Dr. Blofeld

[CrowsNest]

Jesus, now the claim is that he was planning to invest his earnings back into Wikipedia to improve how they handle paid editing. He sure is stretching that $20 a long way.

Quite a few times now, he has mentioned honesty, but not in a way that suggests he is not thinking of getting paid via dishonest means.

I'm wondering why Doc James, Jytdog or Smallbones aren't all over his ass, waterboarding him until he gives up the precise details of his contract and signs in blood a declaration that he is not and never will be an undisclosed paid editor.

They would surely be most interested in figuring out whatever the hell he meant by this...

16:37, 4 November 2018 (diff | hist) (-819)‎ User talk:Dr. Blofeld ‎ (not welcome thanks and still not true, I wasn't paid for those articles directly, and anything you throw at me pales in comparison to what I've been through)

Dr. Blofeld not being put on the rack and shot with shit by the usual screechers, of course lends weight to the theory they are party to information about this whole performance that others are not.

No wonder they didn't want the NSA storing all their emails.

[CrowsNest]

Another excellent example to show why I was banned from Wikipediocracy......

It can't be denied that Dr. Blofeld improved it.

Um, yes it can, quite easily.

Before he "improved it", the article never gave any reason why the firm invested in other firms listed on their page, including Harbor. After Blofeld, the article made it sound like the Harbor investment was the result of the an independent business decision, based on the founder believing their business was going to be part of the next big thing in real estate.

We know that is a gross misrepresentation of the content of the reliable source Blofeld extracted this rather useless factoid from (even the source struggles to understand the concept, and there is no Wikipedia article to explain it, of course), which was quite clear that this was the founder of Craft Ventures investing in a company he is also founder and Chairman of, which is staffed by former employees of his. Now, I know this is not unusual in venture capital, but do Wikipedia readers? We do know most readers of Wikipedia do not read the sources provided, but have been conditioned to be more trusting of text which appears to be accompanied with a source.

What more is to be said? Is that your idea of an improvement, Poetlister? It is covered by the disclaimer of course, which advises readers to assume everything in Wikipedia is garbage, the pre-Blofeld version and the post-Blofeld version. But the pre-Blofeld version at least didn't misrepresent the content of the provided sources.

Thanks to Blofeld, or rather the editor reactions to his shitty edits, their company's article now has it's first ever mentions of promotionalism, unreliable sourcing and conflict of interest, in the edit history and talk page.

Is that a fair price to pay for the other less problematic improvement, Poetlister? Do you suppose he warned them these might be the consequences of contracting him? Have you ever run a business, do you know how to estimate the potential reputational damage of such things?

Poetlister?.......Poetlister?

Oh, of course, Uncle Jake has decided he doesn't want this sort of question being hosted on his forum, and Poetlister doesn't like venturing too far from home, not without his dress on anyway.

Ah well. Lucky old Blofeld, to have such friends in low places.

You go get him Timmy. You are humanity's only hope.

We are so screwed.

[CrowsNest]

Blofeld's retirement lasted all of ninenteen hours, including sleepy time. Longest period away from the website was just sixteen and a half hours.

His reputation as a flouncer, is intact.

[CrowsNest]

Altering his comments after people have replied to them....without leaving any notes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =867432732

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =867432592

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =867396840

Just screams honesty, that.

So does this.....

I read the Wikipedia:Paid editing rules and it said either disclose on user page or article talk page. If I have to put a template on the talk page I would rather just delete my paid editing page in my user space and keep the one. I don't think it is necessary to have both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

12:50, 5 November 2018 Menchi (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Dr. Blofeld/Writing and payment (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND)

Why not do both? That's what someone with nothing to hide would do.

This, combined with his failure to 'unretire' his user page, just his talk page, now means there is absolutely no indication from his user pages that he is a paid editor, much less an index of his paid for articles. Probably the smarter thing to do for someone who is a prolific page creator.

[CrowsNest]

The story has changed again, and twice in one comment!

Now we're led to believe he has an income, and he supplements it with other non-Wikipedia stuff, but the reason he wants to be paid for wiki time is simply because he "got tired of working hard here for free."

In the very same comment it seems like he wants the money to satisfy his desire to be known as the guy who brought thousands of new articles to the wiki......

With what I want to achieve on here I need investment into contests but WMF won't pay up so what else do I do?.

Those with long memories will remember Blofeld has a history of editcountitis and mass creation, this seems like an evolution of that.

[CrowsNest]

Also from the same comment (Blofeld is nothing if not good value for )......

If I have to get into a catfight every time I'm honest and have every single thing scrutinized by people who have nothing better to do it's probably best to stay retired.

This comes AFTER.....

Delete sourcing fails WP:NCORP, which is the standard here, and it is intentionally higher than the GNG (or rather, it explains what the GNG means for corporation, but in practice that is a higher standard.) All we see is routine coverage of a routine company. It doesn't matter the number of sources if they all don't pass the NCORP standard. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You would like to think if he keeps going like this, the only thing in his future would be a forced retirement. Sadly, his trash talking and open disrespect for the community's current view of paid editing will be tolerated forever, because of his long service.

He has also explained he is still retired, hence the tag on his user page, he just restored his talk page "because I appreciate how many people who took the time to comment". More like he didn't have a suitable place to keep whinging.......

Raja Harishchandra
Welcome back Blofeld. This article has been awaiting a GA review since months (while I'm not the nominator, I made some contributions to it). Would you like to review? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh I'm not sure Kailash, I'm not worthy any longer apparently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't it just break your heart?

OH THE MANNITY!

[Dysklyver]

Amazingly another keep voter has come along, a nobody who either has no idea what is going on or works for Craft and is therefore basically a meatpuppet. This not being much different to the previous keep voter who edited the article prior to the AfD and is either equally clueless or maybe canvassed by email.

Meanwhile Carrite as one of the most active Wikipedians ever, and Tony armed with his shiny new CU/OS powers are rather more reputable in this discussion than the sponsored meatpuppet and the girl with an inflated semi-automatic edit count.

No sign of all the people like Ritchie333 who made such a big deal about wanting him back, you would think that they would all come in on the defensive to keep their prized content creator on the project, right? Doesn't seem like they care anymore. And it is odd that the paid editing banning crew have made no public comments, but I feel that there is a whole bunch of stuff going on in that email cabal of theirs, these are some of the most prolific off-wiki coordinators around.

He will have got more than $20, the going rate for a set of articles is at least a few hundred dollars ranging up to a few thousand. I am pretty sure that he have to refund at least half his ill gotten gains if the article is deleted. How exactly this benefits Wikipedia is a mystery though, it seems to be lining the good doctors pockets to me. Not that he is a doctor anyway.

[Dysklyver]

Diego Anderhijo... He is aptly called Diego Anderhijo.

But previously went by James Anderson.

Unless the man with huge amounts of edits and a ton of articles is actually just a front for a team of paid editors that is.

[CrowsNest]

Eh?

[CrowsNest]

The result was keep. The consensus is that the article meets the general notability guidelines and could be improved by anyone, paid editing or otherwise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

It was pointed out in black and white that GNG is not the applicable standard, NCORP is. You are not supposed to be able to supplant one guideline for another one based on a local consensus, not least one liable to have been tainted by COI and whatever else Blofeld might have done to ensure he got paid.

Now, we could quite easily attribute this faulty closure to Ritchie being an absolute fuckwit, he does after all regularly make similar mistakes in other AfD closures. But it is worth pointing out that Richie absolutely adores the pants off of Blofeld, so he is highly likely to be influenced in his own unsubtle way, to close this in whichever way ensured Blofeld doesn't quit Wikipedia.

Ritchie personally isn't against paid editing of course, he has in the past admitted to making edits which, if they weren't paid for in cold hard cash, were rewarded in other ways. Free beer, knowing what a drunken bastard that he is (never realised until now, how much of his dumbassery might simply be down to drunk editing). His idea of a complaint COI declaration was as sneaky as Blofeld's.