User talk:StefanCertic

Stefan Certic article
Hello Stefan Certic, I'm going to assume good faith and trust that you are indeed the person you claim. These comments will also be helpful to whomever is involved. Firstly, I would like to thank you for your message on the 'Articles for Deletion' (AFD) discussion. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the situation here on Wikipedia and why it is that your article has been the subject to recent attention.

A number of English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation policies and rules were violated by /. The English Wikipedia has very strict guidelines about abusing multiple accounts (referred to here as SOCK - sock puppet accounts) which GoaInsomnia violated by using their accounts and IP to "!vote" multiple times in the same discussion with the seemingly willful intention to deceive the process in masking that those accounts are the same person or controlled by a team of people all working together for an ulterior motive. A sockpuppet investigation was conducted and a Checkuser confirmed using technical data that the accounts were definitively confirmed as the same user.

Additionally, undisclosed paid editing is strictly prohibited by the Wikimedia Foundation in their Terms of Use for the website and has legal considerations. GoaInsomnia not only engaged in undisclosed paid editing, they also blatantly failed to adhere to numerous site policies including edit warring, blantant promotional editing, neutral point of view, and our policy on biographies on living people (BLP). When I reviewed the article there were clear issues with the article including concerns I had about notability. Typically it is my personal policy to tag articles with 'maintenance tags' to allow the creator and other contributors an opportunity to address the issues before nominating an article for deletion. I made some changes to immediately address BLP problems and tag the article which were reverted almost immediately by GoaInsomnia's sock puppet account. As such, it was clear the situation was going no where and I nominated the article for deletion. The discussion will run seven days until being closed. We have a policy called WP:G7 in which GoaInsomnia can request the article be deleted as they are essentially the sole content contributor to the article. All other edits by other editors have been removing overly promotional material failing to adhere to a neutral point of view. An administrator, other than myself, may consider deleting it on those grounds. At this point it would be improper for me to delete the article because of our involved administrator policy.

As for why the article become the focus of such attention now is complicated. The article was created about you in July 2016 by. The article had very sporadic edits until a series of eight edits on 5 January 2017 by the same editor. It was during this period that I conducting an investigation on another paid sock farm (a group of accounts intentionally violating our site's policies to promote certain individuals). One of the articles created by this sock farm was about an individual, which for the purposes of privacy I cannot disclose, that led to an news article about you which prominently note you had a Wikipedia article. Following the link and seeing the recent activity I reviewed the article and determined that it seemingly (though I'm less certain now because of the declared involvement of a PR firm) was not associated with this other paid sock farm under investigation. However, I did note several issues with the article from both a content and policy aspect and thus has led us here. Mkdw  talk 05:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Thanks for your comments. I was unable to read anything on my user page, i guess it's not created yet. Anyhow by reading guidelines I fully understand frustration caused by non compliance. I strongly oppose that type of behaviour. My very first step was to explicitly forbid anyone in my surrounding from editing texts in this topic. I may assure that from now on there would be no such attempts for ethical reasons in first place. If there is anything i can do to help, i remain at disposal. I did not managed to identify person who did this, (and part of me believes this is related to a campaign - although it's strongly possible someone did this with good intentions but not paying attention to rules and guidelines). However I assure there would be no unethical acts from any of my coworkers, colleagues or PR agencies. It would be very helpful for me ether if you can completely remove the page if you think it should not be present, or at least put some tags that may help improve article. Whatever you decide it would be much appreciated. Deletion tag along with this discussion will be the very first thing used against me. I need to say again, i never approved any form of marketing using fake, non-informative or misleading informations, especially not here. I hope you will accept my apologies for actions taken by possibly a member of my team. --StefanCertic (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Got your message now. ok, i fully understand the situation. What I can assure is that I have not paid / nor allowed anyone to pay for article creation. Sicne the article is about myself, i am unable to correct issues as that would be violation again. If it comes to your mind anything else i can do to help (Such as identifying agencies that taken care of PR) or anything else, i remain on disposal. Sorry for the trouble created. I will also send you an email, just to remove any doubt that i am person representing to be and have good will to help. Thanks --StefanCertic (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved the comments here away from the AFD because they're related to the conduct of the editor and situation and not about the notability of the article. There are other administrative venues in which this matter can be pursued. I'm going to reach out to GoaInsomnia to see if they're willing to G7 the article for speedy deletion. Mkdw  talk 05:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank You very much--StefanCertic (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately they've declined to do so. Perhaps a direct appeal from you may have more success? Otherwise, as explained before, the AFD will run for the next six days and the article will be assessed by other editors against our policies and guidelines. I believe GoaInsomnia genuinely believes the article meets our guidelines but based upon the way they've conducted themselves, it seems very clear they do not understand Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, or because of their conflict of interest cannot be impartial in assessing the article. Mkdw  talk 07:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I managed to identify person in question. It's not PR person, rather an colleague from University. Although I do understand editors frustration, I also understand him (dealing with paypal to get his 10 bucks donation back from wikimedia lol). His stand point is that there is no regular discussion about article content, rather then he broke the rules and now it needs to be punished. Although i find the situation a bit silly, it's true that no-one is discussing content quality rather his multiple accounts. Rules exsist to keep things in order. However, as George Bernard Shaw says.. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man". :) Anyway, his standpoint is right to some extent. He is PhD in Machine Learning, having his content discussed by persons from other field. On the other side your standpoint is right, violating rules = delete. Anyway, it is a good point that Wiki articles review process should be reviewed by persons credible in specific field of science. Anyhow, i'll compensate his donation, wiki needs to live even imperfect and without articles of my work on it. There are far more important persons that does not have their articles yet :) --StefanCertic (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Hello StefanCertic, there is an ongoing debate at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stefan_%C4%86erti%C4%87 if biographical page about you should be deleted or not. One of the arguments for deletion is your prior request for page to be deleted. May you please join and express your opinion. It would be also useful if you may identify any potentially incorrect facts in mine article. Looking forward for Your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwmgs (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll respond in AFD StefanCertic (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)