User talk:CorporateM/Archive 16

That banc
Sorry, I've been too busy. Just saw that it was protected at the shorter version, and that seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It was protected after an edit-war between two conflicting SPAs, but it was protected at the longer version, not the shorter one, which I think is unfortunate. There is also a discussion at ANI, which will probably result in some topic-bans and/or SPI investigations, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 18:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, misread that. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello - wanted to reach out to you
Hello CM, we've somewhat crossed paths on the Chopra article. I've become really fascinated with what your doing here - including your COI submission templates. Could we have an off wiki chat? It would be great to consult with you under professional circumstances, and maybe see if you could help train some of our archivists and guide us through Wikipedia ways. We actually may be interested in expanding your COI template sas81@isharonline.org  SAS81 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Because I have edited and commented on your article in a volunteer role, I cannot also collaborate with you in a professional one, because it raises even more conflict of interest issues. However, I think user:PeteForsyth would be a good and positive alternative for you to talk to. He focuses on supporting GLAM-type initiatives. GLAM stands for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. Every once in a while when a self-citation-type item arises, I usually forward them to him, as his approach is better-suited for those situations where the COI is not as significant. CorporateM (Talk) 23:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir - I understand the issue it may raise. I wish you had an e - book :) Will be in contact with Pete thank you. SAS81 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ICSAlogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ICSAlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say tag it with PD-simple. Looks appropriate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Crisco 1492 It looks like user User:Karlhills2014 removed it from the article because the logo was out-dated, but they didn't have the access rights to upload a new version. I've asked them to email me an updated logo so I can fix it. CorporateM (Talk) 23:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but this can still go to Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm confuised by your reasons for reversal
Melih holds numerous patents. When I referenced a pages that summarized his many patents, you said it was sourced enough. When I listed his patents individually you called it spam. With all respect, I can't understand what would satisfy you. Joemonster


 * Primary sources such as patent records verify the facts, but secondary sources are required to verify their significance. Any person in the tech industry that is notable enough for a Wikipedia page has patents, usually many. What we need is a source that interprets the patent records and explains what they are, why their significant, etc. Most likely the source does not exist, perhaps because the patents are not significant; or just because nobody has covered it yet. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing Assistance
@CorporateM I noticed that you have done quite a bit of editing on Golin Harris Internationaland was wondering if you could help me out. We have recently rebranded. The new name is simply Golin. I would like to go in and update the rest of the content if that works for you or if you prefer here is the information related to the change: GolinHarris Rebrands as Next Step in its Ongoing Transformation. Appreciate all your help SusanChana (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)SusanChana


 * Hi Susan. If you work for Golin, I would encourage you not to edit the article. WP:COI very strongly discourages company representatives from editing their own page, because it often creates the appearance of trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. That seems to be the case here previously, as the article looks like it showed up in my routine searches for overt promotion.


 * Regarding the name change, I will move the article to the appropriate title now. I would encourage you to put together an infobox (see here) as it is generally a good thing for company reps to maintain the infobox, so long as it does not contain excessive lists of executives or products. CorporateM (Talk) 14:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent discussions
Hello CorporateM,

I have carried out the edits we have discussed at James T. Butts, Jr. and McKinsey & Company, with minor changes. Sorry that it took me so long, but this type of collaboration is new to me, and I needed to think things over and read things twice.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Cullen328! I didn't realize you were going to do the Butts Request Edit as well. On the contrary, your review was very prompt; I apologize for getting a bit frustrated with the wait (which was mostly before I even asked you). I was wondering if you felt all the tags on the McKinsey page were really warranted though.


 * I also have a bunch more content and a bunch more after that (Consulting, Notable Works and Research & publishing sections). Are you interested in collaborating on the article further? I know all that is probably a bit overwhelming - the article is overwhelming to me too, but I think if we can get some decent first-draft stuff in, it will be easier to fine-tune and prepare for GA. CorporateM (Talk) 16:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will continue working on it with you. I am busy with paying work (not Wikipedia) but will do a first read through when I have some spare time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Applause
I'm not understanding why properly-sourced awards, locations, business model, etc. keep getting edited from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applause_(application_quality_company) page. Most of the content was approved when the company was uTest -- we simply moved it over to the page for the new company. The awards are legitimate and everything is cited. Please advise. Eharrison3 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As for the content discussion, please read WP:ORGAWARDS. Primary sources from the award organizer themselves verify the facts, but they do not validate their significance as an important element in the company's history. As for the behavior, there is no such thing as "approved". What actually happened is nobody noticed yet how promotional the article was and/or nobody took the initiative to fix it. Several editors have been reverting you and complaining about your edits and I think if you keep it up you may be headed towards a block for edit-warring. CorporateM (Talk) 15:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Per your request
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan Wagner Page
Thank you for your recent work on the Dan Wagner page. Good to have another opinion as the edit war was become quite tiresome and repetitive. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. You may wish to keep an eye on the article for the time being as has been reverting the article back to a PR piece without engaging other editors, failing to justify their changes. 66.249.93.141 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, I applaud your intervention and edits. I have added some impartial references from Financial Times, Telegraph and Management Today to clarify some statements that were factually incorrect. I believe the page to be factual and accurate now and encourage you to monitor the page as it has been consistently vandalized in the past month by ex-employees of Dan Wagner's companies. Techtrek (talk)


 * So, if I have this right, and keep in mind I am not familiar with the background of this article. The IP above is user:Ol king col? Techtrek is allegedly a PR rep and Ol king is allegedly an angry ex-employee? If both of those accusations are true, than you would both have a conflict of interest. :Technically speaking, you should both therefore disclose that conflict of interest, but in practice if either of you disclose the other may use it against you and a real-world conflict may transition onto Wikipedia. Based on the discussion above, I think you two are equipped to collaborate in good faith.


 * So what I would encourage you to do, if the accusations of COI are true, is to follow COI best practices by editing very cautiously if at all in article-space and rely heavily on the Talk page. Find agreement and when there is none, defer to a third party. This is a good way to settle disputes anyway.


 * I should mention that corporations that covertly use Wikipedia for advertising and spin have - in some cases - found themselves in legal hot-water. And those that use Wikipedia "with malice" for defamation have as well. So be careful. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my thanks CorporateM, for the amends to the Dan Wagner page, saw the above conversation and can assure you that the IP posting above is not me, I have only used my own ID. Again, many thanks for the amends and work you put in. Ol king col (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks! CorporateM (Talk) 13:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: GU
Hi, CorporateM. I am not sure I understand your note on my talk page. I would want you to review the article if I was not paid to write it, but I would not want you to review it if I was paid to write it? That is strange to me -- if an article meets GA criteria, then it meets GA criteria (and I am pretty confident that it does, at least in the sense that its quality equals the other 50+ Good articles that I have written). Not that this much detail needs to be disclosed, in my opinion, but I have a friend who worked with GU at the time. It was a fun article to work on, and because I am overly paranoid about COI editing, I stamp COI statements on talk pages more often than I probably need to (we all have biases and conflicts of interest, right?). It's up to you whether or not you want to review the article. While I don't fully understand your reasoning, I respect that you have the choice to spend your time as you see fit. Thanks for your consideration and for the note! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Another Believer Maybe I am dancing around the subject in order to avoid my own excessive disclosure. Companies hire me to bring their pages up to GA in a manner that is respectful of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. Often PR people, paid editors, etc. will ask me for help under the assumption (I think) that I will take their side as a fellow PR person. When I do not, they get upset and accuse me of being a non-neutral editor and having an agenda to sabotage the competition.


 * So basically yes, if you are a paid editor, than I do not want to be seen as "meddling" in other paid editors' affairs on-Wiki. But if your COI is something regular, than I don't think it will be an issue.


 * I notice for example that GU Energy Labs has a large "Sponsorship and charity" section and at least some of the citations I have looked through are not strong enough to warrant inclusion of the information. CorporateM (Talk) 01:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to amend the "Sponsorship and charity" section as you see fit, whether or not you decide to review the article for Good status. Honestly, I go about constructing articles the same way every time (in terms of my process and habits). Perhaps one of my habits is to include more information than is necessary, which is why I often take my articles to the Guild of Copy Editors, and sometimes Peer Review, too, to improve the prose, flow and balance of the article. The same applies to this one. I'd be happy to see the article achieve Good status, as I am for any of the other articles, but I am not adamant that all material be included. I want an entry that's best for Wikipedia! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started looking through the section, but it looks like all the sources are press releases, press release reposts or other primary sources. A section like that needs strong secondary sources to verify that their charitable work is really that significant such that it warrants being a major part of their profile. The entire section should really be removed. CorporateM (Talk) 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * During my recent copy edit, I removed a bunch of what I called, without prejudice to the editor who added it, "marketing fluff". I have no problem with more of it being removed or cited as a potential problem during a GA review. When I copy edit, I tend to leave the article's content as is rather than adding my views to the prose (unless I see it as clearly excessive), sticking with grammar, punctuation, and other minor fixes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for working on the article, CorporateM, truly. Writing articles about companies is definitely not my specialty or primary area of interest, though I do wish there were many more company articles with GA status. I am totally fine with the improvements you two (referring to User:Jonesey95 here as well) have made to the article (though, should there really be no coverage of the company's sponsorship activities whatsoever?...), and I thank you both for your help. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Another Believer I don't have the faintest idea why anyone would say that we're being unfriendly. Regardless of the nature of your COI, if you are comfortable with my reviewing it, etc. I will review it. It is the only company article in the GA queue not submitted by me, except for a couple others submitted by a new user that are obvious quick-fails. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome to review the article. I would welcome anyone to review the article. Normally someone just starts, and I have no say in who reviews my work. I am happy to address any concerns that may arise in the review process. Thanks for offering! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. Sorry if you had hoped it was GA-worthy. Since you have more experience with company articles, you are welcome to give this one an overhaul, if you wish. Otherwise, I will let you know if I ever get around to doing so myself. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 04:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Uma Racing
Hi.. Thanks for reviewing Uma Racing Wikipedia article and leaves helpful comment for us to improve the article.. We have sources from Motorcycle magazines in Malaysia like Roda-Roda and Moto dot mania.. Like this one "Uma Meter untuk LC5S dan EX5 (Malay)". Roda-Roda (Sungai Buloh, Malaysia: Bayu Enterprise) (March 2013). ISSN 0127-9149.. Is this can be a reliable source? Because I have seen articles in Wikipedia that have been approved using this kind of reference too.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MengKah7026 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Motorcycle magazines should be ok, if Uma Racing is the subject of the article in the magazine, and not just briefly mentioned. CorporateM (Talk) 02:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? Yes sir, Uma Racing is the subject of the article in the magazine. They write their own review on Uma Racing.. So, sir is that mean Uma Racing Wikipedia article is good to be approved? --Meng Kah (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the article you are referring to in a motorcycle magazine where Uma is the subject of the article? CorporateM (Talk) 04:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The magazine only produce in printed version, they don't have online version. How can I provide the link, do I need to email the magazine company to ask for their verification?--Meng Kah (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi sir. I have scan one of their articles on UMA Racing for this month edition. UMA Racing articles featured in two articles Moto dot mania and Cub Prix Mania (Free Edition). Do you have email? I can send to you? Thank you. --Meng Kah (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi sir. I have email to you. Kindly check. Thank you.--Meng Kah (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi sir. Thank you for approving UMA Racing Wikipedia. But I look some of the content was removed. Can I know why? Can I put it back? --Meng Kah (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Silver seren C 01:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

COI
So I gave you the impression I was raring to go on improving the COI request edit issue, and it probably looks like I've dropped the ball. Because I have. I thought we had a couple interesting options, but both seemed to fizzle, and that discouraged me. I've been mulling over how to restart, without much success. However, the new Extant Organizations/Noticeboard leads to a suggestion. In short, would it make sense to find a way that a request edit would add a section to the noticeboard? While one commentator emphasized the need to keep COIN issues out of the noticeboard, I don't see request edits as being COIN issues, in fact they are the right way to handle it. Looking for a reaction before I flesh out a proposal. (And an acceptable reaction is, what on earth do you envision?)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:Sphilbrick Actually Request Edits are already displayed on COIN, but it doesn't seem to help as far as getting people to review them. The Extant Organizations Noticeboard (EON) wasn't really intended to have anything to do with COI. CorporateM (Talk) 14:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I haven't spent much time at COIN, I hadn't noticed that. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Thomas Williams has been accepted
 David Thomas Williams, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:CorporateM help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at AfC Paxata was accepted
 Paxata, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Fiddle  Faddle  15:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:CorporateM help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks
For continuing to use WP:AFC. At times this must be very frustrating. You catch us during a backlog smashing drive, but right at the end. Fiddle  Faddle  15:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Roger (Dodger67) and User:Timtrent. I see someone already added some categories to the David Williams page. I added categories to Paxata and uploaded the logo image. I also pinged Codename Lisa here regarding the user-interface image. I'll take them for the GA-round shortly. CorporateM (Talk) 17:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ram Bahadur Bomjon
It looks like someone is opposed to our edits. :/ Shii (tock) 01:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * eKantipur may actually be a reliable source - it requires more looking into. CorporateM (Talk) 02:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I noticed all the sources you used are missing a "Title" parameter and I would encourage you to go ahead and update that in article-space if you have time. CorporateM (Talk) 16:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
CorporateM - Thank you for addressing my requests for COI editing on the Russell Investments page. Very helpful Kosterberg (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. I notice that many of the sources you are using are missing a "title" parameter. I would encourage you to go ahead and add article-titles into the citation templates directly in article-space. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Triumph International images
Just a heads up, I edited File:Triumph Bluewater Store Front.jpg to straighten the lines. If you prefer the old version, feel free to revert. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Crisco 1492 Now you're just showing off your very impressive photoshop skills ;-)


 * It looks really good - really really good.


 * Hey do you have time this weekend to review some COI-submitted content when I finish working on this and this? Both are pretty large, complicated articles that won't be simple to review and could use a veteran Wikipedian. In both cases, I have not been perfectly neutral in the past as well, leaving some room to doubt AGF. Neither of those drafts are ready yet, but I'm going to try to finish them today and tomorrow. CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lightroom, actually; just a matter of finding a distortion correction profile for that lens (or, as it turned out, closest approximation as my version of Lightroom doesn't actually have a profile for said lens) and tweaking it to be straight. Almost wholely automated
 * I'm currently GA reviewing Denmark Street, but I should hopefully have time in the next few days... (though I really should try and help Jim with his German ornithologist as I promised, at least take a break from tweaking photographs to add a bit). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Crisco 1492 I feel bad because I have done 20 GANs and have 10 more in the queue, mostly COI-related, but have only done 1 review (a COI nominated fail that I ended up re-writing by invitation of the nominator). However, my experience is primarily in company articles and I am almost the only one submitting noms for them.


 * Anyways, if you do have time, my stuff here and here is ready. The Yelp draft I have offered I think should be GAN-ready, while the McKinsey article is much larger and more complex, but this round of content should get us around B-class. On both pages there are other editors who may (or may not) take a look if you don't get around to it.


 * CorporateM (Talk) 21:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try and have a look this weekend. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

WT:COI
HI CM, I moved your recent post and its replies to a new section. Take a look and see whether you agree. If not, feel free to revert, or if it's fiddly ask me and I'll do it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @user:SlimVirgin Thanks. I think "should" rather than "must" would make the TOU un-enforceable and essentially give firms like Wiki-PR free reign for their self-victimizing spin. My only gripe is that it should only require disclosure that a COI/affiliation/financial connection exists, without requiring additional details that may create privacy concerns and serves no utility to the community. Especially seeing as so many paid editors are actually volunteers bribed to use an established account for a particular edit, or paid editors that get involved in volunteer editing, where their privacy becomes more important.


 * BTW - I actually talked to a lawyer the other day about the possibility of enforcing the TOU, basically requiring paid editors to disclose their accounts at COIN or be forced to do so by the courts. It's an interesting idea, but it would require a bit of money for lawyers for what is basically a charitable cause. I don't think I am the one that should do it, but I do wonder what other means something like that could be funded. CorporateM (Talk) 05:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi CM, should has nothing to do with the Terms of Use. We're not proposing an amendment to the Terms of Use. We're just proposing that the disclosure provision in the COI guideline become policy, and it says should. If it were to become policy, the Terms of Use disclosure provision wouldn't apply to enwiki.


 * Your last point has confused me. You seem there to be saying that editors ought to be forced to say who their employers are, but I thought you were earlier arguing for the opposite. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @SlimVirgin Oh, I get it now RE a COI policy versus the TOU, though I would still say the same.


 * My gripe is not "whether" a disclosure is required, but "how much" disclosure is actually useful. I find the majority of the community supports my disclosure, even though I do not disclose where I work and sometimes not even who my client is. Here's a few examples:


 * A COI: Requiring disclosure that a COI exists is the most ambiguous, but offers the most privacy and would deter perceived or actual abuse of PR people based on their background or based on a prejudice against paid editing. Also, so many PR people insist they have no COI, using ridiculous arguments, that requiring they disclose a COI forces them into Wikipedia's playing field. Stuff like "I represent so and so's interests" is proclaiming advocacy and a "corporate representative" is basically a group account. (this does bring up a problem with glams that are paid but have no COI)
 * Financial connection: If editors feel it is material to know the nature of the COI, to specifically distinguish between other types of COIs and a paid COI, than disclosing that a financial connection exists is the next step up. You sacrifice a little privacy and it will result in more COI drama that is not focused on content, but the community has to decide if this information is material in order to handle each situation appropriately and worth sacrificing a pound of our core principles of anonymous editing.
 * Affiliation: The next step up in that it identifies specifically who you are working on behalf of, but without providing information to distinguish between a PR agency, internal department or Wikipedia consultancy. Basically asking to disclose who the sponsor is, but not personal information about the editor themselves. This is a good option in most cases, but I have presented a few examples where it would be problematic.
 * disclose your employer, client, and affiliation: This is the most extreme option that is currently in the TOU in order to make the case against Wiki-PR as unambiguous as possible, but in my opinion it requires disclosure of a lot of information that is not material to how we handle issues. Basically it could be addressed more reasonably by requiring disclosure of any prior bans or blocks to prevent loopholes of banned paid editors saying they are complying.


 * Does that help clear things up? BTW - User:Sj's comments are very reasonable. I think the community is too eager to beat up WMF and their representatives. I am just identifying a minor, but important wording change. I also think we should have an OTRS system process, where people can get permission not to disclose in specific rare exceptions (the type of exception that may only occur once a year if someone feels disclosure would result in harassment or legal threats, etc.) CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I see your point. I was just wondering what your post meant above:




 * It sounded as though you supported taking legal action to force people to disclose "employer, client, and affiliation" (I still don't know what "and affiliation" means). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @SlimVirgin I didn't mean to be that specific with "disclose their accounts". OTOH, if the firm has previously caused disruption and/or deception, it is not unreasonable to require a more full disclosure in those cases in order to ensure compliance with a court order. It seems that something was lost, because I provided examples where it would be a bad idea to even disclose the client. I don't feel the community needs to know if my client is the article-subject's wife, or a mutual friend of two divorcees concerned about the coverage of their divorce on Wikipedia. And I see no reason to so readily abandon our core principles of anonymous editing, focus on the content, etc. when any disclosure would serve the same purpose. These principles need to be defended until our dying breath, not tossed away frivolously in order to collect personal information about paid editors that serves no purpose to us and creates a false sense of ethics as they transparently facilitate COI edits. COI ethics can be measured by the editor's ability to put Wikipedia's best interests before their own and disclosure/Bright Line is merely a way to allow others to verify that the COI editor has done this. The PR community would like us to believe their contributions are ethical if they are transparent and insist that they do not have a COI, that their interests are aligned. It is almost the opposite that is true. A paid editor's interests are not aligned - hence the conflict of interest - but they can still contribute ethically if they put Wikipedia's best interests before their own. CorporateM (Talk) 14:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 22:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fluor Corporation
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fluor Corporation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

About COI disclosure
I don't mind your choice, but then I need to lay aside my own idea, which was that someone else would list you and TParis and then I could magnanimously list myself. Also, I think they wanted a persistent talk section rather than a hatbox.

I was going to write you today anyway. The ethics project I described is growing and may be publishable someday. You seem to have a clear head and a focused ethic, and I wanted to see what we could discuss. I have a framework of points and I thought today that the right path is to build within Wikiproject Cooperation a best-practices document voluntarily signed by potential-COI editors who commit to ethics above and beyond the policies and guidelines. This stays in the category of Wikiprojects that offer advice. There may eventually be a reason for a whole new Wikiproject for committing to enhanced ethics in all areas and not just COI. It's visionary of course.

Do you have any leisure for something like that? Cooperation is slow otherwise. Frieda Beamy (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you are referring to something like this? CorporateM (Talk) 23:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually no. That statement is like saying, "We the undersigned agree to start obeying the minimum standards," while what I mean is something sufficiently above and beyond. No proposal has really ever gotten a majority, and so the basic problem is not resolved, and that problem is that potential-COI editors and anti-COI editors don't trust each other. The bright line and the TOU are attempts to deal with that distrust by forcing PR firms, but they don't solve the problem of PR's mistrust of WP. They only work for people who volunteer to go bright-line or full-disclosure (whatever we decide "full" means), so they go too far for a majority of all editors to find them effective. But a COI editor does need to exceed the minimums, and I think "COI+" was one attempt at that; the idea that COI editors can make very basic edits and we can argue in each case whether the edits are very basic is a good idea, and I'd call it the "fuzzy line" if that weren't such a bad marketing term.


 * My idea is that we can propose ways to exceed the minimums required by policies and guidelines but without being outed or forsaking anonymity, and without being bound by the bright-line constraints. Cooperation started to do this with mentorships, but what we need is something that lots of people want to opt into on their own. The trust has not been rebuilt by Cooperation because despite the critical mass of interested editors there was not a critical mass of people who wanted to bridge the gap and earn trust. But if there is a critical mass, that group of people can be pointed to for best practices, and other COI editors will be compelled to rise with the tide, and eventually the policy solution will be to follow the improved standards. It's a dream anyway. Frieda Beamy (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Frieda Beamy The chief shortcoming of the Bright Line is that COI editors only get it "right" about 20% of the time and volunteers only get it right about 60% of the time. That means whether edits will be accepted (good or bad) is a coin flip and most Bright Line requests are asking for COI edits by proxy.


 * I would not support abandoning the Bright Line except under very special circumstances, but I think you are on the right track. Good COI editing is cautious and it comes from both an organization and an individual with their heart in the right place. It cannot be achieved through process or formal rules, which are overwhelmingly gamed by bad-faith editors and are used to skirt responsibility for their contributions. All of my clients sign our ethics statement, but my ethics statement focuses on content, not process. It says that we must approve the content, that it will be representative of independent sources, not the company's point-of-view, that there will be no omissions and so on.


 * I think the shortcoming of COI+ and other efforts is that they appeal to the broadest possible audience, however the majority of the market for these services cannot be ethically served and the majority of the vendors in our space are grey/black-hat, because there is strong financial incentive to do so. The opposite is needed, something small, exclusionary, and focused on people with a proven track record of putting Wikipedia's best interests before their own, not mere promises to do so.


 * The Statement is obviously a good thing. Don't knock it. I noticed some of the PR agencies signing it have made really bad COI edits in the past, but have made better ones now. But if you wanted to take it to a higher stage than mere promises, then we need more paid editors that are actually surpassing the community's expectations by making the same contributions as the best volunteers. We just haven't done that yet - promises and intentions is all we have.


 * When COI+ was suggested, I mentioned that what we needed is a certification that I myself would not qualify for yet; when you set high standards, you get better results. We need at least 3-5 paid editors doing better work than I am now. CorporateM (Talk) 20:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The PR statement is a step forward; excuse my phrasing. I am pretty certain that there are more of us who think being on WP a lot and following policy scrupulously and making a living are all compatible; and they are in hiding because of how they believe they will be treated upon discovery. If we can get people into the sunlight then they can be distinguished from the black hats by the practices to be described. To get bad edits to trend down we definitely need to find these people.


 * I have a similar signing statement for clients, and upholding Wikipedia interests against the tempting interest of being paid to overlook them is really the core. Keep an eye on the Cooperation page in case I can make some project suggestions there and feel free to chime in. Frieda Beamy (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Frieda Beamy There is an opportunity to make a living and benefit Wikipedia. However, the opportunity to make a living and harm Wikipedia is much much larger. If you choose the smaller of the two financial opportunities, your loyalty to your ideals will be continuously tested by opportunities to make more money doing lesser work or to take the easier path.


 * I don't think "getting people into the sunlight" is quite how I'd put it. I've seen covert editors make good edits to avoid detection and I've seen disclosed editors remove well-sourced criticisms and add promotion, even after offering their full name and title. It is actually more offensive, not less, for an editor to make bad-faith COI edits openly and even worse for them not to accept accountability for their edits because somebody else made them by proxy. I have not found any characteristics (Bright Line, disclosure, etc.) that can accurately predict AGF/ABF or the performance a COI will have in managing their conflict. However, I do have a theory that "autonomy" meaning an editor that is free to do as they will without corporate pressures, etc. may be key. Individual people can do the right thing in cases where organizations cannot.


 * I don't think what we need is more disclosure, more paid editors, more organization, more lobbying of the community, etc., but better edits. In the end, it's all that counts. The half of the community that is bitter about PR participation are bitter because they have had bad experiences with PR people. It's on the PR community to build better relationships by creating better experiences for the site's editors, which happens through better edits. Probably the single most influential thing I've done that resulted in a more positive reception with the community is standardizing on GA-quality work and I encourage any paid editor trying to do the right thing to do the same. CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Paxata-screenshot.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paxata-screenshot.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Kevin Gorman. I may sound frustrated (I am), but I genuinely appreciate you sending me the information. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Kevin Gorman, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the portrayal of me actively and recently outing myself, versus it being two years ago when I was too naive to realize the importance of anonymity. I have asked user:SlimVirgin to at least take a look at the diff in essay space, because I do not have the desire to have two paid editors in an editing dispute over an essay on paid editing, but I would trust his/her judgement. Also, I have gone through about 4-5 rounds of fighting off POV pushers on other pages and it has left me drained and bitter. It's exhausting on the soul. Although I suspect SlimVirgin feels the same way with some of her recent projects. BTW - did Beutler ask you to protect the page off-wiki? I noticed it was protected before escalating to 3RR and only 30 minutes after he made the edit. I only ask because part of what I was giving Beutler grief about is he kept telling me about all these off-wiki conversations that obviously belong on-Wiki, where editors can see them.  CorporateM (Talk) 23:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is: recentness really isn't part of the policy, and having previously prominently disclosed the connection between your username and realworld details in a way that is still unredacted and in a fairly prominent area negates it. It's reasonable to request that people don't link your identity to your username, and I'd hope that most people respect that request, but the fact that it's out there means that if someone chooses to refer to you via information you've previously posted on-wiki publicly that has never been redacted or oversighted, it's not a violation of WP:OUTING - and since violating WP:OUTING is literally the single harshest brightline block rule we have in place (even WP:NLT blocks are normally rescinded after a simple retraction,) accusing someone of violating WP:OUTING when they aren't doing so makes me a sad panda, and has gotten productive editors blocked previously - so it really is worth not doing.  The fact that you've previously revealed details about yourself isn't an excuse for opposition research, but does mean that someone who mentions them has not crossed the line of WP:OUTING.  Also, although I don't really want to take a direct position on the content of the essay itself, I do think that it's slightly unusual to consider it a bad thing if an essay expresses a particular point of view, even if it doesn't express it neutrally.  That's more or less what essays are for - expressions of the opinions of subsets of Wikipedians on particular topics. There's tons of essays that I personally disagree with, but, well, they're essays - working on the talk page to improve them collegially is a good thing, but editwarring over them basically never has a point.


 * I talk to WWB occasionally off-wiki, and have previously taken actions based off of content he pointed out to me off-wiki previously. He's actually disagreed with most of the actions I've taken based on off-wiki conversations with him.  He did not ask me to protect the page, and it was on my radar before his last edit.  I saw a pointless editwar brewing on a decently high profile essay that seemed to have no chance of resulting in anything good. I will say that I had noticed the set of edits before WWB's most recent revert, and spent some time trying to figure out what the best course of action to take would be; slapping some temporary protection on it so that people could discuss their respective views on the contents of the essay on its talk page seemed like a better idea than letting back and forth edits continue.  To the best of my memory, I have never engaged in an admin action where the original idea was brought up by WWB, and he has certainly never asked me to take any administrative actions.


 * I have no strong opinion about the essay as a whole, but saw at least one particular change of yours that I considered likely to present a BLP violation. I had been debating poking my head in and just taking out what I saw as a problem and explaining why, but by the time I had time to do so WWB had beaten me to it.  I think there's a 90% chance that you are correct that the editor you linked to Waggener who had previously made promotional edits to their article works for Waggener, especially given her name.  However, I don't see anywhere where that has actually been confirmed - through technical evidence, an OTRS ticket, a Waggener blog post, etc.  Without some sort of direct confirmation that Kabenko13 is who she says she is and does directly work for Waggener, I don't consider it appropriate to use Kabenko's previous edits to say as an unattributed statement of fact, especially in an indexed namespace (let alone somewhere that gets a good number of views) that the person Kabenko stated she was and by extension Waggener had previously committed misconduct on Wikipedia.  Especially given that Kabenko had revealed her real name at one point, I think it's territory where BLP fairly applies.


 * I'd honestly be surprised if Waggener had no prior misdeeds on Wikipedia. However, impersonator accounts already regularly appear on ENWP, and I don't think it would set a good precedent to let the edits of someone who states without confirmation that they are a particular named individual and work for a particular named company stand as an accusation of misconduct against both the named person and the named company in any indexed namespace without direct confirmation of the link. Even if you were correct in this case (and I'd bet that you were,) allowing that to stand would set a precedent that would create a new, easier way to damage a person or company's reputation - create an account claiming to be a particular person working for a particular company, make some promotional edits, eventually use a different account to prominently cite the first account's behavior as a proven demonstration that the named person behind the first account and the company they worked for had committed misconduct on Wikipedia in the past.


 * I don't think that's what happened here, at all. But I'm uncomfortable opening up the door to a new blackhat way to engage in character assassination of individuals or of companies as a whole. We see a lot of shitty behavior from unethical people on Wikipedia (e.g., Wiki-PR directly adding maintenance tags to articles of people they then tried to recruit as clients,) and opening the door to more would be bad.  Perhaps I should've simply reverted you and expressed this concern myself, especially given that using the admin toolset is normally frowned upon in areas where you have any real opinion, but I don't see a great problem with what I did end up doing - a couple days of protection on an essay, during which consensus changes can still be implemented, isn't much of an admin action, and it averted an ongoing editwar and addressed something I saw as a BLP concern (which is something admins can normally take admin action to address when they see it anyway.)  I probably should have directly expressed my concern previously, but I figured a couple days of protection would allow discussion about the appropriate content of the essay to occur, and didn't expect that the BLP concern I saw would make it in to a consensus version of the article.  As you can see in this response, sometimes I end up a bit painfully wordy.


 * Although I try to hold most discussions concerning any direct action I take on-wiki that I think should reasonably have public scrutiny (and I agree with you that most actions should generally be discussed on-wiki,) a lot of what I do in life involves Wikipedia, and I'm friends with a hell of a lot of Wikipedians - I've met hundreds face to face, have probably a hundred added on Facebook, and receive probably twenty off-wiki emails etc a day that at least tangentially mention ENWP issues. I've worked in the same office as hundreds of Wikimedians for probably six months, regularly organize and attend in person meet-ups, regularly act as a campus ambassador, etc.  Hell, I've been dating and living with someone who is at least an occasional Wikipedian for multiple years, and we certainly have plenty of conversations about ENWP in person.  I end up in a good number of conversations about Wikipedia in real life, and think that's a good thing and generally healthy for the encyclopedia.  Although most of these conversations don't lead to admin actions (or any direct actions on wiki at all for that matter,) there have been more than a few times where I've given out userrights as necessary at events, made obvious blocks that were pointed out to me in person, protected obvious edit wars that were pointed out to me, made obviously valid deletions pointed out to me off-wiki etc, without discussing them on-wiki.  I deleted a stale userspace draft earlier today after an email exchange without any on-wiki discussion of the fact, albeit I am the person who asked them if they wanted it deleted. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Kevin Gorman The BLP problem could be easily fixed by removing the citation - references aren't really needed in an essay. I'm actually quite fet up with new documents arising every couple of months advocating for one position or another and it seems even more offensive for someone to do it with a COI, especially for them to prevent improvements. I don't really see it as a high profile essay. BRD is a high profile essay. I was making a bit of a point though; it's unnerving for someone to ask personal information in order to be judgmental about your edits on their basis. You advocate for transparency, but now you say that same transparency prevents us from criticizing a PR person's edits since they disclosed their real-name. Being anonymous has always been one of the great levelers of Wikipedia. There is no way to judge anyone on the basis of age, ethnicity, gender or religion, because all you see is a username. If what you say is true, that we cannot trust disclosure, we should remove all the signatories as potentially fraudulent accounts - we wouldn't know if any of them are the person they say they are. CorporateM (Talk) 13:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I referred to it as a high profile essay because it gets a couple thousand hits a month, and still occasional outside media references. I would suggest that solid back-up is needed for a negative comment phrased as an absolute statement of fact about a living person anywhere on Wikipedia, in essayspace or elsewhere. All of the signatories currently listed on the page have been confirmed through their firms as being associated with their firms, so unless there's something a lot more bizarre than common impersonation going on, they can be reasonably assumed to be who they state they are.  Likewise, with things like freelance editors who have websites, confirmation is fairly easy through something like a WP userpage link to their website coupled with a website link to their userpage.  I think doing so represents best practice because it allows completer scrutiny of someone's edits than is otherwise possible, both for Wikipedians and for prospective clients.  I have no problem describing Kabenko's past edits as bullshit promotional crap put in on Waggener's article, and if she were still actively putting in bad edits, I'd treat her as if the COI were existed and was accurate in how I approached her edits, but I think it's a step too far to go from 'scrutinizing the edits of an editor who states they have an unconfirmed COI as if their COI disclosure is completely accurate' to 'stating as fact that a named person and company have directly engaged in malfeasance' without direct confirmation that that's actually true. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Kevin Gorman Good chat. I'm busy with some other stuff and I think we have come full-circle here. Maybe the best way to move forward would be to get more editors involved that are not associated with the subject of the essay... If it is getting that many views, it is not a good idea to let all those people know that promotional editing is acceptable. However, I am not the appropriate person to deal with it and so long as WWB is taking ownership of the page, I don't have the time/interest to have two paid editors fighting over an essay on paid editing, which is wholly inappropriate. Lots of other stuff I can work on. It does seem to confirm some of the things I have heard, but I am not the right person to address them. We are never going to agree RE disclosure, so I don't think discussing it further will be productive for either of us, but I enjoyed chatting with you and hearing your views ;-)
 * See you at the next WikiCon. CorporateM (Talk) 22:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fluor Corporation
The article Fluor Corporation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fluor Corporation for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)