User talk:CorporateM/Archive 21

Up for a challenge?
Gender mainstreaming in mine action looks to me very much like an essay and bloatware. It might have some sort of notability. Gender mainstreaming seems to be one of those all enveloping fluffy buzzwords. I've stared at this piece truing to work out how to précis it, and i have gone cross eyed. I am very unsure that it is a topic worthy of an article, since mine action seems to be a full, though poorly referenced, main article. Fancy having a go or offering an opinion at the deletion discussion? Fiddle  Faddle  17:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It took me a while to figure out what this page was actually about. I get it - land mines are left over from conflicts and there are programs to help dig them up, disable them, or help people affected by them. Some of those programs make a specific effort to be gender neutral or take gender into consideration in how they provide aid to victims, etc. It's not clear at-a-glance what this means specifically or how one takes gender into consideration for such a program. The "buzzwords" used in the article appear to be the same terms used in the sources, but since they are not commonly understood, we really need a better way to explain this. I think it is notable and have voted KEEP, but it is so far afield my areas of interest/experience, I probably won't touch it. You can try Wikiproject Military History. I believe is an active member there and I got the impression they were one of very few WikiProjects that are actually pretty active. CorporateM (Talk) 20:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Took me forever, too. I expect the UN thinks it knows what it's doing, but, as far as I can tell, one's sex determines something about mine (action!) programmes, and the buzzwords make no sense to real people. Now that, of itself, means an article might have a use, but only if it is not so deeply opaque. I don't; blame you for not having a go at it. My AfD is, I hope, likely to result in less opacity, but who can tell? Fiddle   Faddle  20:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Qualcomm Snapdragon
The article Qualcomm Snapdragon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Qualcomm Snapdragon 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 Sovereign Sentinel -- Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review ! That's GA number 41! I'm glad to see that I'm not crazy in thinking that tech-spec grids are inappropriate. Similar content on non-technical subjects would be considered promotional. CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Qualcomm Snapdragon has been nominated for Did You Know

 * FYI - I voiced my opposition to this DIY nomination at the appropriate page. You may not have known when nominating it that there is a long and contentious history about DIYs from COI-written articles. I don't see a compelling reason to encourage the drama that may likely result from such a DIY or a need to give an editor that is already compensated for their work additional Kudos as a DIY entails. CorporateM (Talk) 22:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will wait for input from other editors for the DYK nomination. I picked this hook because it is less promotional about the product than other content mentioned in the article. Thanks for notifying me about this. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 04:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you have a COI, but still
Thanks !!! CorporateM (Talk) 05:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Convassing
This and this appears to be WP:CANVASSING. Please do not do it further. You can post requesting for input on the WikiProjects to which the article is associated but notifying single individuals I do not see as okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks ! I remember the socking network you're referring to. You must be digging deep into my COI work. I'm glad it passes inspection. CorporateM (Talk) 18:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Your recent editing history at Invisalign shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well this is a bit ridiculous when he's reverted you twice compared to your single revert! SmartSE (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of joining the discussion here about the difference between a systematic review and a literature review CorporateM has decided to attempt to tag / discredit the source in question three times.
 * It was requested if he knew of a more recent systematic review. And yes their is this one but it looked at a different question.
 * So rather than answer the question possed he instead brought it here to the 3RR board.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not that this line of debate is generally useful, but we actually did surpass 3RR. If you go to the string I started at the edit-warring board here, you'll see three diffs labeled "removed" that are all reverts of my adding the tag. CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." we havn't but whatever. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't get involved in this except to say at issue was not the difference between a literary revue and a systematic review. Further, Corporate M did try to explain the tag as a way dealing with his concerns on talk,  did take the discussion to the talk page,  and was not the first to revert the tag, as far as I can tell, and so begin an edit war. Its worth I think to clarify this situation. I do think the best plan is to take this back to the talk page, stop reverting, and discuss the issues.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC))


 * The paid editor jab is a red herring and does not help this discussion along.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Oops I hadn't noticed the 3RR or the previous revert. I'll comment there. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well actually that's a bit pointless since it's already protected, but I will note here that I concur with Littleolive oil that Doc James' assumption of bad faith on your part was disappointing. SmartSE (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I may be unclear with what User:CorporateM was trying to achieve with the tags in question. They appear to feel very strongly about putting them in though. Why tag the most recent systematic review with a "needs update"? If you think the two sentences should be combined than just say so. Either way the most recent systematic review should stay in. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "If you think the two sentences should be combined than just say so." I actually did say this on the Talk page and also explained the purpose of the tags specifically. The problem I'm experiencing is that everything I say or do is interpreted in the worst possible way. I ask for a copyedit and you see spin and censorship. I ask someone if they are willing to take a shot at writing some of the content to avoid COI concerns, and from your perspective it looks like I am canvassing them to change the article-structure, though nothing about article-structure was mentioned. I propose some changes, and you find a very minor fault as a reason to dismiss the suggestion outright.

This is only natural based on your experiences with paid editors and I would encourage those commenting here to show understanding for your perspective. I believe Doc is acting in good faith, but he interprets my participation in very extreme ways based on a lens that is colored from his previous experiences. The best way to move forward is more more editors to get involved in a substantive way so items can be discussed and consensus' reached. CorporateM (Talk) 22:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not impressed. Your comment here reinforces my concerns with paid editing. It appear that CorporateM wants to remove the conclusions of the 2005 systematic review. My assumption that he did is what lead to the current situation.
 * Many paid editors wish to emphasise lower quality sources and exclude the conclusions of higher quality sources which appears to be what is occurring in this situation. You want the two sentence merged and the part that is not positive about the produce in question removed.
 * You have been going around trying to find someone to do it for you. When you did not succeed you took up tagging the source in question. Than you dragged me to 3RR when I tried to prevent you.
 * I have assumed a great deal of good faith during my encounters with CorporateM. I gave you the benefit of the doubt a couple of times here. I did not implement your suggestion as I do not consider them to be an improvement. Anyway back to working on our 340 articles on essential medicines. They are all in a lot more need of work than this one.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to this "I ask for a copyedit and you see spin and censorship." you need to provide evidence that I say spine or censorship in that.
 * WRT "am canvassing them to change the article-structure", lets look at this dif . You state "such as I attempted to do here." which links to content that contains your prefered organization of the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , you proposed the text "As of 2014, the last systematic review of Invisalign was in 2005.[4][1]". When I copy/pasted this into the Talk page, I noticed some text that was not discussed was missing, so I had to bring it up. I have tried to clarify this on the Talk page. The idea that I'm engaging in a complex conspiracy to remove the 2005 item is silly. I do however feel that the current Lead over-emphasis this "nobody knows if it works" tone, partially because of the two redundant sentences. A nice crisp sentence might read something like "Invisalign is considered effective for mild to moderate cases, but the only systematic review of its effectiveness in 2005 was inconclusive." This combines what is currently spread out over three sentences CorporateM (Talk) 23:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like "As of 2014 the evidence for invisalign is poor. Some opinion supports its use for certain dental problems such as front teeth crowding." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I think the best thing to do at this point is for us to give other editors a chance to participate. Especially given that it's 8p.m. for me on a Saturday. We could probably both use a break as well (plus I'm hungry and running on just a few hours of sleep). I will ping here to point out my comment here that we really need someone to mediate that is willing to take the time to read all three MEDRS sources (they conflict on at least some things and have different leanings). I know Smart criticized your reverts, but he's very diligent about actually reading sources and if he is willing to participate, I think it would be impactfull. I think at this point in the discussion, we do need other participants and we need to be patient for them. Also, I do think after reading so many primary sources, I have developed very specific views. You may remember I initially thought the "Introduction" section of studies where they provide an overview of the literature was considered an acceptable source, and actual secondary sources say very different things, including a more doubtful tone about the amount of pre-existing research. But now my brain is contaminated. Yours is too for other reasons even if you don't think so. The page needs a fresh pair of eyes.


 * As soon as you verify you've seen this, I'm going to go ahead and collapse this string so future discussion can take place on the Talk page and to prevent any future drama. My Talk page lately has been a scrolling feed of barnstars for good contributions as a COI editor, so I think there may be some defensiveness in this crowd regarding your accusations and I think the resulting combativeness would be unproductive. CorporateM (Talk) 00:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Invisalign
Hi CM, I haven't looked to see exactly what's happening at Invisalign, but you wrote last year that the company was paying you, so it's better that you not edit the article, per WP:NOPAY. Sarah (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm, WP:NOPAY links to "Paid advocacy". That's not quite the same as being paid to edit neutrally. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The guideline is clear that paid editors ought not to edit directly, with few exceptions: "If you have a close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles." CorporateM said he would not be editing directly, except for minor corrections (grammar, etc), yet today he was reverting Doc James. So I'm here to ask CM to respect the COI guideline going forward. Sarah (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry to collapse this right after you posted, but the discussion has run its course and I think dragging it on will just perpetrate more drama. I just mentioned above that I was about to close the discussion. Sarah, the edit in question was an "update" annotation on the text "As of 2005" to indicate that it needs to be updated with sources from 2013/2014 that were on the Talk page. CorporateM (Talk) 01:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi CM, I think it's important to observe the bright line when you're being paid (which I thought you always did), and especially for anything medical/dental. There's a lot of money at stake, and a lot of damage can be done by articles that offer incomplete information. Sarah (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CorporateM you do not need to hide it for my sake. It is your talk page so you are mostly free to do what you like. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarah, Annotating the article like this is one of the edits I do routinely make directly and have even edit-warred for once before. These don't change the article's contents, but are used to help communicate what I'm saying on the Talk page, without saying "Section ___, Paragraph _____, third sentence, where it says____", which is very difficult for editors to follow. Although it is in article-space, I think it's disruptive for an editor to prevent me from even being able to communicate my concerns effectively. Adding an annotation to indicate that "As of 2005" needs to be updated to "As of 2014" really shouldn't be a big deal. There was a miscommunication/misunderstanding and I think it's been cleared up now. As I mentioned above before closing, it's late in my time zone on a Saturday night and this has been too time-consuming already. I suppose editors can keep discussing it if they like, but I think the immediate issue has already been resolved for now and I'm too exhausted to keep talking about it myself. CorporateM (Talk) 01:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's better not to add tags or edit the article at all if you're being paid. If you stick to the guideline, particularly WP:FCOI and WP:COITALK, it will make things easier for everyone. The important thing is that the reader needs to know, when she goes to Invisalign, that it hasn't been written by or on behalf of the company, and hasn't been unduly influenced by them – otherwise she could just go to the company website – and unfortunately that's not the situation here. Sarah (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Except he is sticking to the guideline. It advises mot directly editing, but does not require it. Frankly, I think it's more disruptive to badger him about adding a tag that was sorely overdue than the original addition of the tag was. He shouldn't have reverted; I think we can all agree there. But Doc James and CorporateM have been discussing the issue, and it's leading to better content and a clearer consensus than this thread is or will. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COI does discourage direct editing and specifically forbids "controversial" edits, which includes anything that gets reverted. OTOH, it also says that we are suppose to Assume Good Faith when someone discloses. This is the principle benefit of disclosure and WP:COI compliance that I did not receive. We also shouldn't allow WP:COI to be interpreted in a way that allows the COI editor to be bullied and makes it prohibitive for them to contribute. The escalation of this dispute was necessary.
 * The problem with this line of discussion is that it tends to lead to edits based on an editor's support or opposition of COI editing. Sarah is now in a position to defend her point-of-view by showing how bias my edits are and Chris could in turn be in a position to do the opposite. Because there is no consensus about COI, this leads to no consensus about the article. I acknowledge Sarah's concerns and Chris' counter arguments, but the best thing to do at this point is to move the discussion to the article to discuss sources and content. CorporateM (Talk) 00:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You're confusing general COI and financial COI. If you're being paid to edit by a company, the guideline asks that you not edit that company's business interests. It requires it as strongly as a guideline is able to require anything, and you have always said you would respect that, CM, so please do. It's important with health-related issues that the reader isn't misled into thinking they're reading something independent when they're not. We have a situation here where Doc James and others are having to spend their volunteer time sorting out issues that CM has been paid to write. It isn't fair. Sarah (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarah, my proposal to Doc was that maybe we could find a disinterested editor willing to wrap up the article by doing the dental content (I don't know if I would really call it medical), since that is a subject that is especially sensitive to COI. It does need a lot of work. For example, right now this source is cited to say that there is no evidence that Invisalign is effective, but what the source actually says is that no treatment option was proven better than any other. CorporateM (Talk) 01:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Doc James is disinterested, so he'll be able to work on it if he wants to. Not sure what you mean about wrapping it up. Re: the article you linked to, I can only see the abstract. Sarah (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh oh, I see. One sec, I gotta read the full text. Doc James didn't seem interested in spending more time improving the article and that's his prerogative. No one is required to spend their time anywhere. He seemed mostly interested in making sure I didn't contribute, so I thought that would be a good compromise if I do find someone that woudl enjoy spending a bit of time on it. By "finishing up" I mean, completing the dental content, so it would be ready for GAN. CorporateM (Talk) 01:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here we go. I don't know if that link will work for you, but that's the full-text. Says only the same thing as the abstract - that no treatment options was found better or worse than any other. CorporateM (Talk) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems to be the full article. It appears that lower front teeth relapse is a major issue; the article doesn't appear to explain that. According to the Cochrane review, there is no high-quality evidence to show what is effective. Sarah (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, CM, can you say who is paying for the rewrite or talk-page engagement? Perhaps you've added it to your user page already, in which case I apologize for asking, but on the talk page it says only that you're working with Align Technology and their PR firm. But I believe the Foundation terms of use requires paid editors to name their employers and clients ("you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation"). Sarah (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarah, the link you provided has the following excerpt on Invisalign:
 * Invisalign (Figure 7): In 1999, AIign Technology Inc addressed the demand for an aesthetic alternative to brackets by developing an invisible method of orthodontic treatment that uses a series of computer-generated clear removable aligners to move the dentition. Since then, Invisalign has been used to treat over 300,000 orthodontic patients with a variety of malocclusions. The primary benefit of the Invisalign system is the superior aesthetic during treatment compared to metal brackets. Other advantages of the system include: the ability to remove aligners to eat, brush and floss, the superior comfort, and ease of use (Invisalign 2006). Based on case reports, this technique appears effective in treating mild malocclusions and is more visually appealing than conventional brackets (Joffe 2003). Align Technology Inc claims that 90% of orthodontic patients are candidates for Invisalign. These include patients with mild to moderate crowding, mild to moderate spacing, non-skeletal constricted arches, and those who have experienced relapse after fixed appliance therapy (Vlaskalic 2001).
 * I don't see anything along the lines of what you're describing. Am I missing it? CorporateM (Talk) 03:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See the conclusion: "There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide orthodontists in selecting an effective method to treat relapse of alignment of lower front teeth following initial orthodontic treatment." If you read the paper, they weren't able to make a comparison because there was nothing to compare (as I understand it); there was just one small study of 18 patients using the nickel-titanium lingual retainer. Sarah (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, all three sources verify that there have not been any recent, high-quality random clinical trials. We do not disagree. It does say "to guide orthodontists in selecting" meaning the purpose of the desired RTCs is to make more informed choices between different options. CorporateM (Talk) 03:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi CM, in case you missed my question yesterday about which PR firm has hired you to rewrite Invisalign, it's here. Sarah (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Public Storage
Sorry if that was a setback for your clients. But the article is looking really good. Nominate it for GA again! You've put so much into it. (Feel free to email.) Best, Prhartcom (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ please don't apologize for "a setback for your clients" though. Our objective is to get it right, not to benefit or disadvantage companies. Probably the way it is now isn't quite right, but lets see what a new GA reviewer says. Thanks for the ping! CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I still have a few concerns, I believe that the article is much closer to GA status than it was a few weeks ago. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

New Barnstar

 * Thanks! You must have seen all my groaning eh. Good to see new editors jumping in at AfD. was telling me a while back that we were really falling short of participants there and some were being closed as "no consensus", because nobody joined the discussion. So I've been trying to keep an eye on the list of AfDs at Wikiproject Companies and do my best to chip in.


 * Most of the blatant spam and promotion gets picked up pretty quickly, but what I enjoy the most is finding sham articles that try really hard to look notable until you peak under the covers. Once there was a five-page article about a PR executive in the tobacco industry that looked like it had dozens of high-quality sources. I successfully got it deleted at AFD by showing how a sampling of sources were mis-represented and the whole page was a fraud. It felt good. CorporateM (Talk) 02:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need a Barnstar of Destruction for that one. ;-) Thanks for welcoming me to AfD, yes, I thought I'd help out there now as well. Congrats! Prhartcom (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

WMF FAQ quotes
If you work for company Acme, and, as part of your job responsibilities, you edit Wikipedia articles about company Acme, you satisfy the minimum requirement of the Terms of Use if you simply say that you edit on behalf of company Acme on your user page.

''You may represent your employer, affiliation, and client in the edit summary box before you "save" your edit or contribution. For example, before saving your edits to a Wikipedia article about your client, X, you may write this note in the edit summary box: "X has hired me to update their Wikipedia article" or "I work for X."''

It is clear (and likely for sound legal rationales) WMF does not require any personal identifying information, and the FAQ makes clear the extent of what WMF actually expects. And it is also clear that the use of commas indicates that WMF regards the use of "client" to be analogous to "employer" and "affiliation" as the FAQ appears to indicate ("I work for X" is sufficient per the FAQ - which notably does not say you must add "I am affiliated with Y" and "My client is Z".). Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Thanks . So in one case I was sponsored by a concerned family member of a local politician who had a political attack page. Would you say I was required to disclose who the family member is? I felt uneasy about this, because I didn't know if the article-subject knew that his family member was involved. It wasn't a big company and it wasn't the article-subject, just a private person that was concerned. CorporateM (Talk) 02:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're comfortable enough to cash this person's check, then you need to be comfortable enough to disclose who is paying you. Conversely, if you (or your sponsor) are uncomfortable with disclosure, then you shouldn't accept the job or take the money. Surely you can tell the sponsor the truth upfront&mdash;that if you accept his/her money, then his/her involvement will be disclosed&mdash;and then the sponsor can decide whether to proceed on those terms. I suppose it would be technically acceptable to say that your editing is paid for by a family member of the article subject, without disclosing that family member's name, if that is your question. MastCell Talk 16:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to consider whether there are separate entities who can be described as "employers", "clinets" or "affiliates", e.g. from the FAQs:
 * "What does the phrase “employer, client, and affiliation” mean?
 * "If you are editing an article on Wikipedia on behalf of your employer, for example, you must disclose your employer’s details. If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm’s client."
 * "If you are editing an article on Wikipedia on behalf of your employer, for example, you must disclose your employer’s details. If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm’s client."

Since you're working with both the company and its PR firm, you should declare both. Sometimes there's only an employer, then that's all you need to declare, but if there are others involved, you need to declare those to. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see it the way does. I disagree with . The policy is meant to be inclusive,and to deal with those relationships which in actual fact pose a risk of paid conflict of interest. It is not intended to provide an interesting intermediate area for equivocation and wikilawering.  You must declare all actual  paid COI, regardless of the details.  in the example given, you absolutely must declare a coi with X, Y, and z-- but you do not have to give the identifying details. In the political example you give, you would need to declare just what the relationship is, just that there is a paid relationship. That's what's meant by not requiring personally identifying information.  DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why does the FAQ so specifically say all one needs is "I work for A"? Collect (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing against disclosing a paid relationship, only against the "personally identifying information". So for example, in that case I disclosed being sponsored by "a family member", but not the person's name. CorporateM (Talk) 03:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. That;s what I understood you to be asking, and I agree with you completely. You need not specify whether it was the person, a political committee, the subject, or an interested bystander.  DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion at ANI seems to be leaning towards requiring me to disclose the name of the person that is sponsoring me. I think I will talk to them about ending our business relationship to avoid this requirement. CorporateM (Talk) 04:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I shall comment there.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really surprised that Wikipedia is so opposed to using anonymous data like device IDs and analytics to pursue blatant astroturfing firms, but actually supports forcing disclosed participants to give so much information that exposes them to risks of bullying, off-wiki harassment and other issues. I am not trying to censor a study as alleged; I was only trying to get a more well-rounded representation in the Lead. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Secrets...
You asked me for feedback on my talk page here (#49): and I asked why the editor did not want to start a RFC on their own. You never answered me. You started that RFC without ever mentioning that it was at the request of another editor. I do not like secrets. Secretive editing diminishes an editor, in my opinion. I don't even enable emails because I believe that open conversations help to facilitate honest communication. I have used a private email to discuss WP conduct only once, an email to suggest to an editor that they were being too harsh on an editor with a seemingly competence problem, and thus could not state openly since it would embarrass the editor in question. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I must have missed your ping. A female editor on Jimbo's Talk page said that she didn't start the discussion for fear of being harassed herself. I responded to that string with a link to the RFC. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I couldn't find the talk page conversation you mention.  Could you give me a link?  Gandydancer (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this may be it? It looks like I started a regular string on the Harassment Talk page initially. Then one editor said there should be an RFC. Another said they were unwilling to start an RFC "because I do not want to be harassed myself", so I started it. At a cursory glance, it doesn't look like they explicitly asked me to start it, but just said they were uncomfortable doing it themselves.
 * Is there something I'm missing here? What's up with the whole "secrets" accusation CorporateM (Talk) 23:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you and there is no hidden meaning to what I said. I simply wondered why an editor did not start the AfF on their own if they felt there was a need.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
For the extra steps you have take to abide by the ToU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Oversighted
I know you meant "reviewed" and not WP:OVERSIGHTed when you said "oversighted" in your 00:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) edit to User talk:Sphilbrick. However, late-comers to the discussion may be confused. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 03:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Invisalign
Voluntary withdrawal means a topic ban should not be needed. It is simply doing the gentlemanly thing. Guy (Help!) 00:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. CorporateM (Talk) 17:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You are being bullied
You shouldn't have to disclose that you assist one person, much like a helper assists a handicapped victim.

In Wikipedia, ALL users should be required to disclose ALL potential conflicts. Some editors are clearly biased. You are being picked on. I've seen it happen in the Navy a lot....hostile work environment. Tough sailor ouch (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify
CM, it isn't fair to keep editors hanging on, asking for clarification over and over. You know what the terms of use require, so please confirm that you'll abide by them. Then the issue is done. Sarah (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on draft section?
Hi ! I am really sorry to bother you with this again, but I wonder if I can count on your voluntary help.

I proposed a new draft for a potential History section on the University Canada West talk page, but I’m really struggling to get any kind of feedback from existing editors.

If you have time, do you think you could take a look and let me know your views? I’m interested in working with the community to improve the quality of the article as a whole, so I kept the draft as brief and factual as I could. Your feedback will be very much appreciated. Thanks a lot! BrandDude (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Trafigura
Hi Corporate M, judging by the message on your user page this might not be something you'll be willing to look at anymore but I've posted a few suggestions here on the Trafigura talk page. If it's something you're happy to check out then great, if not no problem. For what it's worth I've much appreciated your help on the articles we've worked on and I can't see how anyone could argue they're not in much better shape than they were before. In my experience it can be very hard to find someone who'll actually take the time to go through difficult problems. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on suggested edits
Hello @CorporateM. Thanks so much for recent updates to the Flocabulary page.

Getting in touch because I requested edits for a few additional sections in the talk page - the edits are small but I'm concerned that my newest comments are hard to spot. Two edits I suggested were marked as done by you on the Flocabulary talk page (regarding the opening sentence of the page and distribution section of the infobox) but both haven't been completed - I'm wondering if your edits simply didn't save. The only remaining suggestion is a clarification on user statistics - I've drafted a new sentence to make information more up-to-date and simple. When you're able - could you please check out those sections and share your feedback? Really appreciate your help. Mcro16 (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Naveen Jain
The article Naveen Jain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 30 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Naveen Jain for things which need to be addressed. LavaBaron (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Naveen Jain
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Naveen Jain 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 LavaBaron -- LavaBaron (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Act-on screenshot.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Act-on screenshot.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You're in the news
In case you didn't know, you were quoted in Die Zeit today in an article about the Orangemoody case. -- Brianhe (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. They seem to be referring to this data. Some of it sounds incorrect, but it's hard to tell across languages through Google Translate. CorporateM (Talk) 22:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"Ein solcher bezahlter Wikipedia-Autor ist David King, der als "CorporateM" seit 2009 in der Wikipedia mitschreibt. Er sieht vor allem die Unerfahrenheit der Werber als Problem: "Ich schätze, dass zehn bis 20 Prozent der Änderungen mit einem Interessenkonflikt trotzdem nützlich für den Artikel sind", schreibt er in einer aktuellen Diskussion um das bezahlte Schreiben. Allerdings würden nur zehn Prozent der schädlichen Beiträge aus böser Absicht eingestellt. Viel öfter würden die Eigenwerber aus Unwissenheit handeln und könnten sich nicht in den von Wikipedia geforderten "neutralen Benutzerstandpunkt" hineinversetzen. Dieser Gruppe will King seine Dienste anbieten. Allerdings bekommen seine Kunden keine Artikel garantiert. "In 70 Prozent der Fälle empfehle ich meinen Kunden, dass sie sich aus der Wikipedia raushalten sollen", schreibt King auf seiner Nutzerseite. Translation: Such a paid Wikipedia editor is David King, who writes as "CorporateM" in Wikipedia since 2009. He mainly sees the inexperience of the applicant as a problem: "I guess that 10 to 20 percent of the changes with a conflict of interest are still useful for the article," he writes in a current discussion about paid writing. However, only 10 percent of the harmful contributions could be attributed to (?) bad faith. More often self-promoters act out of ignorance and can't write from the "neutral point of view" (neutralen Benutzerstandpunkt, got to love 5-syllable German words - tr.) required by Wikipedia. King wants to offer his services to this group. However, his customers don't get a guaranteed article. "In 70 percent of cases, I recommend to my clients that they should stay out of Wikipedia", King writes on his user page."


 * Yup, this is incorrect. For example, the following appears to be a completely fabricated statement: "However, his customers don't get a guaranteed article". Where did they get this from? It's not in the Signpost and they never spoke to me. Most of my work is not on new articles either. Saying I recommend that "my clients" abstain from Wikipedia doesn't make sense either. How could they be clients if I recommend they do nothing? The recommendation has the natural outcome of them not becoming clients. Unfortunately it's very rare for the press to actually get their facts right on these issues. CorporateM (Talk) 01:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Zeit article sent me here, so I thought I'd comment on the wording "clients". While it sounds misleading in the English translation, to most German readers it will be clear that you are not working for them. "Kunde" also means "customer", i. e. it doesn't necessarily involve a formal contract (as in being a grocery store's customer). One can in fact say: "There was a customer in today who didn't buy anything." Makes the person not a customer in the strcit sense, but is frequently used colloquially. "However, his customers don't get a guaranteed article" should be read in the same spirit.
 * So while you are right in that the wording is not 100% accurate, it will be understood in line with your intentions and practices.--Cirdan (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww - thanks for clarifying !!! CorporateM (Talk) 14:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aka 'potential customers' slash 'potential clients' is what the article is saying. But in fact, due to selection bias (which I believe you mentioned in your proposal) these are not actually 'potential clients' but are in fact 'potential clients that actively contacted your firm'.  Are the slides available, or the more detailed data than what is summarized at WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-12/Forum?  Do you have any guesstimates on what the pool of 'potential clients that did NOT actively contact your firm' might look like, aka what the "overall hypothetical market" profile is like compared to what the "already in the market" profile is like?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Greenhouse Software
Does this article look like an advertisement to you? The article creator nominated this for DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Greenhouse Software. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain Sorry . Please see paragraph 2 of my user page. As a result of the mandated disclosure of my personal identity, I will no longer get involved in business pages on a volunteer basis. I will probably retire from Wikipedia completely within a few years. CorporateM (Talk) 14:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, OK then. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

wider scope
Hello CorporateM, since I've been curious for some time, and my curiosity is not abating, I figured that I would ask. Feel free to abstain from this discussion as well, if need be. Is this permanent? As in, do you see no way forward? Belatedly noticed the AN/I thread, and belated commented there, but actually came here a few days back, following User:Brianhe around (they requested I stalk their edit-history related to the 'orangemoody' incident... but may regret their request since we disagree on long-term strategy :-)

And although I've heard your username before, and seen you "doing stuff" on the 'pedia, pretty sure we've never interacted directly before, on articles or talkpages. Again, though, I stress that satisfying my curiosity is 100% per your WP:CHOICE, as to whether you want (or do not want) to have a usertalk discussion about the best long term strategy for wikipedia, vis-a-vis capitalism, and/or vis-a-vis the real world of People With AgendasTM. I'm interested in your personal outcome, aka if you will continue editing wikipedia or think it is a lost cause, but I'm also interested in your thoughts on the broader future of the 'pedia. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi IP address. Yes it is permanent. I have edited hundreds, maybe thousands of company and BLP pages on a volunteer basis. There is a very well established precedence on Wikipedia, on other websites, and based on my personal experiences, that doing so from an account with a disclosed personal identity results in harassment, bullying, lawsuits and other nonsense from article-subjects and opinionated editors. In fact, immediately after I disclosed, I started getting an overwhelming number of spam emails, which I'm pretty sure has something to do with one of the editors making a smug comment associating paid editing with spam. And some of the very editors lobbying me to disclose my real-world identity have themselves experienced very serious consequences of doing so. These risks may be in a small number of cases, but it only takes one to eliminate all the benefit I get from editing on a volunteer basis, which is to say I get no benefit, but accept substantial personal risk. I would rather just spend my time elsewhere and it's Wikipedia's loss, not mine.


 * As for the paid editing, I will eventually retire here completely as well, but it will take longer to transition. Basically this isn't a community I want to be a part of. If article-subjects and their representatives that attempt to participate here ethically are given an extreme amount of ABF, a bias against edits that favor them, and a lack of privacy or protection from harassment, I see no reason for them to disclose, when there are so many benefits to not doing so. How can I continue to operate a business that promotes ethical practices, if the best advice I can give them is to be covert?


 * I can get paid more and be treated with more respect with less drama at a real job. And once again, it's Wikipedia's loss that it will have less GA content that I otherwise would have produced, and fewer article-subjects will be educated on Wikipedia's rules, creating more problematic editing. I will ultimately be better off without Wikipedia in the long-run and Wikipedia will have been diminished. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I'm curious; what is the disagreement over how to handle the Orangemoody case? My understanding of it is such that it is hard to imagine there being different viewpoints. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Curiousity satisfied, deserves quid pro quo. :-)      So the first bit of my reply is on gory orangemoody details, before I clumsily-or-not-so-clumsily segue into my ideas on your sit.  Please call me 75.108 for short if you like, I'm allergic to "IP" since that is my computer's name not mine; I wasn't sure whether you preferred to be David or CorporateM or if you are happy either way ... but I flat out won't call you The King because *that* honorific is taken, sir, taken I say!  ;-)      Orangemoody is straightforward, everybody dislikes socking dishonest reprehensible unethical behavior.  Right?  Right.  But there are differences over how to prevent future orangemoody imitators, and how to run wikipedia going forward, so as to best accomplish her overall goals.  So, taking it in roughly reverse order of what you mentioned:


 * Case in point, I think that when using press-reports that quote anonymous wikipedia insiders, saying inflammatory things about the socks in question, in our article about the orangemoody incident, we have to be very careful about WP:CIRCULAR. Even if there is no real legal risk to wikipedia by using inflammatory legalese to describe the socks as a group, there is a reputational risk, aka the risk that wikipedia-the-brand will "lose face" in the eyes of the public, or even 'merely' in the eyes of the editing public.  So I'm advocating that we treat the socks as checkuser-confirmed socks... which is to say 99% certainty... but that we treat ALL other allegations as merely allegations, and stick strictly to the barest and most neutral of factoids, letting the readership make up their own mind, and simply omit the inflammatory language.  The long-term risk, in my view, is that future orangemoody imitators will take advantage of the flaws in checkuser (I'd like to be vague about how this might be done), and rope in some innocent editors that LOOK like checkuser-confirmed-bad-apples but are not... a strict policy that wikipedia treats the humans behind the 99%-confirmed socks as committing alleged violations of this or that wiki-policy, and careful avoidance of legalese whenever possible ("the sock violated WP:COPYVIO" is distinct from "the human defendant infringed upon legally copyrighted material which is a prosecutable violation of international law" to give you the flavor of what I prefer versus what I want to avoid... not that we actually use the latter language, but we are too far along the linguistic spectrum methinks).  I'm not 100.000% positive that such roping-in-of-fairly-legit-editors did not happen in the orangemoody incident, for at least one case, who shall remain nameless per WP:NPA.
 * Anyways, if the de facto policy is that we delete all articles of the hypothetical future sockring, and heap linguistic abuse upon the sockring-participating-humans without regard to WP:NICE and WP:NLT, I foresee problems. User:Brianhe sees this as worrying-about-the-spammer, and there is some truth to that:  if my policy is implemented, 99% of the time it will 'benefit' the spammer, since calling them a spade, rather than a single-user geomorphological manipulator, is all that Brianhe thinks we ought to be doing.  Of course, in my mind it won't hurt *us* to call 'checkuser-confirmed socks' exactly that, as long as we are doing our damnedest to prevent *future* such checkuser-confirmed socks from misusing wikipedia.  Outside the question of how to write the Conflict of interest editing of Wikipedia article, and spinoff-subsidiaries thereof... somebody, turns out it was User:davidwr, added a hatnote linking the orangemoody article to the checkuser-evidence-page for instance which I think is just *really* the wrong direction to be trending if we want to avoid the Eye Of The Navel... there are also legitimate disagreements about how to best defend the 'pedia against future orangemoody-imitators, and vaguely similar hypothetical future incidents.
 * There are plenty of proposals to force disclosures of various types (sometimes only for a subset of articles at first aka the usual slippery slope), plenty of proposals to implement super-WP:42 wiki-notability requirements (again but more often a slippery slope is explicitly proposed e.g. only BLP or only corp or whatever). There are also specific proposals about how to lock down AfC, and so on.  I think we should concentrate on proposals that make the victim-pool smaller, which is to say, which makes getting an article written and mainspaced as fast and easy and painless as possible.  Furthermore, I think that going forward we should make sure that the wp-coi-queue (which you "invented" more or less) is properly staffed, and not recurrently stalled for months, so that good apples following the bright-line-'rule' and other best-practice-recommendates, can achieve their goals insofar as those goals dovetail with wikipedia's goals (adding non-WP:COPYVIO'd wiki-reliably-WP:SOURCEd wiki-neutral factoids to wiki-notable articles in a WP:NICE collaborative editing environment).  I also think we should concentrate our defensive efforts on making *bad*-apple orangemoody editing as financially prohibitive as possible, which means making it cost more than doing it the good-apple disclosed-paid-editor way.  Prohibition of undesired behavior never works, historically, as long as the profits to those willing to facilitate the undesired behavior are high, there is incentive for breaking the rules.  The key is not knee-jerk "verboten" but rather carefully calculated "hit 'em where it counts" which is in the wallet.  Take away their victim-pool, and make the socking and AfC-abuse and nondisclosure more fiscally expensive than the legit-uid wp-coi-queue disclosed-editing alternative, and wikipedia will win.


 * Not sure if you wanted THAT much of an explanation, so I'll go ahead and collapse it into a greenbox. In a nutshell, I think we should be extremely conservative in our choice of words to describe alleged orangemoody sockmaster-humans, since checkuser-tech-data is only 99.4% confirmed and there *are* ways to trick it.  Second, I think that the way to beat future orangemoody-imitators is *not* to prohibit good-apple paid editing and bad-apple paid editing, but rather to make the bad-apple type Cost MoreTM such that rational bad-apples will prefer to disclose per ToU and use the wp-coi-queue edit_request and stop socking and so on (the irrational ones will be fewer and easier to block/mitigate).  As for your personal situation, I think in some ways (albeit not all), the overall difficulty is not much different from how I view wikipedia's proper orangemoody strategy, specifically this bit:
 * My goal, is to fix the 'pedia so that the best advice is NOT to be covert, in the general case. So the question becomes, then, are you permanently soured on the extant group of wikipedians?  Because I cannot agree that a hyperbolic AN/I thread is "the community" here ... as you've been around long enough to know.  If you *are* soured on the community as a whole, and AN/I was the just proverbial straw-on-the-camel, even that is not an insurmountable problem -- it is possible to change the community, by bringing in new (or newly-more-active) wiki-blood, and by changing the relevant wiki-policies, and so on.  As you've also been around long enough to know, rewriting the WP:PAG will be a total piece of cake.  ;-)      Or maybe not.  But at least theoretically, for the sake of usertalk discussion if not necessarily follow-on actions, do you now truly believe that the 'pedia is rotten to the core, and cannot be salvaged?
 * Assuming you are NOT permanently soured on wikipedia-qua-wikipedia, the idea of the encyclopedia anybody can edit, embodying the sum of all human knowledge, consisting of neutral just-the-facts information condensed by collaborative amateurs into a libre online thing of beauty... well, then there are some business-models that remain ethical, and do solve your stated problems. Well, at least, by my standards they remain ethical, and by my understanding of your problem-statements (and more WP:CRYSTAL-y by my predictions about the feasibility/viability of my conceptual solutions thereto).  But rather than go into details, which may be useless if that bridge is already burned, I ask you:  have you permanently decided that wikipedia cannot be saved, and that you must leave whilst you honourably can?  Because I agree about that being wikipedia's loss.
 * Assuming you are NOT permanently soured on wikipedia-qua-wikipedia, the idea of the encyclopedia anybody can edit, embodying the sum of all human knowledge, consisting of neutral just-the-facts information condensed by collaborative amateurs into a libre online thing of beauty... well, then there are some business-models that remain ethical, and do solve your stated problems. Well, at least, by my standards they remain ethical, and by my understanding of your problem-statements (and more WP:CRYSTAL-y by my predictions about the feasibility/viability of my conceptual solutions thereto).  But rather than go into details, which may be useless if that bridge is already burned, I ask you:  have you permanently decided that wikipedia cannot be saved, and that you must leave whilst you honourably can?  Because I agree about that being wikipedia's loss.


 * Although I cannot rule out that somebody with a wiki-grudge may have added your name to spam-engine listings, I can say this much from personal experience -- a former friend of mine accidentally posted my plaintext email address to some obscure but web-visible-archived mailing-list she was participating in... not out of malice but when she somehow managed to click the "reply-to-all-people-in-my-own-email-address-book" sequence of buttons at three in the morning ... sigh ... and within a month that email-address of mine was utterly unusable due to the automated spam-crawlers. And I expect the same was true of the *other* three hundred fifty people she had in her contact-list.  Sheesh!  Point being, once your email address is on wikipedia, or maybe even *linked* to from a wikipedia userpage, there is a non-negligible possibility that you might be spam-crawled, by a bot.  I'm not sure what technology prowess the spammers have nowadays, but they are NOT dwindling away; I have a wiki-buddy who testified to the FTC in 2004/2005 when the CAN-SPAM Act was being fiddled with, and since then things have not improved.  Stopping orangemoody-type-breaches is much easier than stopping regular-old-spammer-type-breaches, incidentally, because merely by one of their ten thousand spam-prose-messages getting *viewed* the spammer will break even; the complexity of the orangemoody mechanisms were a testament to wikipedia's resilience at keeping 'normal' spambots and spam-meatpuppets out of mainspace, in fact.  But email is not wikipedia.  One of the reasons that I'm okay with revealing my computer's IP address is that it *isn't* tied to an email address, and cannot be spammed.  Pseudonymity slash anonymity are a very serious topic, methinks, and wikipedia is one of the few places where it *really* matters in a tangible fashion.  I mostly edit political articles, for instance, and some of them are not very collegial when the election-cycle heats up.


 * p.p.s. If you prefer to reply inline, to the various facets, please feel free to "chunk up" my talkpage-posting by sprinkling my sig into the appropriate places, so you have a place to indent beneath the newly-inserted sigs, or just by jumping into the middle as needed (I'll sprinkle my own sig as appropriate).  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 75.108, this is good thoughtful material. "Rotten to its core" is a bit of hyperbole, but I do feel the site's founding principles slipping away. Nowadays there are a lot of cases where editors are bullied into disclosing their relationship to a BLP, who is only a distant acquaintance, or disclosing their profession, then accused of having a COI on that basis. I still believe that anonymous editing keeps the focus on contents, rather than editors, and the more an editor discloses about themselves, the more "hooks" they offer for personal attacks on the basis of who they are or their motivations for editing. Paid editing is an exception where we need enough of a disclosure to avoid deceit.


 * My retiring from volunteer editing is more simplistic. I've experienced off-wiki harassment before and I've edited an article where I was told the company was trying to dox and sue me, but couldn't figure out who I was. Being anonymous is what protects users from this kind of thing and I'm just not willing to continue editing without the protection anonymity offers.


 * Aspiring to improve things is an idealistic stance. I generally don't edit any policy pages and most discussions I have seen are not very thoughtful, organized, etc.. I have a hard time imagining a thoughtful discussion about a slightly modified version of the TOU and from what I've seen WP:COI has just gotten more convoluted and worse over time.


 * Also, the true source of so much hostility and conspiracy speculation is the very large number of cases where such behavior is actually warranted. The astroturfing firms that are getting increasingly clever in hiding their financial connection make it increasingly difficult for Wikipedians to know who is a regular volunteer and who is actually a covert meatpuppet of a commercial interest. This leads to a sort of justified paranoia and a contentious environment on Wikipedia, both for paid editors and anyone who happens to add positive information about a company. It creates editors so frustrated with corporations that they take anti-corporate stances in content and participation. I am actually working on something that could make substantial impact, but I don't really feel the Wikipedia community itself is equipped to have thoughtful, progressive discussion that leads to meaningful decisions and actions. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 00:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware of the sanctions

 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

QuackGuru ( talk ) 00:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)