User talk:Clarawood123

Hello, Clarawood123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Clarawood for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clarawood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarawood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insert that crap again and I'll have you blocked, This being a collaborative project you need to work with others and make compromises etc.... reverting everyone and taking OWNership of the Clarawood leads nowhere except you being blocked indefinitely .....,

You need to write the article like you're a complete random editor who basically fancied writing about the estate (There's millions of articles on areas here - pick a random one and use it as a template if you like).... If you cannot do that then you should probably leave...,

That's all you need to do - Write the article like a random editor ... that's it ....,

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Clarawood123. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia and my attention was called to your situation by the ANI filing. Apparently nobody has talked with you about what we call "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia, which is pretty clearly at the root of the problems you are experiencing. You made it clear in this comment that you are "a very long term resident of Clarawood with direct experience", and every edit you have made has been about Clarawood. And your username of course reflects that. I'm giving you notice of our conflict of interest guideline and will have some comments and questions for you below.

Hello, Clarawood123. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests[edit]

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

As I noted above, it is clear from your username, your editing, and your actual disclosure that you are a long time resident of Clarawood. It is not clear to me if you own the place where you live and have an actual financial conflict of interest, but it is clear that you are very invested in how people see Clarawood, and in your notions about it. This connection to Clarawood - your "interest" in it, is creating a conflict of interest here in Wikipedia, and that conflict is in turn driving the problems you are having with other editors.

Can you see that?

If so, I would I would like to explain what you should be doing (what you should have been doing all along) -- and if you can agree to that stuff, the problems should diminish and the community will not have to ban you (which is where things are heading at ANI). Please do reply here and let me know if you acknowledge the conflict of interest, and we can take it from there. Please do reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your advice. I find it extremely disheartening that I have been accused of having a conflict of interest and having written the article in a biased fashion. I would have thought that the substantial referencing would have dispelled that notion. I am also concerned that there is a suggestion that I am either paid or have a financial interest in anything. I do not. I can assure that I have already familiarised myself with the Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies and considered thoroughly, as best I can, whether anything I have done has been wrong or misguided. I am confident it has not been.

At present, following the latest edits by others, and as I have highlighted at the AfD and the ANI, the Clarawood page is factually innaccurate from the first line of the infobox, it is misreferenced throughout and it is in breach of copyright due to the deletion of legal statements related to multiple references. I am not touching it as I will only be accused - as I have been already - of ownership etc. Thankyou Clarawood123 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are disheartened. This is all entirely workable -- really it is. Conflict of interests happen in Wikipedia when people have some strong connection to something in the real world, and then come to Wikipedia to write about it. If you read the WP:COI guideline you will see that what happens when this conflict occurs - the conflict between an editor's external relationships and their obligations to Wikipedia -- is pretty much what has happened with you. Other people who are independent of the topic come and look at the work, and find all kinds of bias in it. It is not something conflicted editors do on purpose - it is not because they are bad people or anything like that - it is just the bias that is created by having that very strong connection to the thing you are writing about. For instance, I work with people here in Wikipedia, who came here to write about their employer. Not paid to do that, but doing that because they really believe in their company and its products, and want to tell the world how great they are. This is what you have been doing with the place where you live - where I am guessing you own a home (or at least own a whole life.) Can you see that? Jytdog (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I very much understand the principle of a Conflict Of Interest and I very much understand the Neutrality rule. The article was not biased and everything in it was fully referenced as I have already mentioned. As I also suggested, those who have been accusing me of bias and opinion have provided no evidence to back that up, only opinion and assertion. Instead they have actually deleted the comments on the talk page where I explained why I reverted some edits. This, in my view, is because it showed them to be wrong in their assertions about me. This has blown up because CDRL102 removed a portion of the opening line of the article stating that it was simply my opinion. It was not my opinion, as I explained in the notes deleted by Davey2010, it was a matter of absolute documented fact and was referenced to an academic report which, as I explained, was the pilot study which launched and led to what are now known as the Multiple Deprivation Measures, the offical Government Statistics used by every Government Department and Local Council in Northern Ireland to determine where and how to spend public money. These stats and references show very clearly that Clarawood is exactly what I said it to be and therefore I reverted CDRL102's edit. However, even though it read badly, I even kept another change they had made so the accusation that I simply revert blankly is not true. The article as written also very clearly highlighted drug problems, paramilitary activity, poverty, deprivation, flooding and sectarianism. If this was a promotional article it failed. PS I do not own anything in Clarawood and I am starting to resent the pressure that I have some sort of interest in painting a picture of Clarawood as it is not. Everything I wrote was balanced, fair, factual and referenced. Those who have asserted otherwise have provided no evidence to the contrary and have deleted my evidence when it showed them up. You yourself are trying the approach, in asking me can I see something, to try and make me out in a psychological fashion to be someone who simply refuses to look at themselves honestly and who is not prepared to compromise or see another point of view. This is not true and as I have already said, look at the evidence not the assertions Clarawood123 (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are not open to listening, so I don't think there is anything I can do to help you. People who insist that they have done everything right and everyone else has done badly do not last long here. That is the path you are choosing. I do wish you well. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a resident of Earth, I am often claimed to have a conflict of interest when I write about locations here, as opposed to many Wikipedia editors, who I have to reason to believe live in outer space. They deny conflicts in asteroid AfDs, but I am still unsure. If this housing development is notable, it will retain a separate article; if not, any worthwhile coverage can go into whatever article is about the next highest political subdivision. Please know that we appreciate your contributions Clarawood123, though there can be growing pains for new editors, unfortunately.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, nice to know there are sensible, rational people on here. It seems many of those with a little editing power have turned into despots and are guilty of everything they accuse others of Clarawood123 (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I support you. Wikipedia clearly has a guilty until proven innocent approach, which is just gross. All of these editors and admins should be ashamed, actually. There was no COI violation here, and then to call you a sockpuppet after the way they treated you because they didn't understand how UK estates work? Wow. Again, gross. Krixano (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Clarawood123", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Your username implies that you represent the Clarawood housing estate. See WP:CORPNAME for more information. Please seriously consider creating a new account using a neutral username.

If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that some would have concerns that I am an SPA because my username is connected to the first page I created. However it is not designed to indicate that I represent anyone or anything, it was simply the name I chose similar to someone from New York calling themselves NewYorkGal4 or something. If you think it wiser to use another name then I am open to changing it Clarawood123 (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarawood123, you can safely ignore the above warning which I assume is based on a misunderstanding. The US (where I assume from their name Northamerica1000 is from) has no tradition of centrally-planned housing and thus no real equivalent to estates, and NA1000 is probably assuming that this is a private development and you work for the developer. Northamerica1000, a British or Irish estate is for all practical purposes a government-planned village, usually complete with its own pubs, shops, churches etc (some of the larger ones like Becontree or Wythenshawe can be treated as full-blown cities in their own right); treat it as you would any other village. Estates are built by the government, not by private developers; unless you're insinuating that Clarawood123 works for the local authority, claiming a COI from the name would be like me banning you from North American articles owing to your username. ‑ Iridescent 08:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ping) @Iridescent: and Clarawood123: I struck my message above. I assumed it was a private development. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CheersClarawood123 (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2016 (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).

Clarawood123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Bbb23 has blocked me in connection with a sockpuppet investigation of me. I have just discovered this today. There is absolutely no way any investigation of this would have been able to prove any sockpuppetry as I am a genuine account and have no connection whatsoever to the disruptive editor or anyone else. I am not able to defend myself as I have been blocked. I would like to be unblocked immediately so that I can defend myself as I have, once again, been accused of multiple things I have not done.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppet. And you are able to defend yourself just fine while blocked. You still have access to this page. You don't need to edit articles in order to defend yourself. Yamla (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2016 (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.

@Yamla: Clarawood123 is not a sockpuppet, but is suspected of using a sockpuppet; there appears to be a mistake in the investigation as the account is probably unrelated (even if not, indefinite is excessive) and the request for unblock category:Requests for unblock should be granted. Peter James (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You provide no basis for the claim that there was a mistake in the investigation. Behaviorally what the sock did is exactly what this account said it was going to do; the CU said the SOCK was possible and the behavior of the SOCK is what made it appear very, very likely that the SOCK was run by the same person behind this account. That is where the evidence leads. Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarawood123 says he didn't create the account. Another person has claimed that account and others; something you've mentioned was a possibility on the "investigation" page. Peter James (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People lie all the time about socking; Biscuittin is a serial liar so why you would believe what they say about anything, I don't know. In any case we follow the on-wiki behavioral evidence and the CU, and both point to the master being Clarawood. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioural evidence is inconclusive, and the technical evidence is probably also insufficient as it has already led to other accounts being wrongly linked. Peter James (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. The behavioral evidence could not have been stronger, actually, with the sock doing exactly what Clarawood said they were going to do. Exactly. And it was enough for the initial block and the block review. I have no idea what is driving you to twist the simple facts here; it is bizarre and bordering on bad faith, so I am done responding to you. (if you had continued to argue there is ~some~ ambiguity just in the CU I would think differently but that last note was just absurd) Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who won the race to initiate the SPI, I do have some sympathy for Clarawood123's position. He started with good intentions, wrote the article in good faith, and it was a welcome addition to the encyclopaedia, though it obviously needed a major cleanup and was even nominated for deletion and the author accused of COI, which did not help.

Unfortunately, when experienced editors started cleaning up the article to bring it into line with WP standards he reacted antagonistically and has generally maintained that stance ever since. His position has not been helped by his long tirades where whatever valid points he was making just got drowned. It looks like he did set up the sock account, though we'll never know for sure.

I would like to see Clarawood123 committing to working constructively and amicably to improve the article, one issue at a time, and accepting that while he has personal knowledge of the area, other editors have much more experience in producing quality articles. We're actually lucky to have people from both "sides" willing to work on it. Maybe then he can be unblocked.

In the end, it's all about a small quiet housing estate; there's no need for all that drama. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence pointed equally to the two users, and if there's a sockpuppet account the fact that one of them has already used several sockpuppets and is likely to create more and the other never has as far as we know is one of the most important things to consider when making a decision. Peter James (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It did not point equally and again you are discrediting yourself by claiming that. You are further discrediting yourself by giving credence to something written offwiki by a serial sockpuppeter, who is by definition a serial liar and whose goal is to be disruptive, not to be honest and help clarify anything. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The technical evidence connecting accounts already known to be separate users was, according to the administrator, stronger than that connecting either of them to the new account. My opinion is based on the evidence presented on the relevant investigation pages, although comments since then by both people could be added to the evidence. Or do you think that Biscuittin and Clarawood123 are the same person? Peter James (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not what the admin said and again we do not give any weight to what sockmasters say with regard to "I am not socking" and we give no credence to what serial liars say about anything; it's not "evidence". Stop treating it that way. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

As a result of an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. However, I strongly suggest that you get consensus for any possible controversial edits. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]