And in July the Gibraltar’s Director of Heritage was saying about how he was so happy the tourism board was helping with the idea and that they had to be assured that negative articles would not be written (of course that doesn't mean volunteers are deliberately making positive articles, but it does speak to who is behind this project). Anyone can make a GLAM page. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I just totally got it, and I agree with you. It's not about the editor. It's about DYK being successfully used in a for-profit commercial venture by any entity. In this case, free advertising for tourism. The link you just posted is pretty damning evidence of that. Maile66 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify that Gibraltarpedia is not actually a Wikimedia UK project (like the link says). It's run by people from the UK, but the UK chapter haven't funded it, nor are they involved in the running of it. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's disconcerting. I don't like the commercial vibe that the linked article gives off or their idea of reverting "nasty" press. I wonder if anyone gets paid for doing the articles (definite COI) or if it's a volunteer type thing. I don't see how this is any different from advertising games/tv shows or political candidates, so the same general rules and cautions would have to be applied. Froggerlaura ribbit 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the term is, "We've been had." In addition to DYK taking note of this, wouldn't the whole issue be a larger scope that should be addressed somewhere? You can't deny the articles that have appeared here are well-written and well-sourced. Of course, they would be able to write professionally, wouldn't they? It's just that Wikipedia over-all has been successfully used by a for-profit venture. Doesn't that go beyond DYK for Wikipedia? Maile66 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

At the end of June Roger signed a contract with the Government of Gibraltar. There is no known COI as WMUK does not have a relationship with this Government but it is hoped that one may develop. Roger has a business relationship with John Cummings and Steve Virgin.

Who is running this project? Former chair of WMUK and current WMUK trustee Roger Bamkin.

The Wikipedia article on Gibraltar (T-H-L) has been a frequent locus of partisan editing, where British and Spanish partisans square off on obscure issues concerning Gibraltar's sovereign status, or lack thereof.

As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds.”

An interesting discussion has popped up on the DYK ("Did You Know") talk page. The Gibraltarpedia project seems to be nothing more or less than an effort to encourage tourism and some folks find the use of WP's front page to be questionable.

Roger updated the board on Gibraltarpedia, and explained how he would like to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Wikimedia UK. This would not involve the transfer of any funds, but would mean that Wikimedia UK would offer in-kind support in the form of press coverage and various merchandise.
DECISION: Yes It was agreed that the office can support Gibraltarpedia with in-kind contributions, but not funds

I'm feeling more than usually dim. Is this the story? "Roger Bamkin, a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, is a paid PR consultant for Gibraltar and secured the agreement of Wikimedia UK to promote his client's interests."

If so, wow.

Christ on a popsicle stick: They even have an article on Gibraltarpedia started by an editor called Ian Pigott who explains he is "creating article on Gibraltarpedia designed to make Gibraltar the world's first digital city."

And Roger Bamkin is "Victuallers" on Wikipedia. Victuallers Ltd is the name of his company that has a contract with Gibraltar. He's a paid editor. Why is he not banned?

I wasnt aware that editors working on the same project were not allowed to approve each others nominations. Obviously blindness affects us all on some days. Usually it is thougfht useful to have a review by someone who does know something about the subject. [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 07:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia and plant articles

Hey Victuallers. So I'm unclear on this, does it have to have a bluelink to Gibraltar? The List of plants in the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens contain plants that are not actually native to Gibraltar, but are nonetheless included in the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens. As such, there would be no way to mention Gibraltar naturally in the article text. Does this mean I should only create articles for plants native to Gibraltar in order for the article to qualify? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a gib botanic gardens link... does that solve the problem? Oh and welcme aboard. We plan to launch a sub competition for flora and fauna - do you think there would be a wider appeal. Ding flowers fulfils our "bridge to africa" as many will be on both sides of the water Victuallers (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, no it doesn't solve the problem. As I understand the primary aim of filling in the list is to add QR codes to the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens collection, but a large majority of those plants in the list are present in virtually every major botanical garden worldwide (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Missouri Botanical Garden, Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney, etc.). It'd be WP:UNDUE to mention the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens (or any botanic garden at all). Anyway, I don't know how appealing a subcompetition would be, as there are comparatively few editors focusing on flora and fauna on Wikipedia, but sure, it sounds like a good way to fill in missing plant and animal articles. (Oh and I'm in this purely for the spirit, rather than the prizes)-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OK I understand your position and its a reasonable one - we'll have a think about it. I think there are solutions Victuallers (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling more than usually dim. Is this the story? "Roger Bamkin, a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, is a paid PR consultant for Gibraltar and secured the agreement of Wikimedia UK to promote his client's interests."

If so, wow.

This is also looking some strange intramural squabble. I believe "Panyd" is or was the girlfriend of the "Chase me" guy who, from memory, got some kind of paying gig out of Wikimedia.

There was a fair amount of discussion about how we can manage a budget of this size and complexity. We don't have enough 'thought leaders' to do this - it's not just an issue of money. We will probably need to hire volunteer "thought leaders"! There was lots of discussion about changing government policy - is this worth a £5k budget line, perhaps? Roger thinks we need to talk about the top two or three ideas that came out of today, and see if they're in the plan!

These ideas were:

* Increasing volunteer grants. Travel grants were suggested to go up from 15k to 25k. Fae suggested up to £40k in 'program and project grants'. Possibly hiring someone to manage the projects and come up with objectives, outcomes, 'kill points' (Fae's term) etc - a project manager for six months to a year, including helping people write proposals. Fae suggests, based on his professional experience, a six month post to set up a proper project and grant management process. Possibly, in future, we would hire a full time permanent project manager.

* Helping volunteers more. We'll therefore be hiring a volunteer developmernt and support person. Already decided. Job description to be written in next few months.

* "short term projects", eg hiring John Cummings. Has to be done openly if the idea is ours: but can also be done if someone approaches us with a project.

Gibraltarpedia
I've created an updated copy of an MOU that Chris abnd I discussed. I'd like to get this approved in principle at the board meeting. If we can get any issues highlighted before the meeting then we should be able to solve these quickly. This should be available with board papers. Decision

John Byrne has mentioned that he would like to know more about Gib. We have few secrets so I'd be happy to talk the board through our plans. I guess this might take 20 mins plus questions. Since we spoke, we now have the support of the Catalans as well as the Moroccan contingent.

We have highlighted that there are three UK/GLAM related conferences next spring. This needs to be managed. John C is delaying starting work in Gib in order to help with this at first day of GLAM camp.

Monmouthpedia
As we said this has pretty much stalled and its a joint effort I think. John and I are meeting one of their senior managers on 31st in Monmouth with Steve Virgin and WestonSuperMarePedia interest group. So I may know more. I have warned MCC that they are due to give reports to us and WMF in line with our agreements but we'll see. It seems likely that the QRpedia agreement won't be ready to be both read, approved by the next meeting. Can the board agree a new position? I do not at present have a financial arrangement with Monmouth. I am trying to talk to Fae about John's remuneration from WMUK. Not sure that board appreciate that Chepstow and Raglan are included in our existing MOU.
Wales

I'm guessing that Robin is reporting through Chris or Jon?

And Roger Bamkin is "Victuallers" on Wikipedia. Victuallers Ltd is the name of his company that has a contract with Gibraltar. He's a paid editor. Why is he not banned?

Because paid editing is not a bannable offense. Spamming on behalf of a client or clients is. It's a fine line.

RfB

Some things are not policy simply because it's never been necessary to make it policy. It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now.[...]

COI editing is routinely exposed and can be reported adversely in the media. All edits are on the public record and remain so indefinitely. You do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known. While Wikipedians generally avoid naming editors and their paymasters, other media routinely do. This has led at times to extreme media embarrassment for the company or organization, dismissal (firing) of those at fault, and at times even court actions or charges, if done in a work or professional context. Editing in the interests of public relations (other than obvious corrections) is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, professionals paid to create or edit Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is a very public forum, and news of attempts to improperly influence Wikipedia are frequently reported in the media.

Listen "Randy" what's "bannable" or not is determined only by the whims of the mob and the social capital of the people involved. There are no consistently or fairly applied rules at Wikipedia. That "fine line" horseshit is particularly odoriferous horeshit, even coming from you. The ambiguity that runs through the heart of Wikipedia's so-called policies is there precisely so it can be exploited by insiders. I would love to see Ogilvy approach Wikimedia, say they've just got a big contract with Bahrain to "improve positive information about the country on Wikipedia" and ask for help. Wonder how that would go? (Ogilvy are major PR pros, unlike Bamkin, who seems small time).

Oh, and there is this:

I mean really, Bamkin has a for-profit contract with the government of Gibraltor to do all this, but he's also seeking to pass of some of his expenses associated with executing the paid Wikipedia editing contract to Wikimedia UK (as well it seems as for his paid editing work associated with Monmouth - "I am trying to talk to Fae about John's remuneration from WMUK.") That's good for his profit margin, but not much else.
Wikimedia UK a charity? My foot.

It is difficult to know from those minutes what work Cummings is supposed to be paid for. It may not be Gibraltarpedia related.

And Roger Bamkin is "Victuallers" on Wikipedia. Victuallers Ltd is the name of his company that has a contract with Gibraltar. He's a paid editor. Why is he not banned?

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional:

* Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below.

* Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and "Example.com"). Plain domain names (without .com, .co.kr, etc.) are sometimes acceptable, such as when the purpose is simply to identify the user as a person, but they are inappropriate if they promote a commercial Web page.

A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. In such cases, administrators should examine the user's edits to decide whether or not to allow them to create a new username. If there is evidence that the user would continue to edit inappropriately under a new username, the blocking administrator should enable the "autoblock" and "prevent account creation" features. Otherwise, the user should be offered the opportunity to create a new account. (Before blocking, disagreements as to whether a particular username is acceptable should be discussed at WP:Requests for comment/Usernames.) Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

Roger Bamkin, chair of Wikimedia UK (the UK branch of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is the charity that runs Wikipedia), says, “Recent incidents highlighted by Tom Watson MP and in the national press show that in some parts of the PR profession, a lack of understanding on how to engage with the Wikipedia community persists. We will work with the CIPR to ensure that their members, and through them the wider PR Profession, have access to the clearest possible guidance on the best way to work with Wikipedia. We believe that attempts to mask the true identity of anyone seeking to edit the site are unethical as well as counterproductive.”

From Wikipedia:Username policy #Promotional names:

I suppose the question is whether the name and the company name are "unambiguous." The correct response, even if "unambiguous," is for a block of the name followed by instructions to re-register, not banning. I've seen evidence in Orange Mike's log that he's unilaterally blocked for names roughly comparable to this. To my mind, if the name was User:VictuallersLtd or User:VictuallersConsultants, it'd be blockable, but the Victuallers name is more ambiguous out of context. Sort of an opinion call, I suppose. I could see a proper debate going either way...

RfB

This issue may require a more thorough investigation.

From the minutes of the 8 September 2012 board meeting (the "strategy session" part concerning volunteers):

From the 8 September 2012 reports (Bamkin's section):


Recall that "Roger has a business relationship with John Cummings and Steve Virgin". Who is Robin?

I assumed from context that he was seeking money for Monmouthpedia work.

Have a look at his latest en-wp contributions.

Have a look at his latest en-wp contributions.
Here's one of his glamorous mates – a Wikipedian in residence, of course – offering "Wikipedia Editing as a PR Service".

Have a look at his latest en-wp contributions.
Here's one of his glamorous mates – a Wikipedian in residence, of course – offering "Wikipedia Editing as a PR Service".

Gibraltarpedia, Wikimedia UK and concerns about paid editing and conflicts of interest within Wikimedia UK

Jimbo, do you have a view on the developing discussion here? JN466 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the specific facts with enough certainty to be able to comment directly on this case. However, I can make a couple of observations based on general principles.
1. Panyd is, as usual, speaking good sense.
2. It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in exchange for securing favorable placement on the front page of Wikipedia or anywhere else. This is just one very narrow example of a much broader principle that it's wrong to work in any capacity whatsoever editing content as a paid advocate within Wikipedia. This applies to articles and the front page, but of course I leave open the very valid option of someone with a conflict of interest doing the ethical thing and identifying fully and proposing things to the community.
As I mentioned at the start, I don't know enough of the facts in this particular case to be able to comment specifically. However, if the facts turn out to be as stated, then the honorable thing for anyone with a conflict of interest driving them to act on behalf of a client in the manner I discussed above is resign from the board of Wikimedia UK, or resign from the job with the client. Anything else raises the appearance of impropriety at a minimum.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Untrikiwiki
And what about this graphic by untrikiwiki, entitled "Wikipedia Editing as a PR Service", apparently produced by Maximilian Klein, a Wikipedian in residence with excellent community connections?

Quote: "A positive Wikipedia article is invaluable SEO: it's almost guaranteed to be a top three Google hit. Surprisingly this benefit of writing for Wikipedia is underutilized, but relates exactly the lack of true expertise in the field. ... WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE NEEDED to navigate the complex maze surrounding 'conflict of interest' editing on Wikipedia. With more than eight years of experience, over 10,000 edits, and countless community connections we offer holistic Wikipedia services. untrikiwiki
I mean, the good chap is even quoting you in his graphic! How is that different from what Gregory Kohs and MyWikiBiz wanted to do openly five or six years ago (and has been doing surreptitiously ever since)? JN466 00:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of this case, and haven't had time to look into it. If what you say is accurate, then of course I'm extremely unhappy about it. It's disgusting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Randy... they should unblock User:MyWikiBiz (T-C-L), since the name of the PA Entity is "MyWikiBiz.com", not "MyWikiBiz". Please see to it that this happens soon, so that Wikipedia may be improved.

As for your bullcrap apologetics for Orangemike's block list, I see him blocking user accounts for the "spamusernameblock" reason, when it's not at all clear the user name is "unambigously" a company name. Examples:

* Tweedrun
* Vijaytamil1
* Themindsrng
* GPIntelligentC
* Hamidalirealtor

I didn't have to go digging around for those examples. They were all made TODAY by Orangemike.

Just admit that one of Wikipedia's "own" is being protected here out of proportion to what the policies dictate. It's yet another example of leadership by hypocrisy at the Wikimedia Foundation and its various corrupt projects.

Jimbo does not mince words:

This is the key bit. Good on Jimbo (this point is blindingly obvious to anyone who's worked in a professional environment, but somehow is completely over the heads of most of these folks). Of course, I think Jimbo has precisely zero influence over the asylum anymore. I wonder if the "chapter" juggernaut, which is the real gravy train, can be headed off at this point?

Please note that the minutes of the meeting are still being drafted, and in this case they aren't an accurate record of the meeting yet. We're working on finalising an agreement with Giblartarpedia, after which we will be supporting the project (but it still won't be a WMUK activity; it'll be an activity that WMUK supports). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Jayen466: What's this "Wikimedia Foundation UK"? Why are you making the assumption that we are planning on setting up an agreement based solely on a single trustee rather than as board consensus? Why are you assuming that Roger is solely working to "promote his client's interests" here? You seem to be making many assumptions here that aren't based on facts. :-( I'm not sure why you think that your comments about the FDC have anything to do with this, so I'm not going to reply to those. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been invited to have a read of this conversation and there are a lot of good points. Some points of clarification may be in order, and I'll address just a couple now. Firstly the Wikipedia article on Gibraltarpedia contains numerous errors and care should be taken in its interpretation. Obviously COI makes it tricky for me to correct those errors. The press releases issued by the project are much more accurate. Nominating and then approving a hook should not be done. It was a mistake on my part. (I will continue to make mistakes, hopefully not this one again.) You will see that I do have COI issues which are all well documented. This is because I stood for election on the basis that I did have commercial interests and the membership supported me. I don't intend to criticise their choice. I negotiated both Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia and these are both based on QRpedia and multi-lingual challenges which were both developed at Derby Museum which was another partnership I negotiated. To paraphrase Carrite, it would appear that we have read the project's mission and we are now gathering external money to deliver it in a variety of countries. Now what would happen if everyone did that?
Today I'm going to the local library and hall to train local people in Gibraltar in how to edit Wikipedia, load pictures and use Open Street Map. Do I need to find a government where the minister's think this is a silly idea, surely not. Victuallers (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This guy Mike Peel is a hoot, and explains how many angels can dance on the head of a WMUK pin.

Dan, it is extremely helpful to provide links to these discussions, preferably "permanent" ones. I will be writing an Examiner piece about this today.

Tyson Lee Holmes was with friends when he read about ‘Monmouthpedia, the World’s First Wikipedia Town.’ His first thought was, wouldn’t it be great if we could do it here, in Gibraltar? So, next day, he took the initiative. He contacted the Minister for Tourism, Neil Costa, and asked for permission to talk to the team behind Monmouthpedia. Tyson’s initiative, in talking to Neil Costa, and instigating an approach on behalf of this British Overseas territory, greatly impressed the Monmouthpedia organisers, Roger Bamkin and John Cummings. They had already been inundated with offers from people looking for their city to be the world’s second Wikipedia town. Offers had come in from the Czech Republic, the USA, Norway and elsewhere. None had such strong political support behind them. Within a few weeks, the Monmouthpedia team was in Gibraltar. They met Tyson and the Gibraltar’s Director of Heritage, Clive Finlayson. Next, they met the Minister of Tourism, Neil Costa. In Tyson’s company, the team toured Gibraltar and experienced its rich cultural heritage first hand. To end the visit, they met with a large group of committed local Wikipedian volunteers and discussed how a project might be taken forward in Gibraltar. They felt that Tyson had all the key ingredients in place, so much so, that some preparatory work has already started, with Tyson creating articles, and volunteer editors already showing interest in starting work.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/tag/gibraltarpedia

A new way to market the Rock "As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds.”
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25479

A new way to market the Rock "As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds.”

Peter, I love this:

They're recruiting partisans and teaching them to edit war. Which is refreshingly honest.

Thats an amazingly biased interpretation of that comment. I thought you were a professional journalist? It could just as easily be 'Its easy to edit wikipedia and revert vandalism if you see it.'

Although its probably more the first kind than the second, but still.... If you want to grind your axe you need better quotes than that to support it.

Thats an amazingly biased interpretation of that comment. I thought you were a professional journalist? It could just as easily be 'Its easy to edit wikipedia and revert vandalism if you see it.'

Although its probably more the first kind than the second, but still.... If you want to grind your axe you need better quotes than that to support it.