User talk:TheTechnician27/Archives/2023/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Agnieszkasek

Hi, you should at least ask the editor if they are an undeclared paid editor before labelling them as such, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Atlantic306. I appreciate the sentiment, but the issue tag does not state that the editor is absolutely, undeniably a paid actor; rather, it notes that there's a strong likelihood. Short of a smoking gun of the editor's name showing up on the company's website, all of the signs are present to indicate the editor is likely being paid or has a conflict of interest:
  • A person creates a new account under a real name ("Agnieszka Sek"; notably a Polish name and a Polish publisher). Definitely not unheard of, but more prevalent among paid editors.
  • They create it right around the time a new, fairly obscure company starts releasing products.
  • They create – as their very first edit – the most promotional article for one of said company's products they could possibly push through AfC and still have it accepted. Their next series of edits are the same thing repeated for another one of the company's products.
  • The latter is nominated for speedy deletion under G11 and then declined at AfC because it serves exclusively as promotional material.
  • They then not only create articles for two more of the company's products but also one for the company itself.
  • The AfC drafts are created already essentially complete. Despite needing three minutes' worth of copy-editing, this is not the work of a typical first-time editor (note: this is the very first edit they ever made).
  • The comany's products differ wildly in developer, quality, popularity, and genre, with the only connection between them being their publisher. So it's not like this is a case of a gamer who really enjoys the works of a specific developer, niche genre, etc.
  • Additionally, they proceed to place a mention of the company, its products, and links to its article in every applicable article they can find.
  • Importantly, they absolutely do not edit a single other page in even the slightest capacity – including not creating even a basic user page – despite editing for nearly three years straight.
  • The single, solitary exception to this is an edit on a talk page made for the express purpose of asking an experienced editor how to clear notability guidelines after a PROD.
  • They express absolutely no indication of why they're so fixated on this one obscure publisher.
  • They cease editing once the company stops frequently publishing new titles.
Hopefully you understand why I didn't see it worth my time to ask this now-inactive account – which would have had multiple mandatory opportunities at AfC to declare a paid conflict of interest – if they have one. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree it is likely they are a upe but if they are asked and give an unconvincing answer that is the route to blocking them, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Hello, I've noticed your template you put almost instantly after I published the article ONPASSIVE. Upon preparation, I was carefully reviewing all possible guidelines I could find and was comparing it to other Wikipedia articles to follow all the rules. And because of this I'm surprised something's wrong nonetheless. Could you suggest me what to improve there? Mysoftpaws (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Mysoftpaws. There are a couple of things that trouble me about the article. The first is that much of the sourcing is essentially press release churnalism and sponsored content. For example, the Business Standard article is just a press release, the YouTube videos are promotional material from the business themselves, the Plunge Daily source is very clearly ripped straight from a press release despite not disclosing this, etc. Additionally, a lot of the statements are unnecessarily WP:REFBOMBed, which is typical of a lot of promotional articles. Finally, the last two paragraphs of the 'History' section don't say anything encyclopedically relevant about the subject and instead stand out as the sort of PR fluff that a company would want on its Wikipedia page. To be clear, I believe you're editing in good faith and did not create the article as a promotional piece. However, it simply reads like one at the moment. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed explanations! Perhaps I used not the best articles as examples. Will be working on its improvement. Mysoftpaws (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for all the ref work you've been doing at 2023 Canadian wildfires.

Wracking talk! 15:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello TheTechnician27/Archives/2023,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTechnician27/Archives/2023/June&oldid=1168443068"