Board for a small nonprofit doesn't mean you're getting paid. The organization focuses on public dissemination - volunteer writers who provide academic information. I donated footage to EWS, and as such had access to hours of footage that I could upload to Commons to improve the encyclopedia. Please don't be misled by all this COI talk, Risker. The topic hasn't changed. I'm still retired. We're talking about articles and biological information about fish. Jytdog spent 20-24 hrs in one week editing "voluntarily" on WP overseeing his suite of Monsanto & GMO articles. Let's say he gets paid for his work as a biotech or academic researcher whatever. Is he not more dedicated to his volunteer position on WP than I ever was with mine? Are the articles he oversees conflicted? Were my articles conflicted? These are all things that need to be weighed and measured. What is the end result? In my situation, WP got 3 GA and a FA plus uploads of rare u/w to enhance those articles. What did the Monsanto article do for WP? The GMO and GMF article? I think we may need to reevaluate what a true COI actually means. I simply share academic information that is related to the biology of fishes or whatever - I'm retired - when I was volunteering for EWS, I did whatever I could in my spare time. The Board of EWS is made up of fisheries biologists and academics. We meet once/year. It's all volunteer. There is no COI - no fiduciary responsibility - didn't have any then, and don't now. Public dissemination is actually not expensive to provide as evidenced by WP volunteers. The articles in question were already scrutinized under GA and FA reviews - they passed the test - where is the COI? Atsme^📞📧 03:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Payment is not the relevant factor, Atsme, it is the fiduciary relationship that you have with the organization. I get that it's about fish, which is about as neutral a topic as we're ever likely to see a COI in. Let's see if I can explain where I'm coming from by using a Wikimedia example. Wikimedia Foundation has an entirely volunteer Board of Trustees. They get no money for being on the Board. But they also have to agree that their first loyalty is to the Wikimedia Foundation if there is a competing interest; they must resign board positions from any subsidiary groups (chapters, organizations or user groups), and regardless of whether they are elected by the community, selected by chapters, or appointed by the Board itself, they do not hold constituencies (e.g., the trustees selected by the chapters may not act on behalf of the chapters, but must act in the best interests of the WMF). In your case, you were acting in the best interests of the non-profit which you have helped to organize. It is undoubtedly a worthy cause. But if there is a conflict between what Wikipedia needs or wants, and what your organization wants to have published on Wikipedia...well, this is a classic conflict of interest. Money doesn't have to be involved at all; it's the interest that is in conflict. Now, I sincerely hope that individuals who actually know something about the topic area will review the relevant information, especially if the articles have already gone through extensive peer review such as FA and GA; frankly, there's nothing worse than someone who doesn't understand the topic going through and messing around. But it puts Wikipedia in a very difficult position - no different than if the volunteer chair of the board of the Wyoming SPCA starts editing articles that include links to their organization. It's being done in good faith, and it's being done to share information, but it's not being done with complete indifference. Risker (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but why doesn't my retirement count? Atsme^📞📧 05:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect it to count if you had retired from Earthwave and were no longer involved with the organisation as executive director or on the board. A person can be retired from their "main" career and still be working. I know a few people who've done that: they work at something for a long time, retire, and then start a new career or expand a former hobby into a new career. Ca2james (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Risker. What I was looking for in the COIN posting was simply confirmation of the COI and for Atsme to follow the COI guideline and to disclose it clearly and for her conflicted edits to be reviewed in light of it, I agree that the sourcing and ELs need to be reviewed case by case. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to quibble but there is something left to fix in your close. It starts out saying "Incorrect application of a 2014 policy to 2011 edits" Atsme's edits from 2011 didn't stand - the links to Earthwave are from when she returned in Jan 2014, as described in the COIN case (which I know is long) If you would just delete that first bit of the close, that would be great. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and I was retired. I sent the information to OS and am waiting for the final evaluation. Emeritus status is not an active status - it is an honorary position. It was months into 2014 before I edited any of the fish articles. Risker, please re-evaluate your close based on the information I provided in the email. Thank you. Atsme^📞📧 12:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no indication that there has been a change in Executive Director from when you first disclosed in 2011 up until today. Even if you step down from that role tomorrow and completely separate from the organization, the active COI has been present from your first edits in 2011 and through your return starting in 2014.. until the day when you step down. And even after that, there will still be a close association since you founded it in 1994 and ran it up until you stepped down (that is at least 21 years, should you step down tomorrow). Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emeritus - retired. You are wrong about the COI for retired persons. I don't own any stock in EWS. I was a volunteer. I'm no longer active as executive director - I'm emeritus. That's as much personal information as you need to know as simple volunteer editor on WP. You have no other OS rights. Drop the stick. Atsme^📞📧 13:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen nothing in the RW that reflects that (I note that someone just updated the Earthwave.org main page to state that you became some kind of emiritus at that day ; the site didn't say that earlier this week nor back in March of this year for example. (you are listed as the earthwave.org domain admin, btw) You updated the Earthwave FB page through last year tracking your WP editing, and as recently as March of this year remarked on your pride in your videos. The ongoing relationship with the organization is clear. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem, Jytdog. It doesn't matter when things were updated. I've been traveling. There was no need - no pressure - I'm retired. The only one with any issues about my retirement is YOU. My user page is dated prior to any dates that you think conflict. Let it go. You are not the one I have to prove anything to - all you need from me is my declaration that I am retired and have been since January 2014. The earthwave.org now confirms it. What you're doing now is trying to force me into an active position with an organization I am no longer active with as executive director. I'm emeritus. It doesn't prevent me from volunteering information - public dissemination- which is what I do right here on WP. Jiminy Cricket, Jytdog. Drop the stick. Atsme^📞📧 13:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait just a minute. You have been digging far deeper into my personal life and work associations than what you as a WP editor have a right to do. I want something done about your probing into my private life. For you to do what you've done goes way beyond what our policies allow. You're acting like the FBI. I was simply trying to establish my retirement so there wouldn't be any question. You brought it up to begin with and I accommodated by providing the evidence you needed. What you're doing now is disputing what I'm telling you. Why? It's my disclosure - the notice of my retirement is on my user page - I made it more publicly visible for your benefit. What you've done with your ridiculous allegations and "probing" into my personal life is sway consensus into believing your POV. The declaration of my retirement was made. Your behavior is what is seriously questionable. If you're doing such probing into the private lives of individuals you believe have a COI, there's a big problem. There is also the fact that you accused me of COI on two articles that were not even remotely connected. This is really, really bad. Atsme^📞📧 14:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough, Jytdog; stop haranguing people. We're talking about half a dozen links, half of which are on pages that have already gone through community review and were deemed to be reasonable additions to the page. I don't accept this sort of thing on my talk page. You are not, under any circumstances, entitled to this level of personal information about anybody on Wikipedia, conflict of interest or no. Risker (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]