Jytdog

[LynnWysong]

There are so many opportunities for joe-job activity, what with how stupid some Wikipediots are. Got a company you don't like? Just go and create or edit their Wikipedia page in glowing prose, under a User account named for the company's marketing director. Push hard enough, and you just might end up with a news story on Vice or Slate, shaming the company for what it's "obviously" done on Wikipedia.

Sounds like more a problem of shitty journalism than anything to do with Wikipedia per se.

Why do I get the funny feeling that some Pennsylvania IP has recently registered user names DirectTVPRKing (T-C-L) , DishPromoHelper (T-C-L) , CharterCableSalesTeam (T-C-L) , AT&TMediaAide (T-C-L) , VerizonInfoBoss (T-C-L) , FrontierFan420 (T-C-L) , and CoxPlugger (T-C-L) ???


RfB

Except that none of those have been registered as far as I can see. Maybe I am missing something?

C'mon. I got it, and I'm usually clueless.

[Zoloft]

There are so many opportunities for joe-job activity, what with how stupid some Wikipediots are. Got a company you don't like? Just go and create or edit their Wikipedia page in glowing prose, under a User account named for the company's marketing director. Push hard enough, and you just might end up with a news story on Vice or Slate, shaming the company for what it's "obviously" done on Wikipedia.

Sounds like more a problem of shitty journalism than anything to do with Wikipedia per se.

Why do I get the funny feeling that some Pennsylvania IP has recently registered user names DirectTVPRKing (T-C-L) , DishPromoHelper (T-C-L) , CharterCableSalesTeam (T-C-L) , AT&TMediaAide (T-C-L) , VerizonInfoBoss (T-C-L) , FrontierFan420 (T-C-L) , and CoxPlugger (T-C-L) ???


RfB

Except that none of those have been registered as far as I can see. Maybe I am missing something?

C'mon. I got it, and I'm usually clueless.

Lacked sarcasm tag. -1
Would have had more room for lulz if only one fake user. -2

[Randy from Boise]

There are so many opportunities for joe-job activity, what with how stupid some Wikipediots are. Got a company you don't like? Just go and create or edit their Wikipedia page in glowing prose, under a User account named for the company's marketing director. Push hard enough, and you just might end up with a news story on Vice or Slate, shaming the company for what it's "obviously" done on Wikipedia.

Sounds like more a problem of shitty journalism than anything to do with Wikipedia per se.

Why do I get the funny feeling that some Pennsylvania IP has recently registered user names DirectTVPRKing (T-C-L) , DishPromoHelper (T-C-L) , CharterCableSalesTeam (T-C-L) , AT&TMediaAide (T-C-L) , VerizonInfoBoss (T-C-L) , FrontierFan420 (T-C-L) , and CoxPlugger (T-C-L) ???


RfB

Except that none of those have been registered as far as I can see. Maybe I am missing something?

C'mon. I got it, and I'm usually clueless.

Lacked sarcasm tag. -1
Would have had more room for lulz if only one fake user. -2

I thought it was a pretty good sight gag myself...

t

[jytdog]

I wouldn't doubt it. Maybe you would be willing to point one out next time you see it. It might make a good blog post.

I thought about it as there are some good ones, but as with not disclosing my clients publicly (some take that as me violating TOU which isn't the case) I also don't disclose prospects (even the shitty ones). I'll even go a step further here.....Out of 100 leads, maybe 10 of them are notable. Out of the remaining 90, about half of them wind up on Wikipedia anyway either by creating content on their own or hiring someone from Elance (against my advice). As much as I would like to have them deleted, I'm not allowed to edit the site and I am not about to tie up any of my team members with it since they are working on notable projects that we're being paid for.

Please explain how your team members not disclosing that they work for you (employer or affiliation as you will) and the identity of clients (client) is not a ToU violation. Please do explain.

[Randy from Boise]

Please explain how your team members not disclosing that they work for you (employer or affiliation as you will) and the identity of clients (client) is not a ToU violation. Please do explain.

Given the state of anti-outing rules and the comical ease of establishing new accounts, please explain how you or anyone is going to actually halt paid editors from editing if they don't obligingly pull down their shirt collars and place their head neatly on the chopping block for the convenience of the burly executioner...

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

Please explain how your team members not disclosing that they work for you (employer or affiliation as you will) and the identity of clients (client) is not a ToU violation. Please do explain.

Is there anything in the Terms of Use that might be construed as requiring a primary contractor to identify an upstream contractor to a downstream contractor, and then oblige the downstream contractor to identify the upstream contractor on his/her user page or in individual edit summaries?

I don't want to give you any ideas, but I'd have to say your Terms of Use should include that requirement if you really want to put these people out of business. You'd have the dreaded "hypocrite" tag to deal with of course, but that's never stopped you in the past.

Alternatively, you could just allow paid editing, or else eliminate the "AGF" principle. (Or both, I suppose!)

[Randy from Boise]

Alternatively, you could just allow paid editing, or else eliminate the "AGF" principle. (Or both, I suppose!)

Wikipedia can either have anonymous editing and anti-outing rules to protect that or it can ban paid editing. It can't achieve both of these things simultaneously — although you are right that it could both allow paid editing and end the cult of anonymity at the same time.

Ultimately anonymity is valued far higher than ending paid editing and so we shall have the status quo, with the anti-paid editing warriors regularly splatting into the front windshield of the school bus, fighting a rear guard action in a war they cannot win...

RfB

[NotNormal]

I wouldn't doubt it. Maybe you would be willing to point one out next time you see it. It might make a good blog post.

I thought about it as there are some good ones, but as with not disclosing my clients publicly (some take that as me violating TOU which isn't the case) I also don't disclose prospects (even the shitty ones). I'll even go a step further here.....Out of 100 leads, maybe 10 of them are notable. Out of the remaining 90, about half of them wind up on Wikipedia anyway either by creating content on their own or hiring someone from Elance (against my advice). As much as I would like to have them deleted, I'm not allowed to edit the site and I am not about to tie up any of my team members with it since they are working on notable projects that we're being paid for.

Please explain how your team members not disclosing that they work for you (employer or affiliation as you will) and the identity of clients (client) is not a ToU violation. Please do explain.

Who says they don't? You like to make an assumption to the negative, something you seem to be happy to do both on and off Wikipedia. You think "not disclosing my clients publicly" means that no one is ever notified. You think too small. But of course that has been discussed on a different thread. This one is focused on you.

[jytdog]

I wouldn't doubt it. Maybe you would be willing to point one out next time you see it. It might make a good blog post.

I thought about it as there are some good ones, but as with not disclosing my clients publicly (some take that as me violating TOU which isn't the case) I also don't disclose prospects (even the shitty ones). I'll even go a step further here.....Out of 100 leads, maybe 10 of them are notable. Out of the remaining 90, about half of them wind up on Wikipedia anyway either by creating content on their own or hiring someone from Elance (against my advice). As much as I would like to have them deleted, I'm not allowed to edit the site and I am not about to tie up any of my team members with it since they are working on notable projects that we're being paid for.

Please explain how your team members not disclosing that they work for you (employer or affiliation as you will) and the identity of clients (client) is not a ToU violation. Please do explain.

Who says they don't? You like to make an assumption to the negative, something you seem to be happy to do both on and off Wikipedia. You think "not disclosing my clients publicly" means that no one is ever notified. You think too small. But of course that has been discussed on a different thread. This one is focused on you.

Quote: " but as with not disclosing my clients publicly (some take that as me violating TOU which isn't the case):

You said you don't. If your contractors do, please provide diffs. Thanks.

[jytdog]

Please explain how your team members not disclosing that they work for you (employer or affiliation as you will) and the identity of clients (client) is not a ToU violation. Please do explain.

Given the state of anti-outing rules and the comical ease of establishing new accounts, please explain how you or anyone is going to actually halt paid editors from editing if they don't obligingly pull down their shirt collars and place their head neatly on the chopping block for the convenience of the burly executioner...

RfB

I have no desire to halt anyone from being part of the community; I am opposed to any talk about banning paid editing as impossible foolishness in the Wikipedia that is.

People should mind the disclosure obligations and they should follow the peer review process. Neither is unreasonable; both are normal in academic publishing.

[Randy from Boise]

Please explain how your team members not disclosing that they work for you (employer or affiliation as you will) and the identity of clients (client) is not a ToU violation. Please do explain.

Given the state of anti-outing rules and the comical ease of establishing new accounts, please explain how you or anyone is going to actually halt paid editors from editing if they don't obligingly pull down their shirt collars and place their head neatly on the chopping block for the convenience of the burly executioner...

RfB

I have no desire to halt anyone from being part of the community; I am opposed to any talk about banning paid editing as impossible foolishness in the Wikipedia that is.

People should mind the disclosure obligations and they should follow the peer review process. Neither is unreasonable; both are normal in academic publishing.

People should follow the Terms of Use — and people should get three servings of fruit and vegetables every day and they should get 30 or more minutes of strenuous exercise, and so on and so forth... The fact is there is no mechanism to force anybody to do any of that. Governments and co-founders can only scold and flounder about sanctimoniously...

The only way to ban paid editors is to have the freedom to identify and the power to actually ban paid editors. Wikipedia allows neither of those things unless the violators happen to be particularly dull and engage in self-incrimination and lack the ability to sockpuppet or to employ an altogether different paid editor.

Far better, it still seems to me, to regularize the paid editing process to bring it out from under the rocks into the light of day. But as long as a small handful of fanatic activists are allowed to run roughshod, this will not happen.

Ergo: status quo now and into the indefinite future.

RfB

[NotNormal]

I wouldn't doubt it. Maybe you would be willing to point one out next time you see it. It might make a good blog post.

I thought about it as there are some good ones, but as with not disclosing my clients publicly (some take that as me violating TOU which isn't the case) I also don't disclose prospects (even the shitty ones). I'll even go a step further here.....Out of 100 leads, maybe 10 of them are notable. Out of the remaining 90, about half of them wind up on Wikipedia anyway either by creating content on their own or hiring someone from Elance (against my advice). As much as I would like to have them deleted, I'm not allowed to edit the site and I am not about to tie up any of my team members with it since they are working on notable projects that we're being paid for.

Please explain how your team members not disclosing that they work for you (employer or affiliation as you will) and the identity of clients (client) is not a ToU violation. Please do explain.

Who says they don't? You like to make an assumption to the negative, something you seem to be happy to do both on and off Wikipedia. You think "not disclosing my clients publicly" means that no one is ever notified. You think too small. But of course that has been discussed on a different thread. This one is focused on you.

Quote: " but as with not disclosing my clients publicly (some take that as me violating TOU which isn't the case):

You said you don't. If your contractors do, please provide diffs. Thanks.

Thanks for the request to disclose diffs, but this ain't Wikipedia and you don't have the same totalitarian authority (or at least the kind you used to up until yesterday) as you are accustom to. As far as disclosure, my process for conducting business has been disclosed to numerous people, including my legal counsel, and it in no way violates TOU. If the WMF feels otherwise, they are more than welcome to say so or take whatever action they deem necessary (over and above what they have already done), but I'm not about to sit down and have a cup of tea with them to discuss. I will gladly disclose my methods to you if you want to pay for that type of proprietary information. Or, maybe you'd like to join the team and find out how it works. The pay is good..

[NotNormal]

Please explain how your team members not disclosing that they work for you (employer or affiliation as you will) and the identity of clients (client) is not a ToU violation. Please do explain.

Given the state of anti-outing rules and the comical ease of establishing new accounts, please explain how you or anyone is going to actually halt paid editors from editing if they don't obligingly pull down their shirt collars and place their head neatly on the chopping block for the convenience of the burly executioner...

RfB

I have no desire to halt anyone from being part of the community; I am opposed to any talk about banning paid editing as impossible foolishness in the Wikipedia that is.

People should mind the disclosure obligations and they should follow the peer review process. Neither is unreasonable; both are normal in academic publishing.

People should follow the Terms of Use — and people should get three servings of fruit and vegetables every day and they should get 30 or more minutes of strenuous exercise, and so on and so forth... The fact is there is no mechanism to force anybody to do any of that. Governments and co-founders can only scold and flounder about sanctimoniously...

The only way to ban paid editors is to have the freedom to identify and the power to actually ban paid editors. Wikipedia allows neither of those things unless the violators happen to be particularly dull and engage in self-incrimination and lack the ability to sockpuppet or to employ an altogether different paid editor.

Far better, it still seems to me, to regularize the paid editing process to bring it out from under the rocks into the light of day. But as long as a small handful of fanatic activists are allowed to run roughshod, this will not happen.

Ergo: status quo now and into the indefinite future.

RfB

Unfortunately, you are 100% correct about the following:

"But as long as a small handful of fanatic activists are allowed to run roughshod, this will not happen."

I get emails all the time from people who run into these "fanatic" and pay me for help. While these fanatic's hearts are in the right place, their execution is just awful and counteracts any progress they make against COI editing.

[thekohser]

Why do I get the funny feeling that some Pennsylvania IP has recently registered user names DirectTVPRKing (T-C-L) , DishPromoHelper (T-C-L) , CharterCableSalesTeam (T-C-L) , AT&TMediaAide (T-C-L) , VerizonInfoBoss (T-C-L) , FrontierFan420 (T-C-L) , and CoxPlugger (T-C-L) ???


RfB

Well, Charter and Cox are lovely companies that don't deserve any such chicanery. Don't you understand how cable franchise footprints work?

[Kumioko]

I see a few folks are commenting on Courcelles (T-C-L) talk page about why he archived an ongoing discussion about Jydog's obviously questionable ban. Those comments were quickly silenced with the usual, secret evidence of a personal nature excuse.

I do want to point out one thing. On his talk page Courcelles infers that Arbcom has ownership over all checkuser blocks and that is false. Although the Arbcom are checkusers and are included in the checkuser correspondence and do have a role in the process, they do NOT have control over all checkuser blocks.

Checkuser blocks are discussed by the Checkuser's, including several non arbitrators. In this case, since it was an Arb that did the block (which was to say the least questionable), the Arbcom is using it as an excuse to force Jytdog to go to them.

Per here, the contributor could appeal to an admin or the checkuser who performed the action. If applicable, the admin would then go to the checkuser that performed the block. Only if no agreement was reached would it go to Arbcom for resolution and subsequent denial.

So, if you read this fellow critics of Arbcom/functionary conduct, then don't fall for Courcelles obvious bullshit line about the Arbcom owning all the checkuser blocks.

[jytdog]

I see a few folks are commenting on Courcelles (T-C-L) talk page about why he archived an ongoing discussion about Jydog's obviously questionable ban. Those comments were quickly silenced with the usual, secret evidence of a personal nature excuse.

I do want to point out one thing. On his talk page Courcelles infers that Arbcom has ownership over all checkuser blocks and that is false. Although the Arbcom are checkusers and are included in the checkuser correspondence and do have a role in the process, they do NOT have control over all checkuser blocks.

Checkuser blocks are discussed by the Checkuser's, including several non arbitrators. In this case, since it was an Arb that did the block (which was to say the least questionable), the Arbcom is using it as an excuse to force Jytdog to go to them.

Per here, the contributor could appeal to an admin or the checkuser who performed the action. If applicable, the admin would then go to the checkuser that performed the block. Only if no agreement was reached would it go to Arbcom for resolution and subsequent denial.

So, if you read this fellow critics of Arbcom/functionary conduct, then don't fall for Courcelles obvious bullshit line about the Arbcom owning all the checkuser blocks.

The last thing I had done before I lost the ability to edit my talk page, was close the discussion that had started there about my block. Then I went to bed. When I woke up there were more than 70 comments on my Talk page, which upset me; I don't like drama. I emailed arbcom and asked them to archive the page and fully protect it, and leave a note from me asking for no drama. Courcelles did that for me and noted that here. No big conspiracy going on there.

[jytdog]

Thanks for the request to disclose diffs, but this ain't Wikipedia and you don't have the same totalitarian authority (or at least the kind you used to up until yesterday) as you are accustom to. As far as disclosure, my process for conducting business has been disclosed to numerous people, including my legal counsel, and it in no way violates TOU. If the WMF feels otherwise, they are more than welcome to say so or take whatever action they deem necessary (over and above what they have already done), but I'm not about to sit down and have a cup of tea with them to discuss. I will gladly disclose my methods to you if you want to pay for that type of proprietary information. Or, maybe you'd like to join the team and find out how it works. The pay is good..

I wanted to give you a chance to answer a straight question. You won't.

This is WO and we can call bullshit "bullshit" here. [CENSORED] If you are not [bullshitting], then explain how not disclosing = following the ToU.

[jytdog]

The only way to ban paid editors is to have the freedom to identify and the power to actually ban paid editors. Wikipedia allows neither of those things unless the violators happen to be particularly dull and engage in self-incrimination and lack the ability to sockpuppet or to employ an altogether different paid editor.

Far better, it still seems to me, to regularize the paid editing process to bring it out from under the rocks into the light of day. But as long as a small handful of fanatic activists are allowed to run roughshod, this will not happen.
RfB

I hope you don't understand that I would ban editing. I wouldn't; it is not possible in the WP that actually exists.

What would it mean to "regularize the paid editing process" to you? I was trying to regularize it in a way, with the COI management approach I used (when I was not fucking up) - disclosure and peer review. A fairly common and as-sensible-as-can-be in the WP that exists. But i am really curious what "regularize the paid editing process" means to you. I hope you say.

[thekohser]

...which upset me; I don't like drama.

Is that why you aggressively insert yourself into Wikipedia policy-making discussions that ultimately have very little impact on your life? Seems like you make unusual choices if you're not into drama.

Thanks for the request to disclose diffs, but this ain't Wikipedia ...

...I will gladly disclose my methods to you if you want to pay for that type of proprietary information. Or, maybe you'd like to join the team and find out how it works. The pay is good..

I wanted to give you a chance to answer a straight question. You won't.

This is WO and we can call bullshit "bullshit" here. [CENSORED] If you are not [bullshitting], then explain how not disclosing = following the ToU.

Let me stop you there, "Jytdog". We don't know who you are, because you choose to hide your affiliation with the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Mike Wood and I don't hide who we are. We stand behind our claims, because the reputation of our names rides upon that. You can say whatever you want and flounce about like you're some champion of justice -- but you're just [CENSORED] hiding behind a pseudonym. Mike doesn't owe you an explanation for how his service meets the terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation, and he's decided not to share that with you unless you want to pay for that information. Mike happened to share the information with me, because he knows me personally, and he trusts me when I say that I won't disclose his proprietary trade secrets.

He is not a bullshitter. He's found a very creative way to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation ToU clauses about disclosure of paid editing, and it gives his business an advantage over competitors. You can whinge all you want about how miffed you are that he won't disclose that advantage to you, you no-name nobody. But what you can't do is continue your attack on another member of Wikipediocracy. So, let me put it to you one more time -- Mike is not a bullshitter. He's found a way to help paid-up clients with Wikipedia content, without him or anyone else violating the letter of the WMF ToU. He has not deemed you worthy of freely sharing that knowledge. Free knowledge is a principle of Wikipedia, and it's a nice thing if properly done. But that principle doesn't extend to every space in the real world. You may be having a fit trying to understand this is your problem for you to work out, but you don't malign another man's reputation while you figure out that this is your problem.

[thekohser]

I was trying to regularize it in a way, with the COI management approach I used (when I was not fucking up) - disclosure and peer review.

I'm curious, do you understand that this was exactly what I advocated for myself when I launched MyWikiBiz in June 2006? Jimmy Wales and a few of his minions were the ones who stepped in and halted me and demanded that I alter my business plan. I was the one who -- from the very beginning -- said that paid editing would be best managed by encouraging full disclosure and peer review. (See "Option 2", which I authored and supported.)

[Randy from Boise]

I was trying to regularize it in a way, with the COI management approach I used (when I was not fucking up) - disclosure and peer review.

I'm curious, do you understand that this was exactly what I advocated for myself when I launched MyWikiBiz in June 2006? Jimmy Wales and a few of his minions were the ones who stepped in and halted me and demanded that I alter my business plan. I was the one who -- from the very beginning -- said that paid editing would be best managed by encouraging full disclosure and peer review. (See "Option 2", which I authored and supported.)

.......And that ended up getting you banned by JW and thus was precipitated the decade-long drama.

Happy 10th Anniversary, by the way,

tim

[Kumioko]

I see a few folks are commenting on Courcelles (T-C-L) talk page about why he archived an ongoing discussion about Jydog's obviously questionable ban. Those comments were quickly silenced with the usual, secret evidence of a personal nature excuse.

I do want to point out one thing. On his talk page Courcelles infers that Arbcom has ownership over all checkuser blocks and that is false. Although the Arbcom are checkusers and are included in the checkuser correspondence and do have a role in the process, they do NOT have control over all checkuser blocks.

Checkuser blocks are discussed by the Checkuser's, including several non arbitrators. In this case, since it was an Arb that did the block (which was to say the least questionable), the Arbcom is using it as an excuse to force Jytdog to go to them.

Per here, the contributor could appeal to an admin or the checkuser who performed the action. If applicable, the admin would then go to the checkuser that performed the block. Only if no agreement was reached would it go to Arbcom for resolution and subsequent denial.

So, if you read this fellow critics of Arbcom/functionary conduct, then don't fall for Courcelles obvious bullshit line about the Arbcom owning all the checkuser blocks.

The last thing I had done before I lost the ability to edit my talk page, was close the discussion that had started there about my block. Then I went to bed. When I woke up there were more than 70 comments on my Talk page, which upset me; I don't like drama. I emailed arbcom and asked them to archive the page and fully protect it, and leave a note from me asking for no drama. Courcelles did that for me and noted that here. No big conspiracy going on there.

I totally understand and respect that.

On the other hand the Arbcom is utterly untrustworthy and and will not hesitate to lie, cheat and violate policy if it suits them. You're ban was extremely problematic and unnecessary. A lot of folks in the community knows that. I generally like GW and I think she is often right in her decisions. Unfortunately when she is wrong she is very very wrong and this is one of those times.

She overreacted to a minor situation and accused you of something that you obviously didn't do. What's more is that I have seen and been the target of Arbcom when they decided that outing someone was ok. So for them to do it to one person and then ban another person who didn't even do what they are accusing you of doing really rubs me and a lot of other people in the community the wrong way.

If you leave it to the Arbcom to resolve you may as well just give up on the project and walk away because as a group they are completely incompetent and have no concept of what the right thing to do is.

[charliemouse]

(snip)

She overreacted to a minor situation and accused you of something that you obviously didn't do. What's more is that I have seen and been the target of Arbcom when they decided that outing someone was ok. So for them to do it to one person and then ban another person who didn't even do what they are accusing you of doing really rubs me and a lot of other people in the community the wrong way.

If you leave it to the Arbcom to resolve you may as well just give up on the project and walk away because as a group they are completely incompetent and have no concept of what the right thing to do is.

Maybe Jytdog can explain what happened in as much detail as is allowed here.

[Midsize Jake]

I wanted to give you a chance to answer a straight question. You won't.

It wasn't a "straight question" at all, it was a demand for an "explanation." And when I (admittedly not the person to whom the demand was addressed) posted a perfectly plausible explanation, you ignored it.

[tarantino]

Risker blathers about linking a user name to accounts on other websites at Wikipedia talk:Harassment (my bolding)..

I'll put this very simply. Such links are oversighted routinely. Unless the editor has provided the information him/herself, it is not okay, ever, for other editors to do this for any reason. Any editor who does so is in violation of the global privacy policy and is liable to be sanctioned, all the way up to indefinite oversighter blocks that may never be revoked.

Stephen LaPorte, legal counsel for the wmf says, no it's not.

It is not a violation of the Wikimedia privacy policy for editors to post links to public information about other editors. The privacy policy applies to how the Wikimedia Foundation collects and handles personal information, as well as users who have access to nonpublic information.

Lots of other "functionaries" there making it up as the go along.

[Moral Hazard]

and Risker had in recent months seemed to have developed the ability to walk and to chew bubble gum.

[thekohser]

I don't see anything about users linking to the name of another user anywhere in the Privacy Policy that Risker mentioned. She's kind of batty.

[Vigilant]

I don't see anything about users linking to the name of another user anywhere in the Privacy Policy that Risker mentioned. She's kind of batty.

The dumbest person on Wikipedia.

[Kumioko]

I don't see anything about users linking to the name of another user anywhere in the Privacy Policy that Risker mentioned. She's kind of batty.

The dumbest person on Wikipedia.

I disagree, several people dumber. Although I must say I thought a lot more highly of Risker before they became an Arb. It really fried their brain it seems because ever since they have been saying some really dumb stuff.

[Vigilant]

I don't see anything about users linking to the name of another user anywhere in the Privacy Policy that Risker mentioned. She's kind of batty.

The dumbest person on Wikipedia.

I disagree, several people dumber. Although I must say I thought a lot more highly of Risker before they became an Arb. It really fried their brain it seems because ever since they have been saying some really dumb stuff.

Name names.

[jytdog]

I was trying to regularize it in a way, with the COI management approach I used (when I was not fucking up) - disclosure and peer review.

I'm curious, do you understand that this was exactly what I advocated for myself when I launched MyWikiBiz in June 2006? Jimmy Wales and a few of his minions were the ones who stepped in and halted me and demanded that I alter my business plan. I was the one who -- from the very beginning -- said that paid editing would be best managed by encouraging full disclosure and peer review. (See "Option 2", which I authored and supported.)

Thank you for your reply, and for linking to that past discussion. No, I was not aware of your past dialogues about this.

What the current COI guideline calls for, and what I urge editors with a COI to do, is your option 3. Your use of the term "quarantine" is a bit... loaded, but it also very apt and catches the notion. The "contagion" that needs to be managed, is the risk that the content will not be neutral, and will be unsourced/badly sourced. (It is managing risk, not assuming that the content is actually bad) That risk is there with all editors, but it is heightened for any editor with a COI. (The risk of bias is always heightened in any context where there is COI, which is why COI is addressed and managed by policy or law in every institution where decision makers may have external interests)

So putting content in quarantine until it is "cleared" -- the way I say it is having it peer reviewing prior to publishing by posting proposals on Talk for existing articles, and putting new articles through AfC for peer review - manages the risk. I want to manage the risk, not eliminate it.

And having content actually reviewed and edited prior to publication is not even a little weird in standard publishing - it is entirely normal.

I do see what you mean, about how disclosure would invite peer review in your option 2, but that would be after the content is already published. From the institutional perspective, it is better management to have things reviewed before they publish.

Thanks again.

[Kumioko]

I don't see anything about users linking to the name of another user anywhere in the Privacy Policy that Risker mentioned. She's kind of batty.

The dumbest person on Wikipedia.

I disagree, several people dumber. Although I must say I thought a lot more highly of Risker before they became an Arb. It really fried their brain it seems because ever since they have been saying some really dumb stuff.

Name names.

Mostly the usual suspects, but to name a few:
[*] Guerillero (T-C-L)
[*] Binksternet (T-C-L)
[*] BeyondMyKen (T-C-L)
[*] HighInBC (T-C-L)
[*] GoodDay (T-C-L)

[jytdog]

I wanted to give you a chance to answer a straight question. You won't.

It wasn't a "straight question" at all, it was a demand for an "explanation." And when I (admittedly not the person to whom the demand was addressed) posted a perfectly plausible explanation, you ignored it.

Sorry I thought you were Mike. My bad.

[MysteriousStranger]

I don't see anything about users linking to the name of another user anywhere in the Privacy Policy that Risker mentioned. She's kind of batty.

The dumbest person on Wikipedia.

I disagree, several people dumber. Although I must say I thought a lot more highly of Risker before they became an Arb. It really fried their brain it seems because ever since they have been saying some really dumb stuff.

Name names.

Mostly the usual suspects, but to name a few:
[*] Guerillero (T-C-L)
[*] Binksternet (T-C-L)
[*] BeyondMyKen (T-C-L)
[*] HighInBC (T-C-L)
[*] GoodDay (T-C-L)

BeyondMyKen (T-C-L) in particular is so rude and obnoxious. I can't believe he hasn't been booted off the project. Does he have a clean block log? Not a rhetorical question; I haven't looked.

[jytdog]

...which upset me; I don't like drama.

Is that why you aggressively insert yourself into Wikipedia policy-making discussions that ultimately have very little impact on your life? Seems like you make unusual choices if you're not into drama.

Thanks for the request to disclose diffs, but this ain't Wikipedia ...

...I will gladly disclose my methods to you if you want to pay for that type of proprietary information. Or, maybe you'd like to join the team and find out how it works. The pay is good..

I wanted to give you a chance to answer a straight question. You won't.

This is WO and we can call bullshit "bullshit" here. [CENSORED] If you are not [bullshitting], then explain how not disclosing = following the ToU.

Let me stop you there, "Jytdog". We don't know who you are, because you choose to hide your affiliation with the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Mike Wood and I don't hide who we are. We stand behind our claims, because the reputation of our names rides upon that. You can say whatever you want and flounce about like you're some champion of justice -- but you're just [CENSORED] hiding behind a pseudonym. Mike doesn't owe you an explanation for how his service meets the terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation, and he's decided not to share that with you unless you want to pay for that information. Mike happened to share the information with me, because he knows me personally, and he trusts me when I say that I won't disclose his proprietary trade secrets.

He is not a bullshitter. He's found a very creative way to comply with the Wikimedia Foundation ToU clauses about disclosure of paid editing, and it gives his business an advantage over competitors. You can whinge all you want about how miffed you are that he won't disclose that advantage to you, you no-name nobody. But what you can't do is continue your attack on another member of Wikipediocracy. So, let me put it to you one more time -- Mike is not a bullshitter. He's found a way to help paid-up clients with Wikipedia content, without him or anyone else violating the letter of the WMF ToU. He has not deemed you worthy of freely sharing that knowledge. Free knowledge is a principle of Wikipedia, and it's a nice thing if properly done. But that principle doesn't extend to every space in the real world. You may be having a fit trying to understand this is your problem for you to work out, but you don't malign another man's reputation while you figure out that this is your problem.

I have generally ignored you because 99% of what you write here is just snark and trash. I have little tolerance for bullshit[CENSORED].

Mike makes an extraordinary claim that is also "flat earth" ludicrous on its face. I called him on it.

The community has never rested easy on the notion that people like you and Mike exploit the value that the volunteer community has created for your personal gain. If the volunteer community had not built this and maintained it such that the public actually found value and kept coming back, you would have no platform on which to publish.

You both exploit - and I use that term with all its valency - the common good that is Wikipedia.

You come with all kinds of garbage rhetoric about how what you are doing is OK, but it isn't. I find your behavior and attitude disgusting. You just exploit WP and you do it with disdain.

Every industry has regulation meant to allow people to do business (make money, create jobs, produce things/services that meet people's needs or desires) while protecting the public good. Competent business people build regulation into their business models. So if you manufacture stuff and there is waste that would hurt people if you just dump it somewhere, you, the manufacturer, need to mitigate the risk of that waste causing harm. You can't just dump it in the river. Not in 2016 in the developed world. If you want to make money editing WP, you can, but you should allow the community to mitigate the risk your work poses. What you are doing is as wrong as dumping untreated industrial waste into a river. Wikipedia is a lot like Haiti where there is no effective rule of law. You are just abusing the vulnerabilities of the system. You can try to cover that with bullshit all you want. But it will still be bullshit and your behavior will still be as disgusting as that of someone who sets up a factory in Haiti so he can just spew untreated waste where ever he wants without dealing with that pesky regulation.

As I have said I have worked with some paid editors who are good citizens. Paid editors who work with the community and follow the ToU and PAID and the COI guideline, spirit and letter, are OK in my book. They can add a ton of value to WP.

In my view most conflicted editors who come to WP and add promotional content driven by their COI don't know what they are doing and don't understand how it harms WP. I just talked a person like that the other day. I offered to talk on Skype and they accepted. (I have a jytdog skype account and use it with no video). Most people are decent, and if somebody takes the time to teach them, they begin to understand the mission of WP and the problems COI causes, and they get it, and want to be good citizens. What they do isn't disgusting.

[Kumioko]

I don't see anything about users linking to the name of another user anywhere in the Privacy Policy that Risker mentioned. She's kind of batty.

The dumbest person on Wikipedia.

I disagree, several people dumber. Although I must say I thought a lot more highly of Risker before they became an Arb. It really fried their brain it seems because ever since they have been saying some really dumb stuff.

Name names.

Mostly the usual suspects, but to name a few:
[*] Guerillero (T-C-L)
[*] Binksternet (T-C-L)
[*] BeyondMyKen (T-C-L)
[*] HighInBC (T-C-L)
[*] GoodDay (T-C-L)

BeyondMyKen (T-C-L) in particular is so rude and obnoxious. I can't believe he hasn't been booted off the project. Does he have a clean block log? Not a rhetorical question; I haven't looked.

He was once banned back when the goal of the project was still about building an encyclopedia but he came back.

[mendaliv]

I don't see anything about users linking to the name of another user anywhere in the Privacy Policy that Risker mentioned. She's kind of batty.

The dumbest person on Wikipedia.

I disagree, several people dumber. Although I must say I thought a lot more highly of Risker before they became an Arb. It really fried their brain it seems because ever since they have been saying some really dumb stuff.

Name names.

Mostly the usual suspects, but to name a few:
[*] Guerillero (T-C-L)
[*] Binksternet (T-C-L)
[*] BeyondMyKen (T-C-L)
[*] HighInBC (T-C-L)
[*] GoodDay (T-C-L)

BeyondMyKen (T-C-L) in particular is so rude and obnoxious. I can't believe he hasn't been booted off the project. Does he have a clean block log? Not a rhetorical question; I haven't looked.

He was once banned back when the goal of the project was still about building an encyclopedia but he came back.

Aw, I like BMK. I think he does good work at ANI.

[Midsize Jake]

Mike makes an extraordinary claim that is also "flat earth" ludicrous on its face....

Okay, let's try this one more time, for all the old times...

Let's say, hypothetically, I run a company called "Jake's PR Services, Ltd." My client, the Coca-Cola Company, asks me to insert a piece of information into the article on Coca-Cola Zero (T-H-L). This edit they're asking for is fairly innocuous, at least in my estimation - but that doesn't matter because I'm not going to actually make the edit; I refuse to edit WP as a matter of principle. (If I did, I'd be banned within about 15 minutes anyway because I suck at hiding my personality.)

So instead, I hand off the task to my downstream contractor, "Desperate Dave's Editing and Sniveling, LLC." But I don't tell Desperate Dave who my client is, because I don't want Dave to go to my client and try to eliminate me as the middle-man, right? That's SOP in the PR world, after all. And nobody likes a guy who snivels.

Now, Dave might assume that my client is the Coca Cola Company, but he doesn't have anything from me in writing or even verbally that says so. I tell Dave he should follow the WP Terms of Use and disclose who he's working for by saying "this edit was made on behalf of Jake's PR Services, Ltd" in the edit summary, but that's his call, and of course he knows that if the edit doesn't "stick," I might not hire him again. And I know that he knows that, but I can only advise; I can't force Dave to disclose the fact that he's working for me. If he decides to violate the Terms of Use, that's on him.

Now, you can say this scenario is an example of unethical or even "sleazy" business practices, because I've knowingly hired a guy who sometimes violates Wikipedia's Terms of Use. But I don't see how I'm violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use - after all, I don't even have a Wikipedia account. I've never made a single Wikipedia edit in my entire life. (I'm not kidding about this.)

What I'm saying is that Wikipedia cannot force me to conduct business in any particular way whatsoever because the wishes and preferences of Wikipedians or the WMF do not have the force of law. They can only dictate how I interact directly with their website, and if I don't interact directly with their website, then all they can do is politely request that I cease and desist. And, since their behavior as an organization has been consistently abominable, pretty much since Day One, I might not be super-inclined to do so.

[The Garbage Scow]

The community has never rested easy on the notion that people like you and Mike exploit the value that the volunteer community has created for your personal gain. If the volunteer community had not built this and maintained it such that the public actually found value and kept coming back, you would have no platform on which to publish.

You both exploit - and I use that term with all its valency - the common good that is Wikipedia.

You come with all kinds of garbage rhetoric about how what you are doing is OK, but it isn't. I find your behavior and attitude disgusting. You just exploit WP and you do it with disdain.

Every industry has regulation meant to allow people to do business (make money, create jobs, produce things/services that meet people's needs or desires) while protecting the public good. Competent business people build regulation into their business models. So if you manufacture stuff and there is waste that would hurt people if you just dump it somewhere, you, the manufacturer, need to mitigate the risk of that waste causing harm. You can't just dump it in the river. Not in 2016 in the developed world. If you want to make money editing WP, you can, but you should allow the community to mitigate the risk your work poses. What you are doing is as wrong as dumping untreated industrial waste into a river. Wikipedia is a lot like Haiti where there is no effective rule of law. You are just abusing the vulnerabilities of the system. You can try to cover that with bullshit all you want. But it will still be bullshit and your behavior will still be as disgusting as that of someone who sets up a factory in Haiti so he can just spew untreated waste where ever he wants without dealing with that pesky regulation.

As I have said I have worked with some paid editors who are good citizens. Paid editors who work with the community and follow the ToU and PAID and the COI guideline, spirit and letter, are OK in my book. They can add a ton of value to WP.

In my view most conflicted editors who come to WP and add promotional content driven by their COI don't know what they are doing and don't understand how it harms WP. I just talked a person like that the other day. I offered to talk on Skype and they accepted. (I have a jytdog skype account and use it with no video). Most people are decent, and if somebody takes the time to teach them, they begin to understand the mission of WP and the problems COI causes, and they get it, and want to be good citizens. What they do isn't disgusting.

Wow, you really are a true believer, aren't you?

[jytdog]

Mike makes an extraordinary claim that is also "flat earth" ludicrous on its face....

Okay, let's try this one more time, for all the old times...

Let's say, hypothetically, I run a company called "Jake's PR Services, Ltd." My client, the Coca-Cola Company, asks me to insert a piece of information into the article on Coca-Cola Zero (T-H-L). This edit they're asking for is fairly innocuous, at least in my estimation - but that doesn't matter because I'm not going to actually make the edit; I refuse to edit WP as a matter of principle. (If I did, I'd be banned within about 15 minutes anyway because I suck at hiding my personality.)

So instead, I hand off the task to my downstream contractor, "Desperate Dave's Editing and Sniveling, LLC." But I don't tell Desperate Dave who my client is, because I don't want Dave to go to my client and try to eliminate me as the middle-man, right? That's SOP in the PR world, after all. And nobody likes a guy who snivels.

Now, Dave might assume that my client is the Coca Cola Company, but he doesn't have anything from me in writing or even verbally that says so. I tell Dave he should follow the WP Terms of Use and disclose who he's working for by saying "this edit was made on behalf of Jake's PR Services, Ltd" in the edit summary, but that's his call, and of course he knows that if the edit doesn't "stick," I might not hire him again. And I know that he knows that, but I can only advise; I can't force Dave to disclose the fact that he's working for me. If he decides to violate the Terms of Use, that's on him.

Now, you can say this scenario is an example of unethical or even "sleazy" business practices, because I've knowingly hired a guy who sometimes violates Wikipedia's Terms of Use. But I don't see how I'm violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use - after all, I don't even have a Wikipedia account. I've never made a single Wikipedia edit in my entire life. (I'm not kidding about this.)

What I'm saying is that Wikipedia cannot force me to conduct business in any particular way whatsoever because the wishes and preferences of Wikipedians or the WMF do not have the force of law. They can only dictate how I interact directly with their website, and if I don't interact directly with their website, then all they can do is politely request that I cease and desist. And, since their behavior as an organization has been consistently abominable, pretty much since Day One, I might not be super-inclined to do so.

That is lawyering bullshit. You cannot regulate morality or ethics and assholes with lawyers will always look for loopholes

There is no "law" here in the sense of "murder is against the law". There is however contract law. The ToU define the terms of the contract that users accept anew every time they edit. The intent of the ToU is obvious - paid editors are obligated to inform the community what the relationships are, that are creating the conflict.

The actual person doing the editing has the obligation to disclose. So they are obligated to ask and find out the answer, so that they can disclose it. "I don't know" is not an option.

So the contractor is obligated to disclose that he/she is working for you. That is the "employer' bucket. (yes i know that contractor =/= employee). And because the contractor is obligated to disclose "client", the contractor needs to ask who the client is, and disclose it. The WMF put the fuzzy "affiliation" in just to deal with assholes trying to lawyer their way out of disclosing.

And any paid editor who signs a nondisclosure agreement with a client, has made it impossible for themselves to comply with the ToU and has set up an untenable business situation for themselves. There is no option not to disclose in that relationship and being an idiot is not an excuse, in the relationship between WMF/WP and the paid editor, to not disclose. There is always lying and hiding, but that does not = complying.

And as a business person, you are responsible for what your employees and contractors do; contractors are very clearly your "agents". (there is a great body of law around "agency" in contracts). So the whole line of bullshit you are spewing about not being responsible for what your contractor does, is just that - bullshit. A sensible business that was careful to not get into legal hot water would actually include in its contracts with editors, that they have to follow all WP policies including PAID. A business that doesn't have the right to operate where it needs to, is not sustainable and is always at risk of being shut down or driven out of business. This is true in all fields of business. It is why for example companies take licenses to patents they infringe (also a matter of civil law).

And yes the WMF can enforce the contract, and the community can enforce the PAID policy (which they have the right to do, also under the ToU). It is not complicated.

[thekohser]

I find your behavior and attitude disgusting. You just exploit WP and you do it with disdain.

Then I presume that Sue Gardner disgusts you about 40 or 50 times more than me? And Jimmy Wales disgusts you about 100 to 115 times more than me?

I've heard your same rhetoric from about a dozen different Wikipediots over the years, Jytdog. Sometimes, those who rail loudest against the exploitation they view paid editing to be, turn out to be themselves guilty of exactly what they say disgusts them.

Wikipedia begs the world for two things -- new content, and financial donations for the Wikimedia Foundation to waste on things like parties, grifter salaries, and unwanted code. I learned quickly not to be one of the gullible fools who sends in my money, but I am still interested in giving Wikipedia the content it's always asked for. And now you say that this freely-licensed content I've donated to Wikipedia is "disgusting".

Well, you can take your fake name and run back to your NY university job that's paid for by some pharmaceutical company that wants more of its product pushed on even more patients, so they hire academic hucksters to cook up "studies" that say their pills make people healthier. Yeah, I'm on to you.


P.S. Midsize Jake is trying to get you to the realization that I'd also love to see you arrive at, but alas, it seems your rage is still preventing you from seeing how Mike Wood abides by the Wikimedia ToU, regardless of how impossible you think it is. It's very possible. You're just too shallow-minded, apparently, to figure it out.

[jytdog]

I find your behavior and attitude disgusting. You just exploit WP and you do it with disdain.

Then I presume that Sue Gardner disgusts you about 40 or 50 times more than me? And Jimmy Wales disgusts you about 100 to 115 times more than me?

I've heard your same rhetoric from about a dozen different Wikipediots over the years, Jytdog. Sometimes, those who rail loudest against the exploitation they view paid editing to be, turn out to be themselves guilty of exactly what they say disgusts them.

Wikipedia begs the world for two things -- new content, and financial donations for the Wikimedia Foundation to waste on things like parties, grifter salaries, and unwanted code. I learned quickly not to be one of the gullible fools who sends in my money, but I am still interested in giving Wikipedia the content it's always asked for. And now you say that this freely-licensed content I've donated to Wikipedia is "disgusting".

Well, you can take your fake name and run back to your NY university job that's paid for by some pharmaceutical company that wants more of its product pushed on even more patients, so they hire academic hucksters to cook up "studies" that say their pills make people healthier. Yeah, I'm on to you.

No I said your behavior is disgusting. As is your little doxing threat (and you are not the first simpleton to come to bizarre conspiracy conclusions about my work). [CENSORED]I will just go back to ignoring you.

[Midsize Jake]

So the contractor is obligated to disclose that he/she is working for you. That is the "employer' bucket. (yes i know that contractor =/= employee). And because the contractor is obligated to disclose "client", the contractor needs to ask who the client is, and disclose it. The WMF put the fuzzy "affiliation" in just to deal with assholes trying to lawyer their way out of disclosing.

And any paid editor who signs a nondisclosure agreement with a client, has made it impossible for themselves to comply with the ToU and has set up an untenable business situation for themselves. There is no option not to disclose in that relationship and being an idiot is not an excuse, in the relationship between WMF/WP and the paid editor, to not disclose. There is always lying and hiding, but that does not = complying.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that I understand what the intent of the Terms of Use is, and let's also proceed from the assumption that the tenability of my downstream contractor's business is not really my concern, as long as he does what I'm paying him to do. Am I myself violating the Terms of Use, or not? Yes or no.

Or, perhaps more to the point: Is this scenario really "ludicrous," like arguing for a flat earth?

I hasten to add that I bear you no ill will personally, and of course I don't actually operate a business like the one I'm describing. As Mr. Boise already pointed out earlier, the issue here is the conflict between anonymity and accountability, just like it has been for 15 years.

[thekohser]

[CENSORED]

Go fuck yourself.

[/censor]

I had a feeling we'd get to the personal attacks that I suspected were coming soon. Good luck on your getting reinstated on Wikipedia. But, if not, I'm sure your pharma backers will underwrite your time to develop a new sockpuppet if your return as "Jytdog" doesn't materialize in the next month or so.

[jytdog]

So the contractor is obligated to disclose that he/she is working for you. That is the "employer' bucket. (yes i know that contractor =/= employee). And because the contractor is obligated to disclose "client", the contractor needs to ask who the client is, and disclose it. The WMF put the fuzzy "affiliation" in just to deal with assholes trying to lawyer their way out of disclosing.

And any paid editor who signs a nondisclosure agreement with a client, has made it impossible for themselves to comply with the ToU and has set up an untenable business situation for themselves. There is no option not to disclose in that relationship and being an idiot is not an excuse, in the relationship between WMF/WP and the paid editor, to not disclose. There is always lying and hiding, but that does not = complying.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that I understand what the intent of the Terms of Use is, and let's also proceed from the assumption that the tenability of my downstream contractor's business is not really my concern, as long as he does what I'm paying him to do. Am I myself violating the Terms of Use, or not? Yes or no.

Or, perhaps more to the point: Is this scenario really "ludicrous," like arguing for a flat earth?

I hasten to add that I bear you no ill will personally, and of course I don't actually operate a business like the one I'm describing. As Mr. Boise already pointed out earlier, the issue here is the conflict between anonymity and accountability, just like it has been for 15 years.

Like I said the contractor is your agent and is essential to your business; you cannot make money if they don't actually implement edits. So yes, your business is violating the ToU by not ensuring that your contractors follow the ToU, which you can do easily in the contract with them, and by providing the contractor with the information they need to comply with the ToU.

What needs to be disclosed is not identity, but rather relationships. There is an important difference (one that I fucked up and obliterated, which is why I am blocked). Now if your business is very small such that disclosing the identity of the company = disclosing your identity, that is indeed an apparent bind. But the community just went through a discussion about this with regard to CorporateM, and it was determined that it is his choice to be a paid editor and his choice to have a small business, so the fact that for him, complying with the ToU meant an obligation to OUT himself, was not a problem under OUTING. He was and is obligated to disclose the name of his company under the ToU.

[mendaliv]

That is lawyering bullshit. You cannot regulate morality or ethics and assholes with lawyers will always look for loopholes

There is no "law" here in the sense of "murder is against the law". There is however contract law. The ToU define the terms of the contract that users accept anew every time they edit. The intent of the ToU is obvious - paid editors are obligated to inform the community what the relationships are, that are creating the conflict.

The actual person doing the editing has the obligation to disclose. So they are obligated to ask and find out the answer, so that they can disclose it. "I don't know" is not an option.

So the contractor is obligated to disclose that he/she is working for you. That is the "employer' bucket. (yes i know that contractor =/= employee). And because the contractor is obligated to disclose "client", the contractor needs to ask who the client is, and disclose it. The WMF put the fuzzy "affiliation" in just to deal with assholes trying to lawyer their way out of disclosing.

And any paid editor who signs a nondisclosure agreement with a client, has made it impossible for themselves to comply with the ToU and has set up an untenable business situation for themselves. There is no option not to disclose in that relationship and being an idiot is not an excuse, in the relationship between WMF/WP and the paid editor, to not disclose. There is always lying and hiding, but that does not = complying.

And as a business person, you are responsible for what your employees and contractors do; contractors are very clearly your "agents". (there is a great body of law around "agency" in contracts). So the whole line of bullshit you are spewing about not being responsible for what your contractor does, is just that - bullshit. A sensible business that was careful to not get into legal hot water would actually include in its contracts with editors, that they have to follow all WP policies including PAID. A business that doesn't have the right to operate where it needs to, is not sustainable and is always at risk of being shut down or driven out of business. This is true in all fields of business. It is why for example companies take licenses to patents they infringe (also a matter of civil law).

And yes the WMF can enforce the contract, and the community can enforce the PAID policy (which they have the right to do, also under the ToU). It is not complicated.

Wikipedia is not a special safe space where lawyers don't exist and routine legal gimmicks cease to function.

Shit, we can't even keep people from lying about their qualifications, let alone their affiliations.

[thekohser]

I wonder if Jytdog can imagine a world where information is exchanged without a contract?

[Vigilant]

I don't see anything about users linking to the name of another user anywhere in the Privacy Policy that Risker mentioned. She's kind of batty.

The dumbest person on Wikipedia.

I disagree, several people dumber. Although I must say I thought a lot more highly of Risker before they became an Arb. It really fried their brain it seems because ever since they have been saying some really dumb stuff.

Name names.

Mostly the usual suspects, but to name a few:
[*] Guerillero (T-C-L)
[*] Binksternet (T-C-L)
[*] BeyondMyKen (T-C-L)
[*] HighInBC (T-C-L)
[*] GoodDay (T-C-L)

That's just your hit list.

Those people aren't dumber than Risker.
Try again.

[jytdog]

Wikipedia is not a special safe space where lawyers don't exist and routine legal gimmicks cease to function.

Shit, we can't even keep people from lying about their qualifications, let alone their affiliations.

This is true. It doesn't mean that wikilawyering bullshit is not wikilawyering bullshit. We all know when we see it. And this is why WP is a clueocracy.

But these things may come to matter in the RW one day. I have no idea what the WMF is considering as next steps beyond just putting the ToU in place. My sense is that they realized they were on pretty weak legal ground when they sent the cease and desist letter to Wiki-PR, and that drove a desire to make something much more explicit that they could hang their hat on next time. I do wonder if they will ever take action based on it, now that they have that much stronger ground. Businesses like Mike's and Greg's operate under a very real threat of being shut down one day, if the WMF ever does.

[Midsize Jake]

I wonder if Jytdog can imagine a world where information is exchanged without a contract?

Well, let's be fair; it's not in the Terms of Use itself, but the "FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure" does contain this sentence:

If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client.

This isn't stated explicitly in the ToU, but presumably, if the FAQ can be treated as an extension of the ToU, then this would be a valid cause to sanction the downstream contractor in the above scenario. The issue is whether I myself, the person on whose behalf this downstream contractor is acting, am in violation of the ToU simply for having not informed the downstream contractor of who my own client is, which I might add is not something a professional PR person would be inclined to do if he can help it. The question of what can Wikipedia do about it, i.e., what they can do to me, strikes me as moot, since as I say, the ToU does not carry the force of law outside of the direct-interaction context, and I'm not directly interacting with Wikipedia at all.

But regardless, I would certainly agree with him that I would be violating the intent of the ToU, and if I did it repeatedly and annoyingly, they would be completely justified in sending me a C&D letter. That wouldn't carry the force of law either, of course, but if they were really nice about it, who knows. Obviously if they accused me of "wikilawyering bullshit," though, that would not be very nice.