Here is a list of articles I was paid to improve before disclosure for such work was mandated in the terms of use. This section is all about disclosure, isn't it?
Thank you, however you must disclose all past articles you received compensation for work on as well. You deleted several articles you had previously disclosed here in the very edit you made these disclosures.
JbhTalk03:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Happy to oblige. Working on updating my talk page.
Penelope1114 (
talk)
Thank you. Please note that per the ToU you must disclose both client and employer for all paid edits. There are templates for this.
Please read make sure you have read and understand
WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. You must place {{paid|client=Who paid for your edits|employer=Who pays you}} on your user page for each client/employer and place {{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Youruser name|U1-employer=Who pays you|U1-client= Who paid for the edits|U1-otherlinks= Any additional information}} on the article talk page. You must also disclose your paid editor status in the edit summary of any edits relating to your paid status, such as on the article, its talk page and deletion or noticeboard discussions by including Paid edit as part of the edit summary. Thank you for your understanding.
If you have a problem filling in the templates you can just post the material and I can fill them out for you if that would help. It is best practice to do a {{paid}} for each job since client and employer may change from job to job. It keeps things cleaner too since by using the templates you can be sure to be in compliance with the ToU. Cheers. PS if someone hires you directly you can set Client= and Employer= to be the same and the template script will take care of things.
JbhTalk14:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
You appear to have a fundamental misconception of what this project is and what you may do here. If you are paid to work on an article, obviously you have a financial relationship with the subject, and thus a
WP:conflict of interest; conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles directly. Your edits to
Benjamin Genocchio are unacceptable. Also, please make sure you avoid edit-warring – if your edit is rejected, discuss on the talk-page, don't make the same edit again.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
00:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)reply
BMK, I have disclosed my status as a paid editor on my talk page as per WP:DISCLOSEPAY. So that would not be grounds for reverting my text. Kindly undue your action.
Penelope1114 (
talk)
14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Actually,
BMK, you've apparently only reverted one of the two mass additions made by Penelope1114 to
Benjamin Genocchio. Did you intend to revert them both? Penelope, please try to understand that a paid editing relationship, even when correctly and properly declared, still gives rise to a
conflict of interest (you have a "personal or professional relationship" with Genocchio). Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. In actual practice, about the only way we have of "strongly discouraging" them is to revert their edits.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
19:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Penelope, do please respond at
WP:COIN to the concerns raised there. It's not a good idea to spread the issue over several noticeboards (indeed, that's known as
forumshopping, or "asking the other parent", and is frowned on). As you can see, your complaint at
WP:ANI isn't in any case gaining any traction, and at the same time we miss your input at
WP:COIN. I realize the proliferation of noticeboards can be confusing, but
WP:COIN is the right place for this.
Bishonen |
talk14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC).reply
For all interested parties, I wanted to say that I understand now why paid editing is a conflict of interest. I was previously declaring no conflict of interest because my primary goal is to improve Wikipedia with every edit I make. I now understand the two are not mutually exclusive.
I will suggest and only make edits that will improve Wikipedia. Other editors are welcome to contact me on my talk page if I appear to be doing otherwise. Thanks!
Penelope1114 (
talk)
01:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You still must declare, on each article, who you are working for on that article and mark all paid edits ie any edit about or relating to any article or topic where you have a paid-COI, in any namespace cf talk pages, noticeboard and AfD discussions. If you have not read it please read
WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. Please use {{Connected contributor (paid)}} for the talk pages of articles and {{paid}} for your user page for each contract. You should go through and tag any prior article you have worked on for compensation as well. Thank you for your understanding.
JbhTalk01:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Here
[1] you disclosed a COI, but your userpage
User:Penelope1114 does not disclose it at all, or any previous COI. Please see
WP:PAID. Ignorance, or failure to understand or comply within a reasonable timeframe is no excuse. Any flaunting the letter and spirit of your legal obligations of your job just reflects badly. Widefox;
talk16:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry to pile on here, but making that declaration and then adding "Penelope1114 is an independent Wikipedia editor" suggests that you still don't or won't understand what an independent Wikipedia editor is. An independent Wikipedia editor does not edit for pay; someone who edits for pay is not an independent Wikipedia editor. You can't claim to be independent at
Melissa Chiu, as you have received or expect to receive financial compensation for your efforts there. Please remove that untenable claim from that notice, and also from that at
Talk:Benjamin Genocchio.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Please engage with this discussion Penelope1114. When you going to comply with
WP:PAID? In particular, full disclosures at each article and on your userpage. You've put some on this (user talk page), which is not the correct place. You're removed some. Can you point out where it says you can remove them? Pls respond. Widefox;
talk15:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The terms of use state that one must make the
paid-contribution disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. I have added the {{
connected contributor (paid)}} template to the recent articles talk pages to disclose my relationship there. Additionally,
Widefox, all articles I have been paid in reference to are mentioned on
my talk page. It seems like you prefer that info live on my user page, is that correct?
Penelope1114 (
talk)
01:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I note your answer to my question about ToU and PAID, omits PAID.
For reason (4.) below, my answer is a helpful checklist. Please confirm that you: a) acknowledge each of the following apply to you b) have fully addressed them c) get confirmation from others that they agree (say per consensus that you have addressed all points all editors have put to you for each one here, at COIN, article and elsewhere):
@Penelope1114 thank you for getting started. It really is necessary to get all of the disclosures done properly and to continue doing so. I think the people involved in dealing with this issue are pretty close to running out of patience. All things considered I am pretty sure the community here is going to hold you to best practices because of a loss of trust in your willingness to be fully transparent in your disclosures. That means the next step in all this will probably be a
temporary loss of editing privileges. Even though it was worded pleasantly you should consider
Bishonen's comment
[2] to be the customary warning before sanctions are imposed.
JbhTalk10:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
@Penelope1114 I see you have filled out {{paid}}'s on your user page, I checked your talk before your user page came up on my watch list. Thank you.
JbhTalk10:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Please bear in mind that disclosing that you are paid does not in any way diminish the obligation not to edit for promotional purposes, and to edit from a neutral point of view.
79.123.70.207 (
talk)
19:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello, Penelope1114. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.