Obvious paid editors are obvious

[thekohser]

One of the more interesting paid editors I've come across is Ed Sussman, who's BC1278 (T-C-L) and Edsussman (T-C-L). He has a law degree from Duke, was a journalist, ran fastcompany.com and inc.com, and is now a PR rep for Facebook and others. The first article he created was Social_journalism (T-H-L), where he's prominently featured. He's quite the self-promoter.

Interesting comment from BC1278 (T-C-L) recently...

Hi Trevor,

I noticed you recently did an update on [[Lyft]]. I have a number of other edits I'd like to suggest for the article, but I need them to be independently reviewed and approved because I have a Wikipedia Conflict of Interest under [[WP:COI]] as a paid business consultant to Lyft. I always follow WIkipedia policy and disclose my conflict.

Per usual, his attempt to fully disclose and get help via the Talk pages of articles is going nowhere.

[thekohser]

I was just interviewed by a company, and so I go to look up their Wikipedia article (to see if they have one). Sure they do, and long after the article was mostly built by an IP address in the company's headquarters city, it's been carefully tended to for the past couple of years by basically one Wikipedia account. Good job, Shaymius10 (T-C-L).

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I happened to look up Viking Cruises (T-H-L), a company owned by Torstein Hagen (T-H-L), who has just settled an acrimonious divorce case. The major contributors to these articles are users 2015Cruiser (T-C-L), Vikingcruises (T-C-L) (blocked after one day), Gepaulio (T-C-L) and Julane (T-C-L) and IP address 74.62.46.90 (T-C-L), which resolves to the company mail server. Julane Marx, "a versatile, experienced Los Angeles–based marketing professional" "was fortunate indeed to work for Viking Cruises", where she was Director of Product Marketing for seven years.

The article is a textbook example of PR material.

In this edit, 2015Cruiser (T-C-L) admits he's a paid editor and states "Tor asked me to remove the personal information section as it is incorrect - he isn't married anymore". That statement, made on 22 March 2017, was untrue: on 28 June the Financial Times wrote "Torstein Hagen and his estranged wife Ellen-Karine have each retained four top barristers for a case that will be heard over the next three weeks in London’s High Court." So, still married then, but wanting to have Wikipedia promulgate the opposite.

[thekohser]

"...he isn't married anymore". That statement, made on 22 March 2017, was untrue: on 28 June the Financial Times wrote "Torstein Hagen and his estranged wife Ellen-Karine have each retained four top barristers for a case that will be heard over the next three weeks in London’s High Court." So, still married then, but wanting to have Wikipedia promulgate the opposite.

That would have been a good time to try the old stand-by deflection, once issued by the greatest Internet entrepreneur ever to solely create a global encyclopedia project. He said:

"I considered myself single at the time of my one meeting with..."

Works every time!

[Poetlister]

If the article on Bradley Manning had to be altered to Chelsea Manning on the basis of one statement, then certainly someone can be altered from married to unmarried on the same grounds.

[thekohser]

Mentioned elsewhere on WPO, but worth saving here...

Flourish4520 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Identifies himself as Philippe Dubois, who was an Intern at Jeremy Rifkin Enterprises, though his Rifkin-related work on Wikipedia both pre- and post-dates that tenure.
Disclosure: Only in passing, not on his User page, Talk page, or the Talk pages of the articles he's modified extensively.
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Numerous times
Blocked: No

Also, while Dubois was in Washington, DC (headquarters of Jeremy Rifkin Enterprises), he was prone to use IP address 63.139.250.66 (T-C-L).

Not surprisingly, Wikipedia currently makes no mention of Rifkin's belief that AIDS came from cattle viruses.

[thekohser]

Two Wikipedia articles that were with 100% certainty set up by a paid editor are:

Hypnotized (Fleetwood Mac song) (T-H-L)

Sentimental Lady (T-H-L)

None of the anti-paid-editing zealots have ever been able to show me how Wikipedia was damaged in any way by having those two articles created in exchange for payment.

[thekohser]

Ckpcreative (T-C-L)
Likely COI: CKP Creative, which lists clients Semper Fi Fund and Kajeet.
Disclosure: A time or two, but only in an edit summary and a User Talk conversation
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Numerous times about unacceptable files and articles
Blocked: No

[thekohser]

A couple of days ago, a construction company, PCL Construction (T-H-L), was working on a bridge on the Atlantic seaboard of North Carolina where it accidentally severed the main power line connecting Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands to the grid. About 10,000 tourists have been told to evacuate, and until the disruption is fixed (could be days or possibly weeks) surely thousands more weekly-rental tourists will be affected, as they won't be allowed onto the island. In short -- for anyone who vacations in the Outer Banks, it is a shit-show.

So, how about that Wikipedia article about PCL Construction? About 120 page views per day, about to skyrocket today, for sure. Who wrote the article? A combination of single-purpose and COI accounts, of course:

68.149.93.180 (T-C-L) (based in Edmonton, where the company is headquartered)

PCL media relations (T-C-L) (blocked)

Pclnahqcomms (T-C-L) (active as recently as 12 months ago)

NielsonS (T-C-L)

And an honorable mention to Edmonton IP address 75.158.72.77 (T-C-L), which wiped a politically-charged paragraph from the article.

No Wikipedia mention (thus far) of the power cable cut in North Carolina. Maybe it's not "big enough" news with which to sully a professionally-written Wikipedia article, I don't know.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Lesliegainesross (T-C-L) may well be Leslie Gaines-Ross, "chief reputation strategist, is the architect of groundbreaking, award-winning research into CEO and corporate reputation, CEO transitions, corporate rankings, online reputation, executive visibility, thought leadership, and reputation sustainability and recovery. Leslie is a member of [Weber Shandwick]’s global senior management team."

Her contributions are to Reputation (T-H-L), Online reputation management (T-H-L) and to Weber Shandwick (T-H-L). Her edits to the last of these consisted of removing embarrassing clients and adding stuff about their services.

According to a Poynter article, Weber Shandwick will work on the News Integrity Initiative (T-H-L), which is also funding Wiktribune.

[thekohser]

According to a Poynter article, Weber Shandwick will work on the News Integrity Initiative (T-H-L), which is also funding Wiktribune.

That's a burn.

Weber Shandwick & the News Integrity Initiative personified by the yellow guy on the left, and Rogol is weaponized on the right:

[Kingsindian]

Lesliegainesross (T-C-L) may well be Leslie Gaines-Ross, "chief reputation strategist, is the architect of groundbreaking, award-winning research into CEO and corporate reputation, CEO transitions, corporate rankings, online reputation, executive visibility, thought leadership, and reputation sustainability and recovery. Leslie is a member of [Weber Shandwick]’s global senior management team."

Her contributions are to Reputation (T-H-L), Online reputation management (T-H-L) and to Weber Shandwick (T-H-L). Her edits to the last of these consisted of removing embarrassing clients and adding stuff about their services.

According to a Poynter article, Weber Shandwick will work on the News Integrity Initiative (T-H-L), which is also funding Wiktribune.

[thekohser]

That's a burn.

Argh, I am somewhat disappointed -- I hadn't seen that Leslie's most recent contribution to Wikipedia was in 2009. Not so much of a burn, but rather a chuckle.

[thekohser]

How much do you want to bet that MichaelWPeters (T-C-L) is Michael Peters of Raytheon? Four years of COI editing, and not so much as a Talk page "ahem".

[thekohser]

The current acting CEO of The People's Operator got his career going at Blyk (T-H-L). Wikipedia's article about Blyk was largely written in 2007 by a designer working for Blyk. Even after ten years, about 60% of the current Wikipedia article about Blyk can be easily traced to that first go-round by the Blyk employee. Yet, there is no visible caution or warning to the reader that much of the article was written by an employee of Blyk.

There is this on the Talk page, though:

This is all marketing!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.49.128 (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, why is this page allowed?! How do flag this page as inappropriate? 130.88.117.230 (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting, more recent, comment on the Talk page:

Status
This article is written in the present tense. The service no longer exists, seemingly disappearing. Can anyone update the article please? DAYTALK 21:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So, the company has been out of business for at least two months, but the Wikipedia article doesn't reflect that yet.

[Randy from Boise]

The current acting CEO of The People's Operator got his career going at Blyk (T-H-L). Wikipedia's article about Blyk was largely written in 2007 by a designer working for Blyk. Even after ten years, about 60% of the current Wikipedia article about Blyk can be easily traced to that first go-round by the Blyk employee. Yet, there is no visible caution or warning to the reader that much of the article was written by an employee of Blyk.

There is this on the Talk page, though:

This is all marketing!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.49.128 (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, why is this page allowed?! How do flag this page as inappropriate? 130.88.117.230 (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting, more recent, comment on the Talk page:

Status
This article is written in the present tense. The service no longer exists, seemingly disappearing. Can anyone update the article please? DAYTALK 21:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So, the company has been out of business for at least two months, but the Wikipedia article doesn't reflect that yet.

My first reaction: What the hell is Blyk?

I'm gonna lob an AfD hand grenade if the sourcing isn't up to snuff, notability-wise.

RfB

ADDENDA: Nope, that's a GNG pass.

[Poetlister]

The current acting CEO of The People's Operator got his career going at Blyk (T-H-L)... the company has been out of business for at least two months

So he knows about firms that fail. How appropriate.

[thekohser]

I don't know how anyone could write an encyclopedia article that compares to Facebook the visually sterile and operationally awful website, Schoology (T-H-L), unless that article were written by a paid editor such as Scrubomino (T-C-L).

[thekohser]

Tell me, does this look like a brand-new Wikipedia article, the result of one edit-click, by a relatively brand-new user?

[Kingsindian]

Pratikshapatil (T-C-L)

Focus is entirely on Justdial.com (T-H-L), a local internet search company in India. Most of the text in the current article was written by them.
Added linkspam about Justdial.com to various other articles as well, but was reverted in many cases.

Funny thing is: according to the infobox, the company has > $100m dollars in revenue and more than 10,000 employees. However, these things have not stopped some editor from slapping on a "notability" banner on the top.

[thekohser]

For posterity's sake:

Jasper McMahon (T-C-L)

Eventually involved in a lawsuit that included evidence of his Wikipedia manipulation.

(Hat-tip, Poetlister...)

[thekohser]

KMJAzar (T-C-L)

One edit, ever, to Wikipedia.

At the time, was (if my hunch is to be believed) employed in marketing communications for the subject company, Nominum.

The average reader (about 20 pageviews a day, for over three years) would never realize the provenance of this article, practically speaking about the same content as the day it was first entered into Wikipedia. Congratulations, Wikipedians. Your quest for a neutral, volunteer, no-COI reference is going perfectly well.

[thekohser]

JurisDoc14 (T-C-L)

An old friend from the New York Law School, home of the non-open Wikiconference 2014. Careful, Wikipedians... if you block her and revert her edits, what will that do for your gender gap problem?

[Renée Bagslint]

Quacquarelli Symonds (T-H-L), a company based in London. Edited by

• Davidfollsom (T-C-L) originator, whose edits appear to be entirely devoted to spamming links to QS website
• 195.59.196.194 (T-C-L) assigned to QS
• Quacquarelli Symonds (T-C-L) bit of a giveaway
• QSKiwi (T-C-L) ditto
• Qsasiascholar (T-C-L) ditto
• Deena Al-Hilli (T-C-L) name of an employee of QS
• Vanita Kerai (T-C-L) ditto
• Janasommer (T-C-L) apparently a sock puppeteer

[Renée Bagslint]

Following up on Janasommer (T-C-L) from the previous post, I looked at some of her other contributions.

International University in Geneva (T-H-L) largely written by Nbost (T-C-L). Nathalie Bost is on the staff of the university. Contributions from Ewillumsen (T-C-L). Eric Willumsen is President of the university.

AGSB University (T-H-L) started by FreeRangeFrog (T-C-L) "Creating page stub for educational institution as courtesy to user". Contributions by Agsbswiss (T-C-L).

Sustainability Management School (T-H-L), abbreviated SUMAS. Started by Svetlana Sumas (T-C-L). Svetlana Elinova is the Registrar of SUMAS.

[Poetlister]

Saffron Taylor (T-H-L) was mostly written by SPA Starmediauk (T-C-L). The article was drafted at Creativeenterprises/Saffron Taylor (T-C-L). This editor was blocked for having an inappropriate username, but evidently Starmediauk is OK.

[BrillLyle]

Every time I've cleaned up and worked on a business-related entry on Wikipedia, editors go through the edits, and accuse me of being promotional, do deletionist editing -- when it's all fact based and pretty dry. And because it's me editing, everything is supported by a lot of solid citations.

Wikipedia does a crappy job on business-related entries. It's super annoying. Drives me over to BLPs.

- Erika
User:BrillLyle

[Renée Bagslint]

As has been said before, Wikipedia has a content policy disguised as a conduct policy. Businesses will certainly see an advantage in having an entry in Wikipedia that presents them favourably, and some of them will work, or pay for work, to make that happen. This is clearly a problem for an encyclopaedia that claims and proclaims neutrality, but which anyone can edit. The sort of people who invest their time and energy on Wikipedia often seem to be the sort of people who dislike business and so are motivated to stop business articles being skewed by two factors, one high-minded and conscious (the good of the neutral encyclopaedia), one not so high-minded and often less conscious (sticking it to the man). That entitles them, in their view, to behave badly to other contributors who take a different line, even though it might be one that independent civilised human beings might reagrd as reasonably neutral. People who disagree must be labelled as an outgroup, against whom no form of abuse is too great: terms such as sock-pupper and paid editor are brought into play, and have exactly the same function as the word witch did in Salem, or communist in the HUAAC. Because the vocal minority and the silent majority agree with the anti-business line, it prevails, because that's how Wikipedia works.

[BrillLyle]

As has been said before, Wikipedia has a content policy disguised as a conduct policy. Businesses will certainly see an advantage in having an entry in Wikipedia that presents them favourably, and some of them will work, or pay for work, to make that happen. This is clearly a problem for an encyclopaedia that claims and proclaims neutrality, but which anyone can edit. The sort of people who invest their time and energy on Wikipedia often seem to be the sort of people who dislike business and so are motivated to stop business articles being skewed by two factors, one high-minded and conscious (the good of the neutral encyclopaedia), one not so high-minded and often less conscious (sticking it to the man). That entitles them, in their view, to behave badly to other contributors who take a different line, even though it might be one that independent civilised human beings might reagrd as reasonably neutral. People who disagree must be labelled as an outgroup, against whom no form of abuse is too great: terms such as sock-pupper and paid editor are brought into play, and have exactly the same function as the word witch did in Salem, or communist in the HUAAC. Because the vocal minority and the silent majority agree with the anti-business line, it prevails, because that's how Wikipedia works.

I agree with much of this.

I was a word processor at an investment bank for over 14 years. We did these company profile pages that had basic publicly accessible data when I worked on M&A jobs. It's basic, industry-established information.

When I've tried to add a lot of this information to business pages, I get accused of either paid editing (I'm not) or being promotional. Because often there's no understanding of this type information, it is perceived incorrectly. Just plain wrongly.

It's great anyone can edit Wikipedia. But it's also a problem when someone who doesn't understand an industry makes unilateral decisions.

There's a reason for crap business entries, ones that specifically lack basic factual information. It's too much of a battle to get this basic info up there.

I'm so tired of this. Really. I would have loved to improve business-based content on Wikipedia. It's really unfortunate.

Apologies, I'm just whinging and moaning, repeating myself here. I feel very strongly about this.

- Erika
User:BrillLyle

[Renée Bagslint]

Challenging the Chip (T-H-L), an unsourced article on a book edited by by Ted Smith, David A. Sonnenfeld, and David Naguib Pellow. Article created by Fredericknoronha (T-C-L) and extensively edited by DASonnenfeld (T-C-L) and also by Tsmith52 (T-C-L), also found editing the article Ted Smith (environmentalist) (T-H-L), as is DASonnenfeld and Fredericknoronha. Frederick Noronha (T-H-L) is a publisher and journalist, whose article is worked on by Fredericknoronha.

Meanwhile, David Naguib Pellow (T-H-L) is created by Fredericknoronha and edited by DASonnenfeld and Dpellow (T-C-L), while David A. Sonnenfeld (T-H-L) is created by Fredericknoronha and edited by banned sockpuppeteer Skipsievert (T-C-L), who worked with DASonnenfeld on Charles A. S. Hall (T-H-L).

Isn't it nice when friends get together to help each other out?

[Renée Bagslint]

C California Style Magazine (T-H-L) bears a strong resemblence to the 2018 media kit from the company. The article was authored by Sandyhubbard (T-C-L). Sandy Hubbard is the Technology Director for the magazine.

The article has been an unambigous advertisement for the magazine for all but three weeks of the last four years.

[Poetlister]

Johnjackson1066 (T-C-L) is a SPA; every edit is to London Grid for Learning (T-H-L).

Of course, WP:AGF, given that the article is about a charity, he might be editing as an unpaid volunteer. However, given that the chief executive of the charity is called John Jackson and is probably earning over £100,000 a year, I am wondering whether this is the case.

[AndyTheGrump]

Johnjackson1066 (T-C-L) is a SPA; every edit is to London Grid for Learning (T-H-L).

Of course, WP:AGF, given that the article is about a charity, he might be editing as an unpaid volunteer. However, given that the chief executive of the charity is called John Jackson and is probably earning over £100,000 a year, I am wondering whether this is the case.

Personally, I'd extend WP:AGF a bit further, given that there is zero evidence that anyone has informed Johnjackson1066 of any Wikipedia policy or guideline concerning paid editing. Or maybe Wikipedia should stop claiming that 'anyone can edit'...

[mynameisnotdave]

Johnjackson1066 (T-C-L) is a SPA; every edit is to London Grid for Learning (T-H-L).

Of course, WP:AGF, given that the article is about a charity, he might be editing as an unpaid volunteer. However, given that the chief executive of the charity is called John Jackson and is probably earning over £100,000 a year, I am wondering whether this is the case.

Duly warned and informed, albeit 12 days late...

[Poetlister]

Personally, I'd extend WP:AGF a bit further, given that there is zero evidence that anyone has informed Johnjackson1066 of any Wikipedia policy or guideline concerning paid editing. Or maybe Wikipedia should stop claiming that 'anyone can edit'...

In England, we say "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Similarly, there ought to be a policy "ignorance of policies and guidelines is no excuse". Of course, "anyone can edit" does not necessarily mean "anyone can edit any article they choose to".

[AndyTheGrump]

Personally, I'd extend WP:AGF a bit further, given that there is zero evidence that anyone has informed Johnjackson1066 of any Wikipedia policy or guideline concerning paid editing. Or maybe Wikipedia should stop claiming that 'anyone can edit'...

In England, we say "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Similarly, there ought to be a policy "ignorance of policies and guidelines is no excuse". Of course, "anyone can edit" does not necessarily mean "anyone can edit any article they choose to".

In England we also say don't talk bollocks. Not only is there no Wikipedia policy stating that "ignorance of policies and guidelines is no excuse", but it wouldn't make any difference if there was. People would still edit without reading the policies and guidelines, and most new contributors would give up trying to make any sense of the whole contradictory mess if they did try to read them all. This isn't a problem of 'people not understanding the rules' it is a structural problem with the entire project. It bases itself around a lie, and the failure of contributors to comply with rules they are unaware of is a direct consequence. In fact, I'm rapidly coming around to the idea that almost all of Wikipedia's problems beyond the inevitable ones resulting from people having differing opinions on subject matter are a net result of the fundamentally dishonest claim that 'anyone can edit'. It clearly benefits the WMF's fund-raising strategy to promote such tosh, but can only done at the expense of the project's supposed encyclopaedic intent. You can have 'anyone', or you can have 'an encyclopaedia' but trying to do both can only ever result in the conflict-ridden dog's breakfast we see now.

[Poetlister]

It's very simple. You have a welcome template with links to every policy and guideline, and put it on every new user's and every IP editor's talk page. Of course, that might deter editors. Many here would welcome that.

[AndyTheGrump]

It's very simple. You have a welcome template with links to every policy and guideline, and put it on every new user's and every IP editor's talk page. Of course, that might deter editors. Many here would welcome that.

I suspect it would deter the small minority of new users who actually read it all, and have no effect whatsoever on the remainder. You can't solve fundamental structural problems with a page full of links.

[Anroth]

As an aside, this is largely why I template established users and new editors get a custom note explaining whats wrong.

DTTR is one of the stupidest arse-backwards guidelines there is.

[Kingsindian]

Article: Fedor Holz (T-H-L).
Edit by some user named Primed Mind. Having nothing to do with the company Primed Mind, probably.

[Paul Bedson]

Gosh this is a crazy rule. All the Wikipedia pages are paid for and guarded by copyrighted curriculum. There are too many paid editors to count, editing to protect their salaries, paid to them by universities determining the reliable sources to use. It's a huge paradox.

We haven't got any crazy rules like this on Everipedia, none at all. In fact Everipedia is intended to be a commercial encyclopedia FOR paid editing. We welcome companies employing marketing managers to put their entire product or service catalogues on Everipedia in encyclopedic format.

If anyone needs Wikipedia editing on our fork and wants to pay for it, please pay me or any of my colleagues in the Everipedia telegram chat room. We'll all be pleased to take your money for a bit of work.

[Paul Bedson]

Gosh this is a crazy rule. Flash laughs at your talk of zealots. All the Wikipedia pages are paid for and guarded by copyrighted curriculum. There are too many paid editors to count, editing to protect their salaries, paid to them by universities determining the reliable sources to use. It's a huge paradox.

We haven't got any crazy rules like this on Everipedia, none at all. In fact Everipedia is intended to be a commercial encyclopedia FOR paid editing. We welcome companies employing marketing managers to put their entire product or service catalogues on Everipedia in encyclopedic format.

If anyone needs Wikipedia editing on our fork and wants to pay for it, please pay me or any of my colleagues in the Everipedia telegram chat room. We'll all be pleased to take your money for a bit of work.

[Graaf Statler]

Gosh this is a crazy rule. All the Wikipedia pages are paid for and guarded by copyrighted curriculum. There are too many paid editors to count, editing to protect their salaries, paid to them by universities determining the reliable sources to use. It's a huge paradox.

We haven't got any crazy rules like this on Everipedia, none at all. In fact Everipedia is intended to be a commercial encyclopedia FOR paid editing. We welcome companies employing marketing managers to put their entire product or service catalogues on Everipedia in encyclopedic format.

If anyone needs Wikipedia editing on our fork and wants to pay for it, please pay me or any of my colleagues in the Everipedia telegram chat room. We'll all be pleased to take your money for a bit of work.

I never, never have understand this Wikipedia rule. A certain group who often hardly edit is paid, but content writers not! If you are involved in the with donor money subsidized chapters even if you not or hardly edit or in WMF you get paid, but if a editor is paid it is a huge scandal. Why this different, what is the different? Why is one group paid and the other not?

[Eric Corbett]

Gosh this is a crazy rule. All the Wikipedia pages are paid for and guarded by copyrighted curriculum. There are too many paid editors to count, editing to protect their salaries, paid to them by universities determining the reliable sources to use. It's a huge paradox.

We haven't got any crazy rules like this on Everipedia, none at all. In fact Everipedia is intended to be a commercial encyclopedia FOR paid editing. We welcome companies employing marketing managers to put their entire product or service catalogues on Everipedia in encyclopedic format.

If anyone needs Wikipedia editing on our fork and wants to pay for it, please pay me or any of my colleagues in the Everipedia telegram chat room. We'll all be pleased to take your money for a bit of work.

I never, never have understand this Wikipedia rule. A certain group who often hardly edit is paid, but content writers not! If you are involved in the with donor money subsidized chapters even if you not or hardly edit or in WMF you get paid, but if a editor is paid it is a huge scandal. Why this different, what is the different? Why is one group paid and the other not?

I think there's a large measure of "If I'm not being paid then you shouldn't be either" involved. There's clearly nothing wrong with being paid to write encyclopedia articles after all, in the real world that is, not Jimboland. The WMF employees and the various others who get paid are a case apart; they've just got their noses in the trough because they can.

And let's face it. The WMF could arguably do more to help Wikipedia by paying certain of the prolific incompetents not to write.

[Kumioko]

In fairness that's kinda what they did with James Alexander. He was an active editor and then got hired on at the WMF and since then hardly edits at all (which is a good thing). Unfortunately he was also promoted into a position where he is allowed to intimidate and bully other editors and has influenced the hiring of other equally problematic admins to the WMF staff. Now you have a team of people who call themselves the "Trust and Safety" section that are hardly trusted by anyone, don't do anything to make people feel safe and then intimidate editors actively to make them not feel safe. So in the cases of these clowns, I would rather they were editing where at least their trolling and problems could be reverted. Now they are untouchable.

[Graaf Statler]

In fairness that's kinda what they did with James Alexander. He was an active editor and then got hired on at the WMF and since then hardly edits at all (which is a good thing). Unfortunately he was also promoted into a position where he is allowed to intimidate and bully other editors and has influenced the hiring of other equally problematic admins to the WMF staff. Now you have a team of people who call themselves the "Trust and Safety" section that are hardly trusted by anyone, don't do anything to make people feel safe and then intimidate editors actively to make them not feel safe. So in the cases of these clowns, I would rather they were editing where at least their trolling and problems could be reverted. Now they are untouchable.

Look, it is complete clear Alexander is a troll, there is no question about that with his "Trust and Safety". And I believe you if you say he is trusted hardly by anyone, but what I don't understand, why don't they just kick him out with his complete "Trust and Safety"? Because it is absolute clear it has nothing to do with Safety and trust what he and his team is doing, but everything with trolling. Or is there anyone, anyone here who is not believing he is just the best paid troll ever? I can't believe it.

[Earthy Astringent]

ByteMark (T-C-L) created (or recreated) Michael Avenatti (T-H-L) back in Nov 2017. I was curious as to when Avenatti became a public figure, and figured the page views would tell the story. Sure looks like he was solicited to create a puff piece. Thoughts?

[Kingsindian]

Most of the Kyiv Post (T-H-L) article was written by a certain Bsbonner (T-C-L), who seems to do nothing else. Could this person be the chief editor Brian S Bonner?

[Kumioko]

ByteMark (T-C-L) created (or recreated) Michael Avenatti (T-H-L) back in Nov 2017. I was curious as to when Avenatti became a public figure, and figured the page views would tell the story. Sure looks like he was solicited to create a puff piece. Thoughts?

Did anyone else notice that Michael Avenatti Got Arrested equals M.A.G.A.?

[Dysklyver]

ByteMark (T-C-L) created (or recreated) Michael Avenatti (T-H-L) back in Nov 2017. I was curious as to when Avenatti became a public figure, and figured the page views would tell the story. Sure looks like he was solicited to create a puff piece. Thoughts?

Did anyone else notice that Michael Avenatti Got Arrested equals M.A.G.A.?

The main Cornish dictionary just happens to be a MAGA...

http://www.cornishdictionary.org.uk