Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

Companies have argued for leeway with "ignore all rules"

@SlimVirgin: This text:

Companies have argued for greater leeway in conflict-of-interest editing, citing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, a policy, which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

References

was just deleted as unsourced. You last revised it here. Do you have a better source? I wouldn't be surprised if it is true. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: You added the original text here. Do you have a source? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

David, that edit of mine you linked to was just a light copy edit. I may not have looked at the source. As for the source, it said at the time (February 2014): "Wikipedia's de-facto ban on paid editing is universally ignored. In a recent study conducted by the Public Relations Society of America, 40% of PR professionals admitted to having edited Wikipedia. It amounts to over a quarter of million of PR pros who take refuge in the Wikipedia’s "Ignore All Rules" policy which says: 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'" [1] I don't know whether source still says that or how it should be interpreted. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for the response. It seems likes something from that quote belongs in the main text--with mention of date. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Chiming in since I'm the one who deleted this text. Technically my edit summary used the phrase "poorly sourced", not "unsourced". What I meant was that I don't think that WikiExperts FAQ page is WP:RELIABLE for the purposes of verifying the claim that companies have cited WP:IAR in arguing for greater leeway in COI editing. It's an FAQ page on the website of a company that does paid Wikipedia editing - it's going to be coming at the issue with a heavy bias, and it basically falls under WP:SPS. I'd be okay with including the statement if it could be supported by a reliable, independent source. Or the WikiExperts source could potentially be used to support a weaker claim like "WikiExperts, a company that offers paid editing services, despite being banned for undisclosed paid editing, has justified its methods by citing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules which says blah blah". But I think that's giving WP:UNDUE weight to a passing comment made by one specific company in an FAQ. Colin M (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Parque da guarita pedra sul.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Now NBC on the Weinstein Scandal:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ronan-farrow-overcame-spies-and-intimidation-to-break-some-of-the-biggest-stories-of-the-me-too-era/2019/10/10/9cc46c9a-eac1-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html

"Interestingly, NBC doesn’t dispute one of Farrow’s scoops, a minor one but telling nonetheless. In the wake of the Weinstein imbroglio, he writes, the network hired a “Wikipedia whitewasher” to scrub references to the episode from some of its pages, a curious decision for a news organization dedicated to transparency. To this day, there’s no reference to the Weinstein affair under Oppenheim’s Wikipedia entry, and only a fleeting one in Lack’s."

Also:

https://www.newsweek.com/nbc-wikipedia-whitewashing-matt-lauer-weinstein-ronan-farrow-1464118

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Where to report companies?

I just got a letter from a company offering to make a Wikipedia page for me, stating

We own multiple accounts on Wikipedia with page curation and new page reviewer rights, so we can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of another mod taking it down.

Where do I report companies like this? That should be a section in this article. --WiseWoman (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@WiseWoman: per our reader focus, we shouldn't link from mainspace to WP-space, but it'd absolutely be a good idea to add a header to this talk page directing there; I'll whip that up. To answer your question, you're looking for Wikipedia:COI noticeboard. Sdkb (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Paid advoacy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Paid advoacy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Paid advoacy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 18:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

New Haaretz

Noting that this article [2] makes some comments on the topic in general, may be good for some content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiScanner - too many examples?

As above, really. Do we really need three lines of nothing but examples? Couruu (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not? They're all well sourced and demonstrate the extensive misuse of Wikipedia across dozens of industries and corporate/political leaders. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 09:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a sentence like "extensive misuse of Wikipedia across dozens of industries and corporate/political leaders" with a few examples would read better than a single comma-separated sentence of 49. The full list can be (and currently isn't) listed in the WikiScanner article. Belbury (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Belbury +1 on this. If the entire list needs to remain, I'd vote for moving it to WikiScanner. Couruu (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, moving it to Wikiscanner is a nice solution. Ok... let's just keep some examples from the more prominent and diverse names in this article (fewer than 10, but I'll leave it to you!) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me, but it doesn't seem to have gotten done. This isn't my sort of topic area, so I'm not sure I would do it in cases I bollixed something up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"WikiProject Integrity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WikiProject Integrity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § WikiProject Integrity until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"WikiProject Integrity"

We're "tracking", if you will, something called "WikProject Cooperation", but it is defunct. It seems to have been replaced by Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity, but this article no longer has any information about or even mention of it. It presumably did earlier, because in the above-mentioned RfD about the cross-namespace WikiProject Integrity redirect, the nominator linked explicitly to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#WikiProject Cooperation and WikiProject Integrity, a heading that has since been renamed (without an anchor for the original name) to #WikiProject Cooperation. I would think that the material should be restored or new material written, so that those with an interest in the CoI stuff know it exists and has taken over (doing whatever it is doing) where WikiProject Cooperation left off.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Request Edit: WhiteHatWiki on Rene Gonzalez

I have a conflict of interest as an employee of WhiteHatWiki, which was written about on this page. I'd like to request the removal of a serious fabrication on this page.

In the subsection Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#2020s 2, in the section Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Miscellaneous, the editor fabricates that a story in The Oregonian says that WhiteHatWiki was hired to edit a page about a city council person in order to justify inclusion of the event on this page.

The story is about whether city funds were properly used by a council member to hire a firm to advise them on how to make request edits on Wikipeda. The story specifies the request edits on the Talk page were made by a staff member of the city council person and it provides a hyperlink to the relevant Talk page, which shows the staff member disclosed they worked with the council member. The story emphatically does not say that WhiteHatWiki was hired to edit the page about the council person. The story goes into detail describing how of 8 edit requests that were submitted by the council staff member, 4 approved by a Wikipedia editor reviewing the requests. The council person's staff was also adamant in the article that it was a proper to hire a a consultant to educate their staff on how to combat distortions on Wikipedia.

Only the fabrication that WhiteHatWiki was hired to directly edit the council person's page justifies its placement in this section. Every other example in this section is of undisclosed COI editing.

Here is the full text of the article in The Oregonian in a free version: [3] The editor used a citation to a pay-walled version, making it impossible for non-subscribers to find the fabrication.

Please remove:

On August 7, 2024, The Oregonian reported that Rene Gonzalez spent $6,400 of city taxpayer dollars to hire a contractor, WhiteHatWiki, to make edits to the Portland city commissioner's Wikipedia page in an effort to "spruce up his profile" as part of his mayoral bid.

Here's what it says in the passages relevant to WhiteHatWiki's involvement:

Gonzalez’s office at City Hall hired a New York-based company in March to develop a handful of requested edits to the Wikipedia page and also train a “designee” on the submission process, records obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive through a public records request show.

The contractor, WhiteHatWiki, ultimately helped craft eight requested edits, confirmed Shah Smith, Gonzalez’s chief of staff. Smith offered a full-throated defense of the city-funded service in a statement Wednesday.

....A Gonzalez staffer submitted the proposed changes to Wikipedia on June 25, according to an edit history published on the website and the commissioner’s office. Only four of the eight requested changes were ultimately approved by a volunteer editor who works under the username Rusalkii.

BC1278 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would be interested to hear the input of user:Graywalls in relation to this request. Axad12 (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Auditor's office didn't find wrong doing initially then re-opened the investigation. There's a newer media coverage on this matter since the last time I touched it. I've been meaning to update it. https://www.koin.com/news/portland/gonzalez-wikipedia-spending-investigation-reopens-after-new-information/ is a source I'm considering to use. Just haven't got around to it. I object to removal but my understanding is that Code Name Enterprises dba WhitehatWiki didn't edit it directly, so I think rewording, rather than removal is in order. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's also my impression. Thanks. I would agree that the text is inaccurate on that particular point, but to describe the story as a fabrication is going a bit far. Also, the story clearly warrants inclusion but it could do with some rewording. While we have WhiteHatWiki here, can they confirm that the story has the dollar figure correct? Axad12 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, four uses of the word "fabrication" seems excessive. Here's the diff for Graywalls' changes to the article in response to this request.

Note it was added to this article on August 7, the update to Oregonlive's article happened on August 9. So it was correct at the time it was added to this page. Seems like bad faith to call it a fabrication. tedder (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Graywall's edit. I think it describes the events accurately.

Based on information on their own website, WhiteHatWiki specializes in “white hat” ethical Wikipedia strategy and problem solving, offering the highest possible level of writing and research, while strictly abiding by official Wikipedia policies.

I would therefore request that WhiteHatWiki retract the repeated use above of the term 'fabrication' which was a very obvious breach of the Wikipedia policy on assuming good faith in other editors (WP:AGF). Axad12 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: I don't see how anyone reading the original article can fail to distinguish between the article's clear description of a request edit proposal submitted by a member of the council person's staff, who disclosed COI (not a policy violation) and WhiteHatWiki being hired to do direct editing (a policy violation). [4] Nowhere does the original article say WhiteHatWiki edited or was hired to edit the page. For once, a reporter was careful to describe the RE process, the COI disclosure, the username of the independent reviewer, and that only half the requests were approved. There is no interpretation of the article that allows for a reading by a reasonably educated person that there was direct editing of the page or WHW being hired to directly edit the page, given the great level of detail that describes an RE proposal. Either the editor made it up after reading the article or, they did not even read the article. The claim was made up in exact the way needed to justify inclusion on this page, which is otherwise exclusively about nothing other than Wikipedia COI policy violations. BC1278 (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so basically you are doubling down on the refusal to assume good faith, and adding a breach of WP:NPA into the mix (claiming that the editor who made the edit and some who have commented above are all educationally subnormal). And that is supposed to be 'white hat' activity?Axad12 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, please note that the article under discussion here is about "COI editing on Wikipedia" and not "COI editing violations on Wikipedia".

Thus the idea that The claim was made up in exact[ly] the way needed to justify inclusion on this page is incorrect, as no reference to a violation would have been required.

It is rare that discussions on COI editing appear in WP:RS sources, and when they do it is usually in relation to cases where the editing was a policy violation. However, that should not be misinterpreted to suggest that only violations fall under the article subject matter.

(Please note that this post was constructed without alleging either bad faith or poor educational attainment on your part. Hopefully you will reciprocate in your future contributions.) Axad12 (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I think your rewording does not reflect what these stories are about. All these reports are about the proper expenditure of city funds. If he had paid personally or used campaign funds, there would be no story or investigation. So you've omitted the main focus of the stories and instead highlighted COI editing. In the original article, the nature of the proposals on Wikipedia are discussed in order to help evaluate whether it was a proper use of funds, not because there is any allegation about improper COI editing. Your basic description of the event is still factually incorrect. Given a COI-disclosed RE is described in detailed, why did you say to "assist with edits"? The Request Edit proposed process was described in depth. The reporting does not allege that the council person's staff member (who you have named, bringing the mischaracterization into the much higher standard of WP:BLP) edited a Wikipedia page -- quite the opposite. A reader of the newspaper article would not think this to be the case, but a reader of this language on Wikipedia will. You also did not fix the citation so it leads to the full, free version of the story, instead of the paywalled version, so readers can evaluate the facts for themselves. Here it is again: [5]

The paragraph is only marginally improved because the next sentence says "Wikipedia edit requests" (without an internal link, Wikipedia:Edit requests, to let readers learn more, by the way.) You've also omitted the statement from the council person's office that says they were seeking to correct distorted information from political opponents, and that it is perfectly legitimate to invest in educating staffers. They are entitled to their defense. WP: DUE. Finally, you've adopted biased language from the Oregonian article - it's fine for them to say "spruced up" and "taxpayer money" but no so Wikipedia. "Taxpayer" is something politicians typically say to get voters riled up. Cities have lots of money from bonds, federal grants and sources other than taxpayers. Likewise, "spruce up" is colorful, biased language the newspaper may use to imply the proposal was to make the council person look better, rather than correcting distortions, as his office maintains. Wikipedia should not adopt bias. Why not say "to prepare a proposal to ask Wikipedia editors to consider updates to the page"? This is the simple truth, not spin. If the language actually reflected the events in an unbiased fashion, it would become apparent this event does not fit into a long page just about COI violations. BC1278 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@BC1278:, Can you propose a suggested version? There's no guarantee that it will go as you propose, but I'm open to take a look. Also, I suggest you reach out to the news outlets to correct the errors. As you're well aware, whatever version that gets said on the article has to be directly supportable per WP:V. Some of them referred to the discussions on talk pages as contacting "Wikipedia administrators" so, they don't seem to quite understand how Wikipedia works. Graywalls (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tedder: can you take a look? I pinged you because you've recently engaged on this topic. Graywalls (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any major problem with the current wording. However, I'm inclined to agree with BC1278 that there is at least room for discussion on whether city taxpayer money and spruce up are emotive turns of phrase. I'd suggest that there is probably room for compromise there.

Despite the wall of text above I don't see any other issue. E.g.: BC1278 points out that The reporting does not allege that the council person's staff member [...] edited a Wikipedia page, but the Wikipedia article text doesn't make such an allegation and says only that edit requests were subsequently submitted by that individual. Similarly I don't see that naming an individual in accordance with a published source has any bearing on WP:BLP.

Also, the idea that the story does not belong in the article at all is clearly untrue (as pointed out by me upthread) because the article is about "COI editing on Wikipedia", not "COI editing violations on Wikipedia".

I'd suggest a revised wording as follows, which hopefully all parties will find satisfactory (removals are struck through, additions are in bold):

In August 2024, Government of Portland, Oregon's commissioner Rene Gonzalez spent $6,400 of city taxpayer money funds to hire a contractor WhiteHatWiki to assist with requesting edits to spruce up the commissioner's page. Wikipedia edit requests were subsequently submitted by commissioner's policy advisor Harrison Kass.

There is also the question of adjusting one of the sources to a non-paywalled version, which seems a reasonable suggestion.

I'd love to discuss further but unfortunately I need to address my remedial education requirements, as so charitably pointed out by BC1278 above. Axad12 (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12:. I had no intention of personally insulting your education. I’m sorry you took it that way but I understand why you did in hindsight. The language about how an "educated" person would interpret a text comes straight from WP:Primary. So I was just repeating a Wikipedia standard that is used in a different context but that I thought had some analogies here. I’ve spent 11 years trying to convince organizations and individuals not to directly edit Wikipedia pages but instead to submit proposals with a COI disclosure for independent review by volunteers. So to be casually lumped in with all these black hats who surreptitiously edit Wikipedia pages in violation of policy undermines everything I do. Why should people disclose COI and submit proposals for review if Wikipedia editors are basically going to make them look like black hats no matter what? Anyway, your suggestions since I complained show a careful, thoughtful reading of everything, so for what it’s worth, I’m guessing you initially might not have had access to full text and/or not spent enough time reading it, and the mistakes were unintentional. BC1278 (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

I agree that in relation to this news story your company's name is a very minor side detail. The story really relates to scrutiny over the appropriate (or otherwise) use of city funds, which can potentially be a problem even when operating within WP guidelines.

The story is thus a very useful addition to the article as it illustrates some issues beyond the normal stories about people directly editing about themselves or their employers. Axad12 (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a final point here... I do wonder if it is important context in relation to this story that 4 of the 8 edit requests were turned down (as reported in The Oregonian). I accept that that point could perhaps be argued either way, but since we are discussing textual amendments I thought I should mention it.

Most of the 4 declined requests were rather trivial and declined on technical grounds, but one (#4 here [6]) was a rather lengthy request to remove criticism (based on what was deemed to be a flawed appeal to policy). The other 7 elements of the overall request were asking for very minor adjustments to the article text and I think most handling editors would have deduced that #4 was the point of the exercise. Therefore, stating that 4 of the 8 requests were turned down may be relevant context for how the story should be presented in this article.

I'll put it no stronger than that, but I think the issue is at least worthy of consideration. Axad12 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To give further context here, as BC1278 said earlier All these reports are about the proper expenditure of city funds. That being the case, the concrete results of the $6,400 can be seen in this edit [7], which may support the idea that the '4 out of 8' figure is indeed relevant. Axad12 (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is still sort of developing news. The investigators issued a ruling just today there was a violation for spending public funds and using city staff time on this matter. I've added a more recent source to reflect what's happening. I just trimmed out who the vendor is for this article since I think it's immaterial here. I left the vendor name in the main article though. It maybe better if you do the further edit on this article since you're totally uninvolved on this particular topic. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Graywalls,

Are you sure that the purpose of the exercise was emphasizing his democratic party affiliation? Only one word in one edit had any relevance to that, or am I missing something?

I'd say it was more likely that the purpose of the exercise was to remove the criticism (request #4) and the rest was just window dressing.

I'm happy to wait until you think the ongoing news situation has resolved itself before making any further changes. However, I must admit that I won't be following the story myself.

Regards, Axad12 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I just went by what was said in the latest press coverage. Basically, politician don't like what's said, or wants to emphasize something for the upcoming election. From the government investigator's report, it seems like the politician edited his own page initially. Some time later, the campaign hired a Wikipedia editing consultant.

Sounds like the hired consultant consulted the commissioner/office, and commissioner's staffer Harrison Kass (name revealed by news coverage) took the podium and the consultant and commissioner together instructed/coached the staffer to deliver persuasive request to "edit request" hoping to get the desired editorial outcome. Have a look at Dove3579 (talk · contribs), an account that did a whitewash on Jo Ann Hardesty, a commissioner who was overseeing a city department called PBOT at the time. When you compare the account's edit on Zalul Environmental Association, Arava, and PBOT and you go look for something else with the same overlap on the web, it becomes clear that the whitewashing was the doing of someone deeply involved with the city. I think the only difference with the Gonzalez matter is that someone filed an election related complaint and got the media attention. So, instead of doing something like that person and doing something that directly and blatantly violates Wikipedia's UPE policy, they followed paid editing procedures through hiring a consultant, ended up getting backlash not on Wikipedia side, but on the city politics side. Graywalls (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12:@Graywalls:. The new third sentence is inaccurate and misleading about the auditor’s findings; and it again repeats the inaccuracy that the contractor (my firm) was hired to assist with editing of the page. I am just trying to arrive at a precise paraphrase that reflects nuances that make a big difference in the real world. According to the story, the auditor singled out only one of the requests as the cause of the finding - a proposal to emphasize that Gonzalez is a Democrat. Specifically, the auditor found it problematic because he is running for mayor and his political party affiliation is unrelated to his duties as a non-partisan commissioner. The current Wikipedia language incorrectly says that there was a general finding that the hiring of a Wikipedia consultant violated campaign finance law. (In fact, if you read the cited report, there is no finding of any violation for 7 of the 8 request edits). Furthermore, the Commissioner’s reply to the auditor's findings, as reported in the story, needs to be represented under WP: Due. See my suggestion below.

The third sentence also says that the contractor was hired to “assist with editing”. The new article does not say this, and we already knew from the original story, with even more detail about the request edit process, that this is false. This matters. On Wikipedia, assisting with editing versus assisting with creating a proposal submitted for independent review with a COI disclosure is the difference between being banned vs. being legitimate. Confusing the two on a Wikipedia page about COI editing, when even the press managed to get it right this time, is not correct . BC1278 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the first sentence, the rewrite above by Axad that removes “spruced up” avoids the biased tone (and exact wording) of the first source. The commissioner's office maintains that part of the purpose of the proposal was to address distortions by political opponents, not just to make him look good. Wikipedia can avoid taking a side by using the more neutral language suggested by Axad, though I think Graywalls is correct to remove the name of the vendor (my firm) since this is primarily a campaign finance story. I would also suggest either adding Wikipedia:Edit requests hyperlink to “requesting edits” (or "edit requests" in the current version) since it’s a term of art not known to the average person, or changing that phrase to “proposals”. I concur with Axad that mentioning 4 of 8 REs were declined is a useful addition as it elucidates there was an independent Wikipedia review and this page is supposed to be about conflict of interest editing. Please also change the citation to the full, free version I’ve given before (and below), not the paywall URL, people can read the story. I’d strongly suggest that under WP:Due, the commissioner’s office response to the accusations should be included. See below.

I hesitate to propose exact language to non-COI editors who are highly engaged in editing this, but it might be easier for you to see all suggestions in one place.

In August 2024, Portland Oregon commissioner Rene Gonzalez spent $6,400 of city funds to hire a contractor to advise his office on  “request edits” for the Wikipedia page about the commissioner. The edit requests were subsequently submitted by the commissioner's policy advisor and 4 of the 8 request edits were approved by a volunteer Wikipedia editor. The commissioner’s office defended the expenditure, saying it was appropriate to address politically motivated distortions and to educate its staff on how to manage a public profile.  After a complaint by a group opposing Gonzalez’s bid for mayor, the city auditor found the use of city funds and time to hire a contractor to advise his office on how to propose one of the proposed edits, highlighting that Gonzalez was a registered Democrat while he was running for mayor, violated campaign finance regulations and they fined him $2400. Gonzalez challenged the impartiality of the investigation because the deputy auditor, who was the final arbiter, is in a longtime romantic relationship and owns a home with the head of the progressive advocacy group that filed the initial complaint and supports a rival candidate for mayor. BC1278 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bri:, since you added Gonzalez to this article, do you have any comment? Graywalls (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an awful lot of detail for this article which is supposed to be a concise list of incidents, and we have a whole other bio for details, if they are pertinent. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the section of the above from 'In August' to 'volunteer Wikipedia editor', which is pretty much as suggested by me earlier. The rest of it could probably be abbreviated into a single sentence, but exactly how that could best be done will be easiest determined when the dust has died down on the story. I'd therefore suggest that the text from 'In August' to 'volunteer Wikipedia editor' be adopted at the present time, with the rest to be determined anon.

Any thoughts? Axad12 (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Postscript: Actually on second thoughts I believe that the story justifies more coverage than I had indicated directly above. The reason is simply because this story offers a very different angle on COI editing compared to the standard stories covered in the article of people editing about themselves or their companies.

It is thus important that the public scrutiny side of this story to be given some elbow room as that is basically the majority of the story here. Axad12 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I do think it should be covered in fair bit of details in one place... and it is in the mayoral candidate's main article. So, I think it can be pretty sparse in this article. @Axad12 Having it covered extensively in multiple places would start to look like Greg articles if you know what I mean. Graywalls (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Axad12 (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)