Wikipedia

Talk:Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal/Archive 2

< Talk:Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal
(Redirected from Talk:Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia/Archive 2)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Jayen466 in topic How many accounts were blocked?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago49 comments22 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. In terms of whether to move or not there is a consensus in favour of not moving the article to Wiki-PR. This decision is based on two things, the first is that there is a rough consensus that the page not be moved (ie oppose !votes) and that a no consensus close, in this case, would default to the current page name. There is a (growing) number of votes suggesting that the article be nominated for deletion and/or merged with Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (see previous discussion and decision here). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia → Wiki-PR – The name of the company and the original title of this article. Several users, including myself believe that the current title violates WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK due to focusing on only the event and not the organization as a whole. Relevant discussions include Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Proposed_merge_with_Wiki-PR, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia.2C_originally_Wiki-PR, and Talk:Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. --Relisted. Red Slash 04:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Super Goku V (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support (Nominator):I believe that this issue has waited long enough. I was hoping one of the other editors who supported the move would of created this to end the debate, but I feel that this will have to do. To restate my reason, my issue with the name and style of this article is for WP:NPOV, WPLCOATRACK, and potentially even WP:ATTACK as this article only focuses on the events of the organization, but not the organization as a whole. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't know about neutrality issues, but "Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia" is non-standard, violates WP:NCCORP, and is just plain awkward. As another editor mentioned, it's akin to an article being called "Acme Widget Company's manufacturing of widgets." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose My basis for opposition remains that Wiki-PR as a corporation has no inherent notability, thought it may be WP:NOTEWORTHY. To be fair I am equally unsure that an article about its editing of Wikipedia is more than noteworthy either, and believe the article has been created to satisfy navel gazing and self righteous indignation following the use of Wikipedia, probably within the rules, to create a load of articles which people have not taken the trouble to edit into a better shape if possible or to delete if not. This article is a salve for our own inadequacies. I am clear that the only item here to have anything close to notability is an their editing of Wikipedia, though, frankly, we are at a borderline WP:NOTNEWS. This is yesterday's seven day wonder and it was a pretty slow news week anyway. Since the event is the thing reported upon, and since Wiki-PR is a flea bite organisation, Wiki-PR is not notable, just its actions. We are having broadly the same argument held often in Murder of Non-notable-person vs Non-notable-person articles. Foo is not notable, but, just sometimes, their murder is. Almost always that resolves to Murder of... with some exceptions.
If Wiki-PR ever becomes notable then my thinking will change. Fiddle Faddle 09:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • After the issue of the Cease and Desist letter by the WMF, something that I think is producing the Streisand effect, I see that this issue will run and run and gain significant and prurient media coverage. However it does not change my assertion that the corporation itself is a fleabite and not notable. It simply changes my thinking from a simple oppose to a strong oppose. I cannot conceive of the corporation itself being inherently notable. It is as significant, article-wise, as if I had been paid to create a load of poor articles, had succeeded for a while and been issued with a C & D letter. I would never be notable, but my actions would probably be recordable as such. Events may change my mind over the name of this article in the futire, but I have yet to be persuaded that an article on the corporation itself is correct. History shows that I proposed a merge to another article. My opinion has not changed on that, but consensus was, then, against such a merge. If the merge were proposed today by another editor I would support it. We are doing quite enough self righteous navel gazing indignation over this. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
"the controversy is the notable element here, and the controversy would quickly become WP:UNDUE in an article about Wiki-PR" Correct... and the whole point of the rename-request, methinks. Support merge with COI-editing, and dropping the infoboxen which implicates the CFO and other BLPs as culpable in this alleged wikiCrime backed up by four anonymous email-responses. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support rename-then-immediate-AfD followed by merging well-sourced content into the WikiPR-subsection of Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia, with *no* corporation-and-founders-infoboxen. My stance is almost entirely on WP:BLP grounds. To quote FiddleFaddle, as a corporation the company has zero notability -- WP:BLPCRIME. The only item to have anything close to notability is their editing of wikipedia -- WP:BLP1E. But the most crucial problem is that WikiPR is a very small business, and their founders are individually named... not by multiple bullet-proof reliable secondary sources ("Founder X paid admin Y the sum of $N to whitewash article on client Z") ... but by not-very-damn-reliable-looking sources who think checkuser is magical and who want to believe that Morning277 is a sockpuppet for Founder X -- WP:NPF and maybe even WP:BLPNAME.
  p.s. Everything said here presumes the article is about some living person, so to forestall complaints that WikiPR is just a hyperconglomerate-multinational that deserves no such consideration, here is the WP:BLPGROUP snippet. "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." The sources are not good enough. The company is too small. The notability is a single 'wiki-criminal' event, of which they were never convicted in a court of law, stemming from a conflated sockpuppet-network that began two years before WikiPR was founded.
  p.p.s. I am happy to skip the rename and go straight to the delete-n-merge phase.   :-)   To my mind, the *only* point of the rename-discussion is to help hammer home the fact that this subject-matter is a borderline-WP:COATRACK for navel-gazing; don't we have User_talk:Jimbo_Wales for that? Hope this helps. Murder-of-$foo is the wrong analogy because $foo is a BDP not a BLP. See also WP:BHTT, WP:LOCALFAME, WP:INTHENEWS, and the ever-popular WP:LOUSYTITLE. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I should point out that I am not sure if it is allowed for an admin to consider a merge during a discussion on moving. If it is allowable, then I will also note that it is likely to prevent a consensus from forming as people who oppose or support a move might vote for a merge without mentioning the other. While that would cause an issue with the discussion, I will point out that according to WP:RM/CI and WP:NOCONSENSUS, "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Not to mention this quote from WP:RM/CI, "However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." If the discussion of merging leads to a result of "no consensus," then I believe that it would revert back to "Wiki-PR" per policy as there was at least two users, myself included who were opposed to the original move from the stable article name, in addition to Wiki-PR being the first non-stub name of the article as seen from the edits prior to the original move. I am saying this now to make sure you understand that in cause you or others want to suggest a potential move as it could lead to no consensus on the matter, while I would at least prefer some consensus on the issue over a default move occurring. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC), (Nominator)
  • Weak support of rename. There is a sense of irony in covering a story on Wikipedia in which folks with confirmed conflicts of interest edited Wikipedia. I tend to think that people with conflicts of interest should not be involved in editing on those topics at all. However the present article presents a paradox--no one else could possibly cover this on Wikipedia besides Wikipedia editors, all of whom have a conflict of interest by the fact they are editors. As such, I am inclined to err on the side of excessive care when it comes to judgement calls. To me the incident has reached a point of notability, and certainly sufficient sources exist to be verifiable. Fiddle makes a superb point, Wiki-PR is notable in the press, to my read, precisely over this one incident. However I think none of us is objective when it comes to this, so I think we should strive to give Wiki-PR the benefit of every doubt in the article, which can include naming. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - for several reasons. Most significantly is the POV push of trying to turn this into a Coatrack article which IMHO also violates the foundational pillar principle of requiring a neutral point of view that all articles on Wikipedia simply should be following. Furthermore, this article started out about the company, and most of the POV push that I've complained about above stems from the fact that a half hearted job of trying to narrow the focus of this article simply to the editing behavior of this company. For those that suggest this company fails WP:NOTE, bring that to an AfD where such a discussion belongs. I think there are ample secondary reliable sources which can at least in outline describe the 5 w's of the company and perpare a proper corporate stub of an article. If this really is just about the one incident (or at least the notability for having been embroiled in a mass banning on Wikipedia that became public knowledge outside of Wikipedia), that really does need to be merged into Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. I really think it needs to be merged or renamed as the current state is horribly flawed at the moment. My own support is to be simply renamed and concentrating on what the company actually does in as objective of a fashion as possible. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I suspect there will be a queue of folk wishing to be the first to send to AfD if the name is returned to the corporation. At present I view it as ineligible because it is about the incidents. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly think that an AfD will fail when viewed from an objective standard of trying to identify a rationale in WP:DP. Notability alone is at best the rationale, and even then there are about a half dozen independent reliable sources to at least put together an article. I didn't say it would be a GA or FA class article, but it would be a worthy start class based on available sources. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fiddle and logic. The notability of the company is in question, though the event is not. This is an event article. And that COI Wikipedia article is stupid anyways. I still don't understand why people are throwing around the terms "coatrack", "attack", or "POV". All I can read is "IDONTLIKEIT". Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Give me a reason to believe that my edits won't get instantly reverted, and I might show you why this is most definitely a coatrack article that flagrantly violates the foundational pillar of Wikipedia having all articles written with a neutral point of view. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment (by Nominator): I would like to mention that I linked to this discussion for a reason. While the discussion was a bit informal to normal procedure you can see that there was a general agreement to consider this article as notable prior to you moving this article to 'Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia' through BOLD. If you believe the notability of this article is in question, we can have an AFD for this article after we have determined the name, as suggested in this discussion. I would like to note that even if you believe the Conflict of Interest article is stupid, that it was a potential location for this article to be merged to for the reason that it list all events such as the Wiki-PR editing situation that occurred. The fact that we have an article on COI events in general and an article on a single COI event is a problem to me. If we are only focusing on the COI events, then why do have these two articles separate? I feel that Wiki-PR is notable enough for the media reaction it generated, even appearing on international news for mostly issues on the English Wikipedia, but that we shouldn't have a separate article for only the event in question. The fact that Wiki-PR redirects to this page on the event only is a problem as it gives a bias view that mostly states that their editing is against several policies, while giving little to no coverage on anything else about Wiki-PR gives it a COATRACK feel. If a person wanted to find info on the company, all they would find is our issues with them, giving it a NPoV issue. This is why I feel that it is an ATTACK article, the name of the company redirects to what issues we have with them and even notes the cease and desist letter, but ignores anything else on the company. Which is why I nominated the page to be moved back to Wiki-PR since we couldn't move this page back without consensus. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment "The fact that we have an article on COI events in general and an article on a single COI event is a problem to me." Really, why? This sort of thing happens all over WP. Like there is an article on cheese in general then there is an article on a single kind of cheese, Cheddar cheese. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples like this, all over WP. I don't think this is a strong argument at all. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that analogy is that cheddar cheese is a sub-class as a type of cheese while the editing by Wiki-PR is still a COI issue. I will agree with you that there are other articles like this one, but I have an issue when Biosthmors says that the reason their edits shouldn't be undone it because the other article is "stupid" is something that I believe holds no place in this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Depends If the topic is Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia AND that topic is itself notable, then keep it the way it is. If the topic is not itself notable but the company is, then move. If neither is notable, AFD and possibly move content to some other place as mentioned in earlier comments by others. If both are notable then it doesn't matter whether it stays or moves, but if it is not moved then the article should be only about "Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia" with only minimal other information as required for context. If both are notable and the article is not moved, consider creating a separate article about the company. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wiki-PR's editing of Wikipedia has been the subject of extensive and ongoing press coverage, and my google news alert for it is still popping up fairly often. Almost all RS coverage of Wiki-PR focuses on their editing practices and not the company as a whole, so an article focused on their editing practices makes more sense than an article focused on the company (of which fairly sparse info is available about.) This article as it stands fairly accurately reflects the views presented about Wiki-PR's editing practices as found in reliable sources, which means that it is not an attack piece or coatrack. I'm not sure I've ever seen the suggestion to delete as non-notable a topic that has been covered by more than sixty media outlets in multiple languages over a prolonged period of time before, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Kevin, agree that almost all coverage of Wiki-PR is about their alleged wikiCrime. But the article "wikipr editing wikipedia and they are very bad for that" clearly is POV, and reminds me of intersecting articles like "females that ski the Andes". Methinks we need a standardized-existing-type-of-article. Either we need an article on the company which is not in violation of WP:BLP1E... and I think everybody agrees that is a non-starter... or we need to merge the content into a dedicated section of the parent-article about conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia.
  In particular, I want to stress I'm not putting forth criticism of the *body-content* here; I'm putting forth criticism of the *title* of the existing dedicated article, and of the lack of *context* that using a dedicated article inherently demands (doubly-especially when *all* the WP:RS are about the wikiCrime), and about the BLP concerns that a company-like-article-about-a-company-which-really-is-not-Notable-enough-for-their-own-article. Are you against the delete-n-merge, if 99% of the body-content remains, but the infoboxen-content (e.g. with the CFO's name and thus implied culpability) is dropped? Note also that merging with the more general article makes the conflation of Morning277 of 2008 with WikiPR of 2010 not as big a difficulty, and that a redirect from WikiPR to the relevant section makes sense. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is not covered by BLP1E. I support keeping it as a separate article because Wiki-PR's editing of Wikipedia is notable as an event. It's received a large amount of continuing and substantial press coverage over more than a month in at least ten languages, and it appears likely to receive an increasing amount of coverage in the future. That said, I agree that there is no reason why the article should continue to use its current infobox. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree it is no longer covered by BLP1E... although just barely. The company is now Notable both for the event of being accused of a wikiCrime by pseudonym-folks, and also for the related but distinct event of being 'separately' hinted-at-threateningly-and-publically by lawyers hired by the 'separate' WMF full-legal-name folks, which hit the news on November 19th. As you can tell from my comment on the 21st, not something I avidly keep up with.  :-)   And although the distinction seems pretty tiny and artificial on the face of it, I do agree the distinction is there; the C&D letter was specifically to a named person (the acting head), and specifically indicated that specific people had made specific promises. As you note, additional coverage seems likely in the future... and we have sufficient coverage now to keep the article, as an "event article" sans infoboxen and generic-client-lists and other unrelated-to-the-event-in-question factoids that may give unintended connotations to the readership. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. This is a close question. I am very concerned about this article, because of the fact that we Wikipedia editors have a COI writing about this ourselves, and it seems vindictive that we have an article about this situation. However, multiple reliable sources, including the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, have discussed the recent lawyer letter sent to Wiki-PR. This definitely needs to be written about, but in the context of the pre-existing article, where it can be given full attention. Otherwise, this article does not belong in Wikipedia, as this company is otherwise not notable except for its activities on Wikipedia. We don't want to run an attack article on anybody, including Wiki-PR. Coretheapple (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If the article accurately reflects what is represented in reliable sources, how is it an attack article? Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
+1. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Kevin, the article exists primarily to disparage the subject, per WP:ATTACK (interpreted broadly). Remember that Wiki-PR's entire purpose is to "edit Wikipedia." This is, essentially, an article on the company, which has no notability except for getting caught and banned. So the entire article focuses on its business model being repudiated. Ugh. Let's not. Pretty much all the information in this article can be inserted into the broader article. Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Coretheapple, I ask that you WP:AGF. As a contributor to the article (e.g., I included quotes from Wiki-PR's CEO), it was not my intention to attack Wiki-PR. Instead, it was my intention to help tell both sides of the story in what is an ongoing and unresolved case. Thanks. Also, I think your suggestion to insert this material into the broader article is a non sequitur. If it's merely attack material, then putting the same material into another article does not address the problem. Finally, your suggestion about the broader article does not make sense because the broader article already includes links to several stand-alone articles. The suggestion to move material into the broader article is not policy-based and does not follow precedent in the broader article itself. I should disclose that I was involved in early stages of the Morning277 SPI, although as far as I know the cases I reported involved an individual editor and not the Wiki-PR company. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The article about the Boston Strangler exists primarily to disparage its subject. The article about Bernard Madoff exists primarily to disparage its subject (who is still living.) I'm not equating Wiki-PR with either of those guys, but only pointing out that your definition of "attack article" is not at all congruent with Wikipedia's definition of attack article. Wikipedia is 100% okay with articles that disparage their subjects. Similarly, your definition of notability is not congruent with Wikipedia's definition of notability. You don't these guys are important, fine, you can certainly think that. But Wikipedia judges notability by number and quality of independent reliable sources that have covered a topic, and Wiki-PR has been covered by hundreds of sources - and that coverage is ongoing. Move discussions are decided based on policy-based arguments; your arguments are not based on policy. Whatever uninvolved admin ends up closing this should, and probably will, discard your non-policy based arguments in the final calculus. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Slight but crucial clarification. "Wikipedia is 100% okay with articles that disparage their subjects...." ...by way of wikipedian editors neutrally summarizing exactly what very reliable sources have said. In other words, wikipedia is very much *not* okay with articles that speak in the voice of *editors* with intent to disparage. As wikipedians, we can neutrally report what the sources say. If the sources are disparaging, we can quote them. If pretty much *all* the sources are disparaging, then the article will, surprise surprise, also end up as being disparaging, though probably in a more dry and neutral tone (rather than the intentionally-provocative tone that 75% of journalists and 99% of bloggers seem to rely on to 'sell' their wares).
  But the intent of us editors must always be to fairly and clearly and neutrally convey the sources, and never to disparage. That is the distinction between reporting just the facts, and trying to put on a morality play. The wiki-PR article is very difficult, because even though "technically" the WMF is totally separate, and even though "objectively" individual wikipedia editors may not have heard of Morning277 before, it is still hard to stick to the sources, and stay neutral, and fairly-n- evenly summarize exactly what the Reliable Sources say, no more and no less, taking connotations and implicitness and all that jazz fully into account.
  That being said, I'm pretty-dern-well satisfied that everybody understands this now, here participating in the discussion, but figured I would take one more slash at clarifying, in case some lurker reads this later, and pulls that "100% okay" snippet out of context. *Speaking* of the future, is this about ready to be closed? Have we come close to consensus here? There is some push to merge with the conceptually broader 'upstream' article. Is there any push to rename, still? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No one has given any policy-based reason to merge. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, no one has stricken out their comments yet, except for Fiddle Faddle, who only changed their opinion from an Oppose to a Strong Oppose. Thus, the opinion of the remaining users seems to have remained the same, including my nomination. As for the consensus issue, Red Slash seems to have relisted the discussion on November 25th, so I would say that a consensus wasn't formed before the 25th. My opinion right now is that it seems that we haven't come to a consensus, which is a problem due to WP:NOCONSENSUS, but that remains to be seen. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
"Gorman reads illegally-acquired porn, and takes astrology seriously." Dave Gorman, that is, no relation to Kevin so far as I know. Plus, it turns out Dave's a comedian, who did the stuff in this sentence for his humorous teevee show, so if he *is* related to Kevin, then congratulations are in order, for knowing a cool celeb.  :-)   That said, although the sentence is literally true, if it were stuck here *alone* as a single sentence by itself, no further comment to give context, out of place with respect to the rest of the discussion, and yet suspiciously close to Kevin Gorman... the readership would definitely be getting a misleading picture of the facts. We must be scrupulously careful to stay aware of more subtle types of "misleading facts". But per above, as of the LAX Times article which specifically mentions the company by name in the title, we have crossed the vaguely-relevant-WP:BLP2E threshold, into a Notable-for-more-than-one-"event" company. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Weirdly enough, my dad actually happens to be Dave Gorman - although not that one. I agree with you that we need to stick carefully to the sources, and be BLP-aware. I've mostly avoided editing this article directly, but I do see BLP problems with the infobox as discussed elsewhere on the page, and am going to go ahead and be bold and remove it for now since BLP trumps my COI concerns in my mind. This company is now notable for two discrete events, has received continuing major coverage, and will soon likely be notable for more than two discrete events. Edit: I see that timtempleton actually already addressed the concerns that I had, so I won't be touching the infobox. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Heh heh! Of course, woulda been funnier if that *was* your father. But still, I laughed when you said "my dad *is* Dave Gorman"....     :-)     Anyways, I think we are close to on the same page, though it took a bit of TLDR to get there. Thanks for improving wikipedia, and be sure to warn your dad about getting mistaken for that Other socially-unacceptable Dave-character. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The naming is very strange... and all the more strange, when there is no article on Wiki-PR itself. But the reason there is no such article, is partly due to the secretive nature of their business model (they avoid publicizing *themselves* in WP:RSes ... as opposed to their clients), and partly due to the not-very-Noteworthy-as-yet nature of a small niche startup founded in 2010 at the intersection of marketing and webtech. I would still support subsuming the content into the more-generic-overall-article. But this is a very strange case, and I suggest that the rename cannot be justified any longer, after the spate of late-November coverage. Much of the earlier coverage was generalized, conflating Morning277 with Wiki-PR, but the later coverage is on the whole more than specific enough. We objectively-speaking should be renaming the article to insert "paid" in front of the word "editing" but per WP:NDESC it is more encyclopedic to describe it as simply editing, even though the bulk of the sources specify the former type. Along the same lines, the article on Jello is a direct link, rather than a redirect to edible ground-up north-american-style-footballs. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I take a bit of offense at that since I believe it is notable, but I feel the article has a non-neutral focus due to the name and the focus right now which should be corrected. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Dr. Fleischman. The article is fundamentally about a company, which naturally discusses the company's activities. It appears this is another phenomenon of Wikipedians' inability to stay neutral on topics that hit close to home. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reverted anon

Latest comment: 10 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

I've reverted an anon who states that Wiki-PR used to advertise their ability to edit on Wikipedia. Checking their site, they are avoiding those exact words, but are still advertising their ability to get material onto, or take material off of, Wikipedia. In other words, it's just all spin. The anon also extensively summarized an article on IBT. The IBT article to me seemed a bit biased, but the way the anon summarizes makes it 10 times worse. So my question is, who is the anon, and why is he spinning this article? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

disclosure: I was involved in the SPI and one of the news reports about it, and I am biased against the subject of this article.
If there is reliably-sourced information about the identity of Morning277 (talk · contribs), including that in the article wouldn't violate the WP:OUTING policy, would it? Since the move proposal failed, the emphasis of the article remains on Wiki-PR's activity on Wikipedia, rather than on Wiki-PR as a company. In that slightly different context, the Morning277 account has more importance, perhaps enough to warrant a mention. There was a related discussion at [1] under the heading "Wiki-PR" and there was an SPI report [2] about legalmorning.com. —rybec 00:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It's the day after Christmas and I'm not concentrating well right now - just doing maintenance type stuff - and will be traveling soon. But I was thinking about taking this to WP:AN. Wiki-PR is not following our ban, is likely editing this article, and its website is clearly trying to work around the ban. As I read it, they still do everything they did before except they tell their customers to put the text in themselves. This is clearly against our policy on avoiding bans. I'd think the solution is to extend the ban to their customers - if Wiki-PR is guiding them, they can't edit. Back (with concentration) in a few days. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
What Wiki-PR does outside of Wikipedia to "work around the ban" is of no consequence how the article should read and reflect what independent sources say. Since there appear to be several points of contention, I will break them out below. Note that I have no affiliation or financial arrangement with Wiki-PR. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I notice that there is a dispute over some segments of text that you've restored. Can you explain your rationale please? Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if you would have given me more than 6 minutes to continue, I wouldn't have gotten the edit conflict that I just had with your edit. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You had an edit conflict with me over stuff you posted 31 minutes later? Yowza. Coretheapple (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cooley LLP

  • Is it permissible to wikilink Cooley LLP into the article?
I believe that it is, as the primary source document features the name of the firm on the letterhead. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there published evidence that Cooley LLP edited its own Wikipedia article?
Yes, the Examiner.com article presented several pieces of evidence that this happened. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

One unmistakable IP address that is assigned to the Cooley firm is 50.59.105.10. Here we find that IP removing from Wikipedia a reliably-sourced, but embarrassing paragraph about Kenwyn Williams, as recently as March 2013. How interesting that Kenwyn Williams is a Senior Paralegal for Cooley LLP in New York City. But the IP address editor never disclosed their conflict of interest, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. The same IP later removed a section from Cooley LLP that pointed out that the firm is not among the top 40 firms in the United States. That edit was only two months ago. Why did Cooley LLP disobey Wikipedia's editing rules shortly before issuing a legal command for another company to obey Wikipedia's editing rules?

We can also see the activities of Wikipedia user Rayvl2001. They are virtually fixated on editing Wikipedia's Cooley LLP article. If one assumes that this editor is also Twitter user Rayvl2001, then that happens to be Ray Leidle, who is Senior Network Technician at Cooley LLP. Again, no conflict of interest was ever disclosed.

Another deletion of information potentially embarrassing to Cooley came from a Cooley Internet connection in 2009. Several months later, along came Wikipedia user Hmmilne to make the same deletion. Presumably being actively against gay rights in the Silicon Valley isn't good for business. Is there any way we can know who "Hmmilne" is? Not exactly, but we can point out that the marketing manager at Cooley LLP is named Heather Milne.

  • Is Examiner.com acceptable as a source for Wikipedia?
Wikipedia has at least 800 links to the Examiner.com domain, many of which are being used as sources in articles. WP:RS tells us, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Is something written by Gregory Kohs acceptable as a source for Wikipedia?
WP:RS tells us, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Kohs is certainly non-neutral, but the supporting information he provides certainly fleshes out a different viewpoint about Cooley LLP's role in this matter. Kohs or his MyWikiBiz enterprise have been cited as expert in Wikipedia in numerous reliable publications, including a book by Jonathan Zittrain, the Associated Press, Attack of the Show, and others. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The information about COI edits to the Cooley LLP article, [3] while verifiable, seems tangential to the topic of this article. If it's to be included, shall Gregory Kohs be mentioned as the author, and would it be acceptable to link his name?

disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story. —rybec 23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are tangential and no, not reliably sourced per WP:SELFPUB. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Examiner.com is not entirely a "self-publishing" platform. Examiner staff editors modify or pull stories on a regular basis, if they don't meet the newsgathering and writing criteria of the staff. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you're familiar with Examiner editorial practices, but nevertheless this is a self-published work and cannot be used. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

International Business Times story

It certainly appears to be. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It certainly does not appear to be.[4] Coretheapple (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I was surprised to see recently that IBT is being accepted as RS on Wiki (though I can't point you to the article since I don't remember which one it was). petrarchan47tc 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's possible. I've seen all kinds of garbage accepted as sources, as well as good stuff from unimpeachable sources rejected. If it was up to me, this article wouldn't even be here at all. Wikipedia shouldn't be writing about itself if at all possible. Coretheapple (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This particular article in IBTimes is not "garbage", and there are over 2,600 links to IBTimes.com from Wikipedia. You're singling out this particular source because it presents facts about Wiki-PR and LegalMorning, and you're more interested in spin and revenge than in facts. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Come on now, you've been an editor on Wikipedia for years. You ought to know better than to not assume good faith. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
AGF says "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary". Fortunately, I have oodles of clear evidence that demonstrate that Smallbones and Coretheapple are working together on Wikipedia to push a particular agenda as regards paid editing. Thankfully, I have extended an invitation to other editors to weigh in here, so that we might see if this article merits an examination of more sources with factual POVs, to broaden the NPOV objective; or, whether you two will continue to railroad the content so that the article reads as an attack, regardless of the facts and the bigger picture. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, you caught me! Ouch, that hurts. I'm so anxious to turn this into an attack piece that if you look above I've already called this article an attack piece and urged that it be merged out of existence.[5][6] You certainly have learned your stuff in all the years you've been hanging around the Wiki. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Morning277 SPI, Logical Cowboy made a report which mentioned the Legal Morning Web site [7]. Before the IB Times story came out, I noticed posts on Wikipediocracy by the person the story is about. He may well own a business of his own, distinct from Wiki-PR. There's evidence that Wiki-PR hired subcontractors to post articles on Wikipedia. It may be that Wood was such a subcontractor, or perhaps he indeed did not work with Wiki-PR. Certainly there's no indication that he is one of the principals of Wiki-PR. I had discussed this with Bilby, who brought it up on Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Morning277. I see no reason to doubt that the person interviewed by IBTimes is the owner of the Morning277 account. As for his statement that he does not "have a relation with" Wiki-PR, I think it could be mentioned in the interest of fairness. He states "I do not provide any information about edits that were done under that account and do not disclose any work that I have done since that account." If, as I think it's reasonable to assume (the story doesn't say otherwise), his continued work includes editing Wikipedia after his Morning277 account was blocked and after he was banned from the site, that's exactly what was alleged in the sock-puppet investigation.
disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story. I have a bias against Wiki-PR. —rybec 22:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Jordan French quote from WSJ blog

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Currently this article says

However, French stated that Wiki-PR's editors are "real people and not sockpuppets."

The quote is taken from a paragraph which says in full [8]

Senior Wikipedia administrators closed the sockpuppet investigation after concluding that we were paid editors paying other editors. Volumes of Wikipedia pages we didn't work on were wrongly swept into that investigation. We do pay hundreds of other editors for their work—they're real people and not sockpuppets.

Could the beginning part of the last sentence be quoted? I think it's salient because the company's CEO is describing the general way that the company operates (operated?). I think it's credible because it's consistent with what critics of the company (including me) have alleged.

disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story. I have a bias against Wiki-PR. —rybec 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

done Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Goku V reverted, saying in the edit summary that the quote was taken out of context, and that it was essentially not about Wiki-PR. I've reviewed the WSJ blog and can reconfirm that the quote is not taken out of context and that it is only about Wiki-PR. I'll put it back and recommend that Goku discuss it here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoops User:Super Goku V reverted a different quote - this one from a NYT reporter. I still don't understand "essentially not about Wiki-PR" Extended quote below- who is it about if not Wiki-PR?

"Mr. French and his company have been in the news lately, accused of “sock-puppeting,” which Wikipedia defines as creating online identities for the purposes of deception. Essentially he uses a lot of people, with different identities, to edit pages for paying customers and to manage those pages. The paid sock puppets are ready to pounce on edits that don’t adhere to the client’s vision. "

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the NYT quote as it appears to be taken out of context. The first is that we are saying that the New York Times described it, when it was a writer at the NYT who did so. The more important problem is that the quote uses the word "Essentially" as a way to simplify what they do. (Ex: Essentially, Wikipedia is an online website with users who edit topics.) The article has substituted the word for Wiki-PR, as if the NYT described their actions as negative instead of simply explaining it for people to understand. I would prefer the extended quote as it also mentions sock-puppeting, which is what is essentially being described in the quote. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Status of paid editing

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

As for [9], you wish for the article to say, The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page, and has led to the Wikipedia community blocking hundreds of paid Wikipedia editing accounts believed to be connected with activities of Wiki-PR contrary to Wikipedia's rules.. However, the cited source, Owens, actually says, Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised.. I cannot find anything matching your version in the source, and have reverted your edit accordingly. Please have another look. Best, Andreas JN466 19:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't want Wikipediocracy spin here. It's obvious that article ownership is against Wikipedia rules. You do know this don't you? Then don't ask for a source for the obvious.
You change "all of its employees, contractors, and owners" to vague mumbo-jumbo and ask for a secondary source. Same problem, you know that "all of its employees, contractors, and owners" are banned, but you change the meaning (i.e. spin) by asking for a source that's not needed.
May I ask if you are a paid editor working for Wiki-PR? Your edits certainly look biased enough for that to be the case.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Andreas is certainly an interesting person with an interesting purpose... but I'm relatively confident he has no relation whatsoever to wiki-pr :p Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
For your reference, Smallbones, I have nothing to do with Wiki-PR, and had nothing to do with Owens' article. So let's do this again, s--l--o--w--l--y, as I seem to have trouble getting through to you. This is what the source you cite says:
Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised.
It's quite accurate, too. Now, this is what you're saying, while citing that source:
The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page, and has led to the Wikipedia community blocking hundreds of paid Wikipedia editing accounts believed to be connected with activities of Wiki-PR contrary to Wikipedia's rules.
Are you aware there is a slight mismatch? There is nothing about violating Wikipedia rules, nothing about WP:OWN in Owens' article, is there? So why do you insist on writing it in the article? And what do you have against actually writing in the article what the source you cite does say? Andreas JN466 10:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If it's not obvious to you, it's still obvious to everybody else - we don't need to cite that there is a rule against page ownership in Wikipedia. The last half of the sentence accurately sums up the article. So you spin the whole sentence claiming it's badly referenced - pure nonsense. We don't need WO spin.
Just to be clear - are you saying that you have never been a paid editor? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have never been a paid editor, and never will be. Having said that, there are paid editors here in good standing, like User:CorporateM, who manage clients' pages without violating WP:OWN. More to the point, you cannot cite a source and then write original research in the article that flatly contradicts what the source is saying. I'll be giving this a little longer, and then take it further if need be. Cheers, Andreas JN466 20:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

How many accounts were blocked?

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Smallbones, Re [10], neither source suggests that 300 accounts were blocked. We have a source saying 250 accounts were blocked, but not 300. Andreas JN466 19:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and which source are the "six directly confirmed Wikipedia accounts" based on? I can't find that either, neither in Vice nor in the Daily Dot (which are the only two sources cited). Cheers. Andreas JN466 19:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That looks like an error. I think what was meant was the number of Wiki-PR clients who confirmed to the reporters that they had hired the company. The Daily Dot story says "Of the few dozen companies I emailed for this article, four got back to me." The Vice story names three specific clients, by my count. Perhaps someone added those together to get six, then someone else changed "clients" to "Wikipedia accounts".
About the number of accounts, I'm inclined to believe Mr. French when he says "we do pay hundreds of other editors for their work". The number is consistent with the SPI findings. The "their work" part is a bit misleading: a few editors said that they had been hired through freelancing sites to copy-paste pre-written articles.
(disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story) —rybec 02:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought it interesting that in the Business Insider interview (now deleted from the article, see below) French says there were 45 people employed, none of whom used sockpuppets, and in the other statement he said he paid "hundreds". There is an obvious mismatch here, which was apparent to the reader before the deletion. At any rate, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources – that's sourcing 101. If secondary sources are complemented with primary sources referred to in those secondary sources, that should be done with great care. I am concerned that this sensible rule is not being followed here, and that as a result erroneous information is present in the article. It should be put right, as a matter of urgency. Andreas JN466 11:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Some sources do say 300 although Sue's statement and most media coverage say 250. The difference is fairly immaterial. The actual number of tagged socks is around 400, and since a lot of socks were intentionally explicitly not tagged as such, from the other lists I have I'd guess around 650 total blocks were related to the SPI as a lower bound. My word on a talk page certainly isn't a source, though. I guess it could be argued that the relevant categories or the LTA or something are citable as primary sources to support a higher number, but I honestly don't think it matters much, and would just go with 250. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Andreas JN466 11:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Reworded. Andreas JN466 21:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wiki-PR_Wikipedia_editing_scandal/Archive_2&oldid=1141560569"