User talk:Inlinetext

Courtesy notice

I didn't use your name in this COIN thread, but it does mention some of your statements. You are of course welcome to contribute to the discussion. Brianhe (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy :-) I have no problem editing under this name. Inlinetext (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC).

Note about COI stuff

Hi Inlinetext. You may or may not know that I worked a lot on COI issues at COIN until about 6 months ago, when I made a mistake and violating OUTING and got a TBAN for that (my contribs at COIN). I just recently got that lifted.

Looking at the COIN history, your participation there began a few days ago (your contribs there).

I would like you to understand, that a lot of us have been working on addressing COI issues for a long time, and that this work is somewhat controversial. There are some hardcore/strident anti-COI people, the big bulk of the community doesn't much like COI/PAID editing but doesn't like drama either, and there are some hardcore "content not contributor" people who don't mind COI/PAID editing but harshly oppose any discussion of editors based on who they are. The community has been moving slowly toward doing more to address COI/PAID editing. This is a good trend. But that trend can change.

I hope you can hear this but in my view your postings about the Vipul matter in particular, and about COI matters generally, are way too strident, and you are making claims that go well beyond the evidence.

You are free to do as you like, of course, but please hear me that:

a) in my view, these kind of strident claims harm the overall effort to manage paid/COI editing; they create noise and drama that turns people off

b) in my view, these kind of strident claims create a distraction from dealing with the Vipul matter.

c) If you continue making claims that go beyond the evidence, you yourself can become subject to sanctions.

Would you please tone it down, and keep it toned down? As I said, you are free to do as you like, but it would be better for you and everyone else if you did. Thx Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has been ages since I posted to COIN. I'll be cooler in future, if at all.

It's not that the evidence is not there, it's that it can't be presented publicly over here under the present system. For instance I would not have linked to his employers the way you can. Perhaps I'm old skool.

The immediate problem: How do you propose that paid/conflicted edit disclosures are communicated effectively/conspicuously so that readers/consumers are likely to notice and understand them ? I don't think that article talk page disclosure is adequate, and neither is pasting a COI template "on article" since it is hidden in mobile view.Inlinetext (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything Jytdog just said. Most recent example: the accusation that someone is associated with Majestic SEO because of a coincidentally similar username, was not helpful. I can attest from my examination of the evidence that there is an active center of recruits from Pacific Northwest high schools who are in all likelihood somewhere between simply gullible and unaware of the scope and nature of the enterprise, or aware that it is nefarious but unaware of the impact in participation will have on their future reputations. Pardon the mixed zoological metaphors, but we will have enough fur flying in this case without fishing for red herrings. - Bri.public (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to butt-in here and say thank you ALL of you for the attention and considerations that you have created with this COI situation. Jytdog especially for speaking out since this whole thing looked fishy and the outing issues are a little twisted in this case. If Jytdog had not taken up this group for COI, I believe that they would have continued unstopped. I'm not afraid to be bold but sometimes getting involved in a problem like this is just so far off of what regular wiki-gnomes and editors do, that I think many editors like myself tend to back away from trying to really fix something like this. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Another piece of free advice. Please use words like "apparently..." or "indistinguishable from..." more freely. When you say "X did Y" then the burden of proof is on you, and people's feathers get (more) ruffled. - Bri (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for proposing Wikignoming on the Providence (religious movement) page! Didn't know that it was a technique that exist. Avataron talk 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research

Hi there, re: this, I think you're confused about what original research is or isn't. Summarizing a film's plot doesn't qualify as original research, because the film itself is a primary source and can be used for non-controversial content like plot. Interpretations of the plot, if unsourced, or if based on one's own opinion, would be original research, as original research refers to content for which there is presumably no reference. Your edit has been reverted. Please see WP:FILMPLOT for more info. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, whereas WP:PLOT is policy and policy says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. IMHO, a film cannot be an independent source about itself. MOS:PLOT also speaks of a mix of primary and secondary sources; to be used be dealt under WP:RS. What was deleted was apparently an editor's interpretation of their personal viewing. Inlinetext (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Concern about undisclosed paid editing‬

Hi there, responding to your comment about undisclosed paid editing for Jubilee (DJ). I received no monetary compensation for this article. There are also ample sources that cover all of the information included in this article, so if there is a particular source that is in dispute, I'm happy to swap it out for a better one. While I am a fan of this artist's work, I am not at all associated with her marketing or promotions and do not believe this article violates conflict of interest. Thanks, luvtoucans

".. compensation" means an exchange of money, goods, or services.". Since there is a local policy known as WP:OUTING, I can only allude to my concern about 2 citations which I have retained in the article. Please feel free to improve the article with better sources, preferably mainstream ones, since this is about a living person and we have to be extra careful. Inlinetext (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI report concerning you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#False_allegations_of_meatpuppetry_and_sockpuppetry_by_Inlinetext D4iNa4 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Because I am blocked, I am requesting that comments I post here be automatically transcluded (? is that the term) to the specific portions of the WP:ANI discussion where my conduct / editing is being discussed. Inlinetext (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can transclude posts to ANI, but if there's a specific post you want copied, I can do that for you. Just post it here and ping me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:. Please post the following text there

Because I shall be reporting an administrator of this project (ie. English Wikipedia) who has the privacy violating check user facility and who is therefore presumably identifed to WMF, and

Because this administrator is a participant in the ARBCOM ABCA unban request of User:OccultZone where I also conveyed certain doubts and apprehensions to prtvent the harassment of users, and

Because the said administrator has a conflict of interest with an account used to make undisclosed edit(s) on behelf of the paid editor 'WWB_Too' account without prominently disclosing the Conflict of Interest to the readers as prescribed in the community applicable guidelne paragraph WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE, and

Because the innocent and trusting average internet users and readers of Wikipedia are being thereby deceived;

I am stating that a miniscule section of the community cannot topic ban me for my referring to these easily verifiable facts about administrator misconduct and their paid edits through alternate account(s), but that the topic ban must emanate from ARBCOM or the WMF only.

It is relevant that the Vipul paid editor network was essentially exposed by me, and it was operating in clear contravention of the 'applicable law' mentioned in WMF's Terms of Use. Similarly editors acting for the 'WWB_Too' account are likely to be exposed to personal liability if they insert content with commercial impact which is not prominently disclosed on the article itself to the readers of Wikipedia.

Such flouting of Wikipedia's WP:COI guideline, and WP:PAID policy for paid content in articles which policy is incorporated by specific reference in the WMF Terms of Use also engenders potential risk for innocent volunteer editors who insert paid content suggested by WWB_Too.

I had posed this query at the Village Pump policy here and it was unanswered for 3 days.

I am concerned that the paid template being suggested is not directly visible in mobile view.

I am concerned that the WMF is well aware of this problem and is therefore getting pasted paid templates occasionally on those pages where WMF is soliciting donations within the European Union. eg. link to comply with applicable law amnd to protect editors within EU from potential liability.

Since the remedies I seek, as a reader and consumer of Wikipedia, to enforce the regulatory FTC and FDA directives for prominent disclosure are incumbent only on WMF and not on anybody at this community it is now quite immaterial what happens here. Of course, if I am banned by ARBCOM to protect their admin corp, I shall then also be set free and at liberty not to respect this community's privacy, "assume good faith", harassment etc. policies.

It is incorrect to say that I am against paid editing which reason is being cited for my TBAN. I am only against unfair and deceitful paid editing without prominent disclosure to readers. I have already declared that I do not really consider myself to be exclusively a member of this project's community and my user account is a global one, so I would appreciate an ARBCOM or WMF ban, if at all, mainly because like the Daily Mail, I don't consider a handful of anonymous editors on a niche noticeboard to be representative of the "community" to be able to ban me. Inlinetext (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Inlinetext I think it would be wise to either redact your statements or remain silent through the rest of the ANI discussion. You really shot yourself in the foot with this comment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You state that the community cannot topic ban you. You strongly imply that if Arbcom bans you, you will feel free to engage in disruption. This presumably implies you will engage in the same disruption if the community topic bans you. I am therefore indefinitely blocking you to prevent such disruption. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:. Thanks for postng that text to ANI. In the interest of the Wikipedia community and its readers, I am requesting you to please post the following text to ARCA/OccultZone under my edits. (A) I don't intend to return to interact with this community directly after this since my remedies now begin with WMF. (B) I don't intend to post further on this project under this or any other account.

@DougWeller, @Thryduulf, @Newyorkbrad I regret to inform you and the other elected members of Arbcom that one of the administrators on this ARCA page (who also has the CheckUser and so is presumably IRL identified to WMF) is an undisclosed paid editor for William Beutler of the PR reputation management firm Beutler Ink under an alternate account. It seems I have been community blocked for protesting the undisclosed paid edits of this pair of employer/employee which is a blatant violation of the WMF Terms of Use, the FTC directives and the ratio of the Munich Court on paid editing (which are all mentioned in WP:COI and which I have brought to WWB_Too's notice here. This pair has also previously acted on behalf of a notorious lobbyist to polish her article entry for undisclosed payment(s) in a deceptive way to Wikipedia's readers. Accordingly, it is a serious content behavior dispute falling under ARBCOM's mandate to resolve. It is pertinent that your conflicted administrator was deeply involved in the SPI investigations of OccultZone and had so arranged things that the evidence against OccultZone's other numerous connected accounts was deflected and diffused to allow these accounts to continue editing. Hence kindly factor in my comment when casting your votes to unban OccultZone. Regards. Inlinetext (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken presumption that there is a serious content dispute falling under ARBCOM's mandate to resolve. ArbCom has never, and cannot, ruled on content, only behaviour. You're going to need better evidence of COI and paid editing beyond a few vague hand waving statements. Also, you will notice that I am in support of your ban not related to the paid editing / COI dispute but for your threats. Blackmane (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Have corrected. Until such time as I am Arbcom / WMF banned I shall respect this project's OUTING policy, at least here. There is no threat. Inlinetext (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)