The tip of a rather large iceberg

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Any idea what's going on here? It seems to be about a pyramid paid editing scheme.

[Kingsindian]

It's known that Vipul Naik offers payments for editing certain Wikipedia articles. He maintains a list of pages and payments somewhere. I think I mentioned it once myself on the WS forum and Eric Barbour has also mentioned it either here or somewhere else.

Not sure what the controversy is about. Too much blather on the talkpage.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

It's known that Vipul Naik offers payments for editing certain Wikipedia articles. He maintains a list of pages and payments somewhere.[...].

Probably Contract work for Vipul Naik. Does it have a multi-level/pyramid scheme aspect?

[Kingsindian]

No idea, but I don't see anything there which resembles a pyramid scheme.

I don't see how it's relevant, anyway. Even if it's a pyramid scheme, the people who ought to be concerned are the people editing for pay, not Wikipedia.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

True enough, but bad PR for Wikipedia if they were seen to be making a big fuss over clamping down on paid editing and then tolerating a pyramid scheme.

[Disgruntled haddock]

I'm equally interested in why El C (T-C-L) has suddenly returned to Wikipedia and why he is tackling this issue. His last substantive contributions were in August 2008. Looks like he made two edits most years, probably to keep the bit. Then, all of a sudden, he's everywhere: on ANI, wielding the admin toolkit, etc.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

So who is he working for in this imbroglio?

More importantly, perhaps, is this the sort of thing the Daily Mail might be interested in?

[tarantino]

I'm equally interested in why El C (T-C-L) has suddenly returned to Wikipedia and why he is tackling this issue. His last substantive contributions were in August 2008. Looks like he made two edits most years, probably to keep the bit. Then, all of a sudden, he's everywhere: on ANI, wielding the admin toolkit, etc.

He was the inspiration for the start of the thread, Inactive admins who only make edits to keep the bit a while back.

[thekohser]

Is it possible that he sold the admin account to another party this year?

[Poetlister]

Is it possible that he sold the admin account to another party this year?

It's certainly not impossible, but we'd need better evidence before making accusations.

[Kingsindian]

There's a long discussion at ANI.

[Disgruntled haddock]

Is it possible that he sold the admin account to another party this year?

It's certainly not impossible, but we'd need better evidence before making accusations.

El C seems on the level to me. It's still odd that they've jumped back into editing though.

I have to say, I don't like the "Timeline of x" articles that the Vipul network has been creating. Many feel more like blurbs from press releases than encyclopedia articles. Given the choice between bullet-list text-bites about tech companies and well-structured prose, I'd pick the prose every time. (There's another issue too, about when and why material should be split into multiple articles as Vipul's network has been doing with these "Timeline" articles, but perhaps that's better suited for another thread.)

[Kingsindian]

A related discussion at COIN.

After a cursory review, what I find amazing is that basically nobody has identified any significant instance of unethical paid editing or otherwise violating ToU on the part of Vipul Naik's enterprise (the failure is not through lack of trying). But the self-appointed inquisitors are busy at work, making all kinds of accusations without evidence, and there is much hand-wringing on Jimbo's page about how this is going to bring down Wikipedia and that paid editors (all of them) are "vermin", "dogs" and "parasites" (this by JzG), and we have to do something to stop this menace.

The inquisitors seem to not grasp the point that if you treat an (apparently) exceptionally transparent paid editor in this way, the next one might decide that it's not worth the trouble to tangle with idiots, and do the editing surreptitiously instead. Also, it's as if content is secondary to self-indulgence by self-righteous volunteers.

There's also a thread on the new WS forum, with some discussion about whether there are lots of sockpuppets running around the Effective Altruism articles. There are also some weird accusations of admin accounts sold etc. With the sums of money involved I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to buy an admin or two, but I don't really see the evidence showing this.

[Poetlister]

some discussion about whether there are lots of sockpuppets running around the Effective Altruism articles.

Gasp! Surely such a thing could never be!

[Kingsindian]

A bunch of articles being reviewed at the COI noticeboard.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Hmm. While "they" are rewriting articles on philanthropic institutions, somebody might liike to revise the Tides (organization) (T-H-L) article. It might mention, for example, that the Tides Foundation has given over $2 million to the WMF and holds its endowment. How's that for a conflict of itnerest?

[Kingsindian]

A very long post, "Should you donate to the WMF". Mentions WO and Andreas Kolbe on Quora a few times. I found this interesting passage there:

Aside: Andreas Kolbe has proposed that, rather than donating to the WMF, you seek out people to do paid editing and pay them if the quality of the work satisfies you, using the Wikipedia Review Board to find and communicate with the relevant editors. I don't have clear thoughts on this, but I do think that if your goal is to improve content quality or quantity on Wikipedia, editing it yourself -- or paying others to directly edit it through appropriate mechanisms (and not in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines) is probably a more cost-effective approach.

The link actually refers to a WO blog post by Greg Kohs and "Masked Maggot" (I don't know who that is).

[thekohser]

A very long post, "Should you donate to the WMF". Mentions WO and Andreas Kolbe on Quora a few times. I found this interesting passage there:

Aside: Andreas Kolbe has proposed that, rather than donating to the WMF, you seek out people to do paid editing and pay them if the quality of the work satisfies you, using the Wikipedia Review Board to find and communicate with the relevant editors. I don't have clear thoughts on this, but I do think that if your goal is to improve content quality or quantity on Wikipedia, editing it yourself -- or paying others to directly edit it through appropriate mechanisms (and not in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines) is probably a more cost-effective approach.

The link actually refers to a WO blog post by Greg Kohs and "Masked Maggot" (I don't know who that is).

They mis-typed "Reward" as "Review".

[Kingsindian]

One person (Riceissa (T-C-L)) has been indeffed. It seems to me to be a case of suicide by admin.

The ANI discussion has been closed for now, with some sort of RfC coming. Vipul has suspended their operations for now.

There's a long Q&A here. One quote which I found interesting:

I find it unfortunate that people who hide behind pseudonyms, failing to disclose real-world identity, continue to attack us for being transparent about our real-world identity and full details of the work we are doing. It concerns me that this creates few incentives for others to follow in our footsteps in revealing information about themselves, for fear that it would open them up to unfair attacks and accusations.Vipul (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I would indeed be interested to know who this Inlinetext (T-C-L) fellow, who seems to have appointed themselves Grand Inquisitor, is. They have less than a thousand edits to their name, and make some rather wild accusations on the page.

[Kingsindian]

The part about "pyramid scheme" refers to this:

Is it correct that your network of paid editors involves / envisages multiple levels of membership and (some of) your team members receive commissions for recruiting other members and also a percentage calculated on income of other members below (or after) them ?Inlinetext (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes; however, I would not consider this a hierarchy but rather simply different kinds of payments for faciliating various parts of the process. For more context: in mid-2016, I was seeking to significantly scale up Wikipedia editing work, but the people I currently had on board did not have enough time to do enough work to meet my ambitions. Given my more-than-full-time day job, and my lack of a network with potential editors, I sought the help of some of these people to recruit others. I wanted recruitment incentives that would encourage them to find people who would do a lot of work. Therefore, I had a deal with Ethanbas where I pay him a commission (usually 10%) of the work of people he recruits. I also pay Riceissa a similar commissions for all recently recruited editors; in turn he helps review their work and push for better quality and standards, while also guiding them on Wikipedia norms.Vipul (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think referral payments aren't necessarily pyramid schemes? It would be a pyramid scheme if most of the income came through referrals instead of direct work, and the pattern was replicated at the lower levels as well?

I find it rather strange that "pyramid scheme" is being thrown about carelessly by all and sundry. Isn't running a pyramid scheme illegal? If so, is it now ok to accuse someone on Wikipedia of engaging in criminal behaviour?

[Kingsindian]

JzG (T-H-L) has been hard at work on this case. He has added a ton of sites to a blacklist.

One of his additions to the blocklist (Econlib.org, which is basically a libertarian think tank; I read some of their blogs sometimes) has encountered some resistance. Here is his explanation.

An account with 400 edits has opened a case at ANI against him.

I don't know the details of all the stuff he's been doing, but the ones I've looked at, he has often used a meat cleaver, when a scalpel might have been more appropriate. For instance, his mass CSD tagging of technology company timeline articles was all overturned. As was his AfD of Bryan Caplan (T-H-L) here. Another AfD, Arnold Kling (which I didn't really track), was also closed as "keep". On the other hand, the AfD for EconLog was closed as "delete".

[Poetlister]

This is high-class POV edit-warring. If you can stop the other side linking to sites that support their case, obviously it gives you a distinct advantage. Some people are rather cleverer at it than JzG, of course. He's charging around like a rhino on steroids, attracting too much attention.

[Cedric]

This is high-class POV edit-warring. If you can stop the other side linking to sites that support their case, obviously it gives you a distinct advantage. Some people are rather cleverer at it than JzG, of course. He's charging around like a rhino on steroids, attracting too much attention.

Well, he is The Angriest Cyclist in England, after all--he may as well be The Angriest Admin from England, too.

[Kingsindian]

The editor who opened the ANI against JzG was indeffed as a sock. Of who? God knows, but they have been blocked because they are suspected of being a sock of someone. They admit that they are not a new user, but they haven't admitted to being a sock of anyone.

[thekohser]

The editor who opened the ANI against JzG was indeffed as a sock. Of who? God knows, but they have been blocked because they are suspected of being a sock of someone. They admit that they are not a new user, but they haven't admitted to being a sock of anyone.

One rationale for blocking is that he was "lecturing" JzG within a few days of opening his account. I wonder, if we went back and looked at the first few days of JzG's account, was he lecturing anyone?

Well, maybe not, but within in first 50 edits, he was openly WP:OUTING another editor, so I guess some leopards don't change their spots.

[Kingsindian]

PredictionBook.com is a site to evaluate your judgement. You make lots of predictions, with X% certainty attached to each, and then some time later, they are evaluated by some judge. The closer your prediction percentage is to your X percentage, the more calibrated you are. So, if you make 10 predictions with 60% certainty each and 4 predictions with 75% each; and then 6 of the former and 3 of the latter come true, you are perfectly calibrated.

(This kind of thing is very common in the rationalist community).

Here is one prediction by Vipul Naik that I found interesting. And another.

He also gave about a quarter chance of himself getting banned. Reminds me of Nostradamus predicting his own death. In this case, of course, he wasn't banned.

[Kingsindian]

JzG has dropped off their bit for a while, citing burnout over the Vipul matter.

It's a correct call, since their judgement has deteriorated pretty badly; they are seeing spam and puffery everywhere. They speedy-deleted an article on one of the richest people in India, which had already survived an AfD. I hope they get some rest.