Obvious paid editors are obvious

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:14 pm

Sweet Revenge wrote:This sounds like fun. Are we talking active editors?

A list of "active" editors would foul the experiment, as most paid editing accounts come on line, they do their business, and then they have no further use for Wikipedia.

I suspect the better way to sample this study, if one were to do it, is to simply look at business-related articles and biographies, and check out the edit history of their first creator and/or largest contributor. Then again, I have has some paid editing jobs where my mission is to simply remove or revamp a mere sub-section of a larger article (to make it NPOV, of course), so I would neither be the article's creator, nor its heaviest contributor.

Edit: Sorry to ErrantX, as I didn't yet see his response on this very matter.

P.S. I am not interested in executing this study, but I would be happy to help design it for research integrity's sake.

ErrantX · Unread post by **ErrantX** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:16 pm

thekohser wrote:
ErrantX wrote:(this isn't a perfect example, but it demonstrates how random samples can be heavily biased)
It's rather imperfect, in that you're conflating issues having to do with contact rates with randomness. I see your point, of course, but... remember you could have one person making those outbound calls, or you could have 100 in a call center. The randomness doesn't increase with the amount of time you take to place all of the contact calls.

The point is to demonstrate that a random sample could still end up sampling only a small segment of the population (those people at home between 10 and 12, who are awake). By calling a larger sample (yourself) you improve the spread of your sample - it's still random, but your cross section is better.

It's really an example highlighting bad sample design - but it was just meant to point out how a "random" sample could be.. not random

But, I'm veering even further off topic now, sorry!

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:59 pm

ErrantX wrote:
thekohser wrote:
ErrantX wrote:(this isn't a perfect example, but it demonstrates how random samples can be heavily biased)
It's rather imperfect, in that you're conflating issues having to do with contact rates with randomness. I see your point, of course, but... remember you could have one person making those outbound calls, or you could have 100 in a call center. The randomness doesn't increase with the amount of time you take to place all of the contact calls.
The point is to demonstrate that a random sample could still end up sampling only a small segment of the population (those people at home between 10 and 12, who are awake). By calling a larger sample (yourself) you improve the spread of your sample - it's still random, but your cross section is better.

It's really an example highlighting bad sample design - but it was just meant to point out how a "random" sample could be.. not random

But, I'm veering even further off topic now, sorry!

The most important thing is the proportion of the population that has the feature of interest (in this case, paid editing). If only one editor in 500 were paid, you'd need a fairly large sample (a lot more than 500) to obtain a reliable estimate of the actual proportion. If every second editor were paid (equivalent to tossing a fair coin), you'd get a fairly good result from just 50 editors. The population size is irrelevant in comparison.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:11 pm

HRIP7 wrote:The most important thing is the proportion of the population that has the feature of interest (in this case, paid editing). If only one editor in 500 were paid, you'd need a fairly large sample (a lot more than 500) to obtain a reliable estimate of the actual proportion. If every second editor were paid (equivalent to tossing a fair coin), you'd get a fairly good result from just 50 editors. The population size is irrelevant in comparison.

There is a formula (which I don't remember, and my stats reference is buried in a box somewhere) that relates sample size to confidence interval for samples seeking to measure a population proportion. This formula includes the actual population proportion, which, of course, creates a chicken-egg problem, since you can't know, even imprecisely, the population proportion until you do the sample. I don't recall the exact formula but I know it includes p and (1-p) as terms, and achieves a minima at p=0.5 and is infinite at p=0 or p=1.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:13 pm

thekohser wrote:I suspect the better way to sample this study, if one were to do it, is to simply look at business-related articles and biographies, and check out the edit history of their first creator and/or largest contributor.

That might work, although a totally random sample would be more "acceptable" to the Wiki-Faithful (assuming they will be honest about any of this).

If someone generates a spreadsheet of 500-1000 random editors, which can be done with a script, I'll categorize their activities and generate charts. Deal?

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:53 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:The most important thing is the proportion of the population that has the feature of interest (in this case, paid editing). If only one editor in 500 were paid, you'd need a fairly large sample (a lot more than 500) to obtain a reliable estimate of the actual proportion. If every second editor were paid (equivalent to tossing a fair coin), you'd get a fairly good result from just 50 editors. The population size is irrelevant in comparison.
There is a formula (which I don't remember, and my stats reference is buried in a box somewhere) that relates sample size to confidence interval for samples seeking to measure a population proportion. This formula includes the actual population proportion, which, of course, creates a chicken-egg problem, since you can't know, even imprecisely, the population proportion until you do the sample. I don't recall the exact formula but I know it includes p and (1-p) as terms, and achieves a minima at p=0.5 and is infinite at p=0 or p=1.

If the sample size is S, and your samples are properly random with replacement, then the number of your targeted subpopulation in your sample will be binomially distributed with mean p S and variance p (1 - p) S . If both S and p S are sufficienly large for the normal approximation to be usable, then a sample size of S = x**2/( p (1-p) ) will give you a confidence level of c that the number of your targeted subpopulation in your sample lies within x standard deviations of the mean, where c is the probability that a standard normal variate lies between -x and x. I suspect this is the formula you're referring to.

However, if you want a confidence level c that the number of your targeted subpopulation in your sample lies within a fraction f of the mean, you need x**2 p (1 - p) S = ( f p S )**2; i.e. S = (x/f)**2 (1 - p)/p . For 95% confidence, you need x =approx 1.96, so if p =approx 0.5 then to have 95% confidence that you're within 10% of the mean, for example, you need S =approx 19.6**2 =approx 384 . Of course, as you point out, you don't actually know what p is, and the smaller it is, the larger you need to make S to achieve a given confidence level.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:41 pm

lonza leggiera wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:The most important thing is the proportion of the population that has the feature of interest (in this case, paid editing). If only one editor in 500 were paid, you'd need a fairly large sample (a lot more than 500) to obtain a reliable estimate of the actual proportion. If every second editor were paid (equivalent to tossing a fair coin), you'd get a fairly good result from just 50 editors. The population size is irrelevant in comparison.
There is a formula (which I don't remember, and my stats reference is buried in a box somewhere) that relates sample size to confidence interval for samples seeking to measure a population proportion. This formula includes the actual population proportion, which, of course, creates a chicken-egg problem, since you can't know, even imprecisely, the population proportion until you do the sample. I don't recall the exact formula but I know it includes p and (1-p) as terms, and achieves a minima at p=0.5 and is infinite at p=0 or p=1.
If the sample size is S, and your samples are properly random with replacement, then the number of your targeted subpopulation in your sample will be binomially distributed with mean p S and variance p (1 - p) S . If both S and p S are sufficienly large for the normal approximation to be usable, then a sample size of S = x**2/( p (1-p) ) will give you a confidence level of c that the number of your targeted subpopulation in your sample lies within x standard deviations of the mean, where c is the probability that a standard normal variate lies between -x and x. I suspect this is the formula you're referring to.

However, if you want a confidence level c that the number of your targeted subpopulation in your sample lies within a fraction f of the mean, you need x**2 p (1 - p) S = ( f p S )**2; i.e. S = (x/f)**2 (1 - p)/p . For 95% confidence, you need x =approx 1.96, so if p =approx 0.5 then to have 95% confidence that you're within 10% of the mean, for example, you need S =approx 19.6**2 =approx 384 . Of course, as you point out, you don't actually know what p is, and the smaller it is, the larger you need to make S to achieve a given confidence level.

Very impressive statistics.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:20 pm

Avidreachearcher (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Affiliated in some way with Denise Bode or a political party
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:15 pm

72.240.25.110 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: IP is assigned to Line Drive Sportz, author is likely Elizabeth Beck, the company's principal.
Disclosure: Edit summary, "I am an employee, updating what we have done to the complex"
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

Sample of content added in October 2011, not modified after about 1,100 page views:

"Great Sports & Linedrive Sportz are the new owners of the rec center. They are a private company who lease the property. Without their contributions, the property would have been left abandoned, or even torn down."

"They also offer a variety of items in their Pro Shop. You can order your team's spirit wear or equipment also."

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:51 pm

Mcurranwiki (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Michael Curran is the publisher of Ottawa Business Journal, which is the only Wikipedia article ever edited by "Mcurranwiki"
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

(Numerous later IP edits to Ottawa Business Journal came from the headquarters of the largest printer in Canada, which used to own the newspaper.)

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:24 am

Mod. note: The discussion on maintaining balance is now here

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:47 am

Ehaddad1 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Elias Haddad was a Summer 2012 legal intern at Maalouf Ashford & Talbot, LLP
Disclosure: None, other than to say his name is "Elias" and where he goes to school, which also lines up with the LinkedIn profile of Elias Haddad, the legal intern.
Unity of focus: About 95%
Ever warned on Talk page: Several times, but mostly about image use
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:01 am

Multiple: 199.219.187.109 (T-C-L), 24.189.161.171 (T-C-L), 68.194.13.203 (T-C-L), and Madmpress (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Working for James P. Nichols and/or Mem Nahadr, whose performance art piece "Madwoman" is produced by Nichols
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: About 95%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:07 am

Multiple: Webeditor87 (T-C-L), Check23 (T-C-L), and 24.107.151.51 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: C. Robert Cloninger (even the IP address resolves to St. Louis)
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: About 95%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:10 am

Klcoop3 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Sally Banes
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:20 am

Multiple: LuzanneOtte (T-C-L), 76.94.43.34 (T-C-L), 76.175.78.124 (T-C-L), and (of course) Jcoughlin77 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: John J. Coughlin
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: About 95%
Ever warned on Talk page: Minor warning on one IP's page
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:24 am

Jillskor (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Martin Deeley and the International Association of Canine Professionals
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: About 95%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:29 am

SW2000 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Software Imaginge (formerly "Software 2000")
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Yes
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:36 am

Hebertb (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Medical University of South Carolina
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 75%%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No[/quote]

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:42 pm

Morning277
Likely COI: Sockpuppet army of SPA paid editor(s)
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Probably 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: Repeatedly
Blocked: Most are not; e.g., RileyTomTom (T-C-L) is free to continue his single-minded work for a South African race car driver, and QueenslandPlayer (T-C-L) is still laboring away exclusively on the Tej Gyan Foundation.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:48 pm

Ctva08 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Probably is Thomas V. Chema, president of Hiram College
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Only about image copyright problems
Blocked: No

(Note the user name could easily be an acronym of "Chema, Thomas V.")

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:53 pm

Jfbouchard (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Joseph Bouchard
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

(Note that he wants Wikipedia readers to know he's available for TV and radio appearances.)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:11 pm

VTournelle (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Robert J. Shillman, founder of Cognex Corporation
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Speedy deletion notice
Blocked: No

However, working against VTournelle is another single-minded editor,

Cogvoid (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Jerome Lemelson, notorious litigant against Cognex Corporation
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Yes
Blocked: Once, for 72 hours

So, because Wikipedia allows views from both sides -- one tolerated, the other warned and blocked, you ultimately end up with a "neutral point of view", which proves that Wikipedia is working.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:29 pm

Oshinkozee (T-C-L) and Gidgetwidget (T-C-L)
Likely COI: American Association of Suicidology
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:49 pm

Stomio (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Theodore Wells Pietsch III ‎
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: Once, for image copyright issue
Blocked: No

Stomio was activated in 2009. Not content with writing his own ichthyological biography, Ted Pietsch III then (probably) created a new account in April 2010:

Twp10 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Theodore Wells Pietsch III and Theodore Wells Pietsch I (Grandpa!)
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: Twice, for image copyright issues
Blocked: No

Not content with only writing about himself and his grandfather, a new account was created in August 2011 to finally get around to writing about dad:

Rondeletius (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Ichthyologist John Nathan Cobb, Theodore Wells Pietsch III, Theodore Wells Pietsch I, and Theodore Wells Pietsch II (Daddio!)
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 95%
Ever warned on Talk page: Twice, for copyright issues
Blocked: No

Kind of cool how (probably) one editor with three different accounts was able to write an autobiography, a biography of his father, and a biography of his grandfather. It is nice how Wikipedia encourages this type of self-guided research to be published. (Actually, entrenched Wikipedians rage against this type of self-promotion; however, just look at the articles. They are elegant and elaborate -- just what a reader should want to see in a Wikipedia biography. WHY DOESN'T WIKIPEDIA ENCOURAGE RATHER THAN VILIFY this sort of conflict-of-interest editing?!)

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:14 pm

Zandrewgrubbs (T-C-L) and 97.97.211.187 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Brent Britton
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100% and about 50%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

Note that "Andrew Grubbs" and "Brent Britton" are Google Plus friends with each other. Note that the IP address resolves to Tampa, Florida, where Britton resides.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:17 pm

JournalistMX (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Mexican journalist, Carmen Aristegui
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 67%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:21 pm

MsButterfly (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Orim M. Meikle ‎
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Over 95%
Ever warned on Talk page: Multiple times, about copyright issues
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:25 pm

FactfinderNYPD (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Jerry Speziale‎
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Twice, about disambiguation guidelines
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:28 pm

I wonder what Jimbo Wales would think of this thread, considering his "bright line" stance on undisclosed advocacy editing?

Would he say that these are just a mere few examples out of a sample of millions of Wikipedia articles? Would he say that these are "tricky", because nothing has been definitively proven about these editors? Would he say that he's "mostly okay" with these, because they appear to mostly be innocently involved parties who are not necessarily trying to spam Wikipedia?

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:06 pm

thekohser wrote:I wonder what Jimbo Wales would think of this thread ...

I'll ask him for you when I get unblocked.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:47 pm

thekohser wrote:Stomio (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Theodore Wells Pietsch III ‎
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: Once, for image copyright issue
Blocked: No

Stomio was activated in 2009. Not content with writing his own ichthyological biography, Ted Pietsch III then (probably) created a new account in April 2010:

Twp10 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Theodore Wells Pietsch III and Theodore Wells Pietsch I (Grandpa!)
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: Twice, for image copyright issues
Blocked: No

Not content with only writing about himself and his grandfather, a new account was created in August 2011 to finally get around to writing about dad:

Rondeletius (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Ichthyologist John Nathan Cobb, Theodore Wells Pietsch III, Theodore Wells Pietsch I, and Theodore Wells Pietsch II (Daddio!)
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 95%
Ever warned on Talk page: Twice, for copyright issues
Blocked: No

Kind of cool how (probably) one editor with three different accounts was able to write an autobiography, a biography of his father, and a biography of his grandfather. It is nice how Wikipedia encourages this type of self-guided research to be published. (Actually, entrenched Wikipedians rage against this type of self-promotion; however, just look at the articles. They are elegant and elaborate -- just what a reader should want to see in a Wikipedia biography. WHY DOESN'T WIKIPEDIA ENCOURAGE RATHER THAN VILIFY this sort of conflict-of-interest editing?!)

Oops... Stomio was a grad student of Pietsch III's. All else was correct, though.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:59 am

Stumbled across this while looking at the (rather terrible) Rubbermaid article: Dhrandy (T-C-L).

He also single-handedly wrote the now-long-deleted article for "G whiz pc repair".

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:54 pm

Muksith (T-C-L)

I wonder if he's a member of the Sharjah (emirate) (T-H-L) tourism board? His only contributions have been edits resembling things out of a tourism brochure. See this edit, for example.

FlossMore · Unread post by **FlossMore** » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:06 am

I got paid to create a small series of articles; took me about half a day, got more money than I expected from my happy client. Sure made me consider more paid editing, if not for the stank of, well, editing Wikipedia and contributing to and being part of the bag of shit it spills into cyberspace.

My COI was obvious. Discretion is not my middle name.

I didn't disclose jack-shit, although I would have if asked. I was bullet-proof.

No one dared warn or block me--I'm an old-time, long term, content editor who quit some years ago, and I had lots of en.Wiki friends. It doesn't matter what you do on en.Wikipedia as long as you are in with the in-crowd.

More companies ought to do what got me the job: register an account, make a few edits, attract some yelling, then a helpful editor, then approach that editor via e-mail, ask for help, then thank the helpful editor, offer to pay them oodles for more help, then pay up when they get the job done.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:29 am

Hard to pick out just the one paid editor on this particular BLP... just look at how many of the user names are "red-linked", and how many of those are single-purpose accounts.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to mind, though. As long as Jimbo's "bright line" is followed, we'll never have to worry about folks like Simon Kitson plumping their own Wikipedia articles, right?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:01 am

Clebeau12790 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Bob Richter (one of Richter's "favorite frame makers" is Chris LeBeau) ‎
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Once, a speedy-deletion notice
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:50 pm

Back in March 2012, in a piece I wrote about businesses and Wikipedia, I pointed out the case of QuiBids:

WikiProject Cooperation tells a beleaguered corporation that if it wants an article on Wikipedia, it has two options from which to choose. First, the company could put in a request at a page called "Articles for creation". If that doesn't work, the company can plug in their need at "Requested articles". The problem is, neither of these mechanisms work very well at all.

Why QuiBids doesn't have a Wikipedia article

The penny auction company QuiBids is an award-winning business, featured in Time Magazine, O Magazine, and numerous regional newspapers, and it runs ample amounts of advertising on national cable television. So much has been written about QuiBids (and not all of it glowing), one editor of Wikipedia proposed at "Requested articles" that there ought to be a Wikipedia article about the company. That proposal was in July 2011. Nearly nine months later, there is still no article about QuiBids on Wikipedia. So, at least for that company, requesting the article was fruitless.

Shortly after that Examiner article was published, I was contacted by Jill Farrand, Director of Public Relations at QuiBids. We had a stimulating conversation about how difficult Wikipedia can be for corporate subjects.

It's interesting now to see the following on Wikipedia:

User:Matthewacarney (T-C-L)

Matt Carney is an American writer living in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. He has been published in The Oklahoman, The Norman Transcript, The Tulsa World, The Oklahoma Daily, This Land Press, and World Literature Today magazine. He also worked as the online editor at Oklahoma Gazette, Oklahoma City's alternative-weekly publication. He currently works as a copywriter for QuiBids, the world's leading entertainment retail auction website.

And this, created by Matt Carney...
QuiBids.com (T-H-L)

Seems like several "trusted Wikipedians" have helped that article survive the usual flogging, and now it's there in Wikipedia, much to (I presume) Jill Farrand's satisfaction.

Perhaps the "bright line" rule of Jimbo's is being completely turned on its head -- if you're a business without a Wikipedia article, simply hire a copywriter to introduce your article to Wikipedia, and other Wikipedians will help improve it and balance it so that it becomes a permanent part of the encyclopedia.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:43 pm

Not sure if this is a paid situation, but here goes.

Istiglal Anti-Material Rifle (T-H-L) is amazingly advertisement-like.
"The Istiglal anti-material rifle also makes a great sniper rifle because it has 3000 meters of effective range against human sized targets and chambers the massively powerful 14.5x114mm round.[4][5]"

Written mostly by NovaSkola (T-C-L) and Sinnik (T-C-L) and Mursel (T-C-L), all of whom are patriotic Azeris.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:37 am

AlexCovington (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Alexandra Covington was an Account Executive at Euro RSCG Worldwide PR
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 95%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

Unread post by **tarantino** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:27 am

Laurenjbrayshaw (T-C-L), LaurenBrayshaw87 (T-C-L) and 80.169.89.66 (T-C-L). Lauren Brayshaw was an account manager at Freud Communications and 80.169.89.66 is used by Freud Communications.

All have edited Amanda Palmer (film executive), a client of Freud's.

(I find it unlikely that Divyanshuduttaroy had the right to license this professional head shot of Amanda)

Jimmy Wales' wife Kate Garvey is a director at Freud Communications.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:33 am

tarantino wrote:Laurenjbrayshaw (T-C-L), LaurenBrayshaw87 (T-C-L) and 80.169.89.66 (T-C-L). Lauren Brayshaw was an account manager at Freud Communications and 80.169.89.66 is used by Freud Communications.
All have edited Amanda Palmer (film executive), a client of Freud's.
Jimmy Wales' wife Kate Garvey is a director at Freud Communications.

Was waiting for someone to point that out. Brayshaw also edited the articles about the Doha Film Festival and Doha Film Institute, which Palmer is the director of.

The IP address also did this. Plus it edited a few BLPs for actors, musicians, and at least one rugby player. I wonder if Freud is doing PR work for them.

And BTW: both Freud Communications and Matthew Freud were heavily edited in the early days by one Dean1970. Before he left Wikipedia in July 2007, he fought with people over global-warming articles---a lot. He also diddled articles dealing with Rupert Murdoch properties and employees thereof, especially The Sun. Plus Elisabeth Murdoch and her company, Shine Limited, now owned by News International. Could Dean possibly be a Sun employee? After all, The Sun often runs screeching editorials denying global warming, along with virtually all other Murdoch properties.

All of these articles have the strong fragrance of promotional press release material. I wonder if we should embarrass Wikipedia and Wales by going public with this. It would make a great blog post.

Jimbo has married his way into the freak-show known as the Chipping Norton set (T-H-L). Deliberately?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:59 pm

EricBarbour wrote:All of these articles have the strong fragrance of promotional press release material. I wonder if we should embarrass Wikipedia and Wales by going public with this. It would make a great blog post.

Of course it should be published to embarrass Wikipedia and Wales, though I predict Jimbo will say that most of the Freud-sourced edits took place in 2011, which he will say was before his "bright line" edict would have had a chance to filter into the "thoughtful thinking" at Freud. I'm sure that he imagines in his warped mind that Freud is squeaky clean now (in late 2012), as regards modifying content in "community spaces".

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:09 pm

EricBarbour wrote: And BTW: both Freud Communications and Matthew Freud were heavily edited in the early days by one Dean1970. Before he left Wikipedia in July 2007, he fought with people over global-warming articles---a lot. He also diddled articles dealing with Rupert Murdoch properties and employees thereof, especially The Sun. Plus Elisabeth Murdoch and her company, Shine Limited, now owned by News International. Could Dean possibly be a Sun employee? After all, The Sun often runs screeching editorials denying global warming, along with virtually all other Murdoch properties.

Just in case it's not abundantly obvious, I'll mention that Matthew Freud is Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:33 pm

Agentaeon (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Working on behalf of a music promoter, or even possibly Cablevision head, James Dolan (?)
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: Yes, a speedy deletion notice, and some images tagged
Blocked: No

You recently deleted my entry for "JD & The Straight Shot" indicating that it "did not indicate the subject's importance or significance".

I realize the bio was barebones, but I was waiting on the final bio edit from my boss and I had the "in edit mode" tag added to the top of the page.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:12 pm

James S. McGill (T-C-L)
"Likely" COI: please. He was the single creator of Quantapoint (T-H-L) in 2009. And that's all he did on Wikipedia.
Disclosure: ha ha ha.
Unity of focus: 100%.
Ever warned on talk page: ha ha ha. Various idiots bitched him out for uploading "non-free" images. Nothing about the COI.
Blocked: ha ha ha.
More proof: try his Facebook.

Quantapoint
Vice President of Marketing, Customer Support and Software Development · Houston, Texas · Jul 2004 to Apr 2011

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:15 pm

Couldn't some nice Wikipedian help out this person? She says her name is "Debra" -- could be a good lead for Jimbo.

Then there's this request from Aptera Motors in 2010... They just wanted a corporate user account. Already had an article. But, the local admin force was hostile to this request for a corporate account, and the company went out of business a year later. I guess that former Aptera employee won't be donating to the Wikimedia fund-drive this year.

Don't forget the cutie-pie, Marissa Marinello... she's an admin assistant at the law firm of Zuber Lawler & Del Duca. She's keeping tabs on Wikipedia, to make sure the name of her firm is properly updated in the BLP of her boss, which was created by her also-cute co-worker, Roya Axtle. Then this summer Marissa started work on a bio for another co-worker, Ryan Smith. He's got his own TV show, so he's notable, right? Marissa busted her ass on that biography, but after a couple of months of work, that witch Sarah Stierch -- a Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow for the year of 2012, focusing on engaging more women to participate in Wikipedia -- went and rejected Marissa's work product, leaving Marissa nothing more than a heartless let-down template message. Then "SnowySusan" finally gave Marissa the difficult advice she should have been made aware of before she put in all that work.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:09 pm

The Aptera story is actually the best one. I looked thru the history--it was a tolerably neutral article, until the Aptera employee was eternabanned. Then, a weird and random gang of Wikipedians showed up and started inserting and reinserting hostile comments into the article. This drivel was inserted by an IP address, and one Dennis Bratland (perfect name!) kept it there, after numerous attempts to revert. Then Aptera went bankrupt, and there was an orgy of changes thereafter, almost to scream "they went bankrupt, ha ha ha".

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:06 pm

Jamesnorman (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Working from 2007 through March 13, 2011 on items that would be of interest to James O'Higgins Norman (T-H-L). In May 2007, his article on James O'Higgins-Norman was speedy deleted.
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: Yes, a speedy deletion notice, and some images tagged
Blocked: No

Then, in March 19, 2011, look who appears...

Ollamhnua (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Working since 2011 on items that would be of interest to James O'Higgins Norman (T-H-L), including creating the new article about James O'Higgins Norman.
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: Yes, some copyright notices.
Blocked: No

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:58 pm

HostedPBX (T-C-L)
Likely COI: User worked exclusively on restoration of a deleted article about Telesphere, one of the nation's largest hosted VoIP (or "hosted PBX") networks.
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Just a mild warning from Fastily (T-C-L) not to write the article "like an advertisement".
Blocked: No