User talk:Stalwart111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Separate DGK page?[edit]

Hi Stalwart, I have wanted to look at this for a while, but I have only caught up with it today. The DGK company has been under the Stevie Williams page for a long time and it feels appropriate to create a separate page, as it is the only significant skate brand to be included as part of the cofounder's page. What do you think?--Soulparadox (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Soulparadox! A quick search suggests there is more than enough for the company to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, as long as we balance the commercial history with some of the controversy about messages and popularity among "stoners". Agree, splitting from Stevie Williams seems long overdue. You always do great work, but let me know if you want a hand with anything! Cheers, Stlwart111 12:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. It seems like it will be okay then. Cheers.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stalwart111. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your assistance[edit]

Stalwart, thank you very much for helping with camaraderie at CitizenShipper and I really appreciate your working with me. It appears that you have had a harder time working with User:BlackCab who may be working on his first paid article. It seems you might have gone to COIN rather than ANI at first to determine whether an editor is managing a COI properly, and you might not have escalated the charge to edit-warring just because of one tag and called for a topic ban. The content question is not obvious to me as I don't know what medical rules apply to be able to make an absolute statement like "no evidence", so it seems that discussing on talk and allowing a tag during the discussion should not have been a problem. The lack of each party understanding the other's position is a factor and more content talk should resolve the problem, so I don't think such talk should be banned when it is the best resolution. Given all that you've said, it would be very chivalrous of you to back down a bit and suggest, e.g., a topic ban for only one week while other editors work out the medical question (it doesn't seem that it's worked out from what the other editors have said alone). I don't think an indef is appropriate for someone who has just got started and who is trying to work with the community, and banning BlackCab from milk won't enamor him to work with other editors if there is any other paid editing. I hope you can give this editor the same consideration you gave me. Frieda Beamy (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Frieda, I did. BC was afforded the same level of good faith as other COI editors with whom I work regularly. My talk page archives are full of threads from conflicted editors asking me to consider edit requests. The difference between you and them and BC is that BC believes their edits are not promotional, despite every other person who has assessed them agreeing that they are. As a result, BC believes they should be exempt from the conditions at WP:NOPAY. BC seems to believe they fall into the same category as those working for museums and art galleries who happen to edit WP as part of their work and get paid for it. But BC is contracted to a public relations and media management firm for whom A2 milk is a major client. You'll notice I went to ANI initially to resolve that question and get some guidance as to whether or not BC should be asked to comply with WP:NOPAY. The argument and edit-warring prompted the call for a topic ban. I have no say over the length of such a ban - they are typically 3, 6 or 12 months depending on the closing admin's discretion. "Indef" usually refers to a block, against which I have specifically advocated. I don't believe BC should be blocked and nothing in their edit history away from A2 milk would support such a call (in my view). Topic bans are issued by the community when someone demonstrates they cannot edit a particular subject area with a neutral point of view. Stlwart111 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and your obvious reference to me as an "advocacy watcher" because I happen to be involved in two COI cases at once is way out of line. I didn't revert BC's initial edits to that article - someone with a long-term involvement in that article did. I became involved days later after a post at WP:FTN and because pseudo-science, in particular, is covered by standing WP:ARBCOM sanctions. BC made those edits without any discussion on the talk page where a number of those specific issues had previously been discussed. Have a read of the talk page - most of those discussing her edit didn't even know she was a paid advocate until I pointed it out. Objection to her initial edits had nothing to do with COI. They believed BC was editing in a non-neutral manner way before they found out BC was being paid to edit in a non-neutral manner. You need to WP:AGF a little bit - there isn't some fundamentalist cabal undoing COI edits for the sake of it. Stlwart111 00:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about my phrasing. We used to have Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch, which was fine by me but less sporty than its current name. But I guess two cases doesn't make you a watcher. I also was going to say your nom was well-meaning, it was just taken up by two editors who have had a very active partnership expressing opinions at COI, but I didn't get to typing that anywhere.
I don't want to inflame anything with my observations; but I don't think paid editing is limited to just paid advocacy here, and GLAM and Reward Board there. The idea of ethical paid editing is that you don't edit as a representative but as an independent Wikipedian who is taking up some interesting subject on the prompting of an outside party; that's the goal anyway, though many fall short, especially the first time. There may have been mistaken edits, but they're getting sorted I understand, and usually at least an inline tag is allowed when one editor has an unresolved issue and communication hasn't gotten through. So I'm having trouble connecting the dots between "paid advocates may edit talk" and topic ban. Do you mind if I give an oppose on your thread? I feel silly asking but I don't follow you on how it helps anything. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You'll also note I didn't start that thread at Talk:COI anyway - BC did and pinged me to illicit a response.
As the latest supporter at ANI has quite rightly stated, the issue of paid editing (or not) is irrelevant to the request for a topic ban. You're not connecting the dots because they are very few to connect. The topic ban request relates to BC's inability to edit the article neutrally - that applies equally whether BC is being paid to do so or not. It's not a question of "mistaken edits" and if nothing else I would counsel you to read the diffs and review BC's actual edits before contributing there. BC blindly reverted the removal of her original 53k byte edit, despite the fact that there was an established consensus on the talk page about a number of the things BC was trying to add to the article. They then added a {{dubious}} template to make a WP:POINT and edit-warred to keep it there. BC has maintained a preferred version of the article (with all of the promotion and none of the "compromise") in draft space. And note that not one other person has agreed that the edits weren't promotional across 3-4 different forums - there's nothing "independent Wikipedian" about those edits. And this isn't a matter of, "the prompting of an outside party" - BC is being paid by a public relations firm hired to promote the subject and is making promotional edits as a direct result of that payment. Stlwart111 02:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I looked a second time and it looks the same. BC jumped to 53K after extensive drafting, was reverted, tried it again because much sourced material was (blindly?) lost, did not protest a second revert, and a 40% good chunk was restored. All that was 13 July and there was no established consensus then that I see, so I can understand BC's attempt to retain the good sources while the discussion went on, and that's what WhatamIdoing resolved. Then there were two attempts to introduce info about BCM7 that you reverted, and three attempts to keep a "dubious" tag in the article (using templates isn't pointy or edit-warring, it just points to discussion). And that's it. And that seems about par assuming a user's never had a run-in with MEDRS before. And a draft sitting tight in userspace doesn't mean anything.
Obviously the 53K version with the word "adverse" under an ordinary glass of milk stems from some misunderstanding somewhere. But ANI is for fixing problems that exist, and the promotion problem doesn't exist now and was resolved by ordinary editing and BC's acceptance of WhatamIdoing's input. I'm not convinced that I should get involved (everything is a test case for the TOU now), I'm just surprised that you were so tolerant with me working with you and yet you don't see BC as trying to do the same thing.
NOPAY says "strongly discouraged" by consensus, and this has been taken to mean "do so at your own risk", not a true prohibition. I'm not sure if you see it that way but WT:COI is pretty good about defining that. Usually we don't jump to topic ban on a first offense and with the other characteristics I mentioned. Why don't we talk to BC some more and see if we can reach a compromise? Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Most of the 30% that was restored was routine corporate history. The other 70% was almost pure promotion. Even parts of what was restored included dishonest sourcing designed to distance the subject from controversy or attack the subject's competitors. That wasn't picked up by WhatamIdoing when he restored it - I cleaned it up later. The BCM7 information was included in both original edits and then added a third time and then added a fourth with a revert. The "dubious" tag was obviously designed to be "pointy" and its removal was reverted twice even after other editors had comprehensively dismissed the need for it. As a comparison, you've not reverted a single edit to the CitizenShipper article and the only edit you disagreed with you took right to the talk page for discussion. ANI doesn't exist to solve content issues; quite the opposite. It exists to address editor behaviour. Again, the difference is behaviour - playing the victim, claiming others are "hostile" while you edit-war, claiming the rules don't apply to you, claiming your edits aren't promotional while everyone else disagrees, editing to make a point and refusing to listen to multiple other editors. BC has done each and you've done none of those things. I certainly don't mind if you get involved but not one person (anywhere) has even remotely defended any portion of that behaviour, nor should they. Stlwart111 03:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications and kind words, Stalwart. I think we disagree about what happened in most of what you just raised but we agree that it's not worth us fighting over. Kind of like the AFD, and I appreciate that. Anyway I'll keep watching (I totally agree with User:Protonk's independent comment), and I'll see if I can do anything helpful. I'm going to keep the WT:COI thread going. Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(Regularly works with COI editors but doesn't watch advocacy. I'm wondering what I would call that if anything.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Benevolent? I work with COI editors because I know they have something useful to contribute and 99% add to the general professionalism of the editing corps around here. Our aim is to write an encyclopaedia - why would we reject the contributions of professional writers just because they are professional. But maintaining a neutral point of view is critical. If you can't do that, you're not welcome, whether you're writing with a coffee in your hand or a pay-cheque. Stlwart111 22:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And BlackCab now admits getting the message. Since you said you can work with this, doesn't that change your proposal from topic ban to voluntary brightline editing restriction? I can understand if you don't want to take responsibility for the other editors or even extract yourself from the pile at this point, but how you handle the proposal gives vibes about how benevolent you want to be. Something to think about. Frieda Beamy (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm perplexed as to the purpose of your message, 2 hours after I posted a conciliatory note at ANI and on BC's talk page. No admin in their right mind would move forward with a topic ban after an exchange like that; there's no need to formally change it. Please just allow these things to take their course - nobody needs to be forced to the negotiating table. We're all sitting together already. As I've explained numerous times, the topic ban proposal wasn't related to paid editing so it's not a matter of swapping one for the other. A confused running commentary is unhelpful. Stlwart111 22:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
We may have disagreements without fighting. I'm just less used to the formal informality that prevails around here. I'm going to take a couple questions to the topic ban policy page for my own understanding. Frieda Beamy (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of California (novel)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of California (novel) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for California (novel)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome[edit]

Stalwart, I appreciate the offer to start an article for Benerson Little as he has sufficient notability. If you do I will work on it. At times I feel like starting an account and your courtesy makes that more likely one day. However all the bickering and petty behavior of a select few vocal regulars has turned me off for now. I just do not want to become embroiled in all that. I wifi with my smartphone so my IP's frquently change. I do save some wiki pages in my favorites though. I also remember the good natured editors and unfortunately some of the contentious ones as well. The one advantage of an IP is I can leave when the craziness starts. Some hate that but those are most likely the ones to avoid anyway. Again thanks and Semper FI! (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)