Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion closed per consensus. Hey Mid (contribs) 10:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note continued discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again). Hey Mid (contribs) 11:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived (archiving comment) "User blocked indefinitely, this issue can be revisited when the user responds to the issues raised"

Earlier this year, User:SqueakBox answered an advertisement on www.freelancer.com (advert & response) to create an article on an artist. The article was deemed non-notable and later deleted as an A7 speedy. There was an ANI thread on the matter at the time which can be seen here which was scathing of SqueakBox's activity.

Now, the same user has created Beber Silverstein Group in answer to an advert on the same website - advert & response. The article claims no real notability and was sourced to primary and non-RS sources and so I have redirected it back to the (possibly) notable owner.

Previously, SqueakBox said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing." (here), which is clearly now a lie, because he's denied actually creating this article for money - see his responses at User_talk:SqueakBox#Beber_Silverstein_Group. Opening it up to the community - any action required? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he were being honest about it and following COI guidelines, I wouldn't think it is worth taking action. However, since he blatantly lied bout the clear evidence and demanded that the accusation be retracted, it seems that some sort of sanction is needed. I'm not sure exactly what would be effective,, but it should be more than a warning (or admonishment) and less than an indefnite siteban. Perhaps a community sanction prohibiting him from editing BLPs or articles related to corporations (broadly construed)? Also a restriction to one account seems prudent, though I do not believe he has socked. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's generally agreed that User:SqueakBox (normally) contributes productively to the project, why beat around the bush and implement these sorts of topic bans? Why not simply bar him from editing the project for pay? jæs (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big if; I've been unimpressed by my interactions with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I wouldn't say SqueakBox has a huge conflict of interest here, as he has no relation to the subject of the article; his main goal is to prevent it from getting deleted. I'd just say if any more articles that don't follow notability guidelines are created, just delete them. -down load ׀ sign! 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what we normally do to articles that are inherently not notable? In all honesty though, I think that he should be restricted from editing anything to do with paid editing and be restricted to one account (which is also something we kind of already do). I feel as though he should also alert us if he is approached to edit or create an article in a way that will involve reimbursement of some kind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs and corporations are the most common types of paid articles. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His conflict of interest is between his loyalty to Wikipedia and the $250 he seems to have been paid to write this article. $250 would be enough to pay my car insurance and gas for a month, so even if it wouldn't win out, even I would be tempted (and thus the interests would be conflicting). The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the very concept of paid editing to be a bit of a terrifying Pandora's box, but the fact remains that the mere existence of a conflict ought not disqualify anyone from editing. If they can't balance that conflict and our policies and guidelines, then it becomes an issue requiring intervention. Does the repeated pattern of creating non-notable articles for pay qualify as such a problem? Seems so. jæs (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - creating NN articles with useless sources (i.e. both the articles mentioned above) is a clear violation of COI - "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.". Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note here the contrast between Squeakbox's apparently successful $250 bid and the apparently-unsuccessful $250 from Sequoyah who made the contract explicitly conditional on the subject meeting WP:N and on declaring the contract at WP:COIN. I would have no objection at all the a contract like that which Sequoyah proposed, but am also unsurprised that Squeakbox's unconditional bid was preferred by the advertiser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

This is not what I thought wikipedia was all about. I must say that I'm surprised and not a little disappointed that editors can be paid to write articles, of note or otherwise. Quite a business. Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people will do anything for a few dollars. Is that really the kind of editor we want on Wikipedia, knowing that future COI problems may not be as easily detected? Chester Markel (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the money in itself; the problem is what Squeakbox did to try to get paid. The problems are that: a) Squeakbox suspended hir judgement on notability and primary sources used in the article zie created; and b) that Squeakbox did not declare the COI, which would have drawn the attention of other editors to scrutinise the article. If squeakbox had acted openly (by declaring the full terms of the contract) and had followed editing policies (by telling the client "sorry, I cannot find evidence that you meet WP:N"), then there would be nothing to discuss here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Squeakbox's disruptive behavior is seeking financial compensation without any moral scruples. This suggests that the community cannot trust the user in the future. Chester Markel (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that Squeakbox ripped off his client by writing a crappy article. Beber Silverstein is notable.[1] If Squeakbox had made any effort to create a good article that met Wikipedia standards, there wouldn't have been a problem. I don't know who the A7'd artist is. THF (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's is a women owned Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise,..." Ouch! I'd be pissed if I paid for that: he should have at least mentioned that it was notable for its time as a business owned by women, which is in the NYT reference. Since he is so open about who he is on the pay-for-edit site, and seeing the reaction from other WIkipedians generated by his writing-for hire projects, I would think that others would be less likely to hire him for this sort of thing in the future. You don't get the "bang for your buck", and others will seek reasons to delete it anyway. Caveat emptor Doc talk 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution: three month block[edit]

A three month involuntary wikibreak may be sufficient to convince SqueakBox not to violate WP:COI and lie to us about it again. This certainly isn't the first time SqueakBox has caused trouble on Wikipedia. Chester Markel (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary; this would be very punitive and SqueakBox is known to be a solid content contributor elsewhere. See above for my proposal of an editing restriction preventing him from writing articles on living people or companies, which account for nearly all paid editing. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a lengthy block; I'd prefer one month, but would oppose anything less than that. Squeakbox has clearly breached COI, twice, despite a promise not to do so again after the first time, and has also lied about the second instance when specifically challenged on it. A month is long enough for Squeakbox to reflect on the nature of trust and the fragility of reputation, and to figure out to apologise to his client for making a fool of her.

I am aware that SqueakBox has made many other good contribs, so despite the seriousnes of this abuse I would have supported a warning if it wasn't for the lie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps a restriction on writing articles on "living people or organisations, or any edits for which SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) for". Reword as appropriate, IANAL. That way, it also covers any edits which aren't BLP or ORG-related, but which are still discovered as 'paid'. At present I don't have an opinion about blocks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support that restriction, and the wording looks fine by me. As above, I'd like to see a block as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Support any restriction, the stronger the better, as I've always found him ... difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Proposed restrictions

"SqueakBox is banned for an indefinite period from editing articles about living people or organisations, or any articles where there is a reasonable suspicion that SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) in exchange for editing. If an editor has concerns that this restriction has been broken, further sanctions, including a block, may be administered after a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard." - Sound good? No blocks just yet, but this is a good starting point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why put up with this at all? Permaban, and revert everything in sight that could possibly be affected by such COI. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permaban on what grounds? He'll just make another account, and we'd lose someone who's otherwise a good editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permaban on grounds of spamming and falsifying sources, with reasonable openness towards unbanning on appeal after 6 months (or 3 if you must) on the usual sorts of terms. 3 months and automatic unblock doesn't seem like enough. I don't see likely heavy COI in SqueakBox's top 35 edited articles by edit count: Cannabis (drug): 507 edits, Javier Solana: 480, Rastafari movement: 479, Honduras: 268, Pedophile movement: 253, Haile Selassie I: 240, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero: 188, Bob Marley: 168, Spanish language: 157, Fidel Castro: 140, List of Internet television providers: 139, 420 (cannabis culture): 134, Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman): 119, Manuel Zelaya: 116, Jimmy Wales: 108, Child pornography: 107, Ted Kaczynski: 106, Gary Glitter: 97, Pedophilia: 89, List of European television stations: 89, Deaths in 2008: 85, Augusto Pinochet: 84, Deaths in 2007: 82, Tony Blair: 80, La Ceiba: 73, Video clip: 73, Crack cocaine: 72, Hashish: 72, Child sexual abuse: 70, Hippie: 69, Saddam Hussein: 67, North American Man/Boy Love Association: 64, Cannabis smoking: 63, IP address: 63, Efraín Ríos Montt: 62. On the other hand they don't seem like really tasteful choices, and it continues in about the same way. "There's no point banning that person since s/he'll just sock anyway" is usually a really bad reason to not ban someone. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Though given his previous deception, if he's determined to carry on his paid editing antics I suppose he could sock round the restriction as well. Still, it's a start. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Something needs to be done about this since nothing has changed since I first brought this issue up over half a year ago. I've uncovered several of these paid editing articles that have bit the dust through AfD and SqueakBox has always assured me that he would be more open about this pratice in the future. He has not been open about it, calling the suggestion that he wrote his latest piece a "rash lie" despite being totally open about his connection to the SqueakBox account on freelancer.com. This would be a feasible solution to this ethically problematic practice. Them From Space 13:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should of course establish that the Freelancer account is not lying about being SqueakBox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It isn't - SqueakBox admitted that the same account was him during the previous ANI (see link in my first post). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't find any link which conforms this that squeakbox was the owner of the please-make-fake-sources account. It's kinda crucial, so please can you re-post the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For background info, this particular incident was regarding the J-sKy article and was discussed on ANI here. I don't think SqueakBox was related to this case, although my memory might not be serving me correctly. Them From Space 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's the link: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitation of fake sources[edit]

Before we close this, we should take note of the fact that the last time SqueakBox created an article for money ([Mario Zampedroni]) he went to that freelancer site asking someone to create fake sources he could use in the article. Here is the AN/I thread on the subject, and here is the request he made for the fake sources, mentioning that he is writing an "artist biography". This is the bid he placed to write the Zampedroni article, which was accepted. So, to recap:
1. A little less than a year ago SqueakBox creates an article on a non-notable Italian artist for pay.
2. On 23 March 2010, in and effort to have the article kept, he openly solicits "fake sources" for the article on freelancer.com.
3. On 25 March, he promises never to create another article for pay without being completely transparent about what he's doing.
4. On 21 July, an AN/I thread appears when someone notices his solicitation of fake sources, a thread to which SqueakBox never sees fit to respond.
5. On 3 November he creates another paid article, violating his previous pledge.
6. On 20 December he is confronted about this on his talk page. His response? "Stop talking rubbish." When shown detailed evidence, he replies "that is complete rubbish and I advise you to withdraw your rash lie. I havent received a penny for doing that article or any edits in connection with this subject." All clearly false statements. Although he continues to edit, SqueakBox has not seen fit to reply further, either at his talk page or on this thread. Apparently he thinks if he just keeps quiet it will all blow over like it did before.
I will also note that SqueakBox accepted at least one other project on freelancer.com, the nature of which is not available to non-logged in users.[2]
Conclusion: Nothing that SqueakBox says or does can be taken on trust. He should be banned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no insuperable reason against honest paid editing, or honest declared COI editing of any other sort: COI is inevitable, for few people would work on a subject they did not care about. The COI from payment is no worse than the multiple other forms of coi that are in escapable at Wikipedia, and is, arguably, not as disruptive as some sorts of ideological commitment. Since we cannot avoid it, better declared than undeclared, for it can be judged more visibly and openly. I think we have a right and a responsibility to insist upon such disclosure . I think that those who knowingly & repeatedly introduce bad articles for any reason need to be prevented from continuing, and have therefore agree with the earlier suggestion for a block; though there have been many blocks for edit warring, the earlier ones were for other matters, and there have been none since 2008. therefore, a month seems appropriate. I suggest that any attempt to evade this, or to again construct equally poor articles, will be met by a discussion about a permanent ban. Additionally, any further article writing for pay must be declared; if there is evidence otherwise, we should similarly proceed to a permanent ban. The only reason I do not do the block immediately, is that this discussion has lasted for only a few hours, and at the end of a major holiday weekend; there is a tendency here at AN/I to be over-precipitate; in the absence of major harm, we need some time for consideration . For fairness, we also need some time for a response. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We are talking about flat-out spamming. There's a big progression between "I get paid to work with computers, and sometimes edit computer-related articles (e.g. about algorithm theory)" (not much of a COI), through "I sometimes edit about products that I have used at work" (arguable COI), to "I write advocacy/spam promoting the products of the company where I work" (seriously bad COI). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - i think the creation of fake newspapers and other fakedsources is as erious issues. i have seen many articles in my area of expersietise (science and medicine and health) where a "source" was a link to someones blog or to a Google search of random terms; i think that this is a serious issue which is being ignored in favor of teh sexier and more effervescent paid editing issue. are you allowed to solicit someone to create fake sources for you to cite, regardles of whether or not you are a paid editor or not? User:Smith Jones 05:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously this is the real issue here, the open solicitation of fake sources and bald-faced mendacity about editing for pay after promising not to without full disclosure. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for explicitly noting this, Steven J. Anderson. Writing poorly sourced articles for financial gain is a problem; soliciting fraud to accomplish it is a problem of a different magnitude. I agree with DGG above both that some action should be taken and that we need due time to consider that action, the end goal of which should be both to prevent further misuse of Wikipedia and to impress upon the contributor the need to adjust his approach to the project. This can't continue. Deliberately attempting to insert fraudulent sources into the project undermines everything we stand for in the worst possible way. It is about as explicit a demonstration of "bad faith" as I can imagine. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update comment Please see below. I can't strike anything here specifically, but I see now that there are some problems with the presentation of events here and that there seems to be no evidence that Squeakbox ever did solicit fraudulent sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banning isn't yet the answer since he still makes constructive contributions when acting as a volunteer. The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions. I think the proposal above by Moonriddengirl is good first step. Of course if he violates this things may escalate, but we shouldn't go this far this soon. Them From Space 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? In the absence of auditing every assertion and claim in SqueakBox's edits to ensure that the sources they purport to cite are legitimate, and fairly represented, a definitive assessment of his contributions would be quite difficult. While such matters are usually taken on faith, the assumption no longer applies when refuted by definitive evidence of malice. SqueakBox has shown himself to be a thoroughly dishonest and unscrupulous editor who would violate WP:COI, solicit fake sources for sneaky vandalism, and who knows what else, all for a few dollars. The only appropriate response to such an immoral user is to be rid of them. Chester Markel (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take a look for yourself? His account has been registered on wikipedia for five and a half years. He has about 53,000 non-deleted edits of which 28,000 are to articles. Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I assume that he wouldn't have gotten away with editing for this long if he routinely misrepresented or faked sources. If any fraudulent sourcing occurred, it would have been camouflaged within legitimate edits, much like he hoped to conceal his WP:COI violations. SqueakBox knows full well that we can't audit everything he's contributed. Chester Markel (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will say something heretical, but I think if it is a needle, then it is not such a big drama. It's not like the rest of Wikipedia is perfectly sourced or something. - BorisG (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at maybe 100 diffs by now, mostly in icky subjects (checking out a socking theory that didn't hold up). I see some mildly tendentious editing in distasteful subjects,[3] some random gnoming (not always well-considered, e.g. [4] bypasses a redirect but slightly changes the connotation of the source), some reasonable vandalism reversion,[5] occasional addition of sourced info (TMI?), some well-meaning but clumsy removals,[6][7] etc. All of his editing is in a somewhat inarticulate style[8][9] (non-native English speaker? Spanish-language ref added: [10]). I haven't seen anything I'd consider to be a substantial contribution of quality content, but there's an awful lot of edits that I haven't looked at. I agree with Chester Merkel that evaluating a history this large is quite difficult. But my basic impression is we're dealing with (among other things) someone with a borderline WP:COMPETENCE problem everywhere he edits. Turning Wikipedia into a work-at-home scam for editors of this sort is the last thing we want. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? I've edited around him for years, and I would disagree with that premise; he is a tendentious and contentious editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so maybe his edit history is more spotty than I first thought. Should anything be done about this? I for one still support moonriddengirl's proposal above. I think it's a good first step, although others may think its too lenient. Them From Space 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really qualified to answer that: Wiki seems to have an unhelpfully high tolerance for disruptive editors along with a tendency to indef the wrong editors, and our standards for indeffing, blocking and banning are increasingly unclear to me. I'm just adding background for others to decide how to handle the current dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My path has crossed SqueakBox's from time to time over the years, & while I wouldn't say I'm a friend of his -- just look at our interaction at Talk:Shashamane, which led me to take this article off my watch list (although I try to monitor all Ethiopia-related articles) & ignore any problems it might have -- I find his latest emphasis of activities not only troubling, but bewildering. SqueakBox is a self-described white Rastafarian, whose previous mentions on WP:AN/I involved his crusade against pedophiles/child molesters -- not the profile of someone I'd expect to decide one day to use his Wikipedia account to make money writing crappy articles. It would be just like, if I may make the analogy, finding THF brought before WP:AN/I for being paid to write deletion-fodder articles on Marijuana-related topics (e.g., "Joe Blow is an influential political consultant who was responsible for successful ballot referenda legalizing marijuana in 37 states.") IMHO, SqueakBox's recent freelancing is a cynical act to make some money from Wikipedia -- a symptom of WikiBurnout. And if I am correct about this, there really isn't anything we can do about him other than to indefinitely block him; he doesn't want to play nice with others here any more. But before we seriously consider this, I'd like to give him a chance to tell his side of the story; I've been known to make mistakes, but I don't want banning someone from Wikipedia to be one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually I had the same speculation about motivation as you, and for the same reasons. and, like you, I do not want to do an indefinite ban on speculation. Even if we are right, people have burnout, stay away a while ,either voluntarily or because we enforce it, and some return and do OK after the break. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from very strange defence of Giovanni Di Stefano on the article's talk page - and this perhaps illustrates one of the downsides of paid editing, one naturally wonders if the defence was paid for - I remember SqueakBox as a positive contributor. Paid editing, as I have commented before, is far from the worst form of COI, and the comment that we should somehow be concerned from his customers' perspective if he produced sub-standard material is laughable. The only matters that need attention here are (minor) it would be good if paid contributors acknowledge their potential COI and (major) the request for fake sources - and unless these were actually used there is nothing we should be worrying about. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not suggesting sanctions on Squeakbox based on "his customers' perspective." I'm pointing out that, even with a COI, nothing stopped Squeakbox from writing a decent article, and that had he done so, I don't think we would have anything to complain about, even if he never disclosed his payment: a gap in the encyclopedia would have been filled, and we'd all be better off. It's because Squeakbox wrote a bad stub that was indistinguishable from spam that there's now a lot of hullaballoo. (This is entirely separate from the new, and much more serious, allegation of attempting to falsify sources.) COI is only a reason to scrutinize edits closely for NPOV and new articles for N/V/RS. There's nothing inherently wrong with editing with a COI, or even an undisclosed COI, so long as the edits comply with Wikipedia policy--edits that don't comply with Wikipedia policy are problematic even when there is no COI. And if the consensus is otherwise, we need to modify what WP:COI says. THF (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're doing speculation, I'll go for "economic necessity" rather than burnout. I can sympathize: the economy sucks, decent jobs are hard to find, and lots of people have to do what they can to make ends meet. For reasons similar to NOTTHERAPY, we should sympathize with anyone in such a plight, but at the same time we must not let them turn Wikipedia into a spam sewer that other people then have to clean up. Rich F: paid editing of the form "Professor So-and-So gets a grant to develop a series of FA's about astronomy or biology, announces it on wiki, and engages in discussion about what these articles should contain" is one thing; spammers should be banned. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming is bad, however creating articles is not necessarily spamming. The subject may be notable but have insufficient wiki-clue to be able to create an article that lasts 5 minutes. If they pay for the article to be created, and we decide that it is notable then we have gained an article we otherwise wouldn't have. It needs, of course, to comply with VERIFIABLE, NPOV, COPYVIO etc. But this is true of any article. And indeed the discussion above shows a paid editor (or one who wanted to be) setting that out as a pre-condition of work - which is of course the ethical thing to do, as the community may (should) insist that that is the case. All Wikipedia articles are stuff "that other people have to clean up". Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If he was doing this simply for the money, assuming good faith would lead me to expect SqueakBox to have written a far better article. He knows better than this. The article which triggered this latest thread was something any run-of-the-mill PR flack could have created -- which would have either been greatly rewritten or deleted, & the author banned from Wikipedia. And as The Wordsmith & others have pointed out, when this problem was brought to his attention his first response was to say "Stop talking rubbish" & demand the person retract "your rash lie"; it wasn't to come clean & discuss the matter constructively. One only acts like this if one doesn't give a fuck about Wikipedia -- which that is why I have suggested an indef block for SqueakBox. Because if he is that alienated from or disillusioned with Wikipedia, there is no imaginable editting restriction that will keep him from harming the project or wasting other editor's time. -- llywrch (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this has been addressed already, but how do we know Squeakbox wrote the fake sources post? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See here: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thats fair then. if it wasn an honest mistake than it was an honest mistake. i see no reason to have him taken tou back and shot over this; the reason i reacted so vhemently aeanier was because i had noticed a spring of shoddy and obviously totted up or falsifeid sources in some of the articls I edited and I was concerned that certain editors might have been doing this on puprpose. it wasnt very likely but it was possible, and it wastes a lot of valuable time trying to read through sources again and again to make sure that they arent being misrepresented or faked. since squeakbox admitted his or her erroir, there is no problem between me nad him regarding this issue of paid fake sources. User:Smith Jones 21:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. So if I've understood correctly SqueakBox wasn't sikkant, i.e. he did not write that. I'm glad, because that would have surprised me greatly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TL:DR nutshell: this section seems to be misleading, and I suspect that the header and timeline should be revised. I gather from his note at his user talk page that he had responded to that individual, bidding to create an article, but withdrew it with an indication that he may not have thoroughly read the ad. Not a stellar moment, but a pretty significant difference from actively soliciting fake sources!

Evaluating the timeline

Now that I am at my own computer and looking more closely at the timeline offered in the opening post of this section, I see that it may be inaccurate in several points:

"1. A little less than a year ago SqueakBox creates an article on a non-notable Italian artist for pay." Y That's Mario Zampedroni. It had not a reliable source in sight when it was A7ed in July.
"2. On 23 March 2010, in and effort to have the article kept, he openly solicits "fake sources" for the article on freelancer.com." ? This solicitation for fake sources is dated from July, not March. It could be connected with this article, but according to the archived ANI thread, it's related to J-sKy, which SqueakBox never edited (though evidently he "bid" on the job and later retracted it). Is there substantial reason now to believe that he wrote the solicitation and that it was connected to Mario Zampedroni? If not, I think the timeline above should be corrected. It seems to be wrong in date, article connection and origin of solicitation.
"3. On 25 March, he promises never to create another article for pay without being completely transparent about what he's doing." Y That's true; he did say that here.
"4. On 21 July, an AN/I thread appears when someone notices his solicitation of fake sources, a thread to which SqueakBox never sees fit to respond." ? SqueakBox was not the author of J-sKy; that was User:Sikkant. It is true that SqueakBox did not address questions raised about his bidding on that solicitation in the AN/I thread. The timeline above should probably also be corrected to note that it was not his solictation of fake sources.
"5. On 3 November he creates another paid article, violating his previous pledge." Y That's true; [11], [12].

It looks like what we have here is a contributor creating articles for pay that he should realize, based on his time in saddle, lack sufficient reliable sources to clear notability. This seems problematic under WP:COI, and it is particularly problematic that he previously indicated he would not do this and not only did it again but denied it: [13]. This is a problem of a much lower magnitude than falsifying or soliciting fake sources, but still a problem. Paid editing is often a "caveat emptor" situation, but if we know that a contributor is creating subpar articles for money and particularly one who is selling his reputation ("On wikipedia I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs" emphasis added), then it becomes a bit of a black eye for us if we permit him to continue. SqueakBox needs to either abide by his pledge not to sell his services as an editor or to disclose his behavior when he does so, and he needs to make sure that any articles he does create in this fashion meet all relevant policies and inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a block to tarnish his wikireputation so he can make less money with it? It seems warranted based on the above. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) we don't block for that reason (b) I don't think you could tarnish this block log a lot further. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that we shouldnt block him based on just damaging his reputation since that is resprsehnbile. HOWEVER, i am concerned about weather or not we are legally obligated to notify his employers about his extensive lbock history. they might be paying him with the expectiaton that he maintain a good reputation and contribute aritlces that they can exploit since they willbe around for a while. if he has presented himself as a respected editor in good standing but he has all these blocks, i am concerned that he might not be as effective at his paid editing as he could be and that we might be held responsible for weakening his efforts and damaging his work product with these blocks. is there anyway to oversight his blocks so that they arent publically viewable until he has a chance to respond to each one? User:Smith Jones 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to respond[edit]

SqueakBox has been editing today, but has not responded on his talk page or at this ANI, which he has been informed of. I started this ANI hoping that (a) he would respond adequately, and (b) if not, some action on the obvious problems may be taken. There is a danger that neither is likely to happen as the conversation has been fragmented, especially by the somewhat spurious/stale fake sources issue. Does the community believe any action should be taken here, or not? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His failure to respond to the issues raised compounds the problem. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: Serial mendacity (the "fake sources" stuff is particularly beyond the pale), refusal to respond to concerns, broken promises, etc... Whatever one's views on paid editing, this kind of paid editing shouldn't be tolerated. He's already demonstrated he's going to game the system. Eith block him indef, or unblock all the past paid editors and editors blocked because there usernames were obviously promotional blah blah blah (which is a lot more honest and transparent than this). This isn't even a hard one.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has evidence been produced to substantiate the "fake sources" stuff? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it turned out to be an misunderstanding, MoonriddenGirl. SqueakBox has since epxlained to the satisfaction what had happened and there was no tintent to deceive or present "fake sources' (whatever that means) into Wikipedia. SqueakBox is not legaly or policyly obligated to respond to WP:ANI accusations and no one can force him or control what he says on his talk page. I dont think that the spurious or fake sources issue hshould be held against him since it was blown out of proportion and taken out of context and apart from that he has done nothing wrong re: paid editing. this issue should be closed as resolved in my view. User:Smith Jones 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fake source issue is just one of the charges against Squeakbox. Will Beback talk 23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the point, really. Can we take action against a user for serially lying to the community? Undoubtedly his edits have been sub-optimal (i.e. the paid articles that got deleted), but is the mendacity (i.e. lying about not repeating that failure) deserving of a block or restriction? Because frankly, if that's not the case, can I unblock User:Thekohser, because the issues are trivially different? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block. This is just not what wikipedia is for. Why should everyone else sweat blood to create good content when an experienced editor who definitely knows better is doing this sort of crap? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole dysfunctional system is supposed to be built on trust. Liars are abusers of trust, whether serial sockpuppet abusers like benjiboi or this guy, who hasn't been caught socking yet but is still a proven liar. Kick him to the curb. Teh community (whatever that really is) does this every day. Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. But if he isn't indeffed, i wholeheartedly endorse unblocking every account ever blocked for paid editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. Because a person with this number of edits is an asset to wikipedia. Thus it is a balancing act. COI policy is unenforceable. The problem is not paid editing, the problem is crappy articles on non-notable subjects. Maybe he needs to be blocked until he comes clean. - BorisG (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block for at least a month, possibly indef. It's pity that Squeakbox didn't respond to the discussion here; not because zie is obliged to, but because zie might have have offered some reason for me to reconsider my support for a block. However, squeakbox has already confirmed that zie created a previous article with an undeclared COI, at the same time promised not to do so again. That promise has been broken, no defence has been offered, so let's get on with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

has he logGed in yet?? is there any proof that he has logged into his account since all this started? DeeRD (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See Special:Contributions/SqueakBox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good then. I was hoping to get his help on an unrelated matter and he has yet to respond to me. I was just concerned that he might not be logged in and might have become preoccupied, especially over the recent holiday season and overlooked this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeRD (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for his ban is inappropriate; the idea is to get him to stop this unhelpful behavior, & if all reasonable efforts fail, then he is shown the door. This is why I recommended an indefinite block: indefinite as in "can be lifted at any time", not as in "an infinite period". An indef block might just work as a clue-by-four to get his attention -- which we don't appear to have. Instead of showing him the door, we give him the choice to either start working with the community. Or find another hobby. -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing to a close[edit]

It looks like the community are in favour of a block, but I'm yet to see any solid policy basis upon which to make such a block. The problems people have brought up are:

Squeakbox has a tendency to make poor-quality paid-editing articles and has incurred the displeasure of the community previously
Squeakbox has abused the trust of both his clients and the community both by a.) continuing to make poor articles and b.) not declaring a COI (as he undertook to do)
Squeakbox already has a massive block log, so a short block (less than three months) probably wouldn't have an impact on his editing
Squeakbox isn't responding to this discussion and seems unlikely to do so

So, folks. The options, if we don't want to see this at ANI again, seem to be that we either "continue monitoring and fixing Squeakbox's edits" or we "block Squeakbox until the community can be sure he's not going disrupt the project by creating sloppy paid articles for cash". Which is it to be? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previously I believed some sort of restriction might be the best course of action. But since SqueakBox is effectively sticking two fingers up to the community by not commenting, I would suggest an indefinite (not infinite, of course) block may be the only way to ensure a dialogue with the user. As for worrying about the "policy" behind a block, WP:BLOCK says "(blocks may be used to) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.". Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this block wont interfere with his ability to comment on his talk page right? while i am uncomfortable with the idea lf blocking someone just to get their attention, it might be necessaryin this case since he wont speak to anyone about these issues. my only concern is that he should have SOME outlet to come to the table, at least on his talkpage if nowhere else, and that all discussion should be CC'd to his talkpage or redirected there to make sure that if he DOES change his mind and want to angage with us, it is at least possibl.e User:Smith Jones 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this matter has been slightly different from CMLITC's. SqueakBox was caught writing an article on a non-notable subject for money, & agreed to stop writing articles for money. Then he was discovered writing a crappy article on a notable subject for money. (And as THF pointed out above, had he written a suitable article instead, only those stridently opposed to paid editing would have cared.) When confronted with this discovery, he responded by saying it was a lie on his talk page, & since then has ignored all further discussion. Maybe there is no explicit policy against everything SqueakBox has done in this instance, & many would argue his departure would be a net loss to the project, but do we really want someone volunteering who is disrupting Wikipedia in this manner? If someone has a better solution than a block or a ban to stop his low-grade misbehavior, I'm willing to hear it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'comment - if his main crime her eis writing a"crappy article" that is otherwise on a notable subject is and is allowed to be on the Wikipedia, why shouod he be blocked for this? every article on Wikipeida starts out weak and stubby; that is why this is a collaborative process, because no one prson can turn out a brilliant, Encyclopedia Britannica style article on their first try all alone. i myslef have made many articles such as Jan Scholten. Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy and Manuel Bonnet that were initlally poorly written and almost on the verge of being deleted; but I was able, with the minor assistance of some other editors, to make this articles into the good and high-quality writing that you can find at those articles today. if I had been blocked simply because the very initial effort was not as good as what is there now, many articles would have gone unwriten and we would have lost an excellent editor. lets not make a mistake by BANNING SqueakBox instead of just doing a reasonable indefinite block. User:Smith Jones 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Block This is really beyond the pale. There are legitimate concerns being raised here, SqueakBox is hurting the encyclopedia by promoting non-notable subjects and making poor articles about possible notable subjects for money, he lied about his activities, `and he won't respond here. Block for at least three months but preferably indefinitely so that this he will be forced to engage the community in regards to this.

SqueakBox has now posted an unblock request[edit]

The appeal is at User talk:SqueakBox#OmniPeace. I regret, because I like Squeak and have previously found him a dedicated editor, that the appeal does not address the communities concerns; that he was prepared to offer such poor quality edits for pay, and that he has not addressed the fact he had already undertaken not to make such edits previously - which undertaking he did not hold to. The fact he has not recieved payment is, I feel, irrelevant. Squeak needs to acknowledge the communities viewpoint in the matter, and give believable undertakings to address the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I have found a pleasant repentance in the unblock request "I wont be editing the Beber Silverstein article again or ever accept a paid contract re wikipedia again" there was also "I didnt even know there was an issue" which seems to contradict what LeeHeardvanU reports above, suggesting Squeak is not fully on board perhaps. I don't think an unblock request can be properly considered so early on. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Squeak has previously made undertakings. On the 25th March 2010 xe posted "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing" here. Then on 28th October the Freelancer website received the following bid: "Hi, This looks just the kind of job I specialize in. On wikipedia I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs". I agree that a block is appropriate, either a lengthy (3 month?) one or an indef to be lifted when xe accepts that this behaviour has been inappropriate. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep him blocked; he has no reason to edit, he is being disruptive and he is being paid so I vote Keep Blocked. --Hinata talk 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The message is clear: never be open about paid editing. 217.235.17.209 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; it is Squeak's lack of openness about the recent commission that is the problem. Paid editing is not a hanging offence. Telling fellow editors xe will be open in future, and then concealing a commission, may be. It's the concealment that's the mistake, not any openness. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I met a paid editor only this morning who, frankly, is rather a pleasant chap and writes rather good articles before submitting them for review by other people. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The unblock request seems disingenuous. He is again asserting that he was not paid for the job; this may be technically true (perhaps they didn't come through), but it's undeniable that he asked to be paid for the job and had every reasonable expectation that he would be. He also claims to have been unaware of the ANI conversation, which is implausible. He was notified that it would be going to ANI on 12/26 and notified that it was on ANI on 12/27. He edited on the 29th and 30th. Certainly, he may be very busy in real life at the moment, but it's not likely that he would have failed to check his talk page on either occasion, and there were no messages on other subjects to distract him or to trigger the "you've got messages" bar. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he makes it explicit that he won't ever bid on a single wikipedia-related project on sites such as elance and freelancer, than I'd be good for an unblock. But he needs to be honest about this. The current unblock request is the same wikilawyering he's always done when confronted with this. He states he "never received a penny" for the article, but he doesn't acknowledge whether he made the bid in the first place (which its obvious that he did). Oftentimes payment for Wikipedia-related freelancer projects is delayed until after the buyer is confident the article won't be deleted. Them From Space 13:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remain Blocked We should be sending a clear message to people such as Squeakbox. Editing for money is extremely dangerous to the project, as all kinds of blackhattery can occur. Phearson (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blocked, he was notified of the discussion here, and continued to edit until he was blocked. Disingenuous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Themfromspace wrote above: "Oftentimes payment for Wikipedia-related freelancer projects is delayed until after the buyer is confident the article won't be deleted." I had no idea this was so common. If it really has become common enough that punters and editors know what usually happens, and the punters know to withhold payment to wait for AfD, then it's time we introduced some careful rules about what's acceptable so editors know how to behave. As for Squeakbox, I wouldn't want to see him stay blocked, but he does need to come here and explain. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blocked for now. I can't see at this point how Squeakbox can regain trust, but I am open to the possibility that if zie discusses the issues, then consensus on the block could shift. I would have supported an unblock-to-allow-discussion-at-ANI, but Squeakbox hasn't requested that ... and the "I was too busy" excuse doesn't add up, 'cos Squeak edited elsewhere. On the substance of the issue, the "won't do it again promise" is inadequate when we've heard that before, and the "never received a penny" assertion looks disingenuous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) In March, it appears that Squeakbox failed to disclose a conflict of interest, was caught at it, and undertook to always make such disclosures in the future. He has apparently again failed to disclose a conflict of interest, and his unblock statement of "I have never received a penny from Beber Silverstein" has shades of disingenuity — as others have noted, this may simply mean "I didn't get paid because I got caught". While Squeakbox assures us in his unblock request that he will not "ever accept a paid contract re wikipedia again", the community seems less inclined to be trusting this time around. I would suggest a much more specific framework, if the community feels that unblocking Squeakbox is worthwhile.

Squeakbox will not accept compensation (broadly construed, including but not limited to cash, benefits, discounts, memberships, other in-kind consideration, donations to charitable organizations on his behalf, etc.) for the purposes of Wikipedia article writing (creation or editing) for one year from the date of his unblock. Squeakbox will not bid on contracts for such tasks on elance, freelancer, or similar sites during this time.
After one year of compliance with #1, Squeakbox may accept compensation for article creation and editing, but must clearly and explicitly disclose the existence of any compensation arrangements or potential conflict of interest (broadly construed). He does not need to disclose the detailed amounts or nature of compensation, only acknowledge that it exists. This disclosure must clearly and unambiguously appear on the article's talk page and on either his User or User talk page under a suitably descriptive section heading (Paid editing or Potential conflict of interest would suit).
Squeakbox will similarly disclose on the article's talk page any off-wiki contact he has with an article's subject, as well as with the subject's friends, associates, or agents where any discussion related to Wikipedia takes place. (This disclosure is only required if Squeakbox subsequently edits the article or its talk page.) This disclosure is required even if no compensation or consideration is exchanged.
Disclosures described in #2 and #3 should ideally precede the edits they relate to, but in no case should take place more than one hour after.
Squeakbox will disclose to the community (on WP:AN, with clear reference to these conditions) the complete list of articles for which he has received any compensation (broadly construed, as in part 1) within 7 days of being unblocked.
Failure to abide by these terms will be grounds for a summary block of up to three months by any administrator, subject to review (and upward or downward adjustment of length) at AN/I. The one-year timer on #1 will be reset after the expiry of any such block. Late disclosures under remedy #4 may be handled on a case-by-case basis. In general a voluntary self-disclosure – however late – that comes before he gets caught should be treated more leniently than one which comes after; nevertheless, such errors should be extraordinarily rare.

Did I miss anything? Truth be told, I don't think that framework really extends much beyond the sort of disclosures editors with a potential conflict of interest ought to be making anyway. I make no comment on the appropriate duration for Squeakbox's present block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When It comes to money, money wins at the end of the day. I bet you that he will just continue working on the article until he is caught again, either through this account, or sockpuppetry. Phearson (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe above is too complex and unenforceable. Keep blocked until he tells his full story and then decide. There is no need to impose year-long hardship ban. Just insist on notification and/or mandatory reviews of all new or rewritten articles. - BorisG (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interim oppose Having reviewed the discussion on his talk page, SqueakBox doesn't appear to understand what the issue is -- that he promised to stop creating articles for pay, & went back on his word. I can understand him being too busy to participate adequately on Wikipedia (I received an angry ultimatum from my wife to stay off the computer Christmas weekend), but I can't imagine any veteran Wikipedian having a quick look-in & not checking the new messages she/he has been alerted to on her/his talk page. Not acting on them is another matter; although a simple "I'm busy in real life -- can't respond now" would have avoided a lot of trouble for him.) What I want to see from SqueakBox before I can consent to lifting this temporary block is a substantive engagement with the concerns raised here, not brusque responses like "I have received no payment from Beber Silverstein" ("the check is in the mail" is not an adequate defense) or "all I want is to edit my tv and other articles" (then don't offer to write articles on Wikipedia for pay in the first place). -- llywrch (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, if there's no policy barring it, absolutely nobody here should be saying that an editor cannot accept money for editing/creating an article. That's complete bunk. I can see potential legal issues from trying to do that when you allow other editors who do paid work remain unbothered. The problem doesn't seem to be that he's paid, but that it's not disclosed. So make that the requirement - that if SqueakBox accepts a commission, they must disclose that fact on the talk page of the article in question. And then just treat it like every other article. And if he doesn't, block him for THAT reason. But saying "No paid editing for this editor, but this other one is fine" is not right. Ravensfire (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that this editor has evidently written bad articles for pay. WP:COI is not a problem with involved or paid contributors who put the needs of the project first. An editor who writes well-sourced neutral articles on notable subjects is doing a service for the project whether he is also getting paid for it or not. Editors who take money to write content that lacks reliable sources and cannot clear notability guidelines (when I gather they should know better) are doing something else entirely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy is WP:PROMOTION. If there is any promotional intent behind the creation/editing of an article, it is in violation of our editing policy. Them From Space 21:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the policy says - it notes the issues in complying with WP:COI and the appearance of promotional content within article space, but nothing of the intent. Wikipedia:Paid editing was the proposed policy, which is currently moribund. The split in the community as regards "editors for hirer" should not be fought over the issue of whether Squeakbox is able to give believable undertakings for his future conduct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intent is precisely the issue. Promotional intent isn't appropriate and should not be welcomed. If that isn't already explicit within policy it should be made so. Them From Space 15:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has gone on for long enough. Please address this within current policy and pursue any changes through appropriate means, not at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read current policy and practice as deterring those with promotional intentions. Editors are routinely blocked as "promotion only accounts", editors are blocked for having promotional usernames, and promotional work is often deleted outright, through CSD or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a means to promote one's own interests and one's intent is key in determining whether his actions are promotional or good-faith. Them From Space 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of judging on intent is ridiculous; people often do not know their own intent, let alone intent of others. Promotional content is rightfully deleted but neutral and reliable content is useful regardless if intent is promotion or whatever. - BorisG (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ravensfire. Write good articles and let them stand or fall on their merits. Why you wrote the article is almost always irrelevant. Disclose COI if it's at all likely to be relevant, but writing for pay is not, and should not, be forbidden. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lar; the problem here is the combination of undeclared-COI, bad article, and denial of COI when challenged. The desire of some editors to seek a complete ban on paid editing is a policy change which should be proposed elsewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone find a consensus here please?[edit]

Squeakbox's unblock request has been on hold for quite some time now, it would be useful if someone could accept it, decline it, or ask him for some undertaking of future behaviour; I clearly cannot do this myself as I am the blocking admin. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nakon 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon, all you have done is declined his request to be unblocked, based on a lack of consensus here. As a result, SqueakBox has simply posted another request to be unblocked -- instead of responding with a very understandable, "What the fuck does that mean?" How does a "no consensus achieved" result mean you keep someone blocked? I've been here on Wikipedia for over eight years, have participated in many debates on policy, & believe that SqueakBox should remain blocked, & I don't understand your reasoning here. -- llywrch (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch has a point. I was about to point out that the unblock request had been reposted. It should either be accepted or declined or modified. If declined, it would fall into that grey area of an indefinite block where no admin appears willing to unblock. Maybe an unblock to allow Squeakbox to contribute to this discussion, with the unblock coming with a restriction not to edit articles, but that might not work out very well in practice. I think any unblock restrictions should not refer to paid editing (an issue unresolved at the community level), but to WP:COI. Warn Squeakbox about failure to declare COI and require him to declare any potential conflict of interest in the future (the same applies to other paid editors). It all depends on whether you trust Squeakbox to declare such COI in the future or not. There should also be more attention paid to getting community consensus on paid editing. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for confirmation that any COI will be declared; if it is, we have no problem under current policy. If it is not, then Squeakbox is blocked again. I'm willing to unblock, or to concur with someone else's unblock, if we get a satisfactory response. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those terms makes sense to me. They're simple, & enforceable. Anyone else agree to this? -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would like to hear from SqueakBox what actually happened here. The only thing we have heard from him is that he hasn't received payment for this commission. To me, it sounds like a way of sort of denying he accepted the commission, while still being able to backtrack. So what happened there? I'd like to know what he believes he has done right, and what he has done wrong (if anything), and how he sees his edits in relation to WP:COI. Further, I'd like to hear why he went off on ThemFromSpace on his user talk ('that is complete rubbish and I advise you to withdraw your rash lie. '). Also, I would like to hear if he has done any paid editing in the past, as is the insinuation in his add (the kind of thing he specialises in). Further, I believe every further conflict of interest, or potential conflict of interest should be reported by him on WP:COIN. If those questions are answered in a satisfying way, I see no problem in letting him return to editing, either paid or unpaid. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UltraExactZZ suggests asking SB for "confirmation that any COI will be declared". We've been there before: got the confirmation, but he broke it and blustered when confronted with evidence. What exactly is the point of repeating the cycle when SB's attitude remains one of contempt or COI concerns? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the alternative? Keeping him blocked indef? There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for that. An involuntairy wikibreak carried out as a longish, but finite block, terms between 1 month and 1 year have been mentioned before. I can't really see how that would help. Possibly 'getting the signal across' but I don't really believe in that. I could see something in a topic ban, including BLP's, products, brands and companies, in addition to the the other requirements (declaring any COI, etc). That is extremely broad, but it might work. If he gives satisfying answers to all questions, I believe the best course of action is to unblock, and have a possible positive outcome. If he violates those terms again, then we are here again. One of the possible outcomes is that there will be a consensus to block indef then. Provided obviously, that I am correct in thinking that there is currently no consensus to block indef. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is a consensus here to keep him blocked until he comes clean about what he has been up to. Whether that's indef depends on Squeakbox. Full and frank answers to your questions on his talk might help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice of questions. I'm also awaiting his answers. I'd be good for an unblock if he replies completely and honestly and promises to disclose future conflicts of interest. Them From Space 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what SqueakBox wrote in response to Martijn Hoekstra's questions. I'll leave it to the rest of you to determine whether this answers Martijn's questions. -- llywrch (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn Hoekstra, I did not believe I had a conflict of interest in editing because I believed that the company were notable and had no idea that they planned to publicize their wikipedia article in the way that they did. The rash lie I referred to was the lie of the Beber person claiming they had paid me, I wasn't saying that ThemFromSpace was lying, he wasn't but he was stating a lie form this person at Beber who falsely claimed they have paid me. Its utter rubbish, I have never received a penny from Beber Silverstein. I can assure you that if unblocked I would never take on a paid editing contract again. This is partly due to this experience but also cos my life circumstances have changed greatly since I wrote that article and I wouldn't be in a position to take on any paid work outside my job anyway. As far as I am aware there are no other COIs you dont know about, my contribs are publicly available and speak for themselves. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 06:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That answer makes it quite clear that despite having been around the hoops on this before, Squeak has no understanding of COI. The conflict of interest arose because Squeak took on a paid contract, not because the client publicised the article ... and the emphasis on publicity suggests that he thought he'd have gotten away with not declaring the COI if his client hadn't launched a fanfare. Plus, of course, he's still focusing on getting paid (which is a private matter between him and his client), rather than on taking on the contract (which is where the COI arose).

No sign of any clue, so keep him blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about this bit of what he said? "I can assure you that if unblocked I would never take on a paid editing contract again. This is partly due to this experience but also cos my life circumstances have changed greatly since I wrote that article and I wouldn't be in a position to take on any paid work outside my job anyway." Unless his job contract includes editing Wikipedia (he should be asked that), then that seems enough. He should probably also be asked why he didn't stick to his previous commitments on this issue. I agree he has misunderstood COI. Carcharoth (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent that Squeakbox doesn't have a clear understanding of what constitutes a 'conflict of interest' with respect to Wikipedia, and I suspect that he will find it difficult to be unblocked until that changes — or until he agrees to work under unambiguous disclosure rules which will allow other editors to help him evaluate potential future conflicts. (I am also finding the circumstances around the Beber case increasingly bizarre; while Squeakbox asserts – and I am willing to believe – that he did not actually receive payment for his article, as far as I know he has never given an unambiguous response to the question of whether or not the creation of the article was prompted by Beber's company's offer of payment.)

Perhaps a simple 'full disclosure' rule of thumb would be best.

If Squeakbox edits or creates any Wikipedia article following off-wiki discussion with, or requests made by, the article subject or the subject's agents or employees, Squeakbox must disclose the nature of this contact or request on the article talk page. If Squeakbox receives – or is offered or promised – any consideration or compensation (broadly construed, including but not limited to cash, benefits, discounts, memberships, other in-kind consideration, donations to charitable organizations on his behalf, etc.) he should additionally place a notification on WP:COIN.

In cases where he is considering creation of a paid article, he might also be well-advised to initially create the article in his own userspace and seek COIN review prior to moving the article to mainspace. If Squeakbox is rigorous in following the above guideline – and is prepared to acknowledge that sometimes the community will overrule his judgement about the notability or reliability of some subjects and sources – he should be able to avoid any further trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the assurance that he will not take on paid projects again, and with this requirement, I have no objection to unblocking. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the questions I posed, with the request for a clear and elaborate answer.

1, Could you explain what happened?

2, Did you, or did you not place the add?

3, Do you believe you had a conflict of interest with your edits, and if so, why didn't you declare it?

4, What happened here on your talkpage? Why did you tell ThemFromSpace to 'retract is rash lie' (paraphrased)?

5, do you believe you did anything wrong in this instance? If so, what?

6, if you would go back to editing, and would consider paid editing again (which I don't really object to if done right), will you pledge to declare it on WP:COIN, making sure no borderline cases would escape?

7. Have you edited with a conflict of interest before, that haven't come to light yet? If so, where? (again, including borderline cases would instill more trust in me, then having them turn up later).

1 remains unanswered. 2 remains unanswered. 3 is answered, in that he doesn't believe he had any conflict of interest. 4 is given an answer that sounds implausable to me. 5 starts out unsanswered. He has elaborated now, stating he believes he did something wrong, but not what. 6 isn't answered, though there are some comments here, that he won't be editing for any pay anymore. On the one hand, that should suffice. On the other, he has said that before. I would be much happier with a pledge that anything that might come close to a COI is reported on WP:COIN than accepting that he won't be doing any paid editing, and coming back here later in some other situation where no paid editing has occurred, but something similar that we didn't think of. Maybe I'm nitpicking here. 7. is anwered with a no (though if he doesn't believe this instance was a COI, then there is plenty of room there).

That leaves us with three unanswered questions (1, 2 and 5), two very badly answered questions (3 and 4), and two reasonable answers (~~5 and 6~~ 6 and 7). I am not supporting an unblock at this time, untill some clear and answers are given that instil more faith in that we won't be here again in say 6 months time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think SB's comments about editing for pay in the future (question 6) are reasonably satisfactory, and his "I wasn't paid" defense smells of legal literalism. He seems to be saying that he won't do it again because he doesn't have time (or maybe contractual freedom) to do it anymore. So what happens when that situation changes? He sounds a bit like a child molester insisting he's innocent because the kid didn't actually put out for him, then promising not to recidivate because he's not allowed to be alone with his sister's kids anymore. -99.29.184.253 (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock - Whether paid or not, the intent was to create an article for money, and not notify the wp:COIN. Now understandably he might of not known about that particular rule about COIN. But whether he received money or not, he acted in the interest of Beber, and not that of the goals of the project of creating an unbiased encyclopedia. As for claims of not understanding what a conflict of interest is, why not ask him to research the subject and post a paragraph or two on the subject, and then unblock him. Phearson (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should go without saying that equating Squeakbox's undisclosed conflict of interest – even given the fact that this has been a problem on more than one occasion, and that he has been less than forthcoming with us this time around – with child molestation is patently absurd. The IP editor who made the statement above should be aware that he will be blocked if he makes that sort of inflammatory and hyperbolic comparison again.

Regarding Phearson's suggestion that we assign Squeakbox an essay before we let him out of detention — well, he's not in the fifth grade. While it would without doubt be to his benefit to understand the concept of a conflict of interest in order to avoid future trouble, it is not strictly necessary as long as he is prepared to follow the (admittedly more cautious, but entirely unambiguous) provisions I outlined above. Frankly, given his previous conduct, even if he did write an essay I wouldn't be comfortable trusting him to successfully understand and apply the definition of a conflict of interest sufficiently well to avoid difficulties. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to Black Kite's question[edit]

So am I correct to conclude that there is a consensus here to keep SqueakBox blocked for the immediate future? (By "immediate future", I mean a period measured in weeks or months, after which he can put another request on his talk page for unblocking or follow the terms of Wikipedia:Standard offer.) But even if I'm correct about that point, are we agreed on why he remains blocked?

I think it's fair to say this case involves a many different issues, but the one issue I would like clarified here is that SqueakBox was not blocked simply for writing an article in return for payment, either promised or received. While I don't think there is yet a clear consensus allowing editors to write articles for pay, I do believe there is no consensus prohibiting it. Otherwise, this block may be used in the future to justify sanctions against editors who create or edit articles, & the only objection to their contributions is that they received some form of compensation for their efforts. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy reflects practice. A lot of people who engage in paid editing get blocked. The immediate causes may be soapboxing, using Wikipedia for promotion, sock-puppetry, lying to the community, failure to respond to criticism, etc. I think this is an example of how paid editing is often incompatible with Wikipedia. I don't think we can say here that the user was or was not blocked simply because of paid editing. He engaged in set of behaviors that led to his block. I agree, though, that the user is under an indefinite block, not a ban. He can reflect on his errors and, after a suitable period, come back to the community requesting the block be lifted. Will Beback talk 23:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to accept his assertion that he will not engage in paid editing, and unblock. At this point, a further block seems to me like punishment. Obviously, any further paid or COI editing will be one time too many for anybody's patience. (I'm not necessarily totally opposed to paid or COI editing if done right, it's just that it seems essential in the circumstance for this particular editor not to do either, in order to restore confidence in his work.) DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not supporting an unblock until he provides some clarity on what has been going on. I find the explanation he has provided to the community lacking. The original reason the block was placed in the first place, is that he wasn't responding to the communities concerns on ANI. I don't think that has changed much. I'm not saying that editors should pounce on every ounce of drama spilled on ANI and revolve in it . Yet if there is a long discussion going on, something more than eight lines, that can be summorised as "I received no money in this case, I don't think I had any conflict of interest, and I won't do it again"

Having said that, I'd also like to note that I have had some serious content disputes with this editor, which probably doesn't make me the best person to judge on the issue. I think my opinion on the unblock is clear, I don't support it for now, as I don't think the reason of the block (not clarifying to the community what went on, so there can be an informed discussion about it) has been addressed. Yet I don't want the fact that I don't support an unblock in itself be a reason not to unblock. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a last comment of meta discussion (which I indented a bit more, as it isn't really part of the main story here), I think we're walking down a strange path here. First events happen around SqueakBox, that are brought to ANI. There is some discussion, but no input from SqueakBox himself, so pretty much nobody is willing to speak out any clear judgement, until he has had his say, and his statements on the matter can be taken into account. As a desperate measure, SqueakBox is blocked indefinately, because there seems to be consensus that until he facilitates the discussion by taking part of it, we are uncomfortable with his editing. The message is roughly "make a clear statement of what is going on, so we can properly discuss it" No clear statements follow, so there still can't be much of a discussion or judgement. After a while, everybody (and that's including me) really want to get things over with, and an unblock discussion follows, seemingly with no intention of getting back to the original discussion if he's unblocked. Is this horse dead, or are we just 'done playing' with it? If there isn't going to be a discussion about the original problem anymore, why did we block him for not coming forward with information that can get the discussion on track? This horse seemed to have died of old age, rather than beating, yet the original discussion has never came to a real start, nor a conclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this discussion[edit]

There is no consensus to unblock Squeakbox. There is a consensus to consider an unblock request from Squeakbox if it is accompanied by a clear explanation and acknowledgement of what has happened ... but it's now three weeks since this discussion opened, and we haven't had that.

As a result there is nothing more to discuss here for now. A new discussion can be opened if and when Squeakbox makes a further request for unblocking.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to keep this page open. Any new activity should start fresh threads on the appropriate pages. Will Beback talk 11:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my earlier comments. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel absolutely comfortable in closing this discussion; doesn't serve any further purpose. Hey Mid (contribs) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BHG & Martijn. -- llywrch (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and close it. It's a shame that he remains blocked but there is no consensus that his unblock requests were clear and satisfactory. Them From Space 00:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objection; I thought what I suggested might find agreement, but I see it did not. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.