Indian fakers faking again

[Vigilant]

For God's sake, he could simply have filed a public arbitration case request.

Royalty does not intervene in parliamentary matters. It's unseemly, and gets them beheaded.

Bof. He intervenes plenty in articles, and is keen to point out that he is an ordinary user of Wikipedia as well.

There are no pretty young girls on these pages...

[Peter Damian]

part of it comes down to the fact that people who believe everything they read on the web are going to be taken advantage of - whether its by dubious content in Wikipedia articles or e-mails from a Nigerian Prince or that "free" ap you just tapped. What is Wikipedia's role in fighting global il-weberacy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m struggling with the logic of this one. Can anyone help me?

[Zoloft]

part of it comes down to the fact that people who believe everything they read on the web are going to be taken advantage of - whether its by dubious content in Wikipedia articles or e-mails from a Nigerian Prince or that "free" ap you just tapped. What is Wikipedia's role in fighting global il-weberacy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m struggling with the logic of this one. Can anyone help me?

I read it too and join you in your inability to understand just what they are trying to do here.

[DanMurphy]

part of it comes down to the fact that people who believe everything they read on the web are going to be taken advantage of - whether its by dubious content in Wikipedia articles or e-mails from a Nigerian Prince or that "free" ap you just tapped. What is Wikipedia's role in fighting global il-weberacy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m struggling with the logic of this one. Can anyone help me?

I read it too and join you in your inability to understand just what they are trying to do here.

This entity (he, she, it) is saying they have the empathy and ethics of a slug.

[HRIP7]

part of it comes down to the fact that people who believe everything they read on the web are going to be taken advantage of - whether its by dubious content in Wikipedia articles or e-mails from a Nigerian Prince or that "free" ap you just tapped. What is Wikipedia's role in fighting global il-weberacy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m struggling with the logic of this one. Can anyone help me?

You just have to start from the premise that "If it's good, we deserve adulation. If it's bad, it's not our fault." Everything else logically falls in place from there.

[Peter Damian]

That's... astonishing. Among the many thousands of words I've read on the Wifione saga I think that's the first attempt I've seen to shift the blame for our years long failure to prevent a corrupt administrator from manipulating content to benefit a company and place a portion of the blame on the reader. Honestly, that leaves me pretty speechless. If we think our readers are incapable of critical thinking and analysis that would give us more of a duty of care, not less. Best bit of "victim blaming" I've seen on WP for a long while. Begoon  02:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[Peter Damian]

In the interests of transparency, I am noting here (a) your incredible insinuation that it was “dishonest and manipulative” of me to notify you/the Arbcom of the Wifione problem in December 2013 in the knowledge that an email from a banned user would probably be ignored, and (b) that you could ‘solve’ this problem by placing my email address into a spam filter that deletes emails from me “the moment they arrive”. 81.147.135.211 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm slack jawed.

[Jim]

In the interests of transparency, I am noting here (a) your incredible insinuation that it was “dishonest and manipulative” of me to notify you/the Arbcom of the Wifione problem in December 2013 in the knowledge that an email from a banned user would probably be ignored, and (b) that you could ‘solve’ this problem by placing my email address into a spam filter that deletes emails from me “the moment they arrive”. 81.147.135.211 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm slack jawed.

Is this from a mail you just received, or an old one?

[Peter Damian]

In the interests of transparency, I am noting here (a) your incredible insinuation that it was “dishonest and manipulative” of me to notify you/the Arbcom of the Wifione problem in December 2013 in the knowledge that an email from a banned user would probably be ignored, and (b) that you could ‘solve’ this problem by placing my email address into a spam filter that deletes emails from me “the moment they arrive”. 81.147.135.211 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm slack jawed.

Is this from a mail you just received, or an old one?

This morning.

[Jim]

In the interests of transparency, I am noting here (a) your incredible insinuation that it was “dishonest and manipulative” of me to notify you/the Arbcom of the Wifione problem in December 2013 in the knowledge that an email from a banned user would probably be ignored, and (b) that you could ‘solve’ this problem by placing my email address into a spam filter that deletes emails from me “the moment they arrive”. 81.147.135.211 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm slack jawed.

Is this from a mail you just received, or an old one?

This morning.

Ok. Now I really am "speechless"...

[Lukeno94]

Well, it's a lazy and easy way of silencing your critics... which is probably why Jimbo used it. It's also an asshole's move, which again appears to fit.

[Peter Damian]

In the interests of transparency, I am noting here (a) your incredible insinuation that it was “dishonest and manipulative” of me to notify you/the Arbcom of the Wifione problem in December 2013 in the knowledge that an email from a banned user would probably be ignored, and (b) that you could ‘solve’ this problem by placing my email address into a spam filter that deletes emails from me “the moment they arrive”. 81.147.135.211 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm slack jawed.

Is this from a mail you just received, or an old one?

This morning.

Ok. Now I really am "speechless"...

To be clear, I used said 'insinuated'. He said that in general, anyone who emails him or the arbcom about a real problem, in the full knowledge that their email would probably be ignored because they are banned or an unperson, was using "dishonest and manipulative tactics". That's exactly what he said. I say 'insinuated' because a reasonable inference is that he was referring to me when I emailed him and the Committee in December 2013.

[Peter Damian]

There are subtleties here, of course. In real life we are always careful to copy in important people or those in custodial positions to ensure that, after the event, we cannot be accused of not making the problem widely known, or known to those in positions of reponsbility. That’s absolutely the right thing do to.

Now if we copy them in such a way that they are unlikely to take notice of the warning, e.g. by doing it in a widely distributed mailing group they may ignore, or posting a notice in the basement behind a pile of rusty chairs, then that is clearly dishonest.

But this is not such a case. If we try earnestly to bring it to their attention, but also knowing they will ignore it simply because we are seen as ‘crying wolf’, or because our view is not respected, or we are a non-person, is quite different.

[lilburne]

But this is not such a case. If we try earnestly to bring it to their attention, but also knowing they will ignore it simply because we are seen as ‘crying wolf’, or because our view is not respected, or we are a non-person, is quite different.

Echos of Sheffield and Rochdale.

[Peter Damian]

[To ‘Ne Ent’] It’s not as bad as you say. Many articles simply don’t represent an obvious threat, and bad apples are easy to spot, especially when they work assiduously on the same set of articles. There is also a wicked offsite forum of people who can crowdsource the problems. The real problem is that this is not happening on Wikipedia, and the reason is that criticism is seen as negative. Not so in the real world: you can get a savage review, and sometimes these are unwarranted, but mostly they are not. They improve your work. Similarly, a free press set in opposition to the government (which the government hates) is the best means of improving government.

Wikipedia needs a cultural change to allow people like me to work without damaging Wikipedia. Our strategy is simple: look for bad actors, research them thoroughly, write it up nicely, and then place it in the mainstream media (in this case, Newsweek). This helps Wikipedia by waking people up and thinking about ways to reform. By the same token it harms Wikipedia because of the negative publicity. Think how much better it would be if we weren't regarded as 'trolls' and 'dishonest manipulators', and if our emails were not sent into some spam filter and Wikipedia sticking its finger in its ears singing 'la la la can't hear you'. All it needs is a change in culture. Criticism is good: encourage it and help those who want to help you in this way. Simple, right? 81.147.135.211 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[Zoloft]

'Doc James' Heilman subject posts split to here: linkviewtopic.php?f=23&t=6242[/link]

[Vejvančický]

A brief mention in The Hindu:

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 062887.ece

[Vejvančický]

If they notice at all, the major Indian media approach the case cautiously:

*The Hindu published only a brief and cautious report:

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 062887.ece

But, as we learnt recently in the astonishing case of a user named ‘Wifione’ with alleged links to the much discussed Indian Institute of Planning and Management, highly motivated users with vested interests can still compromise the integrity of the site.

*There was a problem with the IIPM advertisement in The Hindu in March 2013:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 530742.ece

*The TOI article from January 2014 (Wiki-paid-y a?) doesn't link the Wikipediocracy blog post and they don't name the school. Later, they mention an "IIPM controversy", but the context is not clear:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... m=referral

In early December, EA Barbour, who is researching paid editing on Wikipedia, alleged that a Wiki editor manipulated data posted on the Wiki page of a Delhi -based business school to keep out negative information about the institute from the years 2010 to 2012. The blog post, titled 'Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR', alleges that the editor used his knowledge of Wikipedia's policy to remove unfavourable reports about the business school.

*The TOI front page from 16 May 2011:

http://www.ciceroschallenge.com/media/i ... y-2011.jpg

*Btw, full front page ads are nothing unusual in the TOI:

http://www.fakingnews.firstpost.com/201 ... t-6-pages/

*It is also important what Siddhartha Deb has said:

http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-tur ... ng-odyssey
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/j ... 28Books%29

As Deb explained in the Guardian, “The injunction has received little attention in the Indian media. There has been hardly any discussion, as yet, of the fact that for all India’s vaunted embrace of free-market capitalism and its frequent claims to being the world’s ‘largest’ democracy, it remains a place utterly reluctant to allow public criticism of the powerful and the wealthy…

[tarantino]

Russian site Computerra recently posted an article.

Блаженны верующие! Если вычислить вруна легко, почему мы всё равно ему верим? (Google translate: Blessed are the believers! If we calculate easily liar, why do we still believe him?)

[Vejvančický]

What?

Потребовалось несколько лет и личное участие Джимми Уэльса, чтобы дело сдвинулось с мёртвой точки и зарвавшегося индийца, наконец, отлучили от админства.

Spanish translation of the Newsweek article, Diario Puntual:
http://www.diariopuntual.com/aula/2015/04/03/5913

[Poetlister]

Does that say the matter was only resolved by Jimmy Wales' personal intervention?

[EricBarbour]

Romana Busse (romana.busse@gmail.com) rants at me via email:

India Against Corruption has filed a criminal case in India on 13
March 2015 demanding among other things that WiFiOne and associates be
unmasked by Crime Branch and investigation be conducted under a
Magistrate.

The criminal case is filed against Wikimedia Foundation at New Delhi
on grounds, among others, of defamation, extortion and criminal
intimation using internet by Wikimedia's anonymous website
administrators directed against eminent Indians. In addition to
WiFiOne, administrators like Russavia, Bishonen have also been named
as persons to be unmasked and compelled to join the proceedings under
their real names.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Co ... CBayern786

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... rimi_oourt

Good luck, lady!

[Peter Damian]

In the interests of transparency, I am noting here (a) your incredible insinuation that it was “dishonest and manipulative” of me to notify you/the Arbcom of the Wifione problem in December 2013 in the knowledge that an email from a banned user would probably be ignored, and (b) that you could ‘solve’ this problem by placing my email address into a spam filter that deletes emails from me “the moment they arrive”. 81.147.135.211 09:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm slack jawed.

Is this from a mail you just received, or an old one?

This morning.

Ok. Now I really am "speechless"...

To be clear, I used said 'insinuated'. He said that in general, anyone who emails him or the arbcom about a real problem, in the full knowledge that their email would probably be ignored because they are banned or an unperson, was using "dishonest and manipulative tactics". That's exactly what he said. I say 'insinuated' because a reasonable inference is that he was referring to me when I emailed him and the Committee in December 2013.

Peter is very badly misrepresenting that email exchange. I was not even addressing him, but a different banned user also on the exchange, who had put forward what is quite clearly a dishonest and manipulative tactic. In his words, "Years ago, I was involved in a pretty bitter dispute with the Arbitration Committee. Once when I was in a bad mood, and this wasn't very nice of me (they hadn't been nice to me either,) I decided to set them up. I'd informed them of a particularly nasty problem, realizing that the fact that I'd emailed them about it would most likely make it politically unfeasible to act upon it, lest they give into the evil banned user. It worked." I called *that* which had nothing to do with Peter (as he well knows) dishonest and manipulative - which it clearly is. And I did not say anything resembling "in general, anyone who emails...". What I did say is: "So what you are saying that people who use dishonest and manipulative tactics can cause trouble. Noted." This entire exchange proves, once again, why these users are banned, and why I actually should just shove them all into a spam filter.

Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What was he referring to when he said "dishonest and manipulative tactics"? I have asked him here.

[Peter Damian]

<jwales@wikia.com>: host mail.wikia.com[74.120.190.121] said: 554 5.7.1 Service
unavailable; Client host [69.93.179.22] blocked using bl.spamcop.net;
Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?69.93.179.22 (in reply to
RCPT TO command)

[Zoloft]

<jwales@wikia.com>: host mail.wikia.com[74.120.190.121] said: 554 5.7.1 Service
unavailable; Client host [69.93.179.22] blocked using bl.spamcop.net;
Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?69.93.179.22 (in reply to
RCPT TO command)

Deniability, In Jimmy Wales' mind, appears to be a good thing. I will predict that this belief will be one of the things that brings him low in the next few years.

[lilburne]

What was he referring to when he said "dishonest and manipulative tactics"? I have asked him here.

It doesn't matter what it was. They disregarded the information because it came from a banned user. It matters not whether the person sent the mail with the 'evil' intention to use their disregard against them or not. They could not have known in advance that they were being set up. Indeed that they were set up was because of their venal stupidity. Its like leaving a £5 note on the desk with a hidden camera with the intent of catching a sneak thief, or the police leaving a car with the keys in the ignition and laying in wait for it to be driven off. Obviously "dishonest and manipulative tactics". And the numpty complains about being compared to a career criminal ... indeed.

[thekohser]

I've felt for years that it's better to notify Jimbo about things in public, because then he can't lie to you privately by e-mail. He has to lie to you in public, which is better for documentation purposes. Just keep descending on his JimboTalk page.

[Peter Damian]

I've felt for years that it's better to notify Jimbo about things in public, because then he can't lie to you privately by e-mail. He has to lie to you in public, which is better for documentation purposes. Just keep descending on his JimboTalk page.

::::::Stop misrepresenting. I didn't copy you, he did. I have no idea why.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 13:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

[lonza leggiera]

I've felt for years that it's better to notify Jimbo about things in public, because then he can't lie to you privately by e-mail. He has to lie to you in public, which is better for documentation purposes. Just keep descending on his JimboTalk page.

::::::Stop misrepresenting. I didn't copy you, he did. I have no idea why.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 13:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Since my grasp of Jimbospeak is somewhat rudimentary, I hesitate to try and give a normal English interpretation. But in this case is seems reasonably clear that selecting "Reply all" when answering an email does not, in Jimbospeak, constitute copying the recipients who were already copyees of the email being answered. The blame for any misunderstandings or unfortunate consequences that might result from any of those copyees receiving Jimbo's reply must therefore be laid at the feet of whoever added that copyee to the llist in the first place, not Jimbo's. I think this follows from subsection 4.1 (a) of the Jimboland constitution:

4. It's never Jimbo's fault.

1. 4.1. Jimbo didn't do it.
   1. (a) And even if he did, it isn't his fault.

[Peter Damian]

I don't think we need a class of super-users. That's the problem with the current system. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 19:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but here is the outstanding feature, as I see it. The new Auditor group would have no extra powers. They would be investigators, able to ask questions and look into edit histories only. They could request a sock puppet investigation, like any user. They would report to ArbCom or in sensitive circumstances to the WMF. They would be tasked with looking at Admin and regular user edits and behavior in regards to big-ticket issues. They would have a set term, perhaps two years. And the group would have no Admins, being comprised of long-term, trusted users who, again, are carefully selected not by the community but by Jimmy and the WMF, and required to disclose their identities. The advantage this group would in fact have would be that they would be able to function without fear of reprisal from Admins or community members. Jusdafax 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Eminently sensible, and pretty much how things work in real life. One set of privileged users is a very bad thing, but two sets of privileged users can be better, so long as their interests compete in some way.

[EricBarbour]

Ah, but here is the outstanding feature, as I see it. The new Auditor group would have no extra powers. They would be investigators, able to ask questions and look into edit histories only. They could request a sock puppet investigation, like any user. They would report to ArbCom or in sensitive circumstances to the WMF. They would be tasked with looking at Admin and regular user edits and behavior in regards to big-ticket issues. They would have a set term, perhaps two years. And the group would have no Admins, being comprised of long-term, trusted users who, again, are carefully selected not by the community but by Jimmy and the WMF, and required to disclose their identities. The advantage this group would in fact have would be that they would be able to function without fear of reprisal from Admins or community members. Jusdafax 20:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Eminently sensible, and pretty much how things work in real life. One set of privileged users is a very bad thing, but two sets of privileged users can be better, so long as their interests compete in some way.

a) it's another layer of bureaucracy on a layer cake that is already a hundred feet high.
b) "Set terms"? Why not force administrators to have set two-year terms instead? Just eliminating this "admin for life" crap would get rid of a lot of problem admins.
c) all academic anyway, the culture is so toxic none of this will ever happen.

[Peter Damian]

Mr. Peri is a magazine publisher that has been embroiled in 2 libel suits by the school. He's unhappy that links to his exposés were removed from Wikipedia by Wifione and pulls the number 15,000 from the sky as the number of people affected by that lost link. Ummm, okay. If Newsweek reprints what he said, it doesn't make it true. The number is plucked from thin air. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean it’s the victims' fault, Tim?

That said, this whole business seems to have affected the Wikipedians more than any other exposé from here.

[Vigilant]

Mr. Peri is a magazine publisher that has been embroiled in 2 libel suits by the school. He's unhappy that links to his exposés were removed from Wikipedia by Wifione and pulls the number 15,000 from the sky as the number of people affected by that lost link. Ummm, okay. If Newsweek reprints what he said, it doesn't make it true. The number is plucked from thin air. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean it’s the victims' fault, Tim?

That said, this whole business seems to have affected the Wikipedians more than any other exposé from here.

Sure. Why not.

One of their holy, anointed ones turned out to be a follower of Melkor.
Sauron in their midst.

What's worse is that the Hordes of Mordor were the ones telling them years ago and they refused, point blank, to listen.

This is a whole murder of crows for them to enjoy at the snack table during wikimania.

[Peter Damian]

We are not here to right great wrongs. We are not here to provide a Complete User Guide to Consumer Products. We are here to write and maintain an encyclopedia. If students are incapable of doing research beyond "What Wikipedia says," they should not be going to university (or business school) in the first place. That's not "blaming the victim," that is stating a fact. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

OK that does it: Tim is an arse. It has already been explained, here and on that talk page about Wikipedia Zero, how Chaudhuri managed to stifle any revelation of his business interests, including on government websites. But he still goes on about that “here to build an encyclopedia” shit. Tim, it’s not a fucking encyclopedia, got that?

[Jim]

We are not here to right great wrongs. We are not here to provide a Complete User Guide to Consumer Products. We are here to write and maintain an encyclopedia. If students are incapable of doing research beyond "What Wikipedia says," they should not be going to university (or business school) in the first place. That's not "blaming the victim," that is stating a fact. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

OK that does it: Tim is an arse. It has already been explained, here and on that talk page about Wikipedia Zero, how Chaudhuri managed to stifle any revelation of his business interests, including on government websites. But he still goes on about that “here to build an encyclopedia” shit. Tim, it’s not a fucking encyclopedia, got that?

Answered. Sorry Tim, that's just an unconscionable attitude.

[HRIP7]

As far as I recall Mahesh asserted that prospective students and their families were also shown the Wikipedia article in face-to-face meetings at IIPM. It sounded to me like reference to the Wikipedia article was an integral part of the sales pitch.

[Peter Damian]

Adding to this: when I was researching IIPM back in 2013, it was really really difficult to get to the truth, because so much had been erased from the web. I could obtain copies and backups of the exposés people had archived, but checking the originals was really hard. I actually spoke to the University of Buckingham, who confirmed that the claims about a partnership were fabricated. And besides, Wikipedia for most people is a 'reliable source'. Alastair Sloan (the Newsweek journalist) told me his mother never realised Wikipedia was crowdsourced.

[HRIP7]

his mother never realised Wikipedia was crowdsourced.

Alas: same for my sister (who works in healthcare and apparently uses it regularly). When I explained to her that I could go into any Wikipedia article and change its content right now, she gave me a funny look, as though she thought I had gone slightly off my rocker.

[Vigilant]

As far as I recall Mahesh asserted that prospective students and their families were also shown the Wikipedia article in face-to-face meetings at IIPM. It sounded to me like reference to the Wikipedia article was an integral part of the sales pitch.

They were.
They were conned out of $16.5K/year using wikipedia as a sales pitch.

Maybe Jimbo could give those poor families in India some of his delicious prize money to compensate them?

[Vigilant]

I've said it previously and I'll repeat: This case would be nowhere without Wikipediocracy and particularly without banned User:Peter Damian whose integrity, firm ethical stance and also competency should be model for any Wikipedian.
Negative mainstream media coverage of Wikipedia, such as the Newsweek article, help to inform public about the Wikipedia's shortcomings and contribute to public awareness about the problems our project faces. It is something Wikipedia should value immensely, if it claims to be a free and open project striving for accuracy, impartiality (and transparency?). At the end, valid criticism should serve as an inspiration for improvements in any environment seeking to improve its quality, it is not just a thing we should be ashamed of, or try to hide from public view. Also, substantiated criticism and valid arguments have to be judged per se, and cannot be dismissed just because of their originators.
--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You're a stand up dude. Bravo.

[Poetlister]

his mother never realised Wikipedia was crowdsourced.

Alas: same for my sister (who works in healthcare and apparently uses it regularly). When I explained to her that I could go into any Wikipedia article and change its content right now, she gave me a funny look, as though she thought I had gone slightly off my rocker.

I have on several occasions altered an article in front of an amazed onlooker. I don't know how many of these edits have stuck, but certainly one correction of a serious error is still there after over a year.

[Anthonyhcole]

I've said it previously and I'll repeat: This case would be nowhere without Wikipediocracy and particularly without banned User:Peter Damian whose integrity, firm ethical stance and also competency should be model for any Wikipedian.
Negative mainstream media coverage of Wikipedia, such as the Newsweek article, help to inform public about the Wikipedia's shortcomings and contribute to public awareness about the problems our project faces. It is something Wikipedia should value immensely, if it claims to be a free and open project striving for accuracy, impartiality (and transparency?). At the end, valid criticism should serve as an inspiration for improvements in any environment seeking to improve its quality, it is not just a thing we should be ashamed of, or try to hide from public view. Also, substantiated criticism and valid arguments have to be judged per se, and cannot be dismissed just because of their originators.
--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You're a stand up dude. Bravo.

Vejvančický is endorsing MastCell's comment just above his:

I think Peter has identified the elephant in the room: virtually all of the major successes in handling serious conflicts of interest have come from Wikipediocracy. Aside from the evidence compiled there against Wifione, Wikipediocracy was also responsible for identifying serious conflicts of interest in the cases of User:Qworty and User:Little green rosetta/User:Fasttimes68, not to mention a few other such cases. In contrast, our record at handling COIs on Wikipedia is pretty poor; the most recent case I can remember that we (Wikipedians) handled ourselves was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal, which ended by validating questionable COI editing and releasing an additional COI editor onto the topic area in question. Not exactly an encouraging moment. If no one else will do it, I will: Wikipediocracy deserves our thanks and is currently the closest thing this site has to a functioning process for dealing with COIs. MastCell Talk 23:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =656348976[/link]) which I believe also deserves a little