Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Disinformation report

• Only three COIs? and with no big harm done? Not so bad comparing with quite a few other celebs. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "accumulated 30,573 untruths during his presidency" - how do you know when a politician is lying? - Check if his lips are moving. Given that perennial wisdsom, I am curious whether anybody cares to carry out this kind of scrutiny on other presidents, such as Bushes or Clinton. (I am sure Trump will beat them due to his ..er... level of wisdom rather than intentional lying, but... ) BTW we have Bushisms, time to write up Trumpisms [7]? Lembit Staan (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WaPo tracks the Bushes and Clintons, too. They also lie, but not nearly to the same degree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'm pretty sure that (Redacted) has a conflict of interest, I don't really see any evidence that the person behind the account is Patton, and I think it's probably inappropriate to state it as definitively as has been in this article. Having reviewed literally hundreds of COI/UPE accounts over the years, I see the hallmarks of someone who was paid, but not the article subject herself. Risker (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• What a waste of an article. We have paid editors and COI editors running rampant but you managed to write an article with a segue from Trump kind of insinuating the paid editors and other editor who people accuse of COI harmed the encyclopedia with false edits. They also last edited years ago. I'm sure we have more recent editors in many different subject areas doing much harm to Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I fail to see how Mmartinnyc's "declaration" is "quite convincing". Anyone can claim to be anybody, so this could just as likely be a false flag to tarnish the Trump Organization's reputation. Until Michael Martin confesses to creating the Mmartinnyc account outside of Wikipedia, there are little grounds to believe the claims. I'm not saying that Mmartinnyc is not Martin, but should we be so quick to take identity declarations on Wikipedia seriously without outside evidence to back it up?

I also see the theory that (Redacted) is Patton to be nothing more than speculation. While it's clear that (Redacted) has a COI and it is unlikely to be a false flag given the circumstances, it would be a stretch to say that (Redacted) is Patton. The lack of an identity disclosure makes this claim even murkier than the claim that Mmartinnyc is Martin. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not sure that I get your point(s) You seem to say that we shouldn't take any paid editing declarations seriously because "anybody can claim to be anybody" trying to hurt TTO's reputation. So what kind of evidence do you think we should take seriously? You seem to want a notarized confession from a dead man! Even if he could do that, why would he? (more later) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Smallbones I was unaware that Martin is dead (it doesn't really make that clear in the article's text). I'm not saying that we shouldn't take paid editing declarations seriously, because even if Mmartinnyc is/was a false flag they would be a case of disruptive WP:NOTHERE. I don't want a confession from anyone, I just want people to stop jumping to conclusions based on an iffy confession, especially for a heavily politicized article such as this. If Mmartinnyc is/was a troll, this article likely would be exactly what they wanted. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  From the first sentence: According to his obituary published in December 2020. – The Grid (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I admit I overlooked that. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if all of this is true, it doesn't even sound that bad; it's the normal background noise of vandalism & POV edits. Clueless newbies editing in an obviously partisan way isn't unusual, and it sounds like it was rolled back without incident. I'd be way more worried about UPE that was either persistent or else uncaught due to being on obscure topics. SnowFire (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really get the impression Trump cared about what his Wikipedia page said. Reading Donald Trump one would think he'd have some people on the case if he cared. But afaik, he hasn't even ranted about it on Twitter, and it's a reasonably low bar of discomfort for him to rant about something. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @SnowFire: @ZLEA: @Sir Joseph: @Risker: I say, how about suggesting the withdrawal of the article, because from the above comments it seems that there was no evidence of massive attack from Trump's camp, little harm was done for wikipedia, therefore the article is of little importance and looks like nothing but petty beating the dead horse of Trump ? Wikpedia should stay away from politics, right? Lembit Staan (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Lembit Staan Absolutely, this article is a clear attempt to defame the Trump Organization with extremely iffy evidence. TTO is a highly controversial organization owned by a US President who is not exactly known for being universally popular, but any claims that the organization paid editors to edit Wikipedia should be backed up with strong evidence. Without such evidence, they are nothing more than a conspiracy theory. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's ridiculous. I think this news article is covering a quite small issue that is not unusual, but it isn't false or anything, and the people involved are public figures (aka this isn't "let's shine a light on a random dude from Nebraska"). Withdrawal would only be appropriate if the events described were false, which they aren't. SnowFire (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm astonished that several experienced editors have called for the censorship of a Signpost investigation of paid editing by the recently most powerful person in the world. 2601:647:4D00:2C40:68E5:B805:77C5:11F1 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you know ... before 2016, he was in show business, a television show, beauty pageants, etc. There's an old quote alternately attributed to have originated with either P. T. Barnum or Broadway entrepreneur George M. Cohan, "I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right." What better way to have people talking about you, than saying something to disparage your public image? It came out during the 2016 campaign, a recording where he was talking to the National Enquirer about himself. Why would he care, as long as he's talked about? Individuals related to him might not share the same philosophy, but as long as he's in the encyclopedia ... eh ... — Maile (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the first time I dislike a Signpost article. Not because of political biases, but because it's just useless. TTO supposedly paying people (paid editing has a wide range of meaning and not just trading so there's the word "supposedly") to edit a Trump-related article is an expected thing, from a popular and controversial subject. What, you make an article and expect things to go smoothly? Especially on a Trump article? The vandalism isn't even so severe. Yet the article highlights Donald Trump and the supposed 30,000 lies, as if these paid edits count. I find this article to be not just biased, but also vague. I've seen worse vandalisms, and it is somehow not being taken to attention. GeraldWL 06:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• From the title I expected the article to reveal some grand conspiracy by or on behalf of the Trump Organisation involving numerous paid editors. Instead the article is simply speculation that two editors who between them made 331 edits (23 to Ivanka Trump, 16 to Donald Trump Jr, 258 to Eric Trump, 33 to Lynn Patton and 1 to Donald Trump) were paid editors. The evidence is weak and the offences trivial and long ago dealt with. One editor has not edited in over eight years (and may have died), the other not in more than three years. So long after the events discussed why was it considered relevant to write the article at all? --DavidCane (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? A handful of edits on some of the most watched pages? Ideologically motivated / activist editors do far more damage and are much harder to deal with than any of the editors or edits spotlighted here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Anyone with more than 12 brain cells that reads the Trump bio and compares it to the Obama one, can clearly see the favoritism lended to the latter over the former. Trump is portrayed as if the piece was written by a MSNBC or CNN goon, hardly a neutral treatise on the subject. That the fancruft Obama bio is an FA is telling of the political slant that this website is dominated by.--MONGO (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• High profile politicians, athletes, and performers have paid editors? What a surprise. Even those failing WP:GNG engage "YourWikipediaBiography.com" companies. Of course it works both political ways where a zealous editor carefully monitored Hillary Clinton's biography.^[1] Treat them like any other editor with obvious WP:COI and hold them to WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY.
• Just to clarify my quoted comment maybe a little, the outside connection with an OTRS ticket may be as innocent as having an email chain. I've certainly reached out to all types: museums, businesses, libraries, universities, trusts, what-have-you. But if you ask me where I get that photo, I'm gonna tell you I talked to the librarian at such-and-such. Don't really have anything to hide here, and in fact have a personal interest in keeping things as transparent as possible, within the limits of community standards regarding respect for privacy. Using only publicly available information, at some point, it becomes pretty daggum obvious when someone is making flattering edits and also uploading photos with official confirmation. GMG^talk 23:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, coming back days after I first read this, I noticed that the second half of information in this article has been removed. At least be honest and put a notice at the top saying half of information has been redacted. enjoyer -- talk 23:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I misreading the diffs, or did Risker—an oversighter—just WP:OUT the subject in question, leading to a swift redaction of ~80 diffs?! In other news, the job of Signpost editor has just opened up—I think you've just qualified for it! ——Serial 11:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think you are, Serial Number 54129. This is an interesting situation. I'm actually quite pleased to see that the broader community supports the concept of not connecting real-world names to Wikipedia accounts if not done by the user. For years, editors working at the coalface of COI and UPE have pushed harder and harder against this principle, and have encountered quite a bit of success; I suppose my error was from so much exposure to that pressure. I was wrong in the way I expressed my opinion, and my oversighter colleagues were right in their actions. And no, there is not a snowball's chance that I will take on the Signpost. Risker (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my formal request for The Signpost to retract this article. Let's put any political feelings we may or may not have about Donald Trump or The Trump Organization behind us (I will disclose that I am a Trump supporter), the reason I am requesting this is because the article appears to be an attempt to damage TTO's reputation by suggesting that it paid editors to make pro-Trump edits to articles without providing adequate evidence. In the case of Mmartinnyc, the only evidence provided to suggest they are/were Michael Martin was a paid editing disclosure provided by the account all the way back in 2011. As I stated in the above discussion, anyone can claim to be anybody, and the "disclosure" could have been a false flag to tarnish TTO's reputation. Furthermore, the fact that The Signpost decided to wait an entire decade, just a few months after Trump allegedly incited the capitol riots, is highly suspicious. Why not sooner when Trump wasn't as controversial as he is now? It's also quite convenient that this article was written only after Martin died, meaning he can't confirm nor deny outside of Wikipedia that he was Mmartinnyc.

Furthermore, the theory that (Redacted) is Lynne Patton is practically baseless. The only evidence (if you can even call it that) is that she edited "only a few articles on Donald Trump's children or former Trump employee Lynne Patton" and that there is "a parallel between (Redacted)'s editing topics and Lynne Patton's career path." While both of these very likely to mean that (Redacted) is a fan of Patton, without further evidence it is a stretch to say that (Redacted) is Patton herself. While Mmartinnyc at least had a paid editing disclosure (whether it is real or not), (Redacted) has made no such disclosure, so calling her work "paid editing" is also merely speculation (I wouldn't say that for most similar cases, but the fact that her username is literally (Redacted) says she has a huge COI with Trump and likely was happy to make pro-Trump edits without pay). - ZLEA _T\^C 01:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is entirely based on facts, with a small amount of my analysis of the facts at the end. If you can find a misstatement of fact above, please bring it to my attention and I will gladly issue a correction. But, to suggest that I'm being dishonest e.g. in my selection of the timing of the article is just wrong. If you don't think that two declarations of paid editing are evidence of paid editing, it just looks like you're engaging in wishful thinking, or attempting censorship here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic how they are accusing Twitter of censorship. Trump's legacy as president is not the issue here, it's the UPE. Firestar464 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how "Mmartinnyc’s declaration that he is Michael Martin ... is quite convincing" and "these parallels suggest that it's very likely that Patton ... edited as (Redacted)" (on a side note I will let you know that there are two "these" in that last sentence) are "a small amount of [your] analysis". It looks more like an opinion rather than an analysis, if you disagree then please also explain how you think a paid editing disclosure can be used as evidence in an article making such a serious accusation against a highly controversial/political organization such as TTO? Assuming that disclosures are real is assuming good faith. Therefore, your claim that "Mmartinnyc disclosed his identity twice ... as Michael Martin" is an assumption. Correct me if I'm wrong, but assumptions are not facts. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are wrong Just read [8] and [9]. The edit histories and talk pages show very clearly that User:Mmartinnyc added both edits and that he identified himself in both cases as Michael Martin from the Trump Organization. You can't fake these edit histories. Nobody can. My challenge stands - If you can find some misstatement of fact, I will issue a correction. But I'm very sure you can't. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear, by the diffs, this is what Mmartinnyc/Michael Martin says, "Please be aware that I manage interactive content for Ivanka as well as the rest of The Trump Organization so the edits I am making come directly from her." He not only identified himself as her employee, but provided an email address at "trumporg.com". Just to be completely open, he even provided his telephone number at the organization. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is all about opinions. Firestar464 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the Signpost is all about opinions, but Smallbones appears to be trying to pass off opinions as facts. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SB has already clarified above. If anything, they should clarify the article. Requesting that it be RETRACTED COMPLETELY is a bit too much. Firestar464 (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but one of the problems is that this article seems to be far too political. Why did Smallbones wait a decade after Mmartinnyc’s declarations to bring them up? I hate to assume bad faith, but it appears they wanted to join in on the anti-Trump train by digging up an unconfirmed declaration from years ago and tying a Trump fan account's identity to a high profile Trump supporter (just because they edited her article). This isn't even a contemporary issue, there are plenty of current disinformation issues to cover other than a couple of years old alleged paid editing incidents. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to assume bad faith, don't assume bad faith. I don't really understand what the bad faith case is here. You're suggesting Smallbones sat on information about a particular COI user for a decade, and then sprung an article to join an "anti-Trump train" months after Trump stopped being President? What would be the purpose? The article doesn't even read negatively, it's a reasonably bog-standard COI case, with polite messages and OTRS tickets to boot. Not a single block or dramatic edit war. On current disinformation issues, I'm sure if you have a relevant topic in mind you'd like to write about, that the signpost would be very happy to receive a pitch. CMD (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ZLEA you are quite welcome to air your concerns here about the Signpost content on this issue. I try not to devote too much thought to DT, most of all to TTO. But quite frankly, reading the article on TTO, paid editing is the very least of it. It's been in the news over and over again about how TTO pretty much financially took advantage of Federal money, from the inaugural funds that are still unaccounted for, to the excessive amounts TTO charged to the Feds for one thing or another. Staggers the mind. Paid editing by comparison is pretty insignificant, and certainly not worth pulling an internal newsletter topic over.— Maile (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Maile66 Whether or not TTO took advantage of Federal money has nothing to do with this discussion. Is it neutral to make paid editing claims, no matter how corrupt an organization may be, without proper evidence? The answer is no, any serious claims need lots of evidence, otherwise they are conspiracy theories (note that the first sentence of the article defines conspiracy theories as "an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable"). This article is making claims that TTO is likely paying editors (conspiring) to make pro-Trump edits, when it is just as likely (if not more likely) based on the provided evidence that they are simply Trump fans and/or false flags. Therefore, this article is a borderline conspiracy theory. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you never really read the message above yours. Firestar464 (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA, Sorry for your loss. My thoughts and prayers go with you during these trying times. Jorm (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(EC below)Since there are no disputed facts in this article - and it seems like somebody must have been looking real hard to find something to dispute - I'll suggest that we all get back to reality. The Signpost is not going to retract this story. Of course if you do find a misstatement of fact in the story, I will issue a correction - consider that a challenge, The only interesting aspect of the discussion that I see is that I've been accused of saving up this story until just the right time.

Actually, the timing of the story is the result of Patton's admission that she violated the Hatch Act, which i learned about ~18 days ago. I then read the Lynne Patton article and the talk page - and it was immediately clear that something was going on with a COI editor (Redacted) and a former TTO employee Patton. When I found her resume from HUD (a public record) in the Washington Post it was very clear that Patton was in charge of the same social media accounts for people that (Redacted) was writing about at the time. There are 2 other super-solid pieces of evidence in the article, the OTRS ticket on the Eric Trump photo- where we can assume (if OTRS is doing their job right) that somebody at TTO signed. And the fact that Martin disclosed he was doing the same thing at the same time for Ivanka as (Redacted) was doing for Eric. Maybe I was a bit too subtle in stating these parallels, but folks really ought to read the article before criticizing it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this is happening. Firestar464 I did read the response above mine, but I saw it as trying to turn the discussion away from the topic of alleged paid editing. Jorm I can't tell if that was a joke. Smallbones You say "there are no disputed facts" when the problem I have is your "analysis" of the facts. Also, you may recall that one of your so-called facts, "Mmartinnyc disclosed his identity twice ... as Michael Martin", is the assumption of good faith. Since you bring it up, I'd like to know what the "Not just a party planner" has to do with the rest of the article other than being about Patton. Chipmunkdavis I'm not proud of assuming bad faith, but I feel this is a case when I have to call it as I see it.

Believe it or not, the fact that this article seems specifically anti-Trump is not the problem I have with it. The problem is that it is misrepresenting facts and passing assumptions as facts. I would call for the retraction of the article even if it were about an organization owned by Biden, Harris, or even Pelosi. Say what you want, but my politics have nothing to do with it. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA, As I said, my thoughts and prayers go with you during this trying time. Jorm (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm What exactly do you mean by "trying time"? I haven't lost someone and I'm long over the election results. As I said, my problem with this article is not that it appears anti-Trump, but the fact that it seems to be defaming an organization without providing adequate evidence. I would have the same problem if the organization in question was owned by Biden, Pelosi, or even the Communist Party. I don't care who they are defaming, only that they are defaming in the first place. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim that Patton being (Redacted) is a great stretch but so is the claim that SB published this article "just right after" the Capitol insurrection (4 months) and Martin's death -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Gouleg Is it, though? Let's look at the numbers, shall we? Martin died on November 20, 2020. The capitol riots took place on January 6, 2021. This article was published on April 25, 2021. Unless time started running backwards, it is an undeniable fact that the article was published after the capitol protests and Martin's death. I'm assuming (though you did not directly say it) that you meant that my claim that the SB waited until the Trump controversy was at its highest is a stretch. Maybe it is, but SB's claim that they "learned about [the Patton incident] ~18 days ago" is a bit strange. Would you expect a news agency to report on a years old development because they "just learned about it?" No, unless the whole world just learned about it you would expect them to report on more recent developments. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a news agency. This is an opinion piece. I'm not sure you are understanding this. I'm not sure you're understanding anything can be written in any period of time. What would be considered not strange? Would it be weird 50 years from now when some items are declassified? You're focusing on the oddest parts of this article when the focus is on paid editing. This piece could be about anyone but the material is the synthesis shown. – The Grid (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It would not be weird to report recently declassified information because the declassification would be a recent development. And yes, I realize that this is an opinion piece (why opinion pieces are allowed here eludes me), but this article does not make that clear, and it seems to misrepresent opinions as facts. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't an article either. This is like any essay that editors have written on this site. – The Grid (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No to any retractions. I am 100% aligned with Smallbones. The article is well presented. Any editor who has been on WP for at least a year probably knows about the COI editing by interns, staff, PR depts., etc. and politicians are not exempt. Risker nailed it, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 11:06, April 26, 2021 (UTC)

  I've said this many times and I'll say it again. Paid editing is wrong but so is accusing organizations of paying editors without providing adequate evidence. The only paid editing disclosure provided by this article should not be used as evidence because it was not confirmed outside of Wikipedia, and saying it is real as opposed to a false flag is an assumption at best. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retract or rewrite. Clearly, this is a politically motivated opinion piece on a matter trivial compared to other COI cases. It is also a bad case of journalism, since (1) the accused side was not asked for comment, if I am not mistaken. (2) benefit of doubt was not give, since newbies and SPA often write biased texts, because they don't know our policies well. Finally, the discussed accounts did not do much harm, no more than a random not-really-anonymous PR person named user:ThisOrThatCompany jumping in. Therefore I conclude that singling this inconsequential case out is nothing but a piece of political wrangling that should not have place in Wikipedia. Disclaimer I am first-generation naturalized citizen and as such I don't feel I am in a good position to vote, but if one may ask, my opinion about Trump is rather humorous an I am even going to write an article Trumpisms, if no one else beats e to it. :-)Lembit Staan (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose retraction - Much ado about nothing, the requests for that are. I'm just glad Trump, over all these years, hasn't taken to Twitter to rally his forces to attack the encyclopedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support retraction this was a non-story in the first place, and all publishing it was ever going to do was draw attention to or own failings as a newsletter at the least or, writ large, a community. ——Serial 11:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose retraction. I'm sorry, what is happening here? This is a simple article about a possible past conflict of interest, with no grand assertions whatsoever. In the conclusion, it is argued that Mmartinnyc’s declaration that he is Michael Martin, at that time the digital marketing manager of the Trump Organization is quite convincing. If the declaration was part of a Joe job, it's one that didn't embarrass anybody for ten years, even though the head of the Trump Organization was the president of the United States for four of those years. — no clear statement of fact, just an argument of plausibility (and, by extension, Occam's razor). This is the Signpost, not Reuters. The article ponders an interesting question (after all, many organisations, both big and small, have tried to polish their Wikipedia articles), and the conclusion that no significant COI editing surrounding Trump has taken place was, to me, quite surprising. The concerns over this piece are, to put it frankly, a bit embarrassing to read. TucanHolmes (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot make paid editing claims, we will be complicit in the destruction of the Encyclopedia. The very basis of a encyclopedia is that the information in it be NPOV, and it order to do that it was recognized from the first that it must be written by editors who are capable of writing in an NPOV fashion. Editors paid by the subject of articles are very rarely so capable. if we do not remove them when there is reasonable suspicion, nothing we do here is worth doing, because we will be no better than Google. After all, Google does advertising perfectly well, better than we could.

If we can not call them out, we cannot remove them. We have a obligation to do so responsibly. I think this article is a model of how to do it responsibly, and I so advised its author. Had they been undeclared editors currently editing, I would without hesitation have blocked the contributor and removed the material. I would have done so on the basis of my experience as an administrator working almost exclusively with paid editing problems for the last ten years or so, and clarified by my participation in dealing with private evidence as a checkuser, oversighter, and member of arb com. (This does not necessarily mean that all admins or arbs would think the same as I, but I think it does represent the general view.) I've seen false flags used at WP in accusing people, and I admit we cannot always clearly tell the difference. I have however seen many more attempts to incorrectly or absurdly or maliciously claim a false flag as an excuse, and as my judgement would go, it is in this matter highly unlikely. One of the reasons for it being unlikely is that there is no particular motivation for it.

From the point of view of a PR agent, editing WP in behalf of their subject is by no means unsual. I'd estimate that at least half and more likely 3/4 of all current political candidates in the US have at least tried it, and quite a bit of it remains in Wikipedia, though we do try to remove it from at least the major current candidates. In the context of politics, I doubt it counts as a major sin. The main argument against it from their point of view would be prudence; it tends to be highly embarrassing when detected. Among the sins which tempt politicians--or PR people--it does not rate very highly. It is not bribery, it is not corruption, it is not lying. It is not trying to mislead news sources or colleagues. It is not voting against one's true convictions. It's not even what politicians claim as routine, such as adjusting electoral districts or appointing people to favor them to key positions. It doesn't sabotage the opponents, or pervert the course of justice by sophistry. It doesn't directly harm any public or private interest, or benefit any public or concealed supporter.

And it is not just politicians. I estimate that over half of the articles on companies or non-profit organizations in WP have been written in large part by those organizations, and almost half the articles on individual professionals of all sorts-- in a few fields, I'd say 90%. I'd say that 10 years ago, it was probably considerably higher, for those professionals or organizations who thought it worth the trouble--we have not been completely unsuccessful in discouraging at least the most naïve versions of it.

As PR editing goes, this was reasonably well disclosed. As PR editing goes, it was not even particularly outrageously promotional. It tried to add a small amount of favorable information, and decrease the emphasis on a very small part of the unfavorable. It would have had if successful no major effect on our coverage of the subjects.

I do not see political implicationz. Were I a supporter of the previous president, I would not hold this against him. After all, most supporters accept there is a good deal of otherwise questionable behavior that is overshadowed by the great amount of good the person has done for the country--I cannot immediately thing of anyone, even himself, who would defend everything that he has done in public or private life. Some people support him for friendship, or for their own selfish reasons, and this would be irrelevant. Most apparently support him because they approve of his goals, and this would be equally irrelevant.

Were I an opponent of the previous president, I would do as I am now doing, smile. It's somewhat humorous to think of his organization or supporters doing something like this, in the context of what an opponent would consider all the much worse things they have done, and all the very much worse things he had done and been proud of doing. From the perspective of any imaginary neutral party looking on, had he confined his organization to things like this, the world and the country would have been much less outraged.

From the POV of a supporter of independent journalism within and outside WP. I'd commend what Smallbones has done, tho, personally, I am not quite sure I would in his place have considered it worth the effort. In its own right, it's more in the nature of odd things at WP, than immediate dire threats. From my own personal POV, it's instructive to see the reaction that an attempt to do something well here can produce. I sometimes forget quite how diverse and strange the community can be. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated. Whether I am working at CSD, vandalism reports or other, I generally check the origin of any IP to see if it needs a Shared IP template on the user page. During the past 2020 calendar year, in making such a check on a DT article, one identified as Executive Office of the President of the United States. The White House was editing its own Wikipedia articles, but as an IP. As such, it was reported to Wikimedia to handle. If we learned anything in the previous four years, it's been that there have been repeated polarized insistence of removing any offending anything public that goes against a singular POV. Say what you will about that, the IP I reported was an instance of why we need to adhere to our guidelines on such things. Let me add, that much of what I, as an admin, find flagged at Candidates for speedy deletion, are nothing more than well-written, sometimes professionally so, self-advertising, either written by a paid editor, or by a talented subject of the article. Wikipedia was not meant to be a social media self-advertising platform. We need to be vigilant to keep Wikipedia as it was intended to be. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG You miss my point entirely. Paid editing disclosures should be taken seriously because they mean either the editor is being paid or is lying and being disruptive. However, the assumption of good faith should not be used as evidence in an article that speculates that an organization is paying editors. This is especially the case when the editor in question claimed to be working for arguably the most controversial organization in modern times.

I realize and respect that people have differing political opinions than mine, and I'm not saying TTO did not do everything this article alleges, but making such allegations without adequate evidence is uncalled for. It seems we are forgetting what we are not. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with DGG & Maile66. As I stated above, the article is well-presented. Atsme 💬 📧 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DGG if you don't like the way the policy currently on paid/COI editors is you have the opportunity to try to change it. You are a former arbitrator and are well-respected in the Wikipedia community; you would have a good chance to do so. But our policy is very clear; "If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator—but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority." Saying things like "If we can not call them out, we cannot remove them." goes against our existing policies. You should know this. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chess: Just to be clear, did you remove any "redacted or oversighted personally identifying material"? I'd say that you removed 0 - there was no redacted or oversighted personally identifying material in the article to begin with. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smallbones: Yes, I did. [10] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Chess: I'm still confused about what "redacted or oversighted personally identifying material" you reverted. I'm not an admin, I don't have any access to "redacted or oversighted" material, so I couldn't have included any. I, of course, have access to my work product including this article as originally published. I went over the entire section of what you removed and everything in there was still available at the same place as when I originally accessed it, i.e nothing in what you removed has been "redacted or oversighted". It's still available.
      • There is one spot where I made a typo confusing an already complex history of a photo used in the article. The user uploaded the photo in the form Xxxx xxxxx.jpg and then got an OTRS permission from the copyright holder. Later somebody did an unorthodox name switch on the photo, The original photo was cropped. The uncropped photo was reuploaded as Xxxx xxxxx - full.jpg (complete with OTRS ticket). In the article I used Xxxx xxxxx - full.jpg, because that is the *photo* the user uploaded, and noted the *file* that they uploaded as Xxxx Xxxxx.jpg. That is I put in a capital letter where it shouldn't have been. In any case "both" photos, with OTRS tickets, are still available on Commons. They have not been redacted or oversighted. If you could, would you get the committee together and clarify that I did not include any "redacted or oversighted" material in this article - that looks like quite an aspersion to me, but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way. If I'm totally missing something here - please email or otherwise let me know what it is.
      • Re: my conversation with DGG on this article before publication. I requested that he - if possible - redact the email and telephone number that the paid editor put in his declaration. I realize that the paid editor has the right to put this info on-Wiki if he wants to, but I just did not want somebody getting all upset by the non-issue of me publishing his very old email and phone. Note that these were never redacted or oversighted, before or since. DGG advised me that they couldn't be redacted without also removing the info in the yellow boxes above. So I just copied the text to this article and linked to the unredacted edits. As for the rest of the conversation, DGG seemed very interested that I not do anything to get this article deleted (as am I). I, of course, am solely responsible for how the article came out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not appropriate to get into specifics, but it was related to the attempted outing of the second Wikipedian. Admittedly it was not suppressed when you published it (only later which technically making it redacted or oversighter info) but the spirit of the rule is pretty clear that it's not ok to post suppressable personal info onwiki about an editor with a COI, even if it helps fight COIs. I would say it's BS to say you're responsible as you got told by an oversighter that the content of the article wasn't oversightable, though. You did your due diligence. I'd be surprised if the committee hasn't gotten together yet to review what a shitshow this was. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Committee is aware of this issue. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify; I was not the one who actually redacted the article. I removed the information but it was redacted (really suppressed) by someone else. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I chose what I work on, as do we all. I do not normally engage in oversight regarding outing or most reasons for oversight; I focus on oversighting identifying material posted by children. As with admin functions, I will not violate established policy, but I choose what I actively engage in enforcing, and where I disagree with it I do not attempt to participate in such a way as to over-ride it, though I give my opinion if I think it relevant, as can anybody else on anything. For those things where I disagree on policy, I very rarely take a lead in requesting change, though I sometime participate in discussions where someone else does . There is a mailing list where the oversighters (including the current admins) discuss challenged or questionable oversights. The list is strictly private, but I can say this has not yet. been discussed on it. If it is, I will probably refer to my opinion here that this does not require oversight. The problems with oversight are usually instances where an oversighter suppresses material and others disagree, and there are established mechanisms for dealign with this .The contributor here was aware that I did not intend to oversight this, but that others might to choose to do so. I do not and cannot offer them or anyone protection about this, nor do I think anyone should have the power to do so. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if you were aware that this could've been a grey area you should've asked other oversighters BEFORE this article got published to hundreds of readers. See "The contributor here was aware that I did not intend to oversight this, but that others might to choose to do so" We cannot "unout" someone and remove the information from people who have already seen it. Letting the information get published first and then oversighted is not the right way to deal with this. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations made about (Redacted)'s identity are a blatant violation of WP:OUTING, and consequently the post should be oversighted. It is unjustifiable to speculate about the offwiki identity of any account if they haven't volunteered the information, even if it is obvious that the user in question has a COI. I would note that the evidence presented about the particular identity is very weak. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

my advice was asked, and although there is no way of giving official clearance, I advised otherwise. No direct accusation was made, and the evidence of COI was good enough to block.

If my colleagues oversighters or arb com decide otherwise, I think that good reason to revise our standards as being unrealistic. We designed our rules to stop coi editing, not facilitate its evasion. I point out a person delivering a speech at a national political convention is a public figure, and has an inherently diminished expectation of privacy. DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My problem isn't that (Redacted) has been accused of having a COI w.r.t. The Trump Organisation, that's a totally reasonable thing to say, but that the sentence "Taken together these these parallels suggest that it's very likely that Patton, the former Trump employee, edited as (Redacted)" is unjustifiable outing, given that (Redacted) made no such indications in her edits. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problems with this article are growing. It doesn't matter what evidence of COI there is, outing is outing. If (Redacted) disclosed that they are Patton then there would be no problem, but of course there is no such disclosure. Even if the evidence was undeniable (which it is not), speculation about a user's identity should not be welcome under any circumstances. WP:OUTING clearly states that it doesn't matter if the information is accurate or not. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say that WP:OUTING does not say anything about outing editors as being public figures. Therefore, the argument that they have an "inherently diminished expectation of privacy" is moot. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a much different interpretation of outing or attempted outing. It is not outing to state that an editing pattern suggests, in an Op-Ed, a parallel that a particular COI editor may be the BLP. I actually disagree with the Op-Ed's conclusion about (Redacted) because I can name a few others who would be more inclined to be that COI editor - so, Q: who was actually outed? A: Nobody. Atsme 💬 📧 16:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Atsme It doesn't matter if the identity is correctly deduced, it is still at best an attempted outing. Is an attempted robbery any less wrong than a successful robbery? No, it is not. Likewise, an attempted outing is not any less worse than a correct outing. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Respond to ping - my final comment. I disagree with your reasoning and misapplication of the policy. Outing was included in the Harassment policy for a reason. In this case, no one is being harrassed. For example, if someone says, I removed that material because it is potentially libellous, and against BLP policy, that is not a legal threat anymore than the suggestion that the COI editor might be so-and-so could be considered outing. No one was harassed or outed in this case. It appears to me that you believe the suggestion in the Op-Ed is correct, and if it is, the COI editor is expected to disclose their COI and their relationship to the BLP, as in "I am the BLP" = guess what? No outing. If it isn't the BLP = guess what? No outing. Atsme 💬 📧 18:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter what you think outing is or how you think it should be defined, WP:OUTING clearly says how Wikipedia defines outing. You say that posting personal information about a user is only outing if it is to harass the user, but WP:OUTING contradicts your claim by saying "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." If you are not happy with Wikipedia's current definition of outing, then by all means propose a change to the policy. Until then, we should go by the current definition of the policy, which this article breaks. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SIGH - OK, in response to this issue of alleged outing, I've read everything above, studied the WP articles in question. No outing happened, just public musing over the possibilities. The public and media have been exposed to years of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" of media. What we think was written by one person, sometimes was later revealed to have been written by someone else, or leaked to someone who could put it under their name and get it national exposure. Really folks, when it comes to the last four years - up is down, no is yes, yes is no, and anything you believed you knew ... might actually have been a planned illusion. Nothing I see has succeeded in making the connection. This could have also just been a fan club president. I'm still wondering if the rumors are true about what happened to the "real" Paul McCartney circa 1969 before he was replaced by a doppelgänger. No outing happened for (Redacted), because no real evidence was presented. Enough. It was not an outing. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm opposed to outing. I've made that point clear in the past. However, I don't see outing here. I raised the issue in the discussion below (now closed), receiving a response that is a bit complex and I'm having difficulty understanding. As the article stands now, I don't see an outing violation, sorry, but I suppose it will be sorted out in the deletion discussion. Editors need to be careful about outing, but this article was highly informative. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple The offending content had been redacted. The article previously attempted to out a specific editor as a public Trump supporter. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for clarifying that. Assuming there was an outing and it was cured, I would think that this is no longer a live issue. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to check in a week after I read this piece, before it had a first comment written, to find it's blown up like this. What about this piece in particular is exceptional? I found its content a bit weak compared to the usually much more serious and damaging COI that's reported on. (Slow news month, Smallbones is overworked—I get it.) However, I don't see what was uniquely a violation of outing. Perhaps I just forgot the content that's been objectionable. It was only two issues ago that The Signpost explicitly asked its readers what they thought was and wasn't acceptable with these types of reports: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/From the editor. If only we had established the community's view on this at that article and not this one then the drama could have been avoided. — Bilorv (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most of the prior pieces, this one specifically said that there was strong evidence that a certain Wikipedia user was "John Doe". This user didn't disclose that info anywhere on Wikipedia and it was deduced based on this person's editing patterns to certain articles that the real life person was involved in. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had contemplated writing a Signpost article on another COI situation involving various accounts identified on- and off-wiki as being related to the subject of the article, a major public figure convicted of felonies. I think an article like that would be informative. My point was to be how volunteer editors with limited time and motivation are helpless when dealing with determined COI editors. I am opposed to outing and would scrupulously follow the outing policy. But would I write such an article? Hell no. It's not worth the trouble. How can Signpost deal with COI and paid editing issues involving admitted (not surmised or alleged or denied) paid and COI editors if we are going to hound the Signpost editor as we have done here? Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally nothing preventing you from going to WP:COIN if you have a legitimate concern. I fail to see why it is impossible for editors to follow WP:COICOIN and why you have to write a Signpost article outing people. If there's evidence that would out people you can email a functionary. There's no policy against COI editing in general so long as it is disclosed and people follow the COI rules. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally nothing in your response that has anything to do with my concern, which relates to Signpost not posting on COIN. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the entire point of what I wrote; you don't have to write a Signpost article outing people to address COI issues. We have existing processes to deal with this and I fail to see why you are unable to use those. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two different places with different purposes. COIN deals with immediate problems, that can be solved with a block or similar. General editors don't go there very often. The Signpost is for all Wikipedia editors and can deal with bigger questions like "there's this guy who tells lots of fibs, had his finger on the nuclear button for 4 years, who encouraged an insurrection against the US government, and his organization edits Wikipedia. What do we do?" If we took that question to COIN, they'd just say "We're not set up for this. Take it to The Signpost." If we took it to ArbCom, they'd say "We're not GovCom. We can't deal with content, much less the real world. Take it to The Signpost". We publish it here and you say, "you can't do that here, at least not in any detail." So the question to you is "where do we tell the Wikipedia community what's going on? And why do you want to bury your head in the sand?" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"There's this guy who tells lots of fibs, had his finger on the nuclear button for 4 years, who encouraged an insurrection against the US government, and his organization edits Wikipedia. What do we do?" So this is a politically motivated article. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not quibble about the hypothetical, please. The article I had considered writing was devoid of political content, and was intended to describe the kind of time suck COI editing, even "white hat" COI editing, creates for volunteers. To me this is the primary issue raised by COI and paid editing, and yet I find that many editors and especially administrators are callous to that aspect of the problem. It's as if Wikipedia's policies and guidelines create a "level playing field" for volunteer editors and determined, motivated COI editors. That is a problem that has no political aspect. And yet, I wouldn't even go near such a topic on Signpost repeat on Signpost repeat on Signpost as I simply don't have the time or energy to fight the kind of battle that has been created for Smallbones here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should be enough examples that have been raised and documented on English Wikipedia that an article could cite to illustrate this aspect. isaacl (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you run into another set of challenges. For example, if you;re dealing with a banned COI editor you might run into the NPA rules. Or attack page. This very article was nominated on that basis at one point. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was raised precisely because the article didn't use examples previously examined by the community. I do appreciate there are challenges, because there is a diversity of opinions on conflicts of interest, and the sub-category of paid editing. For better or worse, the portion of the English Wikipedia community who like to discuss its processes generally favour open discussion, including open discussions on Signpost articles. That has disadvantages but also advantages. isaacl (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Smallbones, I think you need to take a step back and a deep breath, and look at what you are saying here. I believe I can state with a high degree of certainty that neither ArbCom nor COIN has ever told anyone that they should "take it to the Signpost." The Signpost is generally a newsletter, not investigative journalism. That's not a complaint, I think most of us appreciate it for what it is and don't expect it to do investigative journalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beeblebrox: Let's first be very clear The Signpost is *not* a newsletter, we run a newspaper here, which means original reporting and analysis. We've declared that we're a newspaper starting with the second sentence of the first article of the first issue of this newspaper on January 10, 2005, over 16 years ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's several years before you started editing. BTW the first sentence was just "Welcome to the inaugural edition of The Wikipedia Signpost!". The word "newsletter" connotes a sponsored throwaway publication that prints items more-or-less dictated by the powers-that-be. There is no ultimate power on Wikipedia other than the Wikipedia community. ArbCom, admins, the WMF, oversighters, and other bureaucrats don't dictate what we publish. We follow the rules, just like any other newspaper follows the laws. But the community needs some institution to watch over ArbCom, admins, etc. to see how well they are performing. This is a service we provide, and others can try to provide. We are *not* a newsletter - never have been.
  • Now my saying how ArbCom would react to the question "There's this guy who tells lots of fibs, had his finger on the nuclear button for 4 years, who encouraged an insurrection against the US government, and his organization edits Wikipedia. What do we do?" was rhetorical. I wouldn't exactly expect them to say "Take it to The Signpost". I'd expected the to give a more polite version of "get the heck out of here, we don't do that." So my questions to you is "Where on Wikipedia would you recommend that an interested editor take that question about Trump? Would any place be better than The Signpost? Or don't you think it's a worthwhile Question?"
    Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be a newspaper, you first need journalists with journalistic standards, and an EiC who makes sure that all articles and collaborators meet those requirements. If you insist on the label "newspaper", then add the correct adjective to it: "rag". "the community needs some institution to watch over ArbCom, admins, etc."... How many cases of problematic admins have been unearthed by the Signpost? Has the Signpost ever led to a desysopping or de-Arbcoming? Well, yes, a deleted Signpost article written by you has led to the retirement of one Arb, but it is not usually the aim of a newspaper to burn their sources so badly that they can no longer function correctly. You may have high and lofty ideals, but in reality the result of most things resembling investigative journalism in this rag are just some gutter press products. The community may need many things, but this aspect of the Signpost is not one of them. Fram (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to soften my tone but I have to say I agree with what Fram said. I don't know why you would think the community wants the Signpost to engage in this sort of reporting. It is not a professional newspaper, regardless of any claim you all may make to the contrary, and this was a nothingburger anyway, there was no problem that was even remotely solved by this reporting, all it did was create problems for the you and the Signpost. If you were planning to step back anyway, I would suggest now as a great tie to go ahead and do that as you really are not helping the overall cause of the Signpost with your more recent remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why we shouldn't delegate COI cases where there would be OUTING if the evidence was made public to ArbCom. We already ask editors to talk to functionaries. ArbCom is already cleared to deal with non public information and I think allowing arbcom as a whole to deal with COI issues (with possible delegation within such) involving potential doxxing would be a better system than ad hoc asking functionaries to do stuff. Make it clear where the authority is to deal with COI editing might help with enforcement and investigation.
      In response to what you said about the content of what you write being dictated by the community; it might shock you but ultimately the WMF are the people who own the servers you're posting on. Saying the WMF doesn't dictate what you publish demonstrates a laughable understanding of how this site works. While generally community consensus is what determines what is allowed onwiki the WMF can and does overrule that if necessary. Go look at the new UCOC if you want; doxxing is explicitly banned and that policy cannot be overruled by consensus.
      It's also interesting that you say oversighters don't dictate what you publish when half the article has been suppressed by an oversighter. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 11:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestion would be to advertise a brainstorming session and solicit participation from the active editors working on conflicts of interest. Let them work out proposals for what ought to be done and what resources are needed, such as more tools, more auditing, or more people to perform needed tasks (perhaps we need the Wikimedia Foundation to providing funding and HR support for the community to hire dedicated staff). Maybe we need more partnerships with university research groups to help tackle problems (hopefully the WMF could help there). Most critically, though, someone needs to be able to devote dedicated time to drive the initiative forward. isaacl (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Smallbones was being too kind. The reaction tends to be more dismissive than that, when there is a reaction and the response is not silence. Coretheapple (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird how the time and date for at least one edit would seem to have been physically impossible for the real Martin to have made. Bad idea to take an anonymous person's claim for their IRL ID serious, especially when time and dates can be compared (hell, I have even done that on the internet, back in the day—couple decades ago—and I was able to easily manufacture convincing evidence back then... thousands of people do it for entertainment, trolling, low self-esteem issues, and mischief).— al-Shimoni (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

• Martinnyc did not edit after his reported death if that was what you are implying.
• I just reviewed both sets of edits from both editors originally included in the article in both micro (minute-to-minute and changes in words and letters) and macro (longer term, articles edited).

I don't believe they are they are the same editors, but they do have somewhat similar styles. Neither made "physically impossible" edits. Both type quickly and save often - so there are spurts of activity, but nothing impossibly quick. To some extent, both - but one more than the other- start with a fairly large insertion, or make big quick deletions (or both), and then copy edit on the run, resulting in very fast and small staccato edits at the end of the spurt, e.g. both have made 3 edits in one minute. Nothing impossible about that. Macro - they look about the same.

In short, do be more specific about this "impossible edit" or I won't be able to believe you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, don't y'all have ANYTHING better to do than obsess over what some former employee of the former president of the United States MIGHT have edited on Wikipedia articles, six years ago????!!! This is petty and vindictive and embarrassing. Spend your time on actively going after ACTIVE egregious COI and PAID EDITORS not Stalinist purges like this that also reek of being self-congratulatory. I am disgusted.--FeralOink (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]