User talk:BC1278

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Fred Vogelstein, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - It seems you have the rollback user right icon on your user page, but you currently do not and have never had the rollback user right. Is there any reason for this? Thanks! Eteethan (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eteethan: No idea. I didn’t place it there. You could go through the page history to see who did. Feel free to remove it, Cheers. BC1278 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BC1278: So weird. Honestly not gonna go down that rabbit hole haha - so I've just removed it. Thanks :) Eteethan (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

I/P CTOPs cover the ADL discussions as the primary dispute at issue concerns the ADL's definitions of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and its coverage of protests and reactions relating to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed,

For publication, could you address the kerfuffle caused by [1] (also redone at Fox at Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician). You seem to have ignored WP:PAID and all your claims of transparency seem to have gone out the window. Was it your WhiteHatWiki company that they were referring to?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: We only served as a consultant in this case. We advised the user how to follow Wikipedia conflict of interest disclosure policy and how to submit a Request Edit proposal for review by independent editors. They followed this advice correctly. We also advised them on Wikipedia policies, such as using reliable sources and adopting a neutral point of view, and on technical matters, such as the proper code to add a proposal to the Request Edit queue. But neither I nor anyone working for WhiteHatWiki posted the Request Edits. This is a user account of an employee of the commissioner, as they disclosed on their proposal. That employee had a target list of edits they wished to make and they solely made the final decision as to what edits and language to request following a review by our agency. The employee, in fact, disagreed with some of our substantive advice, and in other cases, we strongly advised them that their ideas for proposed edits were not consistent with Wikipedia policy, and their employee decided to follow our advice to alter or omit the request. The user not only directed what edits they’d like to propose, they had full and final control over the Request Edit proposal. Their proposal was reviewed on the request edit queue by an independent editor, with some items accepted and some declined. It is admirable that this person sought out advice as to how to follow Wikipedia policies, which are tremendously complex for someone without any Wikipedia experience.

Reporters consistently do not recognize the difference between disclosed COI proposals, made in full compliance with Wikipedia policy, and undeclared COI direct editing of the page in violation of Wikipedia policy. The press stories you referred to made no effort to make this distinction, and didn’t seek my comment so I could explain it to them. It would be great if Signpost and the foundation would publicly speak out in favor of users who go to lengths to follow COI disclosure policy, and to seek expert advice when they are not familiar with Wikipedia policy.

WhiteHatWiki will only consult for clients who contractually agree that they will strictly follow COI disclosure policies and make their best efforts to follow all other Wikipedia policies. . BC1278 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that The Signpost congratulate the paid editors for following our rules, when they didn't even declare that they were paid editors? And you were paid also. You didn't declare or apparently didn't advise them that they needed to declare that you were an affiliate. The relevant text at WP:PAID is:

"* Affiliation: other connections {other than client or employer - sb} that might be relevant, including, but not limited to, people or businesses who provide text, images, or other media for the paid edit. If a paid editor is working as a contractor, "affiliation" would include any broker involved in the transaction (e.g. Fiverr, Upwork, etc.).

• Contribution: any text or file added to, or deleted from, Wikipedia, including talk-page and sandbox contributions, and material added to or deleted from articles by others at the behest of paid editors."

Please do not try to present a clear violation of the Terms of Use and WP:PAID - by you as well as by them - as just a WP:COI problem. You were their paid advisor, for contributions they made to the talk page.

Did you advise them that they needed to declare that they were paid editors? or that you were their affiliate?

Would you agree that the tax payers of Portland - who paid you - have a right to a full accounting of what you did for the money?

Smallbones_(smalltalk)

@Smallbones: This user did not fall under PAID, so provisions of PAID did not apply to the user. They were not paid for their work on Wikipedia and they did not fall under the broader part of the WP: PAID policy regarding users compensated for publicity efforts related to the subject of the article, regardless of specific Wikipedia compensation. Nor were they an intern.

That is as much as I can say without providing identifying details which would violate WP:PRIVACY. As you know, outing a user constitutes WP: Harassment. This is not a hypothetical. The subject of this article and their staff have been subject to repeated, serious acts of politically-motivated violence, with explicit threats to escalate. Details are in this story: [2]. Wikipedia needs to be very careful not contribute to this atmosphere of violence by outing. Your call for a "full accounting" to the "tax payers of Portland" is very close to trying to out an editor by using means outside of Wikipedia.

Since this editor does not fall under the Paid policy, the “Affiliation” provisions of PAID does not apply to them. Trying to correct the record on Wikipedia through a COI proposal does not automatically make a user PAID - that's why these are different categories with different requirements. And certainly “Contribution” does not apply in any circumstance here. No one at our agency contributed anything on Wikipedia related to the subject of the article.

As for Portland, in calling for a real-world investigation that involves a mayoral candidate. you have crossed far over into agenda-driven actions unrelated to Wikipedia policy. You are trying to stir up a controversy outside of Wikipedia, expose a user's real-life identity as a consequence, and trying to influence people's ideological or emotional feelings by making arguments about the use of taxpayer dollars, which is entirely outside the scope of Wikipedia policy. Your advocacy here for actions outside of Wikipedia is completely inappropriate for an editor given a position of responsibility on Wikipedia.

And again, yes, I think it's very commendable that this user used the COI process, sought advice since they were unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy, and were willing to do a public disclosure, rather than sneak in edits, exposing themselves to public attacks for actually following Wikipedia policy. BC1278 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BOGUS! Are you really accusing me of trying to out or otherwise harass the editor who wrote on their Userpage "I work with Portland Commissioner Rene Gonzalez, and will follow the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. I will not directly edit his biography page or any other page connected to him."? Do you have any evidence to support this accusation? If so, you know where to send it. I have no idea who that person is.

Now, on second reading the third word in that statement "with" is a bit unusual, perhaps finessed. I might have read it as "for" if you hadn't reminded me to check it. How does "with" differ in meaning from "for"? I suspect that you can imagine some situation where "with" wouldn't mean that they are a paid editor, but let me ask you, are you talking about one of the following situations:

1. They work for Gonzalez directly, but they are paid by the city of Portland.
2. They work in Gonzalez's office, but might be paid by somebody else (e.g. a campaign fund, a business owned by Gonzalez, or a supporter pays them.)
3. They don't work in an office (well, maybe in a home office), but Gonzalez, his campaign fund, a business owned by Gonzalez, or a supporter pays them.
4. They work "with" Gonzalez (in his office or elsewhere) but are not paid for the work they do with him and are not an intern.

That seems to cover all the relevant situations. Do you agree? Number 4 is the only case that would not make them a paid editor. Do you agree? So, can you honestly say that they are not a paid editor? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not so much that person that I think that WP:PAID covers. It's you.

1. You are an editor, correct? I mean I'm here on your user talk page. So are you a Wikipedia editor?
2. You were paid $6,400 by the city of Portland, Oregon, for helping Gonzalez get a Wikipedia page more to his liking. Is that correct?
3. You advised a person who "works with" Gonzalez on how to write a request for the Gonzales talk page, how to format the request, what not to say, some suggested wording on what to say, etc. Is that correct?
4. Why do you think you are not a paid editor within the meaning of WP:PAID?

Smallbones_(smalltalk)

@Smallbones: Because I did not edit Wikipedia for this page. Nor did anyone who works for WhiteHatWiki. This user was not WP:PAID so Affiliate does not apply. The employee of Gonzalez who submitted the proposal has clarified their position and involvement at Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician)#paid editing. BC1278 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I note that on your user page it says If you ever think any of my work doesn't conform to Wikipedia policy, please let me know and I'll do my best to fix it!

I also note that your company website says 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 (my emphasis).

As recently posted here [3], you have made multiple accusations that fabricated material was added to the relevant article. As has been pointed out in the relevant thread, the material that you refer to was an accurate reflection of sources at that time and thus was not a fabrication.

I would therefore point you towards the relevant policy on assuming good faith and would ask you to abide by it by striking your accusations of fabrication.

Your co-operation would be appreciated.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]