Jimbo declines unblock with a reason: "pending outcome of Bell Pottinger investigation" I do not recall seeing Jimbo declined unblocks. Does somebody know what is Bell Pottinger investigation?

It's Jimmy's big comeback on Wikipedia, his charge up San Juan Hill. He's back, he's the founder, and he's personally kicking ass.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/...bell-pottinger/

He actually created some content this week. How often does that happen.

He's determined to catch up to Cla68 in his value to the "project".

No word if "shoot on sight" has been sent out on the soopersekret list yet.

Ah, I see."The 'dark arts': Bell Pottinger caught rewriting its clients' Wikipedia entries "

Quotes from the article



It is interesting that so far as of the last revision of the wikipedia entry's for Group there's nothing said about manipulating of wikipedia entries although
the article was tagged by Chase.

It is also interesting that it took a year before the user was discovered, and discovered not by wikipedia. Besides everything else it was a payed editing. I wonder how many other similar situations exist on wikipedia.

Yes, it's that thing I brought to everyone's attention here YESTERDAY. Please, pay attention. I am the bellwether around here.




Jimmy Wales commenting on ethics is a rather funny thing. Just ask his first two wives, and his ex-mistress. I don't know if PR professional Kate Garvey (the fourth woman, with whom he's fathered a child out of wedlock, before the divorce from Wife #2 was final in Pinellas County) has yet formed an opinion about Jimbo's ethics, but I say give it about 5 years, and then let's check in with her.

More rarely than you think. Do you actually believe that Jimbo wrote all of that himself?

Not likely, Tungsten.

Sorry.

Btw have you noticed this exchange of comments on Independent article:

Wikipedia probes edits by Bell Pottinger

Hmmm, Wikimania Caracas coming soon?

If a guy happens to need shelter from the IRS or alimony debts, would Venezuela be a good place to shack up?

That may be one of the most gullible, deluded politicians I've ever heard. I suppose he also imagines "people donate to the Wikimedia Foundation expecting total efficiency".

Has anyone made the connection that this was just ONE public relations firm, out of probably thousands of such firms worldwide? If even 10% of them are fiddling with Wikipedia, there's still another thousand User accounts to ban, aren't there?

Indeed. PR firms occasionally turn up in the nets of the Wiki-Inquisitors but no one usually gives a shit. There's also the issue of executives/investors taking it upon themselves to pimp their company and products.

Not that anyone can stop them. Jimmy's just a little upset that someone noticed this time.

I believe a better question to ask is: If even all such accounts detected and banned would it resolve a problem, or for every account that is banned a new one would be made?

If you are to add to this problem such people as Johann Hari who was using wikipedia entries to attack his real life opponents,
or such admins as Fæ (T-C-L-K-R-D) who wrote articles about his not notable friends,
or such admins as Gwen Gale (T-C-L-K-R-D) who wrote not just one, but two articles about herself only because she wrote an absolutely idiotic free e-book, and decided it was enough to call herself "Noteworthy separatist feminists."
or even wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, who used to edit his own bio...
how reliable wikipedia would look to you?

BTW I just found that not only me made a connection between Bell Pottinger and Hari

And then there is the faux-objectiveness of NPOV. The policy page on the English Wikipedia has links to other languages, for example Arabic, Hebrew, Greek and Turkish. Does anyone expect that the existence of similar policies will mean that the nationalist conflicts in Palestine and Cyprus will be written up in remotely similar ways in these different language versions of the encyclopedia?

Or rather, Jimmy has concluded that his reputation would be enhanced if he exhibits a reaction that seems like he is upset about this matter.

Haha http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...edia-entry.html . For those too young to remember, labour party member David Boothroyd is Wikipedia’s ex-Arbcom member Sam Blacketer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Blacketer , caught manipulating Cameron’s biography.

Pope Catholic.

Wikipedia incompetent.

The encyclopedia that anyone can manage. Being given a little clue as to the accounts involved, I see just how well the community and Jimbo understand "due process."

Biggleswiki (T-C-L-K-R-D) checkuser block by WilliamH. No explanation. Reg 23 November 2010.

I find this hilarious. Troll account, offensive username, warned for revert warring, then blocked for username similarity (to Biggles, obviously). Al Capone cited for jaywalking.

Ejbsnow (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked by WilliamH. Reg 27 October 2011
Charlesstewart99 (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked by WilliamH. Reg 21 September 2011
Diginerd84 (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked by WilliamH. Reg 1 July 2009, last edit 24 November 2011
Pipsster (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked by WilliamH. Reg 17 October 2011
Smythej (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked by WilliamH. Reg 1 June 2011, last edit 25 October 2011
GBSewnlim (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked by WilliamH. This and above blocked December 6. Reg 25 October 2011

Techboy1900 (T-C-L-K-R-D) Reg 6 December 2011. Checkuser block by Keegan, 7 December 2011.
Illyhawaii (T-C-L-K-R-D) No undeleted contributions. Reg 30 June 2011. Blocked by Keegan, 7 December 2011.
Slaine1 (T-C-L-K-R-D) Reg 9 September 2008. 3 contributions to Bell Pottinger. All socks now attributed to Slaine1, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Slaine1

Prguruguru (T-C-L-K-R-D) (? see list.) Reg 3 October 2011 (However, now blocked as "checkuser block" by William H., December 8.)

In the other direction, a Bell Pottinger spokesperson said "We have never added something that is a lie ..." It's probable that, for this to be true, we have to gloss it as "we have never added something to Wikipedia mainspace that is a lie," because ... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Biggleswiki this is probably fraudulent representation].

It finally showed up on AN/I, (permanent link).

Wikipedia is a sitting duck for manipulation, by even single users, all it takes is patience. Multiple users (i.e., a faction, or the employees of a company) if acting with any sophistication, can rule the place. And they do. Remember Raul654 and his essay on Civil POV pushers? His attitude and approach demonstrated successful Wikipedia factionalism. The lack of genuine due deliberative process makes Wikipedia continuously vulnerable, most easily when some point of view attracts a majority of knee-jerk responses, but also whenever admin and other activity flies below the radar, and, should it be detected, there are enough supporters to shoot down any response. The "community" is mostly asleep, and dislikes being disturbed.

Bell Pottinger simply wasn't careful enough. Or are we seeing only a small fraction of what they did?

The only sock "detected" from 2008 made only three edits that stand, to the article on Bell Pottinger itself. All other detections were apparently from recent edits, within the checkuser window. Given that Slaine1 was editing in 2008, and Biggleswiki in 2010, there are probably other accounts. I don't know if any of these are true socks. They may or may not be "meat puppets," they might be individual employees acting on their own. Prguruguru could easily be another person, at the parent company (Pelham Bell Pottinger), or simply someone knowledgeable and interested, but I assume that checkuser led to the company.

Or some account activity might be coordinated. If the latter, then ... only the tip of the iceberg has been sighted. They already have a huge list of articles to be reviewed at Talk:Bell Pottinger Group/Affected articles.

It is obvious to anyone who has studied and considered the matter that sock puppetry can be utterly indetectable, even if there is only one user involved. If there is a company, all the company has to do is prohibit editing from the company computers and IP, and then each "agent" uses their own outside access. If the company wants on-site editing, they just obtain independent internet access. The cost of that would be trivial, by comparison with the value of employee time. My guess, though, is that employees would love to work from home. And there you go. Each one develops their own identity and edit history, and can't be checkusered as socks. Someone would need to coordinate, to avoid undue article overlaps, and almost all employees would be prohibited from editing the company article.

We are simply seeing a clumsy PR firm. My guess is that there are hundreds of firms, at least, which are not so clumsy. Wikipedians are not only trying to lock the barn door after the horse escaped, they haven't even locked the door. And they can't, not with the structure they saddled themselves with, years ago.

The Wikipedians are very satisfied that nobody has been detected who had gained the special trust of the community. It is a practical certainty that such exist, if not from Bell Pottinger, then from others with a COI. It's trivial to gain admin privileges, if that's your goal. It takes a little work.

At least one sock was detected and demonstrated, as reported by The Independent as having edited their user page while logged out, which revealed their IP, which was registered to Bell Pottinger. Damn! Don't you hate auto-logout? But if precautions were being followed, this would have had no effect at all, because the IP would not have been traceable to Bell Pottinger, except maybe through a court-ordered investigation that could dig into ISP records, etc.

The fact is that there is a high probability, as well, that the articles, over which the community is now panicking, are better than average, if they were truly being edited by professionals. Wikipedia has never addressed the problem of COI editing in a sane way. COI editors are, almost by definition, more knowledgeable than "neutral" editors. The theory is that COI editors can operate openly, but the fact is that, if they disclose their Conflict of Interest, they will be attacked, and the community hasn't protected them.

Anyone else notice the problem with the page listing "affected articles?" It's in Talk mainspace , where it clearly doesn't belong. It's not about the article! It's about the rest of the project as it might have been affected by some COI editing.

Is there any govcom member and/or admin who has never been exposed in manipulating of any article

OMG! "Payed editing." Maybe someone who is paid will be able to spell the word.

Wikipedia decided that free editing was Good. From this, it was concluded that the opposite, paid editing, was Bad. However, all editors are paid, it's just that some are paid in dopamine, as Moulton was fond of pointing out.

Now, whom do you trust more, someone paid with dopamine or someone paid with cash? An addict or a professional? It does depend on what they are being paid for, I'm sure. To provide high-quality content that will stand examination is what a real professional would seek to do. A professional with an idiot for a client might try "astroturfing," which Bell Pottinger denies doing, and they might be right. Waste of money, genuine professionals may refuse to do it, out of hand.

I have years of experience with both business and nonprofit organizations. The most cut-throat behavior I have found to be in non-profits. People will literally kill you for a "good cause," far more readily than for a modest amount of money.

Wikipedia needed to use unpaid labor, but did not understand how to harness paid labor, which could, with sound structure, produce high quality content, neutral. Instead, Wikipedia becomes a battleground, no matter how much it's claimed that it isn't.

I saw a politician say that Wikipedia is democratic so paid editors shouldn't be around. I don't really think that makes sense.

If things are a democracy, don't people have the right to edit? Why can't they then pay someone who is a better writer to put together what they want? How is that really a problem? Because their writing might follow proper grammar rules? Might have actual information?

In a Democracy, it would seem that having paid editing would be allowable and essential. Otherwise, those who lack the ability to effectively write will be ignored.

The Telegraph.Like most text with words "always" or "never" or "every" in it, this may be puffery. However, I did notice Prguruguru (T-C-L-K-R-D) did create Pelham Bell Pottinger, first in user space. It was then moved to Articles for creation, and from there to mainspace by another user unlikely to be affiliated with the company. The only impropriety here is that Prguruguru did not disclose conflict of interest, if any, and did then edit the article after the move. However, the edits seem reasonable, though I haven't checked in detail.

In another post here I got the relationship of Pelham Bell Pottinger and Bell Pottinger Group backwards. The parent company is Bell Pottinger.

All the flap over this, so far, yet there is no serious smoking gun, something where a Bell Pottinger employee drastically violated anything except for COI rules (and COI violation is extremely common, if we take COI seriously and include all forms of involvement that would, for example, cause a judge to recuse.)

Excellent observation, Abd.

This all gives me an idea. I should find an unscrupulous client who wants to defame all of his competitors. He (or she, but this sounds like something a guy would do) would hire me to do all sorts of puffy edits on the competitors' articles. Then... whoopsie-daisy! I "accidentally" expose my IP address and get "caught" by the WikiPolice. Then the news would simply have to report that a PAID EDITOR (gasp!) was apprehended polishing up the articles about Company X, Y, and Z.

Client laughs all the way to the bank!

A worthwhile comment was left with The Independent:

Lulz from the AN/I:

Emphasis added. Presumably "we" and "our" are intended in the royal sense.

I see that PaoloNapolitano (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who failed at nominating him or herself for ArbCom, is attempting to capitalize on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464773129

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464773936

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&diff=464803059

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464803843

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464807609

He or she requested the preemptive protection of an userpage that has never been vandalism, created a special template, and has given Jimbo a barnstar.

It's funny to watch someone trying to profit off of a scandal revolving around profit.

quite a few articles are affected

Not surprisingly, my comments on The Independent, pointing out Wales' own hypocrisy, have drawn replies that include Google Street View images of my home. So typical Wikipedian behavior.

I wonder if "For the way Jimbo have been dealing with the Bell Pottinger affair in the media! " Jimbo was giving only a barnstar or he was actually paid for giving his interviews.

Some puzzling remarks by Jimmy on the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16084861



Run that past me. You have never seen a case of PR firms editing Wikipedia? What? And what about "the site's guidelines urge users to steer clear of topics in which they have a personal or business interest." I have a personal interest in medieval philosophy. Does that mean I can't edit? What about all the marxists and anarchists and bondage fetishists who edit Wikipedia?

Or does 'personal interest' mean 'financial interest'? Yes but how do you separate financial interest from personal interest? If an anarchist group wants to advertise in a newspaper, it will cost them a lot of money. Advertising on Wikipedia is free, if you are an anarchist group, of course. Or advertising pornography. Or, er ... (ethical blindness onset)

Oddly enough I spent a weekend pounding the streets of Keighley leafleting for John Cryer's dad. I wonder how well he like the image of "bell tolling".

I think you made a tactical mistake. Rather than talking about Jimbo's playboy image, you should have talked about the edit history of Jimmy Wales (T-H-L-K-D).

Lessons learned from this?

it's not Ok to be a corporation rep on WP, but it is OK to edit in a reference to your book on every possibly related article under an assumed name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=29772366

I make hundreds of strategically sound comments every year. I hope I'm granted a single tactical mistake once in a while?

Anyway, if they want to post my townhouse on the Internet, that's fine. I'm happy to have any Wikipediot over for tea, if they'll only set an appointment with me, and that they've bathed in the past 24 hours. Jimbo not only wouldn't have them over to his house -- he won't even reveal where his house is!

Who is this "previousdenial" character on Independent? He says of me:

He has made 1289 comments on the Independent site so he hasn't just turned up because Wikipedia was under discussion. At places such as here you sort of admit to using hotspots. SO he could have picked stuff up via a bit of googling.

As I said, you might have succeeded more with his type if your attack on Jimmy had been more about the massaging of his wiki bio. You'll know better than me which of the discarded partners it was who came clean about her efforts on his behalf.

Wikipedia has so many unusual rules that must be obeyed, like "when we ban you for criticism of Wikimedia ineptitude and graft, please don't use hotspots to help clients fix falsehoods in their Wikipedia articles".

He makes you sound a bit like a supervillain. Do you have a white cat willing to sit in your lap? I would send you a monocle.

He looks to me like an arrogant paranoid who uses the Independent like Facebook, at least looking at his Scottish "pro independence" edits (which says it all in terms of common sense). He looks like he just hates Pottinger and knows little or nothing about Wikipedia. Those Facebook types on comment pages always seem to want the last word, and have little sense of putting new information in their posts. It would be interesting if he really was a Wikipedian, but I doubt it. What's interesting to me is people's response to what is "ethical" or not on Wikipedia. Of course St. Jimbo will always lead the way on this: Wikipedia is innocent and pure, and only a few "unethical" villains soil it.

"Jimmy" is teaching Bell Pottinger how to it right


I believe it is a very interesting development. If PR firms are allowed to edit on behalf of their clients,does it mean that a paid editing (which I personally have nothing against) is
going to be officially allowed?

Sigh...

Wikip/media people can say "disclose who you are, be open" all they like; but when a PR firm begins to try that technique, even to remove falsehoods from their clients' Wikipedia articles, "the community" will give them so much push-back and grief, it won't be very long before the PR firm throws up its hands in frustration and just goes back to the "old" way of doing things. Because going undisclosed and pseudonymous is the advantage of the incumbent Wikipediots, any sane person soon discovers that you have to fight fire with fire.

And Jimmy doesn't really care. In fact, the kerfuffle just gives the press another reason to contact him, and that's his objective -- to be in the spotlight.

OK, but if we are to put all these arguments aside.
Isn't PR firms editing on behalf of their clients no matter how ethical and open it is going to be violates a policy about paid editing, or there are not such policy on wikipedia?

It already is allowed, in theory. If an editor discloses a conflict of interest, in theory they should be allowed to make suggestions about articles on Talk pages, and even, under some circumstances where opposition isn't reasonably expected, to actually edit. However, in practice, such editors may still come under attack. JedRothwell followed COI rules for years, confining himself to talk page edits on Cold fusion, and was still indeffed by an administrator (MastCell, as I recall) who was supporting his friend JzG, who had essentially lied about Jed, but in a way that easily escaped notice. His signature, which included a reference to the web site he runs (as "librarian," this is lenr-canr.org), but not a link, was the basis for claims by JzG that his talk page edits were "spamming," and that resulted in a meta blacklisting. With no improper links having been added, thus blatant violation of blacklisting policy. Let me present to you in his former glory, Mike.lifeguard, who made that decision after asking for evidence, which was supplied, and then ignored.

Until Wikipedia actually protects those who follow the rules, the rules are not going to be respected. Rules must cut in both directions, otherwise they are just excuses to slam people for "breaking the rules," excuses used by those who themselves are perfectly free to ignore rules, for their own purposes, without hindrance.

I eventually managed to get the meta blacklisting reversed, but the discussion there -- necessary in order to lay the foundation for delisting -- was the excuse for my renewed topic ban on Wikipedia. Yes, the admin had no compunction about using behavior elsewhere, that he found offensive (too wordy, completely neglecting context and necessity), to ban. That ultimately led to my giving up on WP due process, when an appeal was rejected without consideration by ArbComm.

SNAFU. Signing off, this is Kafkaesque (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Two attempts were made to enact policies about paid editing -- one was a strict prohibition, and the other was a more tolerant and regulated view. Neither of them gained "consensus". There were also a few other blatherings about it, formalized in the Wikipedia way. See here.

OMG, Jimbo's "personally going to read them the riot act". I'd be shaking in my boots.

I really wish google would announce when the streetview van is in the neighborhood, so I could be sure to stand in the driveway with the dogs wearing my Elmer Fudd hat with a beer in one hand and picking my nose with the other.

The bathing requirement might be a deal breaker.

Well, to be fair, his baby-mama probably thinks the "WR community" has taken out a hit on him, and would prefer not to have to clean up after that. You could probably find out his address by researching the life insurance policy.

Yikes! And he "goes further":


How will Jimbo change policy? It's always fun when he tries to get involved in community policy changes.

Looks like I'll have to stay on my toes with all of the paid editing I have to do this week.

The depressing thing about this whole affair is that despite the naive approach of this sockfarm, Wikipedia's famed 'control and monitor' systems failed spot the problem editing. It was uncovered only after an undercover investigation into Bell Pottinger itself, run by the "Bureau of Investigative Journalism". They posed as agents for corrupt regimes and taped the conversations, in the course of which it was discovered that they were writing for Wikipedia. The Bureau report was published on December 6th, 2011, by the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...pm-6272760.html. Only then was there a block on the sock master account (Biggleswiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/Biggleswiki .

Thus, the naive approach to conflicted editing was not spotted by the Wikipedia control system, and even if it had been more sophisticated, it would not have survived the revelations by the Bureau.

Jimmy Wales is now appearing in the media looking like some sort of Jesus, complaining about the 'ethical blindness' of the conflicted editing in Wikipedia. And the media have bought his story. Nothing about the complete failure of controls that led to this happening at all.

Note there are still 4,000 conflicted articles according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatL...re/Template:COI

Wikipedia's main control mechanism is to slap a template on something, and hope somebody else will fix it. Which they clearly don't.

Or rather, Jimmy has been advised that such a reaction would be in his best interest. You don't think Jimmy actually thinks that much, do you?

Apparently Jimmy paid them a visit, and has reported on it on his psychophants' favorite page.