User talk:Curious numismatist

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. SmartSE (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see the problem here. The general pattern of edits I see consists of additions of sources and updates to company personnel. None of that is inherently promotional. The most problematic I can see is the philanthropy at Ray Dalio, and that too seems based on reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will drop you an email later today. SmartSE (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * and Thank you Huon for reviewing the unblock request. Rather than submit a second unblock request, I would like to request more information from one or both of you per the guidelines summarized in WP:GAB so I may better understand the violation(s) that led to the block. In the the block initially made by SmartSE, the log stated that a block was made due to edits that were advertising or self-promoting WP:PROMOTION, specifically in violation of conflict of interest WP:COI and notability WP:ORG guidelines. This block was made without any warning given and without additional details or discussion on my talk page regarding the edit or edit(s) that violated these guidelines.  The decline by Huon referenced only a problem found “at a closer look”, but did not include any more detail. Per the comments on my talk page, it appears that a private email exchange occurred between SmartSE and Huon following Huon’s initial comment stating that they did not see a problem with my pattern of edits. I would like to request that the relevant details of that conversation be shared on my talk page to provide clarity, uphold transparency of the process, and uphold the guidelines set out in WP:ADMINACCT. According to  WP:ADMINACCT, admins are “accountable for their actions involving administrator tools” and problematic behavior is noted including “Failure to communicate– this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)...”  I do not feel that the admins have acted in accordance with this guideline thus far, as the initial block was not preceded by a warning or accompanied by additional explanation, and the request for unblock was declined following a private email exchange between the two admins rather than an open discussion.  As I stated in the unblock request, I am not connected, personally, professionally or otherwise, with any of the persons, organizations or topics in the entries where I have made edits. Therefore, I do not believe violations of WP:PROMOTION or WP:COI apply to any of my edits. Additionally, I have attempted to follow WP:ORG guidelines by properly citing edits. Once again, I would like to state that none of these violations have been cited in regard to my past editing behavior. As such, I don’t believe these violations represent a pattern that requires blocking to prevent future disruptions.  As a newer Wikipedia contributor, I have made good faith effort to follow all Wikipedia guidelines. I  understand that the purpose of the block is to prevent disruptive edits, even if they were made in good faith. My request for more information is being made to better understand what edits of mine were disruptive and to correct the issue going forward. I would think Wikipedia would want more community members instead of removing them at the beginning of their membership without any clarity into their mistakes or an opportunity to correct them. Thank you again for the time and consideration. Curious numismatist (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not going to spell out the evidence in public. See WP:BEANS. Let's just say I missed something that SmartSE pointed out to me. If any other administrator wishes to review the block, SmartSE or I will gladly let them know how we reached this conclusion. Huon (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK: The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested. BEANS is a humorous essay, not a valid blocking rationale. Certainly you won't be spilling any trade secrets by explaining the unambiguous advertising or promotion in John P. Connaughton. Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion ("spam"). I've restored this to draft space, so that it may be fundamentally rewritten to conform with WP:G11. I'm at a loss for what to do to improve this; does negative information about something bad this person has done need to be added to balance it? I don't think any beans will spill if some guidance on how to rewrite this is given. wbm1058 (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * BEANS is not the block rationale; promotional editing is. Peers (ie other admins) can review the evidence; SmartSE pointed the evidence out to me, and we'd both point it out to others interested in reviewing the block. Shall I forward SmartSE's email to you?
 * Telling Curious numismatist how we came upon the evidence amounts to "how can I hide my misbehaviour better next time?" The draft is not the whole of the evidence, though it is a curious coincidence that the sources for the new article they wrote are much worse than those they added to other articles. Huon (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Huon, yes, please forward the email. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Huon. I don't think BEANS applies here. The spirit of that is "in our zeal to head off others' unwise action, we may put forth ideas they have not entertained before. It may be wise not to caution against such possibilities", but the problem is that a law is alleged to have been broken. This lawbreaking activity has already been identified (it's even been given a catchy-sounding name), and public warnings against doing this already exist online in Wikimedia-space. It's possible this editor never saw these warnings, but they are there if you look for them. We shouldn't stand idly by while a legal violation persists; we should bring attention to it in order to get clarification. I'm not a legal expert on these matters, so I'm not certain there's lawbreaking there, but I think this should be addressed, rather than continue to look the other way. wbm1058 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Curious numismatist, per your Global account information, you have made only one contribution to Wikimedia commons, which was deleted: commons:File:John P. Connaughton.jpg. You were notified of the rationale for that on commons:User talk:Curious numismatist. In case you didn't receive or missed that notification, I'm pointing it out to you here. For further explanation of the rationale "See EXIF (flickrwashed)", see the page on license laundering. The photo uploaded to Wikimedia Commons was sourced to the Flickr account of a user claiming to be John Connaughton, who joined Flickr sometime this year, and doesn't have much activity on that site other than uploading this photo. If you click "Show EXIF" on that photo, you will see that the picture is "Copyright - Jennifer Cimino Photography", so it appears that the uploader of that photo has violated copyright. It seems that Flickr doesn't do as good a job of screening their uploads for copyright violations as Wikimedia volunteers do. Flickr should be notified of this, so that the stolen photo may be removed from their site. I'm not an active user on that site, so I would need to look into how to go about that. Cimino appears to be a professional photographer and it appears that this copyrighted photo was lifted from HERE.


 * Now I will explain my rationale for telling you this. While this site is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), virtually all contributions to the site are submitted by volunteers. The WMF occasionally intervenes to remove content or ban users without publicly stating a specific reason, on the rationale that because this is supposedly a private site operated by a non-profit charitable organization they don't have to, which is their right, but I view that as too much like the actions of a military tribunal. As multiple private organizations increasingly view Wikipedia as a site they can point their users to in order to learn the facts, or the "truth", and I view my voluntary contributions as being given to the public, not to a private organization, I feel that justice in such a public sphere should endeavor to be more like civilian justice. You have a right to hear the charges and answer to them.


 * Having said that, I am also declining the unblock at this time. Can you explain how you, being "not connected, personally, professionally or otherwise" with Mr. Connaughton, found that relatively new user on Flickr? wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , would you mind explaining how you came across this unblock request which is no longer active? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably the same way you came across it? wbm1058 (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , I came across it on Wikipediaocracy after a user with one total post there, and a user claiming to be an indefinitely blocked user here, complained about it. I think it is worth noting that for the purposes of transparency as well. Also, just for the record, I don't have an account there. Only stating it because some people have thought I did in the past. I just lurk on occasion. Plenty of good users do have accounts, but just wanted to clear up any potential for confusion. I am a bit concerned that you would unilaterally reverse another administrator's actions without consulting them based on complaints of an off-wiki forum, and that you would decide to tell a likely paid editor how one of our users who is most active in combatting undeclared paid editing caught them after he and another administrator objected to it, because now they will likely sock in the future and it will be harder for us to detect it. WPO has it's place (we have plenty of good users who also comment there), and this is not taking issue with that site, but I also think you acted recklessly here based on an off-wiki discussion. I'd also like to ask that you reverse your undeletion of the draft and take it to DRV if you still think it was the wrong action. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not around much at the moment, but having looked at this all again, and in more detail, I'm even more confident that I made the right decision and it is highly likely they are a sock (a CU will be looking). As for not explaining in public: Use_common_sense. SmartSE (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't reversed the block and I didn't restore the article except temporarily, to move it to draft space. I don't think userfying or draftifying should be a big deal, but I have no objections to deleting the draft now. Too often outside sites portray admins as abusive jerks beating up on newbies for no good reason. I think shining a little light on this helps improve the image of administrators. A little more transparency helps to delete the skeptics' allegations or suspicions. And if this means that some COI editors will stop committing copyvios on other sites such as Flickr, all the better. We shouldn't sanction that abuse just to preserve a means of entrapping them here. wbm1058 (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually agree re: a lot of what you said i.r.t. the critic sites (fwiw, there are even some users on them that hate me who's opinions I find useful), but in all likelihood, this is an employee or freelancer of a PR firm who is likely just going to find another way to violate the copyright. I see commercial editing as the biggest threat Wikipedia faces at the moment, so I consider draftifying content made by commercial editors to be a big deal, but understand how others might disagree with that. Since you don't mind, I'll go ahead and delete the contributions again. Thanks for your response here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)