Talk:David Bashevkin

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

North8000 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed payments?
As someone who knows Rabbi Bashevkin personally I find it pretty unlikely that he would pay someone to write a Wikipedia article about himself (and not sure who else would've paid), what is the reason that there's a notice that this article may have been written in return for payments? Shaked13 (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why the template specifies may have been created, not was created. The notice is there because certain evidence has been uncovered that links the article creator with a paid editing ring. I'm not certain but I think that part of the evidence revolves around the fact that the author started off this article as a redirect a few days before it was written, a modus operandi of the sockmaster. In any event, the template is there to draw in other editors to remove the imperfections that are inherent to the style of a paid editor. As of now the article is seriously lacking in independent reliable sources, and due to this is vulnerable to getting deleted at some point.  Stony Brook  babble 02:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how "that's why it says 'may have been created'" answers my question. My question literally was why it says 'may have been created' (unless you're saying that the fact that Rabbi Bashevkin isn't the type of person who would pay someone to do this is actually the reason why it says 'may have been created')
 * I'm new here but I can say that it seems pretty defaming, the notice isn't present at most articles (I think I've only ever seen it once else) so when it does show up it's very noticeable and certainly seems to strongly imply that the subject of the article paid for the article.
 * I looked more into it and saw that the notice was put up bc the author of the article is a suspected sock of a specific user and this is bc the author started this article as a redirect... and that is the only evidence cited. That's an absurdly pathetic reason to label an article as 'potentially written in return for funds.' Do we assume that one user who created a bunch of socks is the only person in the world to ever figure out that you can create a Wikipedia article by changing a redirect? (And that's just as far as the suggestion that this was written by a sock, I haven't seen any evidence cited that this supposed sock wrote the article for money.) I am not sure if Wikipedia has formal standards of evidence to justify a concern but if this falls into that they're really lousy (and unintentionally defaming a public figure in the process). Shaked13 (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is probably more evidence than just the redirect, which is something that only someone with the CheckUser tool would know (I don't have it). As to your other point, the template is not intended to be defamatory. It appears in almost 3,000 articles, and as you can see, many of them are businesses and others who are prone to try and use Wikipedia as a promotional tool, which is not allowed. You said, when it does show up it's very noticeable. That is exactly the point I was making, it is intended to draw attention; and obviously it worked, because someone (you, in this case) did notice it. However, since it is only there to spur editors to improve the article, you may not be the right person to do it, since you have declared a conflict of interest at the beginning of this thread when you stated that you are someone who knows Rabbi Bashevkin personally. I could offer to try and do something about it. Just remember that we are all volunteers here, and from experience, cleaning up an article like this can be a bit tricky as it can be a chore to find reliable sources as I've already mentioned. Believe it or not, not every writer, journalist, or even Ph.D has an article here.  Stony Brook  babble 23:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * if you wish to offer to try, please do (I personally do think that he should have an article as he's a pretty well known figure amongst Orthodox Jews but I have no idea what the official Wikipedia standards are)
 * Also I never said the notice is intended to be defamatory, I said it is defamatory.Shaked13 (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see your edits, thank you for giving this exchange a productive resolution Shaked13 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for reaching out.  Stony Brook  babble 16:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)