User talk:CorporateM/Archive 7

COI+ certification proposal
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.


 * WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey! Congrats on signing on to COI+.  I'm really glad you did and it seems like a perfect fit for the efforts you're already making.  I was just wondering about your signature, if rather than or inaddition to EthicalWiki, you might put (COI) there, just because the average editor will not know that Ethical Wiki means you're editing with a COI.  Let me know what you think.  Best, Ocaasit &#124; c 17:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh good point. On the other hand, most of my edits are without a COI, so I don't want to declare a COI when I don't have one. My user page says "I will always declare a COI when I have one." You can see an example of how I disclose here. It's not like anyone would miss it. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting tension in the current COI+ certification protocol, because the editors do agree to add a link to their COI declaration in their signature. If you don't think that's appropriate, I'll raise it for discussion at the talk page.  Maybe it would only be optional-but-recommended?  Still, I think it's a plus to have it in the signature.  What do you think? Ocaasit &#124; c 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's problematic in general that we try to be so prescriptive as a way to resolve a complex and contextual issue of nuance. In its current form, COIs that are beneficial to Wikipedia could reasonably be excluded, while COIs that are harmful could reasonably be certified. Any such attempt to create stringent rules will have this effect. Rather than create new rules that are enforced exclusively to participants, we should only seek to establish a group that has proven to follow the ones that exist to the extent of best practices.


 * Requiring a specific signature is somewhat akin to living in an HOA, where your whole neighborhood is watching that your grass doesn't grow too tall. The important part is that when you have a COI, editors you're working with know you do. It is not important for example that I disclose who my employer is, who is paying me, that my name is David King or even that I work for EthicalWiki - because disclosure is a best practice, does not make excessive disclosure even more beneficial.


 * As another example, enforcing the bright line is too stringent a criteria for certification. Rather, Wikipedia strategies that rely heavily, or almost exclusively, on community collaboration instead of direct editing, demonstrate a genuine attempt at NPOV and honesty. NPOV, disclosure, honesty are the criteria and the bright line is a reasonable way to measure them. For example, I would give certification to the author of FindTheBest, who posted his page after several impartial editors approved of it on COIN and other Talk pages (but none of us actually posted it on his behalf despite his numerous requests). He followed the Bright Line in spirit, though not as a technicality. It's not about who clicks the save button, but about honesty, transparency and collaboration.


 * I just don't think trying to break it down to these technical rules is the right approach in general. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 19:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where we got off track, but I want to try and get back to common ground. This protocol doesn't prohibit good COI editors from participating in Wikipedia.  It's really aimed most at the grey-area COI editors, those who need some guidance on what it means to constructively participate.  Prescriptive steps like adding 'COI' to a signature are only there because they are concrete and should be helpful on average.  Otherwise, I think the 'rules' are I think what already exist as far as best practice, and I didn't invent the COI-signature idea, I just copied it from User:Eclipsed, who's been doing it a long time.  On that point, I don't think that COI-Signatures require 'excessive' disclosure, only 'accessible' disclosure.  You might think that adding COI disclosure is like a scarlet letter but I rather think it is an outward facing show of good faith, something that non-COI editors will come to appreciate rather than scorn.  The nub of the matter for me is that COI disclosure doesn't do anyone any good if other editors don't see it; hence the addition of COI to ones signature.  I also don't think this proposal enforces brightline as written.  It is much closer to WP:COI, in that it permits uncontroversial factual and grammatical edits, and even permits more substantial direct edits if the response timeline has passed.  Finally, I have responded to you in a more thoughtful way on the COI certification page and opened your suggestion up for discussion.  I hope you check it out when you get a chance: Wikipedia_talk:COI_certification (and the following section).  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 22:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The project does not need my permission to proceed, nor is there any need for us to reach agreement or argue. It is merely an area where we disagree and have both adequately shared our views. Such disagreement should be welcomed to foster discussion, but it is not necessary that any single discussion reach an immediate or ultimate resolution. Rather similar discussions take place across the project and we learn from each other's perspectives as a result. The problem with omissions and COI is a big and complicated one that surely has many different POVs. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Request Edits
Hello. I noticed your post at AfC about Request Edits. I took the liberty of enclosing the tag you propose in a tl, and noticed that request edit already exists. Are you looking to modify it, use it as it is, or create something entirely different? (Please feel free to revert my edit if you do not actually want to use that template.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably the biggest item is we need decline templates, like and  similar to the ones we have for AfC. I would also like to create a template you can put on a sandbox and provide more instructions. For example, a lot of request edits have lengthy disclosures about who they are, even though their COI is obvious by using the template in the first place. So, right now all we have is the one template, and I want to build up the process and templates to be more comparable to AfC so we have a better process. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying for me!  --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started putting together a few obvious templates we need on the Talk page. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I bashed up a start of what I think you mean at User:Nouniquenames/re. Please feel free to have a look.  I haven't yet gotten the major rewrite portion done, and I have only a single, generic decline as yet (both are fixable).  If this is what you are looking for, we should be able to move forward with fleshing it out.  Also, the original  template added the page to a category.  We can do the same to create a list of tagged pages (or possibly tie into the category already used).  --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wohoo!!!! Thanks Noun!!! I'll continue contributing over there. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 04:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— Earwig   talk  02:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ryan Vesey Review me!  04:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethical Wiki
Well, someone had to close, and I'm pretty sure they had to close as delete, so I doubt I deserve much praise. Better than being dragged to DRV, though. There's WikiProject Editor Retention, if you're interested, but I'm skeptical it's of much help. Wily D 17:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yah, I signed up for the retention project. Not sure what DRV is. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's sort of like a reverse AfD. Deletion review.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  17:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Great job with the templates! —Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 04:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Schnitzel Records
Through patrolling pages, I've tripped over what may be a wide spread COI. I'm starting to turn some rocks over and I'm finding more and more instances where this COI has produced problematic edits. I've attempted to discuss the issues with the editors several times but I've been ignored so far. One user violated 3RR and was blocked and another user with about 40 edits showed up in its place (I'm guessing meat puppetry). I was about to start an investigation but I thought this might be good practice for a new method rather than shining a light on them, people being blocked/banned, and WP only being slightly better than it was before.

What do you think? The company is Schnitzel Records Ltd.. I feel that we'll not only have to address this problem by inviting COI editors to work with us but by converting users who have already tried to subvert our policies and guidelines to promote their cause. I was writing an email to info@schnitzel.co.uk, the only email I could find for anyone at the company, but thought you might want in on this.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  13:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't quite what I mean by conversion. The analogy of COI on Wikipedia with the relationship PR people have with professional journalists is compelling. If we apply that analogy here, a journalist doesn't try to train someone who is spamming them - they add them to their block list in their email filter. The journalist expects a PR person to invest their time in learning how to do PR well, to the extent that they provide value to the journalist. PR people that don't provide value to the journalist are not only shirked, but are often humiliated by the journalist with a nasty blog post. The difference is PR people haven't bothered developing the skills to provide valuable content to Wikipedia, because they don't have to - they can write themselves in.


 * On the other hand, journalists invite PR people to submit contributed content or work with them in other ways that are productive and provide clear, plain-English instructions on how they prefer PR works with them. [This one is particularly good.


 * For COIs that haven't edited yet, we can provide them with better instructions on how to contribute in non-controversial ways that are universally helpful ( like this). For COIs that have edited, we can look at this template for ways to optimize converting them to helpful participants. In situations where the COI has gone far down the dark side, have not responded to offers to help convert them, seem like a lost cause or where AGF cannot reasonably be assumed, we should continue to block them quickly and harshly. That is the best way to "convert" them by showing that bad behavior is not rewarded. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I feel that I have a better understanding of your intent/vision.  I understand and have seen the relationship between a journalist and spammy PR rep play out in various publications (the Gawker Media websites seem to handle it the most comically).  I guess my point of view comes from my experience here on Wikipedia at WP:COIN, which I think it quite different from your experience.


 * I see COI editors as one big boat of people who have a conflict of interest. Some are ignorant of our policies and guidelines while others understand them, at least in part, and wish to promote their company in spite of those guidelines and policies (intentionally or unintentionally).  I see this company as a company that doesn't understand the damage they're doing to WP and themselves by not working withing or policies and guidelines and by ignoring all interactions with other editors.  Perhaps I'm being naive and/or my time would be better spent just calling in the troops to issue blocks and cleanup/delete pages.


 * From my point of view, whether or not they're a PR rep or just someone with a conflict of interest is irrelevant. I may be completely wrong but I think from your point of view, they're different and our time would be better spent creating a system to help those who want to play nice and to help those who have no idea what goes on here.  Does that sound correct?  I don't see that either view as wrong, in any way.  To be honest, I've felt sort of dense lately in that I'm not always sure if we're on the same page.  I think we absolutely want to achieve the same goals but have different, non-conflicting thoughts about getting there.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  18:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you find yourself in a position where you still (a) are AGFing the case and (b) the COI may provide valuable contributions to Wikipedia in the future, you are in a position to attempt a conversion.


 * The third paragraph of the COI guideline has some language that says we should AGF the case when someone voluntarily discloses. Disclosure is a reasonable measure (the best we have) on whether a COI deserves AGF, but we shouldn't use that yardstick until they've been given an invitation to disclose and explained why they should.


 * I imagine a conversion taking place in two phases. In phase 1, we determine if the COI deserves AGF with a blatant invitation to disclose. It's interesting when you see discussion on COIN, where nobody just asked the person if they have a COI in a straightforward (but not witch-hunt) kind of way. Our goal should be to optimize templates and invitations to improve the number of COIs that disclose on Talk pages in response, instead of burdensome edit-wars and blocks. If the editor does not disclose, it's a good sign that they either don't care, or are hopeless and won't follow instructions. (but we need better invitations first through better templates probably)


 * Once a COI discloses, we provide them with the plain-english instructions on how to contribute and where they can provide value, for example, by sharing sources. Phase 2 is about whether they will follow instructions, learn skills, and become an asset.


 * Wikipedia's role is not to train individual COIs or become our slaves to help us, but to provide better instructions and templates so we can help ourselves, and help Wikipedia. To give us a better chance at turning ourselves into an asset instead of a burden. Give us a better shot at becoming useful participants.


 * Obviously the community's level of obligation will vary by circumstance and by each editor's preference. A borderline attack piece, or defamation should be taken more seriously. Most COIs will need at least some help, but to the extent where a volunteer chips in 1 hour and gets 10 hours worth of good content on Wikipedia - that's a good trade-off. Volunteers should work with us to the extent that doing so will improve Wikipedia and block us to the extent that doing so will improve Wikipedia, etc.. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For example, I helped Hill & Knowlton, because not using op-eds and contributed articles as sources for controversial material, being precise instead of editorialized, etc. should be a level where we feel an obligation to be responsive. On the other hand, I helped Cornerstone Barristers because I was asked, but wouldn't feel we had an obligation to do more than provide the COI with links and instructions for the AfC process.User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 19:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like I fully understand you vision now. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the misunderstanding.
 * As for our last discussion, it was archived before I could respond. The community-written letter to PR agencies is an excellent idea.
 * As for the discussion on my talk page, the 3 bullet points you left are great starts for possible services, in my opinion. Also, I've been convinced through a few conversations that I'm holding myself back from a net positive based on my worry that I'll train some sort of unethical Wiki-mercenary.
 * I'm very interested in the COI+ certification, the possibility of training PR reps (or whoever wishes to take a course), and continuing to improve Wikipedia's working relationship with committed COI editors. Are there any COI+ type initiatives that you're working on?  I feel that I got into COI+ late in the game.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  19:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason, when I save an edit, the text disappears so I've gotten into the habit of copying what I've typed in case I need to paste and repost it. Must have accidentally copied your message.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you are still AGFing in this case, it would be interesting to see if we could get any response through an invitation to disclose.

I have found the same trouble with training, but I am doing a training for a PR agency on August 27th at 3:30. Around 4 ET, they'll be editing this page. My direction is to focus on Talk pages, factual corrections, sharing sources, ethics, etc. in a 1-hour seminar, as oppose to a "how to edit Wikipedia." I think it's more important to train PR people on ethics, rather than policies and guidelines. This isn't a huge profitable endeavor, but it trains a PR agency to handle the things they shouldn't need my help for and I feel ok about the expected outcome ethically.

We often have this naive perspective that COIs will act out of a natural interest in ethics, rather than to serve their own best interest. We can prevent censorship and spam to the extent that we can instill fear of the repercussions and a lack of effectiveness. We can improve Wikipedia through the help of COIs to the extent that we can provide incentives for above-board participation that is genuinely helpful. COI certification can play a part in this.

There's no misunderstanding. Actually I apologize if my phrasing comes off harsh. Do you think we should RfC the idea of a letter? I would be interested in doing some pro-bono PR for it among PR publications and contributing to the letter itself. It would be important that such a letter is something most editors could reasonably get behind, as oppose to being produced by a single camp. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, letter idea posted on the village pump here. Would be interest in your thoughts over there. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was tasked with fixing a major issue at work yesterday. I'll do my best to participate at the pump and start working on the letter but it may be sporadic.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind
I suggested the RfC because I thought the template was still a user subpage, but I see that you already integrated it into request edit and rewrote the documentation, so I suppose that you're good to go. I suppose that you should inform people about the changes on Wikipedia talk:Edit requests and Wikipedia talk:AFC, just so that everyone's aware of how to use the new version of template.—Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, the AfC Talk page is where I found Noun to help create them. When Dennis was asked for his admin powers for moves, he suggested we be bold. Other discussions have taken place on similar template improvements in the COOP group and other places. I don't think we need an RfC though, primarily because the template isn't used very often.


 * But this does bring us to the next stage. How do we get people to use the templates (both COIs and volunteers). The COI guideline makes a pretty strong referral to using request edits for financial COIs. I wonder if there should be some kind of change to the Wikiproject Companies template with a COI warning. That would be an RfC worthy event, because it effects thousands of article Talk pages. Imagine if most any company that looked at their Talk page could see a prominent link to plain english instructions on how to request improvements. That could make a huge impact on more bright line participation and be RfC-worhty. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something that could be discussed over at the Village pump (idea lab). That way, you could use community consensus and advice to write up instructions, so you would have a strong chance at passing the RfC.—Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 21:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You have messages
— BigNate37(T) 16:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Turbocharger additions
re wastegates, it needs to highlight the relationship between diesels (which don't need a wastegate) and petrol engines (that do). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia/PR op-ed
Village pump (policy) - I have 800 words to cover the entire issue to perfection. I vaguely recall you and/or User:Ocaasi were working on templates, a how-to page etc. to make life a little easier for sincere PRs ... did I recall this correctly? If so, please add stuff there :-) WP:PSCOI, that sort of thing? - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I responded over there. This link describes some of the efforts I'm working on with others intended to make COIs using Talk pages more practical for everyone. Better instructions, process, templates, etc. You're certainly welcome to chip in as well if you have opinions about them. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Draft, ready for comment - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Num, num, num. I don't like tea in real life, but digital tea is so yummy! User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Heritage
Hi, King. Thanks for contacting. You do seem forthright, and you've certainly been engaged in what seems like meaningful discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest and elsewhere. As a professional journalist, which many of my Wikipedia colleagues are not, I have to caution that I'm aware most public relations professionals, once they become good and well-practiced at the job, serve their clients by a less-direct form of positive bias than obvious puffery. I'm not sure that all intelligent, experienced Wikipedians realize this &mdash; nor should they be expected to, just as most cross-country skiers would not as aware of the nuances of landscapes as competitive cross-country skiers, to use an arbitrary example.

But as COI guidelines say, editors with conflict-of-interest are certainly allowed to edit. You seem admirably aware of the need for an encyclopedia to be as objective as humanly possible, in addition to factual, and your edits must be gauged by the larger community on the same case-by-case basis as anyone else's. Because of my professional background, my radar for subtle positive bias will be more acute than that of most other contributors &mdash; and I get the sense you would respect that. Perhaps you're even aware of a saying that a broadcast journalist once told me about both himself (tongue-in-cheek) and PR professionals (in all seriousness): "They key is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made."

I'm glad the co-founder of Heritage is aware of what's been going on. Full disclosure on my part: I frequently buy from Heritage &mdash; I've an order on the way as we speak &mdash; and I've found the company, in my dealings, to be scrupulous about items' condition and provenance, and of very high quality in its packaging, delivery and documentation. I like Heritage, expensive though its buyers' premium may be, and I put my money where my mouth is. So my objections to Heritage's overt self-promotion is completely divorced from my personal good feelings toward the company. It's part of a larger issue, as I'm sure it's unnecessary to tell you.

Again, thank you for opening a discussion, and I'm sure we'll be working together. Best of luck on your enterprise; it treads a line, but no worse (and perhaps better) than that of hardcore fans editing film or music stars' articles. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your criticisms and caution are well-founded. My perspective is "don't ask me to be neutral, only to be honest and valuable." It is not within my power to be utterly neutral in the sense of a holy and unattainable degree - a degree of neutrality that is difficult to find on company articles anyway, but I can provide content that is useful, informative, and generally meets our expectations for neutrality. If an editor spends 1 hour reviewing my work and making some tweaks to 15 hours worth of work, I have provided value to Wikipedia and to the community - while solving a problem for both the company and Wikipedia. If the content is subtly bias, that's a huge improvement over the overt bias that is prolific throughout company articles, which have a vast number of self-written pufferies or articles trolled by critics and focused almost exclusively on criticisms.


 * It's not a perfect system, but I find that when everything is put into consideration, it's a working and positive system, so long as people like me use Talk page strategies and provide a reasonable means to establish trust and honesty. So long as we hide information and are manipulative or deceitful (even from the Talk page) the dynamic will be tenuous at best, however that behavior will always occur because of the nature of a COI.


 * I'm going off on a rant as I have a habit of doing, but looking forward to working together! I'm pleased you are so thoughtful, civil and willing, despite potential burnout from prior issues. User:King4057 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Along these lines, I re-wrote the Spin section of the Wikipedia article on PR not too long ago. I thought it was interesting that among us PR folks, spin is a derogatory term that suggest overt lying, however the modern and publicly accepted definition is merely that spin entails subtle bias. Under the public's definition, I think almost all PR would be considered spin, because we are hired to communicate the company's POV. Wikipedia creates a very different expectation, because we are expected to attempt to be neutral, rather than being called upon to get the company's POV. But I do my best to meet these expectations. ;-) User:King4057 19:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
Hi. When you recently edited Aviation biofuel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Additives (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply re: Heritage
Hi, Corporate Minion. I appreciate, as I'm sure other editors would or have, the ongoing discussion and your candidness as a COI editor.

RE: "What do you think about us creating a summary with a "See Main Article" and creating a separate article on Notable Auctions by Heritage Auctions? The reason being that the Notable Auctions section will be so long" &mdash; not sure why it "will be so long". It's already longer than that of Christie's, from the looks of things, and I would say that if the most notable sales of one of the world's most famous and longstanding auction houses can be kept to a section of an article, I'd be very surprised that Heritage would have so many much more notable sales that it would spill over into its own separate piece.

I would also imagine that while a COI editor is certainly fine for adding purely factual information, his making qualitative judgments as to what constitutes a notable sale seems to cross a line. I'm not sure some of the "notable" sales in the article already are all that notable, but one can only do so much.

I agree that secondary sources publishing "expected" prices is non-notable speculation. However, if a sale is even marginally notable, it will be covered by the media after the fact, with prices attributed to Heritage press releases or the Heritage website. I'm not sure I see the need for citing a primary source in this case.

I'm also not sure it would be the most advisable thing for a COI editor to remove content involving lawsuits against the company. Having disinterested editors make claims of whitewashing would color any of the COI editor's future actions and make it more difficult for him to make necessary factual edits and corrections. In an effort to address this, I've trimmed some material in the existing controversy section to keep just the raw facts. Looking at this section in detail for the first time, I see some cite-format and other, minor issues that also needed addressing.

I hope my comments have proved helpful. Having your advocate for the company who can provide quantifiable facts and hard-to-find citations is, I believe, a valuable resource. WIth regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am looking to remove some of the auctions currently listed that are not-notable, while adding/expanding some that have gotten coverage in the Associated Press and appear more notable. I also found a secondary source that can replace some of the court documents. Of course I leave all final content decisions in the hands of impartial editors. It would be hard to accuse a COI of white-washing, who did not touch the article and expanded substantially on controversies. As a volunteer I would probably find myself not including this one in particular, but I am sympathetic to the cause of corporations being mistreated by Wikipedia's coverage of them. User:Corporate Minion 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with editor Tenebrae in every specific above. The judgement of an editor paid specifically to clean up a previously COI-related article should always be questioned. As much as I respect the work you've done to date, there's a subtle moving of goal posts in each of your three requests made on Tenebrae's talk. I urge you to take the approach I've previously suggested. Start from scratch. By sections. In a sandbox linked on the talk page. IMHO, notable auction means precisely that: notable enough to be covered in independent reliable sources. The Sotheby's page looks like the best model from which to work, IMHO. Because of previous page history, you have a special responsibility to be fully transparent with this pagespace process. BusterD (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have begun from scratch as suggested, salvaging only the sources from the current article. I found that 26 out of 46 of the sources were acceptable. Many sourcing violations are made in a way that injects promotionalism in some manner or, in the case of the lawsuit, the prior version was overly defensive. A major part of my charter is to clean up prior COI editing that has made the article problematic. However, a COI can't start from scratch without speculation on why something is missing. This section uses citations 38-46, all of which save 1 are court documents, which on the surface appear to have been added as an overzealous response from HA. However, I see no method for a COI to start a discussion on an issue like this that wouldn't result in a defensive stance. My original offline drafts (the stage I am at now) are typically written in a manner that is identical to how I would write it as a volunteer, however the same actions will be interpreted differently as a COI and I am a pro-corporate editor in my volunteer editing (something I think we need).


 * In any case, the content is fine and doesn't contain anything overtly non-factual, nor is it anything that HA seemed sensitive about. It's not a discussion I care to extend to excessive lengths. If most of the sourcing are court documents, secondary sources don't disclose any compelling evidence, the cases were thrown out and a restraining order was obtained, that suggests to me it was the kind of routine harassment all companies get. I use to work for security at Apple and we got served routinely - one guy threw court documents on the concrete in front of the building and said we were served. I think as a community we can exercise good judgement in these cases. But in any case, I'll probably just propose a draft with that section left alone would be the easiest way. No biggie. It's not that different from - for example - I think some of the controversies covered in Starbucks are excessive (I have no connection), but I withhold from commenting there due to the reception I would expect as a frequent COI, due to the COI history there. User:Corporate Minion 23:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Heritage Auctions Logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Heritage Auctions Logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Edit
Hello Corporate Minion Thank you for cleaning up the Racing Pigeon Controversy page. I have a couple of more issues with the remaining material but I wanted to make sure I was posting correctly as this is my first attempt --VanceJohn (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That was me who contacted you earlier. By the time I got some support and citations, you had already cleaned up most of the problems.  I do have several items that I believe are incorrect and the first and most important is rather complex so I will leave that for later and start with a rather clear issue.


 * The second paragraph starts out “Unwanted pigeons are often killed or abused during training and racing.[17]”


 * The citation [17] takes you to an article that does not support the conclusion that “Unwanted pigeons are often killed or abused during training and racing”. They probably hope that no one will read the article and discover their ruse.  There is just no mention about "unwanted pigeons", or that pigeons are "killed or abused during training and racing", anywhere in the cited article.  Didn't they think that someone would read the article? --VanceJohn (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Vance, no problem. I posted a request edit on your behalf over here. I am generally comfortable modifying the article on a pro-bono basis, where I have no financial connection and no editorial oversight. In this way my prior editing was merely me editing on a volunteer basis, in a situation where your phone call alerted me to an issue. On the other hand, in a case where you are requesting a specific edit - which I think is a valid request in this case - I would rather leave it to an editor that has had no prior connection. Someone should review it and - I suspect remove or modify the content - within a week or two. If your organization is chartered to educate the public on pigeon racing, I imagine you could do a lot of good if you decide to improve the article in general as well. User:Corporate Minion 19:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks David, Now that I have my feet wet, I will have to familiarize myself with the procedures, and like you suggest, maybe I can help bring helpful information about racing pigeons to the page. --VanceJohn (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As a pro-pigeon racing organization, you wouldn't want to be seen as whitewashing the controversy section, so we've submitted a request edit on the Talk page to avoid this. For other sections like Training, History or Breeding, you are a subject matter expert with no "conflict of interest" that I can discern. In these areas the process I would suggest is for you to edit the article directly rather than submit a request. Depending on how far your interests go, I'm happy to keep coaching you along. User:Corporate Minion 07:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

?
What's with the name change? Silver seren C 06:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was requested here.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  07:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the link, since it defeats the purpose. Corporate Minion articulates the persona I intend to take as a volunteer editor, both because it suits me and because I think Wikipedia needs it. That is to be balance activism and consumer empowerment with someone who is more sympathetic to corporate interests.


 * My new COI account represents the realities that I am only a consultant, writer and code-monkey, but have no decision-making power on the content. Each submission should represent each client individually and be taken on its own merit, without coming from a trusted user that may make it awkward for friendly editors to criticize. No one person can take credit for the content, rather I am a delegate on behalf of a corporate bureaucracy and the content is only representative of my consulting abilities.


 * There are few large corporations I could edit without knowing someone or knowing someone who knows someone, or potentially knowing someone in the future. I see the value Wikipedia places in being anonymous. So I have improved this as well, while disclosing my COI on the appropriate account. User:Corporate Minion 14:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the link removal. I only left it there because it will be easier to find the original name of this account and your name by other means, should one want to, rather than cruising through every talk page post. I only mention this because if your goal is to keep your anonymity air tight, someone with a bit of experience could easily discern your identity.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. I think I will not go through extensive lengths to be anonymous, just to the extent of making me comfortable editing in contentious areas. Corporate Minion 15:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You might want to put db-u1 on your userpage to delete all the old versions from public view. SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can do that if you'd like. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. I think you wanted to keep the last revision, but let me know if you'd like that deleted too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with using a separate account for my COI work? Someone already brought it up at my new account, but only suggested I be cautious. I would prefer not to overtly hide the connection between the two accounts, such that any astute observer could - if they really wanted to - find me out and confirm I am not doing anything deceptive. On the other hand, I would prefer to be able to engage in contentious or friendly discussions as a volunteer, and not have that result in a favorable (or less favorable) response to my COI contributions - allowing my COI contributions to stand isolated on merit alone and not influenced by relationships or reputation. Corporate Minion 20:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:SOCK very carefully. It really depends what the "contentious or friendly discussions" are about and whether they affect this account in anyway. You might want to let Arbcom know as well. SmartSE (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My personal advice is that you should make the link. I see nothing wrong with using two names -- but in this case you have acquired a positive and important  reputation from your work under the earlier name, not just article work but your many comments, and it is not unfair for you  to use it. What is unfair, in my opinion, is for people who do not know that connection, but see only the current user page to not know explicitly who you are: if there is one thing I would surely ban is is paid editing without an openly declared name, so that everyone could see just who it is that is taking the responsibility. I'd apply it to paid COI also, and I respect those corporate PR people who use their real names, or when told to pick a new name, choose to do so.  The only reason I wouldn't apply it to unpaid COI is that everybody has some & it would therefore end all anonymous editing.
 * But in any event Smartse is correct--you need to tell a member of arb com. It's your basic protection.  DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I will reconsider making the link based on your feedback. I will not disclose my real-name or company name, due to the many issues I've encountered, including off-wiki harassment and unkowingly deleting spammy content written by someone I use to work with (to name a couple situations). RE "in this case you have acquired a positive and important reputation" - I hope to keep it that way from this account, while encouraging a healthy skepticism and criticism where I have a COI.


 * How does one go about sending a quick FYI to ArbCom? Corporate Minion 00:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Stub tags
Hi, Please take care not to add stub to an article like 365 (media corporation) which already has a subject-specific stub tag. And remember that per WP:ORDER stub tags go at the end, after everything except inter-language links, not at the top. Thanks. Pam D  18:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks. Corporate Minion 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The San Jose Group
I do want to double check one thing. In reference to The San Jose Group, I do not believe that the Hanes citation from PR News was a SJG Press Release. I believe they were reporting SJ Public Relations winning an award. If it is in fact news, then it shouldn't it be notable? Thanks, Casslbre (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am at a disadvantage, because I cannot see the source. However, we use citations for two things. (1) is to verify a fact and (2) is establish whether something is worth including. If someone like a professional journalist wrote a profile piece on SJG and decided that a specific campaign or award was worth including, we use the judgment of a reliable source as a measure. Additionally, when a journalist covers a specific PR campaign in substantial depth, we would then figure that - since it was worth the journalist's attention - it is also worth ours.


 * When the coverage is trivial, such as routine announcements and press release re-writes, the source fails to establish the information is worthy of notice, because the journalist didn't spend any substantial amount of time on it. The easy criteria for this section is that we're looking for campaigns that are the subject of an article and are covered in substantial depth. Corporate Minion 22:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't seen
the Corporate Minion name before. Does this mean you're selling out? (joke) Was wondering whether you've been following the Gibralterpedia flap. I also noticed that when you put a template on my page, a horrible side effect was that I was categorized as a "connected Wikipedian." I value my independence too much for that!

Keep in touch.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Bones. You know it's too bad we bumped into each other at Wikimania, but never got to chat.


 * I heard of the DYK issue, but this is my first hearing of Gibralterpedia.


 * In my opinion, the solution to financial COI is pretty simple. Submit new articles to AfC, offer major submissions through request edit/Talk pages, and use common sense for janitorial edits. This is basically the advice offered by WP:COI and is pretty close to Jimbo's WP:BRIGHTLINE.


 * If we can beam this straightforward advice to corporate articles and man the  request edit process, there will be no good reason for any good faith COI not to adopt a permission-based approach. This offers a consistent process to allow paid editors to submit content that is valuable and serves our readers, while declining submissions that are not so valuable.


 * If we can nail that, I would consider good-faith COI as resolved as it's ever going to be. Fixing bad-faith is more challenging. I have a few ideas there, but it is more complicated. Corporate Minion 06:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ask Ziggy Inc.
Thanks for helping clean this article up. I see three reliable sources that mention at least one paragraph of the article's subject each, indeed two of them have several, so I have passed it through Articles for Creation. Cheers. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will watchlist it. Corporate Minion 14:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Tracx sceenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tracx sceenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, fair use images can only be used in mainspace articles, not userspace. You should wait until articles are in mainspace before adding non-free images. See #9 of Non-free_content. SmartSE (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yah, yah, I know. I am a very bad boy when it comes to this particular policy. I'm not sure this particular article will make it to article-space either. I whipped it up as a personal favor to a friend, but told her it was a borderline case for notability. Nothing wrong with lobbing it over to AfC and seeing what they say though. Corporate Minion 23:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SrGangsta (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Carolyn Jarvis FYI
There was a discussion on at User_talk:Ironholds. Apparently, the new season of 16x9 starts tomorrow/Friday. So, they are probably happy it has been moved. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't know about the discussion, which puts my boldness in context, but I think it was ready anyway. Much better now thanks to your effort. Corporate 01:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been in contact with Samanthajayne77 via email. Given the evolution of the discussion on licensing we have had, I am fairly certain that she has been in contact with those authorized to release the photo. As the 16x9 season starts tomorrow/Friday, do think it would be OK to put the photo back for a week to allow for permission to arrive at OTRS? Ironholds seemed to be OK with that. If you would like, I will personally add a commons deletion request of the image if I do not feel that licencing permission is proceeding. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding using a non-white box, that you mentioned on Ironhold's talk: any examples? I've not heard of that. Samantha said she would send me more references for the article. Jim1138 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and cut out the white background in Photoshop and added an OTRS pending tag. I was referring to how the infobox has a slight grey background, so images with a white background in the infobox create a white box inside the infobox. I also gave it a closer cull through, moved more citations in-line and expanded the lead slightly. Corporate 12:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It would appear that Template:Personality rights and Template:Custom license marker are not implemented outside of Commons and show up on File:Carolyn Jarvis, Chief Correspondent for Global News' 16x9.png red. Any suggestions? Thanks again Jim1138 (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh, not sure I have an opinion or anything to contribute there. It could be moved back to commons or the template removed - either way. Corporate 17:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)