Talk:Parker Conrad

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Simfish (talk · contribs) has been paid by Vipul. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vipul https://contractwork.vipulnaik.com/worker.php?worker=Alex+K.+Chen https://github.com/vipulnaik/contractwork/blob/master/contributor-lists/akc-list.mediawiki

Paid editing on this page, and restoration thereof.

It is violation of core Wikipedia BLP policy to misrepresent to innocent readers that this article has not been substantially ghost-written by a paid editor. User 'Jrheller1' seems to be wiki-stalking (deprecated) me to restore ghost-written edits of self-declared paid editors (which incidentally were never proposed or discussed on this artcile talk page) and to remove Wikipedia's warning templates placed by me. This is not the first time user 'Jrheller1' has done something similar and edit warred for COI / paid edits diff. Please discuss and declare your COI and reasons for stalking my edits to revert them, especially since your uncommunicative behaviour has crossed all limits of WP:AGF and crosses into harassment. Inlinetext (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext:, seems to be supported decently by well known sources, for example, the New York Times. —JJ Be rs 02:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext:. Apples and oranges. The issue is breach of ToU and local community guidelines on paid editing issued under the ToU. Inlinetext (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext: 3 things.
1. Stop constantly posting the users talk page, especially with no replies to any of them. Almost like WP:HUSH.
2. You're the person that is making COI accusations.
3. You are making personal attacks by making false claims of paid editing.
Lastly, this is edit war is being reported to ANI edit warring board and if this doesn't stop between you two users, this is going either to become a Intercation ban or a block of someone. —JJ Be rs 04:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JJBers: (edit conflict) Before you began to threaten me or drag me to ANI, did you do careful research ? This article is created by User:Simfish for User:Vipul for "bounty" (evidence) and then extensively edited / updated by anons. The article subject was apparently the subject of several inquiries and investigations at the time of these paid edits. My talk page comments to 'JrHeller' are explicit and required since this is a serious ToU breach with possible real life consequences for victims of the article subject and is thereby a danger to the reputation of this encyclopedia and since 'JrHeller' shares several identifying characteristics in common with the conflicted users 'Vipul' and 'Simfish', not least of which is a common expertise in mathematics and mathematics markup. By reason of policy I am required to presume AGF and that you have no idea of the past exploits of these editors. As far as this article goes, I repeat that the restoration of undeclared on-this-wiki paid editing and removal of my COI warnings is a serious breach of FTC regulations which WMF has directed the attention of all editors on all projects to (as part of the ToU) and the specific text of which is "Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful" source. 'Jrheller1' repeatedly removed the "clear and conspicuous warnings" for paid editing required by WMF and the applicable law. Inlinetext (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JJBers: I have also discovered, see this and this that you twice reverted me on another article admittedly edited for "bounty" by User:Simfish. Since I can't see any previous edits by you or 'JrHeller1' on either of these articles until I edited them, I think it's pretty strong cicumstantial evidence that one (or both) of you have an off-wiki relationship "bounty" from User:Vipul's network to harass me.Inlinetext (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inlinetext, If you believe or have knowledge that this article has been written and/or contributed to by paid or COI editors, you need to provide proof, either here or at WP:COIN. And you need to name the specific editors and link their names so that they are clickable. (If you do not want them to be notified of your linked mention, use the {{noping|NAME}} template.) Moreover, do not unilaterally place and retain a COI notice on the article itself; if that is challenged (as it has been on this article), take the issue to WP:COIN, where neutral very experienced admins will make a decision. Normally, when editors have declared their COI, a tag is left at the top of the article's talkpage rather than on the article. Unless, that is, there is significant reason for the article itself to be tagged -- and in this case, that decision should be made by WP:COIN admins. If there are editors involved in the article who have a blatant but undeclared COI regarding it, they should be listed at the top of the article, with a different kind of tag, but placing an undeclared editor's tag at the top of the article should only be done by experienced WP:COIN regulars. Softlavender (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a comment originally posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Inlinetext to clarify the relation with paid editing, per request from Softlavender:

The Parker Conrad content being reverted was not added by me or people I paid -- the main connection with me is that the ~2-year old original version of the page was created by somebody whom I subsequently paid for it. In other words, any connection with my paid editing enterprise is tangential; the people involved in the dispute aren't connected with me, and I don't even know who they are. The fact that the conversation was so easily manipulated away from a discussion of the subject at hand (Inlinetext's revert patterns) to my paid editing project is sad. I'm happy to answer questions about my paid editing in an appropriate forum (public or private), but I don't appreciate how a discussion about a very different topic (namely, inlinetext's behavior) has forgotten its original purpose so easily and quickly.

Simfish (Alex K. Chen) created the original version of the page. His final edit to the page (based on which I paid him for it) is this. My payment to him is recorded here (it's the very bottom row of the table) and here. As you can see, the version as he created at the time was fairly small and just barely more than a stub, and most of the material under contention was added in later edits. Neither he nor I (nor anybody else I have paid) have touched the page since then.Vipul (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Simfish's last edit was on 12 May 2015. There is no evidence that any paid or COI editing was done to the article since then. Nor was the article paid for when it was created; apparently Simfish was only recruited and paid after the fact. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive IP edits in Feb 2016 and the April 2016 edit, same geo-loc/ISP, clearly have all the traits of professional edits. Simfish and Vipul have collaborated on edits since long before May 2015 example,example ('MEAT'). Also the lead (obsolete) sentence text entirely written by Simfish which I updated was thrice restored by 'Jrheller1', so it is incorrect for Vipul to say I did not revert Simfish's text. Inlinetext (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit warring" discussion

I will not be attempting to discuss anything with Inlinetext. This is the third time he has deleted more than half of a well-sourced, better than average quality article. First he did it with Geodesics on an ellipsoid, then Stanton Foundation, and now Parker Conrad. From now on, I will just be reverting without comment as vandalism when he does something like this. Jrheller1 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works, Jrheller1. If you edit war and violate 3RR, you can be blocked from editing. If Inlinetext edit wars, you may also report them, at WP:ANEW, after warning them on their talkpage.

You must discuss content and come to consensus rather than edit-warring (see WP:BRD). If you become frustrated with the discussion, or if the discussion breaks down or stalls, by all means utilize one or more of the avenues set forth in Dispute Resolution. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is not the way WP works. It seems because JrHeller1 had filed an SPI against me 2 months ago, which is still open(?) he believes he has the privelage of following me around everywhere to undo my edits, characterise my edits as vandalism, edit war, and refuse to talk to me because as per him I explained why I am not "assuming good faith" with Inlinetext in comments to both the talk page of Inlinetext and then Cffk (both of which are linked in Inlinetext's statement above). Jrheller1 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC) link. So since 2.22017 he has been continually reverting me without assuming "good faith" or talking with me. However, I am not interested in this article 'per-se' anymore and so am exiting this talk page. Inlinetext (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly leave article talk page remarks about our content disputes rising from his reverts, but JrHeller1 never responds but JJBers often does (as in this talk page). So it caused me to associate them together. Inlinetext (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]