User talk:Smartse/archive 22

Arbitration case opened
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee,  C Thomas3   (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

John Draper (Recently reverted edit by an IP)
In the artical John Draper where someone removed allegations made against this person (Who is alive), according to Wikipedia policy if the person is not a public figure it should not be mentioned as per WP:SUSPECT and if the person is a Public Figure the allegations should stay there.... Any thoughts if he is considered a public figure? (I am sort of new to Wikipedia if i am making any mistakes let me know!) Thank you. Csar00 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky case, and I actually asked for advice myself six months ago (sadly no response). My view is that there are multiple rock-solid sources discussing the behaviour and not even the subject has denied that the events didn't occur. As a result, it should definitely not be completely excluded from the article. The debate seems to be around whether there was a sexual intent or not, which obviously nobody knows. WP:SUSPECT is referring to accusations of criminal activity, but I don't think anyone claims that the behaviour was criminal... just inappropriate. I think we do an ok job of presenting both sides of the debate in the article at the moment - making it clear that the events happened, the sexual aspects are allegations and that he denies it was sexual. As I said in that link to BLPN though, it is difficult to decide exactly where the balance should lie. As to public figure, I think that he would be considered one as he seems very well known in hacking circles. Reading the examples given in that section of BLP further supports my view that we are presenting the information appropriately. SmartSE (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the fast reply and for explaining the policies to me. A follow-up question, for future reference how would I determine if any given person is a public figure? Csar00 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries. I don't think there is going to be an easy definition. The vast majority of people who have biographies here are public figures. The main exception I can think of would be academics who have articles here because their work is important, but they don't seek any publicity e.g. in newspapers, magazines. SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Hugh Bennett (political adviser) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugh Bennett (political adviser) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hugh Bennett (political adviser) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AlasdairEdits (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Randal Miller at BLP Noticeboard
I just wanted to let you know that there's a discussion regarding Randall Miller's article on the BLP Noticeboard. As someone who's also been invested in the article and the discussion on how much of the incident should be discussed, I thought you might be interested. JellyMan9001 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd seen it but don't think there is much to say. SmartSE (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Undo: Allegations of forced labour on the Robert Bosch article
Dear Smartse, I just stumbled upon a recent change you made to the Robert Bosch GmbH article. In my opinion the additions made by Palosirkka were quite valid and backed up by recent, legitimate sources. Could you please elaborate on your decision to delete the paragraph? Thanks for the continuous work, SouthAsiaFTW (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See User_talk:Palosirkka. In this particular case, there is no way that this comes anywhere close to being as controversial as the emissions cheating scandal in Bosch's history (i.e. it is WP:UNDUE) and the source says Others, including Adidas, Bosch and Panasonic, said they had no direct contractual relationships with the suppliers implicated in the labour schemes, but no brands were able to rule out a link further down their supply chain. which wasn't clear from the content that Palosirkka added. SmartSE (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick and helpful reply. All of that is fair enough. I think it is nevertheless a noteworthy fact and (as long as you don't have any objections) I will add the information in a more specific manner / wording. You are right in saying that this might not be as controversial as the emmission scandal (at least in the parts of the world that aren't Xinjiang) but I personally don't think that it should be ommitted just because something else the company has done is (also very) morally objectionable.

SouthAsiaFTW (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I just read more on Palosirkka's talk page and agree with most of the points, sorry for spamming your page - I'm still fairly new to this. I guess I'll move my arguments for the inclusion to the discussion page of the article itself. Thanks again for the work, all the best from Germany :) SouthAsiaFTW (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

ShareBuyers
Hi, I understand you requested for ShareBuyers to be blacklisted and it's now showing on Wikipedia's spam list. Please can you review your stance on this. You have also called the site a 'dubious source', it certainly is not a dubious source, the source is the announcement from the company itself, just as the FT would report on it.

The markets and relevant information is moving quickly, so naturally some of the team will update Wikipedia where it felt relevant, it didn't think it was doing harm and was contributing in positive ways (some examples below).

''An acquisition of Oasis by Boohoo in which the entry was left intact but the source changed to FT.

Highlighting that the Edinburgh Investment Trust had changed its portfolio manager and a new investment approach (this is like a new CEO taking over a company and changing strategy). This is v. relevant.

Highlighting that the UK economy fell by its biggest amount in history recently.

Highlighting a change in strategy by Greggs with a view to accelerating click & collect as its stores reopened following the lock down under an existing section titled coronavirus impact.''

I hope you understand that this was just updating Wikipedia with timely, relevant information. The fact that much of it remains in some guise really does show it is not 'spam' and keeping people up-to-date with what's going on in the present day.

Again, please can I ask that you review the request to mark the site as spam and confirm how best to resolve this and avoid it from happening again in future.

Thank You

JXChurchi (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see the dialog on my talkpage (feel free to join, but please don’t take any action yet). I am currently awaiting their answer, which I doubt I will get. —Dirk Beetstra T C 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I replied here to keep everything in one place. SmartSE (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User NewsEditor1959
Hi there,

Noted your warning to User NewsEditor1959, and subsequent editing here notwithstanding. Clearly a WP:SPA and I guess no hope of neutral editing. We will see if further edits follow or if the warning is heeded. Aye Springnuts (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm keeping an eye on it. They look to be a (stale) sock of and  was another Desmond SPA. SmartSE (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Many thanks :)  Springnuts (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Double pregnant. I would correct this but as I may be blocking other meats, I want to keep my administrative distance from editing that article. (yes, doing well and hope you are, too. :)
 * Nevermind, got it.


 * woops - thanks for noticing and yes, maybe best not to become INVOLVED. SmartSE (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Re Richard Desmond
Re this, I agree the citations in the body are sufficient. And despite that, we got a poorly-thought legal notice. The edit was about that. acagastya 03:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

itwiki
Hi, I was looking into it and found other users...apparently it started some years ago (2014?) :O (big G's translations are quite good) :-) The central page on meta is this one? Thanks! --Civvì (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes it seems to have been going on for quite a while! The COI editing began in 2009, but picked up speed in 2014 and then more so in 2019. Yes, I think that page on meta is the best place to analyse what's gone on cross-wiki. As a Brit, I feel like I should at least make some effort and assume not everyone speaks English and Google makes that a lot easier :D SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stray point agenda.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stray point agenda.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Faculty_(company)
Dear Smartse,

My name is Holly Searle, and I am head of PR and Communications for Faculty AI. I’m writing as someone who values Wikipedia immensely and respects the Wikipedia community and its rules. In recent weeks, the Faculty entry has been the subject of a number of edits which, in my opinion, are not consistent with Wikipedia standards for neutrality or citation quality. It now includes a number of comments which are overly opinionated and not grounded in fact. As a result, I believe that the entry is now unbalanced. I have made an edit request on the article’s Talk page with four specific suggestions which I believe would help restore its neutral point of view. But I am conscious of my conflict of interest, so would be very happy to have editors simply subject the entry to fresh scrutiny in an effort to ensure it is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards.

I wanted to draw your attention to this as a UK-based admin who will, perhaps, have greater familiarity with the strength of feeling around Brexit-related issues and, indeed, the issues themselves than others in the community. I also wanted to escalate this to an Admin because the current state of the entry is damaging both our reputation and our team, and in our view, unfairly so. I recognise that Faculty can be seen through the Guardian's coverage as a business with controversial political entanglements. While my colleagues and I would argue that this portrait is unfair, I accept that the articles cited do create that appearance. And I’m conscious of the strong feelings across the UK about anything related to Brexit. Nevertheless, we are a UK-based business with dozens of colleagues, with many different political beliefs, working on technology that we believe can deliver real benefits in both the short and long term, and we hope to continue doing so.

I’m also conscious that Wikipedia has well-tested rules for dealing with controversial topics to ensure fairness and accuracy, and I have tremendous confidence in the community’s ability to apply those rules appropriately. But I wanted to write to you in hopes of accelerating that process.

I’m happy to answer any questions or provide additional information – although I know that first-party information probably isn’t very useful. I’m incredibly grateful for your attention to this.

Finally, please forgive any errors or syntax or etiquette in my approach. While a big fan of Wikipedia, this is my first foray into the community, and I’m conscious that I have much to learn.

Many thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Hsearle-faculty (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You'll see I've made some changes per your suggestions on the talk page. Bear in mind that WP:NPOV means that we aim to summarise everything published in reliable sources in detail which is proportionate to the coverage. Consequently if most of what has been written about Faculty has been about links to Vote Leave and work for the government, then the article will reflect that. Also, as an admin, I don't have any more say over article content than anyone else. SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * SmartSE,


 * Thank you for your willingness to engage with me on Talk:Faculty. Given the events of the last 10 days, I have requested a WP:COIN review of the entry and of FixerUpper75. With so much suspicious behaviour on the entry, I felt I had no other choice.


 * Hsearle-faculty (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi sorry been rather busy the last week and was feeling rather exasperated by my changes being reverted. Hopefully more eyes on the article will improve it. SmartSE (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Boomtown rvmove
Moved demography page to bracketed page to redirect base page to the disambiguation - or alternatively to the page on the music festival? Seems like all google results for "boomtown" are for the festival, so it would make sense to update the main article? Many thanks Orangeisacop (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Boomtown should point to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That may be the festival if you're in the UK (and your google results will reflect that) but for most people in the rest of the world, boomtown will mean lierally that - a booming town. That wasn't actually the reason for my revert however - more just that Boomtown should link directly to an article and it's not necessary to add (demography) to the title. SmartSE (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure that line about the search source making a difference here, tried the search with different locations with VPNS and got very similar results. If people are looking for demography they will find it if its bracketed even easier - that just makes sense. That said I did look at |Boomtown the stats, and I'm suprised at the results but I still don't think that negates what I was trying to do with restructuring these pages given the reasons I just mentioned. Still, I'm happy to leave this for now if it is controversial. Orangeisacop (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is WP:Administrators%27 noticeboard. --Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Something I thought You’d Find Funny
I’m not sure if you have seen this, apparently the editor “Lapablo” is one & the same person as whom you correctly blocked for UPE in 2018. Two days ago when the good ol’ blocked “Lapablo” for socking/UPE, I was mad angry at “Lapablo” but today it all became funny to me. I mean, he casually just resumed editing under a different username after the 2018 block & successfully fooled the community yet again into giving him Autopatrolled & NPP, the same perms you correctly pulled off his account when you suspected him of UPE in 2018. If you have read a book titled The Alchemist (novel) it states somewhere that “if something happens once it may not occur again but if it happens twice it most definitely would happen again”, what’s funny is for all we know he is setting up his third account & would successfully fool the community a third time. I’m sorry if you don’t/didn’t find this amusing. Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I had noticed it but thanks for the heads up. I'm kind of annoyed that I didn't put two and two together as they had very similar editing habits. It is certainly possible that they will be back unfortunately, but we always find them eventually! SmartSE (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don’t think there was anything more you could do. If anything, I am to blame, I mean, he’s a Nigerian editor, I have lived in Nigeria 20+ years now, been an editor for four solid years, been an active anti-UPE editor for close to 1 year now & yet he was engaging in UPE right under my nose & I wasn’t able to detect this, it’s a big shame on me, but I won’t be caught off guard anymore. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Following up at Talk:Steph Korey
Hi SmartSE, can you please see my reply at Talk:Steph Korey? I have a few more suggestions for the article, but would love to get closure on this first before moving on. Thanks, Stephkg (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)