Talk:Amnesty International India

Untitled

Hello; I helped create this, and I have no COI with Amnesty India. I'm interested in art, journalism and human rights, and you will see that each line in the article is referenced carefully. Amnemonic (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration

There is a COI tag on the article placed without any explanation on this talk page. I have contributed to this article so I want to declare that I have no affiliation, endorsement or any connection with this organizations. I would request other editors who made contributions to this article in any form should disclose if they have any COI. --KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be good. Until we get such disclosure I have returned the tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have also contributed to this article, as well as helped clean it up considerably. May I understand why you think there may be COI with this article? I have disclosed (and do so again) that I have no COI with the subject. Thank you. Amnemonic (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns. They are being worked on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your polite reply. However, you can see clearly now why it's so hard for new contributors to do anything substantive here. I'll wait and continue editing elsewhere. I'm happy to be checked and corrected - and I've responded well to the corrections - but it certainly is frustrating to have major edits immediately sent off into some kafkaesque waiting room for some indeterminate, opaque analysis I am excluded from (I assume this is a checkuser process, which, if it is, you should say so.) Amnemonic (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be a very experienced user with a good understanding of the processes involved. But basically there is evidence out on the wider internet that this article has been paid for and the user who created it is a prolific experience undisclosed paid editor who uses multiple socks to carry out their work. One of many unfortunately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding here as well as on your talk page Doc James. I am a new editor, but I have been volunteering in an organising capacity around Wikipedia for several years - help with chapters, events, etc. However, I have only intermittently tried my hand at editing. I do want to edit more, and this is my attempt to. I resent the idea that I was paid to do this, and I can assure you that this isn't the case - though I doubt that my assurance, or the absence of tangible proof, might help that. In any case, my knowledge of editing policies and Wikipedia processes comes from working to support Wikipedians over 10 years, from admiration of the project, and not from editing myself. I would sincerely like to *not* be penalised for having both an understanding of the policies and an enthusiasm to edit. Excuse me if I come across as angry, because I know you are only trying to do your job. However, please understand, that I am only trying to edit more, and nothing less. Amnemonic (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay your positions are noted. Not seeing how you are being penalized? This article still exists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James, and I appreciate the consistent politeness. Yes, the article exists, but I feel like I should not have to engage so much in order to justify why there is no COI here. Any objective reading of the world, world media, or Indian media, would make very clear that Amnesty India is a notable subject, and any close reading of the article would dispel any notions of bias or self promotion. Having put in a lot of work on that article, I would sincerely prefer to continue editing rather than debating the article's merit on talk pages. I think this goes for any new editor, regardless of competence; therefore, I wish there was a less time-intensive way to allow new editors who don't come with an in-built posse of supporting editors to be corrected and get on with the work of editing, rather than spending on their time on disputes. Thank you Amnemonic (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is the issue you see when someone tries to buy an article. It may take months to figure it out. Remember there is no time limit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is beautiful

(assuming one or more editors) Not really sure if they can do anything about it. I mean I guess the way to handle unpaid cops is to become a lawyer. If you ever want to do normal editing let me know. There are a number of articles that could user an editor(s) like y'all. Hit up any of the pages I've worked on if you want to help on any of them. I hope they don't punish me for being cheeky. #user-rehab Endercase (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone paid for an article on t,his topic just before it was created.[1] Thus the COI tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: (my opinion)(please revert if I am out of order) I have maintained and will maintain that Admin can not effectively stop paid edits. We have in the past used an internal bounty board for those specifically so they can be handled locally, it is sad (even harmful) that they now exist as third party sites(outside our jurisdiction and direct view). The fact of the matter is that they will always have more incentive to evade your enforcement than you have to enforce. Even if this article was paid for there is no specific evidence linking those accounts and IP's to that payment, and as such your COI tag is IMO uncited and unsupported. I really don't see a specific problem with this article, as it appears to be neutral. Additionally, the editor(s) in question do(es) not appear to be edit warring. Please show me the specific harms in their actions. Whereas, your actions appear to be doing nothing but driving this phenomenon further underground, making it even more difficult to monitor and compensate for, and thus are IMO harmful. There are plenty of articles that actually need to be deleted or policed, this does not appear IMO to be one of them at this time. Endercase (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I have done is tag the article to indicate that it was very likely paid for. Not sure how this drives it more underground? There are above group paid editors.

Yes Wikipedia has no effective mechanism to remove anyones ability to edit Wikipedia. And that is a big issue not only with respect to issues of harassment but issues of undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they above editors here had admitted to being paid for this article you would have deleted large portions of it, no? Here you make it impossible for them to honestly disclose. This drives paid editing further underground. Using socks is time consuming yet you suggest that is what they are doing without direct evidence, why would they have a logical reason to use socks? We should attempt to make sure that paid editors do not feel like they need to use socks. If you want to be able to make sure that the community can log and check paid edits your current methods do not make sense. The point of this type of encyclopedia is that all views (even paid ones) are represented in context and proportionally. Your behavior on this appears to discount the view of editors that have been compensated, also known as professionals (experts?). From the above it appears as if they have a better understanding of policy and maybe even consensus than you do. Of course there is also no evidence here that suggest that you are not actually operating the apparent socks and your above comments are just intended to throw other editors off the trail. That is also a valid possibility. While your hunt for paid editors could also be construed as a desire to eliminate the competition. These are valid, though also unsupported with any specific evidence, conclusions. Much like your own.

The only thing we know from that link is that there was a desire to pay for this article and that money did exchange hands. Without specific evidence that the particular editors that made this article were compensated that tag is out order in my eyes. For all we know the person that took the money had nothing to do the creation of this article you do not have any evidence (or have not supplied it) that the editors that have created this article have a COI. The above editors really do know what they are doing, they (according to you) have done their job perfectly. BTW being paid to make an article does not really count as a COI violation unless they were paid to dishonestly represent the subject matter. As COI (as in policy) is based on the argument that conflicts of interests lead to the subject being non-neurally represented which hurts the encyclopedia.

Based on your link: The editors were paid just to create an article. They don't even care if it has a COI tag (notice how they aren't arguing with you) or even if it gets deleted. They have already been paid. As such the apparent COI would have been time limited. The only COI that can really be claimed (based on that link) is in the creation and expansion of the article itself not in the wording or in the information presented. Meaning the tag here is misplaced, as it suggest that the article itself does not fairly represent the subject matter.

I did not tag you because you appear to not like user tags (you don't appear to use them here, even after I have requested you do so on your talk page). If you would like me to tag you in the future please let me know. Endercase (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you supportive of removing our prohibition against socking? We all know that we have a poor ability to enforce the "no sock policy" similar to our poor ability to enforce the no "undisclosed paid editing policy"

Using socks is not very time consuming. Socking is common practice for most undisclosed paid editors. They use one account per job and then move onto the next account for the next job.

Per "We should attempt to make sure that paid editors do not feel like they need to use socks." Yes I am aware that some feel that paid promotional editing should be encourage / allowed. This however is a minority opinion without wide support.

I am helping the community "log and check paid edits" by tagging it. I am not sure what does not make sense to you about this?

This "The point of this type of encyclopedia is that all views (even paid ones) are represented in context and proportionally" is also not support by consensus. One is not supposed to buy 25 people to represent your views. We are working to build a high quality independent source.

Of course they have an excellent understanding of policy as they do not appear to be new accounts :-) Most paid editing deals include a "maintenance" clause requiring the article to be live for a year. May also require the removal of this tag which is why such a great and urge push to remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you think it will force further interaction then I'm down for that tag. I would like to see their input, and their methods.

"Yes I am aware that some feel that paid promotional editing should be encourage / allowed." -- That isn't me really, I just think that if we can't stop them we should be able to track them so that we can make sure that "their" articles are neutrally presented. It becomes a game of Whak-a-mole while they use IP masked Socks, this article may be tagged but the rest they made?

"Are you supportive of removing our prohibition against socking?" We don't have a prohibition against socking, we have a prohibition against using multiple accounts to force a change in the appearance of consensus. And even that is kinda allowed as long as consensus is determined from debate and not !votes. Whereas Socking (in and of itself) is a form of masking and is allowed as the community supports anonymity. Endercase (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Socking is specifically "the use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose"[2]

While multiple accounts can be allowed socking is not. We do not have good mechanisms to prevent socking and efforts to deal with it does push it more underground. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? We have our own definition for socking too? Wikipedia really need to check their consensus on such matters, they are way off base from normal usage. Uggg. #localconsensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endercase (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doc James: the tag should stay, and the ad is a reasonable justification for it. The article could use a review for tone and NPOV. (If your response to this is WP:SOFIXIT, I don't have a block of time to deal with it right now.) The Wikipedia definition of socking is hardly exotic. See, for example, The Weird Reasons Why People Make Up False Identities on the Internet. Endercase, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with the tags now Doc James convinced me.

Can we (BlackcurrantTea) have a discussion on the definition of socking?

The link you link here defines socking as "USING FALSE IDENTITIES for deception", which is correct. But, deception is not always malignant. Endercase (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endercase, one might spend hours thinking of examples of non-malignant deception, but vanishingly few of them would have the potential to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way. I don't have anything more to say about socks/socking. You may find the discussion you're looking for at the talk page for WP:SOCK or the pages it links to. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]