Criminals among us

Opinion

Criminals among us

Warning: Readers may find parts of this article disturbing. Specifically, the sections on mass murderers and sexual predators who have edited Wikipedia discuss their crimes, and include descriptions of how Wikipedia was used by them, which range from unrelated editing to being directly connected with the crime in some way. Discretion is advised.

With the support of the staff of The Signpost, our new editors-in-chief, JPxG and EpicPupper have declared a new Signpost policy. We believe that many mass shooters are in part motivated by the prospect of publicity and the chance to spread their views, so we will not name mass shooters who are suspected of editing Wikipedia pages.

I personally agree with the new policy. But it raises questions about other Wikipedia editors who are criminals as well as non-criminal "black hat editors". How should The Signpost and Wikipedia as a whole, deal with these types of editors? The opinion piece explores this question. The opinions I express are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Signpost or of other Wikipedians. – Sb

Sus.

Criminals edit Wikipedia. They include a couple of the mass shooters who have terrorized many Americans recently. They also include others who have committed particularly heinous murders, convicted sex criminals, financial con artists such as insider traders and Ponzi scheme operators. There are also tax-evading billionaires – one awaiting trial, another who has already confessed and is waiting to testify at trial. And then there's those who haven’t officially entered the criminal justice system, such as some of the Russian oligarchs. I’ll call these and similar editors “black hat editors”, just to keep these distinctions clear.

First, though, you should know how I know that criminals edit Wikipedia. To show that The Signpost does not need to identify criminals by their user names or real world names, I won’t name some of the convicted criminals.

How I know there are criminals among us

The first time I was absolutely convinced that a Wikipedia contributor was a convicted criminal, I felt it was an honor to be able to revert such a well-known ex-con. It wasn’t hard to identify him: his user name was a slight variant of his real world name and he was editing the article about himself. He’d already identified himself as the subject of the article several times. He removed a quote from the then-Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and called the addition of the quote "vandalism". The quote was about how horrible the article subject’s crime was (guilty on 53 counts of insider trading), and how he hurt the reputation of America’s financial journalists. The article's subject had been a financial journalist whose column effectively recommended the purchase or sale of certain stocks. He’d provide this information before publication to his insider trading partners, thus giving a good hint as to whether particular stock prices would rise or fall. When he was arrested for insider trading his defense was that his actions were unethical, but not illegal. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with his defense, setting an important precedent.

A few months later, I ran into another criminal editor. A convicted, but not-yet sentenced, Ponzi scheme operator put the most remarkable text in a hand-written confession that he sent to his wife. The confession made its way to the FBI, into the federal indictment, and into the pages of a highly reputable newspaper. In part he described himself as a "financial serial killer" and continued "I hate the fact that I am just another scumbag con artist bilking old people out of their retirement money. I have always hated those guys. How could I become one?" He'd also written an email to his investor-victims saying that all the money was misappropriated and just gone. Of course I quoted part of the note in the article about him.

Then he, or somebody impersonating him, really surprised me: Identifying himself by his real name in the edit summary, he edited the article, confirming the quote but trying to explain it away by giving his state of mind when he wrote it, claiming he was distraught and had even considered self-harm. Strange, but who else could explain his state of mind at the time? After asking a couple questions on his talk page, I was convinced that the editor was the actual Ponzi schemer.

So I've been convinced for a long time that criminals edit Wikipedia. Financial crimes like this typically cost their victims tens of millions of dollars. But are there more dangerous or serious criminals editing Wikipedia?

You might want to skip this section

This section details mass shooters and murderers who have edited Wikipedia, and includes brief descriptions of their horrific acts. In some cases, this included using Wikipedia during those acts, requiring more description. The subsection after it deals with sexual predators, and their attempts to hide knowledge of their crimes by editing Wikipedia, again, requiring some description of what was being attempted to be hidden.

Mass shooters and other murderers

In early July a mass shooter horrified America killing seven people at a parade near Chicago. A reliable online newspaper published an article naming a Wikipedia editor as the shooter - or perhaps the editor was a close friend of the shooter. The on-Wiki editing evidence is a bit thin, but it’s enough to convince me unless further evidence comes to light: The editor in question made about six edits over three days a few years ago, all promoting a rap singer who has now been identified by name in the mainstream press as the suspected shooter. The edits are fairly normal promotional edits: the standard garage-band-style advertisement that most editors here have seen dozens of times. To the best of my knowledge, this style of advertising always traces back to the band members or the band’s manager.

One reason I might be easy to convince about this mass shooter is that I wrote about a different mass shooter in The Signpost three months ago. This mass shooter fired hundreds of rounds at a school in Washington, D.C. as classes let out on Friday, April 22. Only four people were wounded, though these included a child and a man who spent at least three weeks in the hospital. Police took hours to find the shooter. About 40 minutes after the shooting began, the shooter reportedly was online on a non-Wiki site uploading a video of part of the shooting and discussing the shooting. On Wikipedia he reportedly made three brief, vague edits shortly after the shooting to the article on the school, and had also made edits on Wikipedia earlier in the week to articles about mass shootings and to the school article. When the police found his hiding place, the shooter reportedly committed suicide. Wikipedia oversighters soon removed most of his edits. Since I only learned about this shooting on the day after – a day before The Signpost published – I was not able to fully verify the shooter’s name or user name and I didn’t even include the name of the school in my article. I probably could have named the school, in retrospect, but little or no other meaningful information was lost by not identifying the shooter in The Signpost.

Other mass shooters and murderers who have edited Wikipedia include:

A Norwegian mass murderer who killed a total of 77 people – eight in a bomb explosion in Oslo, then sixty-nine by shooting at a summer youth camp – made only four known edits on English Wikipedia and none on other language versions. Nonetheless, he claimed during his trial that Wikipedia had been a major influence on him, and, as reported in The Signpost at the time, "[h]is 1,500-page manifesto included a section titled 'Battlefield Wikipedia', in which he encouraged like-minded people to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for spreading their worldview."
The shooter at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting apparently edited Wikipedia twelve times with all the edits made to articles on mass shootings or murderers. He first killed his mother then killed twenty-six people at the school, including twenty children ages six to seven. (Signpost report)
In an anti-Semitic hate crime, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, an occasional Wikipedia editor killed a museum guard and exchanged fire with other guards, before being shot himself. He died of natural causes before his trial. (Signpost report)
The “Pentagon shooter", who was an "occasionally active" Wikipedia editor, wounded two guards at the Pentagon and was then shot dead. (Signpost report)
A tech investor killed his former wife’s new husband and is serving a life sentence. As a Wikipedia editor, he apparently made four edits over four years, each time falsely inserting his name as one of the co-founders of a software firm. When he was arrested several major news outlets reported that he was the co-founder of the firm, apparently following the lead of Wikipedia's article about the company. (Signpost report)

Convicted and accused sexual offenders

Jeffrey Epstein, the most infamous sexual criminal of the 21st century, made dozens of edits on Wikipedia through paid editors over the course of several years. Though Wikipedia editors added information to his article on his sex crime conviction in 2008 and similar later material, much of this content was then deleted, weakened, or pushed down to the bottom of the article. One editor who apparently represented Epstein wrote, "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein to describe his biography in a professional and accurate way, that does not involve any scandals or disreputable content. As a living person, this is his right." (Signpost report)
Ghislaine Maxwell, who aided Epstein in his crimes, was sentenced in June to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking and related crimes. She also appears to have made a few edits, including a photo of herself which originally listed the source and author of the photo as "Ghislaine Maxwell". (Signpost report)
Peter Nygard appears to have been accused of as many or more sexual offenses than Epstein, but has not been convicted. He is now sitting in an Ontario prison, awaiting trial in Toronto. After that trial, he will likely go on trial in Montreal next. At the conclusion of that trial he will be extradited to New York for a federal trial there. After that, civil trials may await him, even though his lawyer has said that he is broke and likely to die in jail. (Signpost report)

Corporations and other businesses

We should remember that there are also white-collar criminals, and that corporations and their owners and managers can also commit crimes. The Wall Street Journal's article How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online gives several examples of criminal or black-hat editing on Wikipedia. Please remember that this behavior can be very different than that shown by the murderers and sex criminals discussed above.

Theranos was a fraudulent blood testing firm that eventually dissolved without delivering on the promises that it had made to its customers and investors. Its CEO Elizabeth Holmes, who was once considered a multi-billionaire, was convicted of fraud in 2022. Holmes's former partner and the company's former COO Sunny Balwani was also convicted in a separate trial on similar charges. They are scheduled to be sentenced this Fall. The Wall Street Journal reported that the firm used the paid editing firm Status Labs, formerly Wiki-PR, to edit related articles on Wikipedia. Though Status Labs has not been accused of criminal acts, it acts as a black hat editor and was indefinitely banned from editing well before The Wall Street Journal article was published. (Signpost report)
Zach Avery is another Ponzi schemer who edited Wikipedia. Rather than edit himself, he hired a paid editor to make the article about him look like he was something of a Hollywood star. But he was literally a bad actor. He was also a bit player in the Ponzi world where he "only" stole $231 million in a fake film financing fraud. The paid editor described his methods to The Signpost last year.
Wirecard was a bank and payment processor once worth about €10 billion, until it was discovered that they were missing €2 billion. More precisely, they had €2 billion cash on their books that never existed: It had been created out of thin air. Wirecard was once known as Germany's most successful fintech company. Now it is known as Germany's biggest financial fraud since the end of World War II. The Wall Street Journal reported that "Some [Wirecard employees] joked internally that these [press] releases were Wirecard’s real product." They likely never made a profit in any year that they were in business. Wirecard employees with creative names like User:Wirecard and User:Wirecard AG peddled their PR on Wikipedia as well. (Signpost report)

There are many more examples

Because of the subject matter, this article has been difficult to write. I apologize if you have found it difficult to read. I'll just say that there are many more examples. We've got a problem with criminals and black hat editors writing on Wikipedia. The question now is what to do about it?

Perhaps the first thing we should realize is that mass shootings and the like are symptoms of a fundamentally sick society. All the major social media platforms have similar problems. There may be little that we can do on our own, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the problem, only that we should calmly work with others and not expect quick solutions. Obsessing about the problem may actually add to the problem.

There are many different types of criminal and black-hat editors. Inevitably we will need different ways of dealing with them. It appears that the most serious type – mass shooters and murderers – have been dealt with fairly quickly by admins and by the WikiMedia Foundation.

Ordinary editors can help by privately reporting suspect editors to the WMF's Trust and Safety team at ca@wikimedia.org, or, in case of emergency, emergency@wikimedia.org. Except in emergencies, you could also contact ArbCom at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. In certain cases they may be able to act more quickly.

Behaviors that might arouse your suspicion include the things that many editors would usually report anyway: threats or indications of violent behaviour. Other indications might be bragging about assault-style weapons, or an intense interest in mass shooting articles. I trust Trust and Safety and ArbCom to speedily do everything possible in these cases.

The Signpost's new policy of not identifying mass shooters can't hurt and may help.

Other situations are not so clear cut. I suggest that The Signpost continue to vigorously report about editors who have been credibly accused of crimes by very reliable sources such as The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. Like writers of Wikipedia articles, we should not have to wait for a conviction to report on possibly criminal acts, or even an indictment. It can take years before a criminal is actually convicted. All that is needed is a credible report in a very reliable source.

A major advance would be to simply have a reasonable discussion about criminal editors. Perhaps we could even come up with a policy or guideline to deal with the problem. A first step could be a blanket ban on any criminal or their representatives editing any article about themselves or the crime. By blanket ban, I mean that should they edit their page even once, they would receive an immediate, indefinite ban.

Finally we need to let criminals know via the mainstream press, that Wikipedia will not tolerate their editing anymore.

Editor's note: At risk of editorial hypocrisy, I'll disclose that I read an academic paper to verify a source on an article the other day and didn't pay for it, and accidentally ran a red light a few months ago, although I have not committed mass murder and have no plans to. – J

← Previous "Opinion"

Next "Opinion" →

In this issue

Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine

Opinion

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Emmanuel Lemelson has been a difficult COI/sock/IP for years. He is a hedge fund short seller who was convicted (civil fraud) of using the media to damage the reputation of a company and profited from it. -- GreenC 01:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of a case of a local Wikipedian who deliberately crashed his car, killing himself and his two young children, thus committing murder-suicide: Glen Dillon (see the linked article). These things are very sad but they do happen. Graham87 08:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this was person in troubled relationship that had broken down, to which ultimately he could see only one way out. Yes he did something horribly tragic, but I dont think naming him contributes to discussion about criminals editing in any meaningful way. His was not an action of a criminal but of someone struggling mentally and emotionally with the Family court system. As a Wikipedian he contributed positively across many areas Gnan garra 11:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this piece, your first question might be: "why don't we have a policy banning criminals?" We do have a policy banning paedophiles. Each crime discussed in this article—murder, rape, and financial fraud—are gross indignities perpetrated against another human being, and we are right to be concerned about such unrepentant people editing Wikipedia. Other "crimes", such as using marijuana or being LGBT in parts of the world, are nothing of the sort. We should be aware of the racialisation of crime and the fact that a neutral point of view entails not basing our community ethics on any government's definition of "crime". Political prisoners are another category. Among the Wikimedia community of people interested in increasing the sum of accessible information, I'd expect Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden to be quite popular. So while "convicted criminal" can be a concise way of indicating that somebody has perpetrated gross acts, it's not a precise one.
I was surprised that the pattern of school shooters editing Wikipedia is so extensive, though it appears that only one had an extensive history of it (Pentagon shooter). It does not bother me hugely that a school shooter might try to use Wikipedia to gain attention—it seems that many are desperate to seek it through any avenue possible, and we shut down urgent things like this quite well compared to other websites. What bothers me at quite a deep level is the idea that school shooters are reading true crime information on the encyclopedia and that's fueling their ideation for committing violence, particularly the idea that they are planning methods from reading articles about school shooters. But the reasons for people's fascination with true crime is quite complex. About a year ago I created an article on a book, Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers, which tries to find reason behind the majority of true crime and horror fans being female—people might use it to process violence that they have faced or feel at risk of, to some degree. I do wonder also how the families of victims feel about our articles on the topic. I'm not sure whether action is needed if our articles are the inspiration behind despicable acts of violence, or what that action would look like. — Bilorv (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One scary fact is that we likely know a small number of the ones who edited. With our (quite justified) rules against outing and (again, quite justified) allowance of anonymity and pseudonymity, how would we know? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 15:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this occurred to me also. If these are the people we know about, what about the people we don't know? But it's an impossible question to answer. I found it a bit chilling to read here that: The head of Wikimedia Norway, Jon Harald Søby, was quoted as saying that if there were any content written by [the Norwegian mass murderer] in the Norwegian Wikipedia that was factually correct, then he thought it should remain. But at the same time, what else can we say? — Bilorv (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Bilorv:! I asked for a reasonable discussion and it looks like we have one. I'm not even going to disagree with you, all your points are good so far. I'll just offer some opposing points so the conversation is fuller, more well rounded. I'll also have to stop at intervals. One point I think we can all agree on is that lawyers should never edit about a client's case, bio, or related articles. Lawyers are required to be advocates for their clients. And they are paid advocates, inserting a class bias into Wikipedia if they edit - the rich can hire more and better advocates than the poor. But even pro bono lawyers are compensated in some way. If lawyers want to advocate for their clients outside the courtroom they can certainly issue press releases, and we are allowed to cite these press releases in many cases (even if it is not a preferred source, it is much better than a anonymous biased source inserted directly into an article.) In many well known cases they can easily give press conference and attract reporters attention in other ways. Can we agree that a blanket ban is appropriate for lawyers editing for clients? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with that analysis: a lawyer should not be editing material related to a client they represent. — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this article. Involved in the advocacy on the topic of regulation of terrorist content online for Wikimédia France, I've found the case of the Edmund Burke School shooting very interesting. Pyb (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great overview of a very difficult-to-discuss issue! I would actually be strongly against banning known criminal editors, if they haven’t actively done anything on Wikipedia itself that would be deserving of a ban. This is for two primary reasons: 1) Laws are not always objective, or objectively enforced. For instance, it wasn’t long ago that homosexuality was a felonious action in the United States. The sheer number of admins alone who would be banned…clearly criminality is not always equivalent to lack of moral fibre. 2) The value of anonymity. Giving an incentive to tracking down or even faking the real-world identity of editors (if you’re a bad actor who wants to make life difficult for someone) seems likely to cause more trouble than it’s worth. Since this sort of situation is so rare, any mitigation effort is likely to lead to a very large percentage of false positives. Yitz (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yitzilitt: I don't think the situation of criminals editing articles about themselves or their crimes is very rare at all. Thankfully it's rare for mass shooters, but for corporate crime and fraudsters, no it's not rare. I gave 5 examples above
- the insider trader (1st example at the top}
- the 1st Ponzi schemer
- Theranos (and its former CEO and COO)
- Zach Avery, the 2nd Ponzi schemer mentioned
- Wirecard
As far as what types of crime - really any when they or their lawyers are editing the relevant crime or bio articles. But in general crimes of violence, sex crimes, crimes of deception, i.e. serious fraud cases including major corporate frauds. Those shouldn't be too controversial. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's probably some judgement calls here. For example, there's numerous cases in US law where there's strong evidence a person in jail or executed was likely innocent, but the appeals system failed. Likewise, there's many crimes we don't care about: we allow pretty much all editors to edit traffic ticket, but many of them have one. But this is an issue of wording, right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 13:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a choice about what kind of crimes to include and what type of "proof" is acceptable. See the discussion about Peter Nygard below. I suspect that he'll never come to trial because he may die in jail, so he won't be convicted of anything. But as far as the number of accusers, the number of long detailed stories in the NYTimes (4?) and in *several* other very reliable sources. And the video evidence obtained by the CBC (they say 100s of hours from his personal videographer) I don't think we need to have one *conviction* in a case like this. So there are some borderline possibilities, but we should always have very strict rules for the "blanket ban." As far as reporting serious accusations from very reliable sources, I think that's allowed now - but some folks need to be told to read the BLP policy again. Traffic tickets? Naw. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the general principle that once a sentence has been served, people should be able to reintegrate society. In theory at least. Which crimes are unforgivable is very much in the eye of the beholder. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the same time, COI editing applies to your article whether there's crimes or not. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 18:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

Whether or not someone is a criminal is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to edit Wikipedia unless their criminal behaviour causes real problems with their editing. If I'm in prison for embezzling money and have somehow obtained the privilege to edit Wikipedia, the fact I've done so doesn't seem relevant to whether I can objectively write articles on electrical engineering. Establishing this a precedent just encourages editors to attempt to WP:OUT each other. I don't see how the examples you've mentioned can't be handled with our existing policies which already mostly ban people from editing their own articles. The Signpost doesn't need to have a repeat of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Disinformation report.

On another note, your statement that:

Like writers of Wikipedia articles, we should not have to wait for a conviction to report on possibly criminal acts, or even an indictment. It can take years before a criminal is actually convicted. All that is needed is a credible report in a very reliable source.

is questionable per WP:BLPCRIME, which says:

For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

People are innocent until proven guilty. Calling people "criminals" when they haven't been convicted is a pretty flagrant violation of BLP. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "possibly criminal acts", Will Smith slapping Chris Rock was a possibly criminal act, for instance, and we reported on it before it was clear that Smith would not be convicted of a crime over it. I don't know that the suggestion was to call someone a "criminal" when they were not convicted of a crime, as that would never be true. — Bilorv (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: The major problem with your critique of this article is that it's not about this article. For example you seem to accuse me of a BLP violation: "Calling people "criminals" when they haven't been convicted is a pretty flagrant violation of BLP." Where do I call a non convicted person a criminal? Please be specific.

You quote WP:BLPCRIME at me which starts off "For individuals who are not public figures;", but everybody who is mentioned here (all 15 individuals and 1 or 2 companies) are public figures. Show me if I'm wrong. The proper section of BLP to quote is WP:BLPPUBLIC:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

You write "Whether or not someone is a criminal is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to edit Wikipedia ..." If it's an accused or convicted criminal or his lawyer writing about himself or his crime it's always relevant, there's no way they can be neutral.

Are you just trying to say that it is your opinion that The Signpost (or anybody else for that matter) should never write anywhere about suspected or convicted criminals who edit Wikipedia? That sounds like pure censorship to me. I don't see that in Wikipedia rules and you'll have a long way to go even trying to make that argument. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: You said "All that is needed is a credible report in a very reliable source" and WP:BLPCRIME says that it's necessary to show that the person is a public figure before we can mention their name in reference to their criminality. While you've only named public figures so far, if you're planning on mentioning anyone else who isn't or suggesting that the Signpost actively seek to expose any editor who is both a) mentioned to be a Wikipedia editor in a credible source and b) is mentioned to be accused of criminality in a credible source, then that's questionable in light of BLPCRIME.

You never mentioned in your article that your proposed policy on criminals editing Wikipedia is only meant to apply to criminals that are public figures. What I, and what many other commenters are reading, is that you want to ban all criminals (to be defined later) from editing Wikipedia.

I don't get why we need a specific policy banning criminals or their representatives from editing articles on themselves. We already have policies dealing with people wishing to edit articles on themselves, and we shouldn't add to the reams of policies that we already have with new ones designed to address extremely specific edge cases.

Of note in all this is that none of the edits mentioned in the article would have been prevented by any ban on criminal editors. All of these edits were performed by people who were not convicted criminals at the time of their edits. Many were performed prior to any criminal activity. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: I'd hoped that we could have a calm discussion about this, but I think you are not in the mode of trying to do something about the problem, bouncing ideas around to see what we could actually do. I have not made any formal proposals. The closest I've come is "Perhaps we could even come up with a policy or guideline to deal with the problem. A first step could be a blanket ban on any criminal or their representatives editing any article about themselves or the crime." Let's call that second sentence the "proposal as written", though clearly I'm asking for input and comments. You write none of the edits mentioned in the article would have been prevented by any ban on criminal editors Actually that's not true. There are are least three editors who would have been quickly banned under the "proposal as written:

The 1st editor mentioned (insider trader with the Supreme Court case)
- Surprisingly he's got 101 live edits and almost exactly half (50) are related to his legal case or bio (48 to bio, 1 related, 1 talk page). Under the proposal he could have been blanket banned after his 1st edit. BTW he is now still not blocked or banned and made his last edit only 5 years ago.
The 2nd editor mentioned (1st Ponzi schemer mentioned):
- He had 126 edits with only 32 still live and 94 (which I can't see) deleted in only 2 months. He would have been blocked under the proposal after his 1st edit. BTW he still hasn't been blocked or banned, but since he had a 9 year federal sentence maybe we can say something like "effectively blocked".
Jeffrey Epstein and his paid editors
- There were 3 editors clearly being paid by Epstein, 2 of them indef blocked after a dozen or so edits. The 3rd has 148 total edits and 4 deleted edits, 93 of the live edits are to Epstein related pages, plus 5 to talk pages related to Epstein. I believe this editor could have been blocked after their first live edit, or likely before(!) under the proposal. The 1st live edit might have taken an especially perceptive admin to catch - but looking at it now it's pretty obvious that it's the same as the previously blocked editor. Blocking them before the 1st live edit? It's obvious from their talk page entries that the deleted edits were about "Jeffrey Epstein (plastic surgeon)" which was clearly set up as a distraction.
- I'll be back in a couple of hours with a bit more detail, but it's clear that for these three editors mentioned at least a couple hundred edits would have been prevented. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess and Smallbones: I think we're a little off-focus. The main issue is really that there's a strong Conflict of interest in editing your own page or pages related to you to make yourself look better, and that applies whether you've committed crimes or not. The article is talking about people who reliable sources say did quite horrible things. A policy shouldn't be written like an article, so there's going to be a language shift needed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 18:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, Adam there are 2 or 3 things that we're discussing that seem to be getting mixed up (some is my fault). I'll see if I cn strainghten this out here.

The Wikipedia article (i'm not much interested in changing the rules about articles themselves, but...)
- Who can edit an article? Not an editor writing about themselves, or their paid editors, or their lawyers. That's pretty clear already. But if there is a notable case in the areas of violent crime, sex crimes, serious fraud, to stop this already prohibited activity, we can blanket ban (for the whole wiki) clearly identifiable autobiographers, their paid editors, and any lawyer representing his client onWiki. It's surprising how often it's extremely clear, e,g.Epstein's paid editor quoted in this article.
- Convicted criminals and similar - blanket ban applied once they are judged to be "convicted criminals" in the same 3 areas as above whether they've edited their article or not. It won't be used very often, since they're likely to be in jail
What can be written in The Signpost (and on talkpages - same rules) - same stuff as now, but people should realize that we're allowed to write about criminals (public figures, very high quality sources, etc.) even if they are Wikipedia editors when properly identified onWiki (e.g. at SPI) or in the very reliable press (e.g. self-identifying) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I appreciate the content warnings. That is a kind and respectful thing to provide to the reader. Ckoerner (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckoerner: thanks for letting me know. I thought it be only me getting a weak stomach. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2nd convenience break

A couple of years ago I expanded the article on Vitaly Borker, the Ukrainian emigrant to Brooklyn whose modus operandi was to get people to give his online eyeglass retail business bad reviews so that the resultant links would game PageRank and put him at the top of Google search results. This has earned him two extended stays as a guest of the United States. It's an interesting read.

I suspect Borker himself got involved in an edit war we had there last fall; when I directly identified him in this talk page discussion, he never contradicted me (And I do admit he had a point).

I don't expect him to be involved in any more such discussions for a long time as the resumption of his activities that prompted me to expand the article has resulted in him going back to jail for parole violations, and with new charges pending I doubt he'll be free to edit again until maybe 2030 or so. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel That looks like the Wiki-discussion from hell, talking with a convicted professional online troll about his trolling. I think WP:PAYTALK would apply. Did you see the edits made by OpticsFast and by the guy I call CheeseWhiz? That's an impressive group of authors! Right up there with RFW (above). Thanks for letting me know about this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the edits by OpticsFast because apparently that account isn't registered. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: See User talk:Opticsfast, small f, no User page. only 3 edits, all identical reverts within about 15 minutes. Sorry. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I decided to block that account indefinitely in case he ever tries to use it again. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nygård

(Redacted)

I saw your discussion on Jimbo's talk a few days ago and pretty much agree with you. There's no real way to accurately count the victims, and then why do we want to keep a scorecard? Nygard is a prime example of why you can't count. From what I read at 81 years old his health is very poor. His lawyer has said he is broke and will likely die in jail. So he may never be convicted of a single rape. At the same time the named accusers are probably much higher than the figures on that list. I don't know if you've read The Signpost article about him. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-02-28/Disinformation report, but I'm interested in what you think. Does it inform Wikipedians of the type of editing situation they might run into, or does it just mess things up further like the list you've complained about? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

You can be a serial rapist without having been convicted for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PA, we're talking past each other here. Understandably you're interested in the list, and I'm interested in whether you think the Signpost article was worthwhile and properly informative to our readers. No need to respond if you'd rather not. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones Sorry, I did misunderstand you. As a recitation of criminals who have edited Wikipedia, it was interesting. As an opinion piece, I think your use of the word "criminal" to define a group of people who are unwelcome here is entirely inappropriate. Many, if not most of us, are criminals in the sense that we have broken laws. Some of us have been convicted of crimes. Some of us have served time in jail or prison. Should those people not be able edit Wikipedia?

(Redacted)

Since that's a pretty flagrant violation of WP:BLPCRIME I've gone ahead and removed him from that list. [1] The people in charge of policing these lists are those who see them and realize there is a problem with them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for this article Smallbones from someone who has been experiencing the trauma and backlash of paid editing ever since I started on WP. I appreciate your effort in expanding our awareness to this topic and stirring discussion.Wuerzele (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I think the most important thing we can do now is let people know how extensive the problem is. Would you be interested in writing something for the Signpost about this in an area you know well? There might even be 2-4 people who would be willing to help you in the same area. I may be off on vacation myself this month. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.

Home

About