User talk:Charmanderblue

Charmanderblue, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Charmanderblue! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Charmanderblue! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Advice on removing clean-up tag and publishing draft article previously marked as promotional, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI suspicions

I agree with what you're saying there, but do be careful about outing. You have to say it in more vague terms. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. Definitely, I understand the underlying risks. I have not and will not disclose or build upon any information other than what the suspected user has put out into the space voluntarily. I'm of course open to suggestions on how to handle such matters in a more discreet manner, without negatively affecting the outcome, which in this case is pinpointing a blatant paid contributor. Charmanderblue (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP On a relative note, would you by any chance whom to ping about this? Or would you suggest I just go ahead and tag both articles as possible instances of undisclosed paid editing? Charmanderblue (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing is to make a post at WP:COIN, then other editors will look at the pages. I would do it myself but I am going out to eat (or rather, going out to get take-out in the COVID era!). Be very vague about any off-wiki connections, as in "googling will get you a connection pretty fast betwen the concerned parties and articles". Don't mention any specific sites or connect the person specifically. It is a violation of WP:OUTING to disclose any personal details on-wiki that the editor has not already disclosed. Thanks for your efforts to keep the Wiki neutral. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Charmanderblue! Thank you for your contributions. I am ThatMontrealIP and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear block and reverts to draft articles

DeltaQuad & ‎Praxidicae

My account has been blocked on the suspicion of undisclosed paid edits to a number of articles. Some of them were in draft and pending approval after clean-up and removal of puffery from my side. A few points:

My userpage, as per WP:PAID provides a disclosure of all paid contributions done in exchange for money.

I have indicated the tag {Paid article} in the talk page of all draft articles that I had been paid to create and submit through WP:AFC, as demonstrated in: Draft_talk:Charles_Knirsch

Charmanderblue (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reason you were blocked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft articles have been slapped with the UPE tags, yet the disclosures were in perfect order, as per {WP:PAID}. I'm not using multiple accounts, as per DeltaQuad. I don't see how relevant it is as to what forms of network encryption I use to protect my internet browsing experience. Charmanderblue (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While unblock is pending review, Bri has slapped Draft:Kiefer_O'Reilly with an UPE. The draft has had the PAID contribution template on its talk page since it was created, which reads "This template certifies that this article contains contributions from Charmanderblue...". Please explain, how was that particular article edited "in return for undisclosed payments"? Charmanderblue (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bri, for removing the wrongfully attributed tag. Charmanderblue (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Charmanderblue (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wrongfully blocked, possibly in connection with malformed articles previously edited without proper disclosure and lack of knowledge of WP:PAID/WP:COI that I was hired to clean up. I have disclosed all paid contributions as per WP:PAID on both my userpage and on the talk page of all draft articles pending review through AFC. These are now wrongfully tagged as UPE indicating that they have been edited in return for undisclosed payments. See this or this for an example. I do not use multiple accounts, and I do use a paid proxy by default for all internet browsing. I appeal to the sense of WP:AGF on this one.

Decline reason:

Based on GSS' email I have been able to pursue some additional avenues of investigation, and now conclude that this account is a sockpuppet (not a meatpuppet) of the blocked editor 42isthedefiniteanswer, created to evade that account's block. In particular they are not the person whose Upwork profile they linked to. Therefore, unblock declined. Making your paid editing disclosures works in your favour if you appeal your block from your original account (which I now don't believe is compromised) but this account and your proxy will remain blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{checkuser needed}}: A proposed response to the unblock request can be found in the history of this page. If there are no checkuser objections, please undo my undo. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charmanderblue is using a webhost service which is separately blocked per WP:NOP. 42isthedefiniteanswer does not appear to be on a proxy, and if the webhost is to be believed they're in a different continent, but at best ~~inconclusive~~ (proxies lie). Please consider this a regular block.

Notwithstanding the checkuser results, Charmanderblue will need to disable their webhost/proxy service to edit, even if their account is unblocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:ToBeFree's proposed response: Preposterous accusations and a blatant instance of guilt by association. From the onset of the creation of this account I had disclosed that I had been paid to clean up and resubmit the malformed articles in due process. I had cleaned them up, left a message on their take pages and submitted them trough the AfC process (the previous editor had simply pushed it straight into the mainspace). I didn't "influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion" or "sway consensus" in any shape or form. I never partook in any discussion or voting in regards to the articles that had been initially flagged as UPE. Charmanderblue (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment." — WP:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry. If you would like to be unblocked, please describe which topics unrelated to your financial conflict of interest you would like to edit about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/42isthedefiniteanswer this morning, as per the Upwork advert, a freelancer from a different continent than what Charmanderblue disclosed was hired to create these pages so, I knew we are not going to see any technical relation between these two accounts because these freelancers are known for sub-contracting others and some of them even have a group of freelancers who operate accounts from different countries and states so, WP:MEAT is possible in this case imo. GSS ^💬 14:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed opinions to a number of Articles for Deletion and clean-up discussions (see [| 1][| 2][| 3][| 3][| 4][| 5] and flagged a number of non-notable BPLs for deletion (See: [| 1][| 2]). Those are the ones I can recall and I won't be bringing up examples of minor editing I've done as they're non-substantial at this point. But I do enjoy the discussions and the research work that comes with the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion section more than editing, at this point. Charmanderblue (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I'm changing my finding to

Unlikely per my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/42isthedefiniteanswer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request the reviewing admin to hold their judgment till I get answer to a few questions. Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment below. GSS ^💬 17:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm growing weary of this WP:WITCHHUNT. @GSS: please cease your questioning and email me your evidence of meatpuppetry. @Praxidicae and Bri: stop editing this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My questions are over and for sure mailing you in a moment. GSS ^💬 18:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my unblock appeal and formulated my arguments therein. Also, I found your comment on me being a 'parasite' demeaning, insulting and in total disregard of the WP:AGF spirit. Such language is unbecoming by authority in what's supposed to be a healthy discussion. Charmanderblue (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing disclosure

Hello Charmanderblue, Please note that per WP:PAID and the WMF Terms of Use, editors editing for compensation are also required to maintain links on their userpage to any websites on which they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. GSS ^💬 05:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the rule and don't advertise my services on any website. I use a freelancing website where clients post job offers in public (think craiglist). My account on said website is private, and is not visible to non-clients. Either way, I don't advertise any form of Wikipedia services on said profile, nor it is visible prior to any prospective clients, as it is a minor side job and that's how the site works. I contact all prospective clients with a summary of why I'm qualified (well-versed in WP procedures, going through AfC, helping them review/find sources on subjects) and they hire me based on that. Charmanderblue (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are referring to Upwork. The WP:PAID policy states, paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services so, since you use that profile to obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services you need to provide the link. GSS ^💬 06:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I am referring to Upwork. The link is private, as stated, and won't be accessible to anyone outside of Upwork. I assume there is no added value in a private link. If I'm expected to open my entire Upwork profile and clearly state that WP services are provided, I can do so, even though I'd prefer not putting my face out in the public domain. Please advice. Charmanderblue (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I had read the WP:PAID on affiliation disclosure up to "active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit..." and missed the "obtain paid". As I didn't specifically advertise Wikipedia editing services and instead responded to job offers, I considered disclosure of the link would be moot. I sincerely apologize for this oversight. As evident by the detailed disclosures on my userpage and the talk pages of created articles, I had no intention of sidetracking any requirements of the rules for paid-contribution disclosure. Please advice on the link. Charmanderblue (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's helpful because it's required by policy. Praxidicae (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, but I cannot modify my userpage now to post the link. Here is the notice - "This notice confirms that, unless otherwise noted, the user is contracted through Upwork bids with the use of the following REMOVED . You might have to sign up for Upwork to see the link but I've made it public. Charmanderblue (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disclosing the link. Can you prove the ownership of this profile? GSS ^💬 14:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've added Wikipedia into the jobs section on my profile. Charmanderblue (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove the link not funny to get a fake contract request with racial slurss 5 minutes into posting the link!.What kind of an idiot wastes 1.50$ for this???

Okay, so you claimed you were hired by "Old City Public Relations" to create and update Draft: Daniel O. Griffin, Draft:Charles Knirsch and Draft:Parasitic Diseases and as far as I can tell a different freelancer was hired for these tasks along with a few more that were edited/created by user 42isthedefiniteanswer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note to reviewing admin: Please feel free to email me for more details. GSS ^💬 14:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was hired to clean up the mess from the previous editor, I've said this so at least five times in previous conversations, but no one seems to listen. I even put up a notice on that in the respective article talk pages. I've used all appropriate tags, too, including for newer jobs. Either way, I'm done. I don't feel comfortable disclosing private information and getting doxxed by a rival editor LITERALLY 5 MINUTES AFTER THE DISCLOSURE. Charmanderblue (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charmanderblue, can you disclose who hired you to create an article for Kiefer O'Reilly that you started in your sandbox? GSS ^💬 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been disclosed on my userpage. The full name is Hutch Media Group. Charmanderblue (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so when you were hired and on which Upwork profile? GSS ^💬 17:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same profile I had posted before, but if you're looking for verifibiality, I haven't hit a single milestone and haven't been paid a single dime for it. It doesn't therefore show up on the profile as a "Job in Progress". You couldn't see the name of the client, either way. If these conditions are not enough to satisfy WP:PAID, I can look (and redirect) all future clients for work on freelancer.com, where I can guarantee client and job description visibility. Charmanderblue (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this user going to react after reading this message, but I have convincing evidence to support my claim that this user has a direct connection with "42isthedefiniteanswer" and they are involved in meatpupptery. Please feel free to email me for details. GSS ^💬 17:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Parasitic Diseases

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Parasitic Diseases, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Praxidicae Your request for a speedy deletion has been declined. On a relative note, could you explain the logic in reverting the edits I have made to Draft:Daniel_O._Griffin and Draft:Charles_Knirsch? The edits were made in good faith, removed puffery and weasel words that were leftover from the previous UPE editor. All edits made by me were disclosed to have been paid for, yet you've reverted the drafts to the malformed state they were until I came along to clean them up and submit for an AfC (the originals were simply pushed into mainspace). Thanks. Charmanderblue (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read wP:MEAT. Praxidicae (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors states Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. It also states New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and that appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating. Editors here have expressed concerns that you are acting in an identical fashion to a blocked editor; if the community finds this to be so, then your edits can be reverted w/o explanation. In fact since your account was created two days after the editor in question was blocked, any or all of your edits could be subject to reversion. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Marti Buckley.jpg

The file File:Marti Buckley.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uploaded for Draft:Marti Buckley. No other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]