ArbCom concluded that it was an "obvious Joe job". The use of Bradv’s username was most likely a scam – something like the extortion documented in the 8-year-old Orangemoody case. I did uncover an indication that somebody using Bradv’s name was repeatedly pushing their company’s paid editing service on an article subject whose article was in danger of deletion. I have investigated the "credible accusation", as has ArbCom.
Bradv shouldn't have been expected to answer the question he had been missing from Wikipedia for more than eight months since leaving his post at ArbCom. What made matters worse is that Wales's actions are closely watched by other editors, with his words carrying a lot of weight. It was labeled " casting aspersions" and severely criticized. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.Īlso, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation. disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI).avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors.
We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Many editors will ask via the standard (if overly long) template: But speaking in general terms, it's common practice – indeed, a recommended procedure – to ask a suspected undisclosed paid editor (UPE) about your suspicions in order to clear up any possible misunderstandings. The report Wales based his inquiry on turned out to be a lot less credible than he stated. Is this true? … If it is a lie, then fine. I have what seems to me a credible report that you have been recommending to people that they use WikiExperts. The immediate cause of the controversy around Wales was a message he left on the talk page of a former ArbCom member, Bradv, about an undeclared paid-editing company named WikiExperts. Seemingly unnoticed by the parties in this dispute, they agreed on a much bigger problem. Pageviews for User talk:Jimbo Wales were over 30,000 per month in 2015, and fell to less than 5,000 in 2023 īut something else happened as well. For example, the monthly pageviews for his talkpage (since 2015, when these numbers were first recorded) illustrate some of this decline in his interest and influence. But even that power has waned, over the years, as he has spent less time on Wikipedia. It's developed over more than 22 years, largely as the result of his practice of responding to almost any question – albeit sometimes with a long delay – on his talk page. No administrator or Arbitration committee can take that power away. The only real power he will retain other than his Board seat is influence from the trust most Wikipedians have almost always placed in him. But following a request for arbitration filed against him, he resigned all his administrative and technical functions on Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees was never under threat, and he retains his symbolic "founder's flag". The last two weeks might have felt like the end of an era on Wikipedia. The Signpost requested an interview with Bradv, but he declined and said that his statement on his usertalk page should be included in full. ArbCom has declared that there was no basis for this question, that the evidence behind Wales's question was seriously flawed.
Jimmy Wales asked former ArbCom member Bradv if he was working with a paid editing group. This opinion piece begins with a very controversial event.
0 kommentar(er)
