Talk:Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

flag for neutral point of view
This article appears to be an autobiography. Article creator appears to be linked with subject, and edits from IP addresses 71.166.47.202, 72.83.128.23 and others have contributed largely to this one article; one has contributed 10 times only to Timothy Parker article, another only to this article, and to "Merv Griffin's Crosswords" to add that Timothy Parker was the puzzle producer, etc.

Wikipedia User/Editor Arcenter -- who created and has made extensive edits to only the Timothy Parker page -- appears to be Timothy Parker himself. See the URLs (www.arcenter.com) in the following newsgroup posts made by Parker, for example:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.puzzles.crosswords/MckVUTkPdUA

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.puzzles.crosswords/R7Rf1IptLNg

Further, Parker's Wikipedia photo is credited to Arcenter as "Own Work."

Is there a way to ban Arcenter/Parker from further editing his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:FE4F:D200:E970:1753:2884:FA47 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

flag for accuracy
I just undid two changes stating that Timothy Parker has two sons and that one is a semi-professional street fighter in Mexico. Ref stating that he has a son and a daughter: The rest of this article should be evaluated for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.108.100 (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on here? http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-plagiarism-scandal-is-unfolding-in-the-crossword-world/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36DF:56F0:D0D3:2310:BE4A:5D76 (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Parker is not the founder of the puzzle society or universal uclick. Blahblahbiddyblah (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't find any information about who founded the Puzzle Society, but it's definitely the case that Parker did not found Universal Uclick, which was a merger of Universal Press Syndicate (founded in 1970 by Jim Andrews and John McMeel) and Uclick LLC (founded as a subdivision of Andrews McMeel) . Fheaney (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Then the next sentence should be amended, too, yes? Puzmonkey (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Which part? He may very well be the "founder" of Universal Uclick's line of crossword puzzles (if he is the first to hold the position of senior editor), but it's true that there should probably be a citation for that. Fheaney (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Puzzle Society was originally launched by uclick (a division of Andrews McMeel at the time) in 2001 as "UPuzzles," which was their first subscription service. I can't find the original press release, but this article alludes to it: http://www.writenews.com/uclick-launches-customized-comics-page-service-102320023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:466:6601:8C8E:CFA4:339C:3322 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This gives a fairly good history of uPuzzles, and it is as I remember it - http://www.marketingsherpa.com/article/case-study/results-revealed. Chriz Pizey (former uClick COO) was the person behind uPuzzles/Puzzle Society. Tim Parker was simply a content provider/creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahblahbiddyblah (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Content Dispute
Arcenter and 71.179.21.197 - Please explain here why the content should be removed, instead of causing an edit war.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia User/Editor Arcenter -- who created and has made extensive edits to only the Timothy Parker page -- appears to be Timothy Parker himself. See the URLs (www.arcenter.com) in the following newsgroup posts made by Parker, for example:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.puzzles.crosswords/MckVUTkPdUA

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.puzzles.crosswords/R7Rf1IptLNg

Further, Parker's Wikipedia photo is credited to Arcenter as "Own Work."

Is there a way to ban user Arcenter/Parker from further editing his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:FE4F:D200:E970:1753:2884:FA47 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Timothy Parker
Dear Timothy Parker (aka Arcenter and 71.179.21.197, etc). Please stop editing your own autobiography.

Allow me to quote the immortal Will Shortz:


 * Will Shortz, the puzzle editor for The New York Times, was taken aback by Parker’s replications. “I have never heard of something like this happening before,” he told me. “This would never have come to light except in the electronic age, where you can track these things.” He added: “To me, it’s an obvious case of plagiarism. It’s unethical, and I would never publish a person who plagiarizes another person’s work.”


 * http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-plagiarism-scandal-is-unfolding-in-the-crossword-world/

Update: the New York Times itself has weighed in:


 * ''Will Shortz, who has been The New York Times’s crossword puzzle editor since 1993, says that crossword ideas and elements are occasionally repeated by accident. But the similarities highlighted by FiveThirtyEight made it “clear it’s plagiarism,” he said.


 * “When the same theme answers appear in the same order from one publication to the next, that makes you look closer. When they appear with the same clues, that looks suspicious. And when it happens repeatedly, then you know it’s plagiarism,” he said.''


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/business/media/questions-raised-over-crosswords-seemingly-copied-from-the-new-york-times.html

Editing
I've semi protected the page against editing to help deter the edit war. Now as far as the allegations go, we need to remember that these are just allegations at this stage. There's just enough reporting to where this would merit a brief mention in the article, but we should refrain from phrasing things in a way that make absolute judgement calls on what happened since that runs the risk of running afoul of WP:BLP. We're not the ones that make this sort of call and at most all we can say is that some claims were made, Parker refuted them.

I would also like to ask that comments on this talk page be kept civil. If there is COI editing going on then we need to deal with it calmly so that we can all say that things were handled properly from start to finish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Arcenter (Timothy Parker) continues to edit his own article. His latest update claims the plagiarism is '12 years old', while this article references examples from 2010 and 2011: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-plagiarism-scandal-is-unfolding-in-the-crossword-world/ Econrad (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have given him a short 24 hour block for the edit warring and for not responding to any concerns about his COI. He has to have seen my posts on his talk page, so he's aware that not being transparent is a big problem. When the block is up I hope that he will start communicating here, however I need to ask that we make sure to remain calm and edit neutrally in response to him. I'm aware of the allegations and of the concerns here on Wikipedia, however we need to make sure that he feels like he can collaborate here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, we need to make sure that it looks like we at least gave him a chance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've lengthened the section and I've removed the comment about pseudonyms since it's slightly misleading. He did have crosswords with pseudonyms, but these aren't uncommon in the puzzle world. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources you cite are for cryptics (British crosswords), which are a different form. I don't think that American crosswords have the same affinity for pseudonyms (although I'm not in the industry so I can't say for sure).  -- Saul P., March 10 2016
 * As a member of the industry I can say it is somewhat common, when an editor writes puzzles for their own venue, for that editor to decide to use a pseudonym. It *is* very unusual for an editor to take a published work by a contributor and republish that work with a pseudonym byline (as Parker did with one puzzle that I know of, by Ben Tausig), though since contributors give up all rights when selling to USA Today, it is probably legal for him to do that. I have opinions about that practice, but that would be editorializing and is thus irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. -- Francis H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fheaney (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Note the newer edits by IP addresses, all share the same first 3 octets, and all have edited this article exclusively, and each series of edits removes lots of information: Plus this IP follows the same pattern: Econrad (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/104.244.53.58
 * Special:Contributions/104.244.53.60
 * Special:Contributions/104.244.53.61
 * Special:Contributions/71.179.21.197
 * Likewise Special:Contributions/45.33.81.117 64.35.40.130 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/45.33.81.117 has already far exceeded the three-revert rule and has furthermore stated their intent to continue reverting any edits made to this article:. What's the procedure to prevent this (from this or from the next IP to do the same)? Lock the article from anonymous edits? Fheaney (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Drafted by Pirates
Since the citation for the fact that he was drafted by the Pirates at the age of 16 is pretty obviously based on information Mr. Parker provided himself, can that be flagged as non-verifiable, too? I guess based on the brouhaha over the past few days, I don't quite trust his word on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinshane (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Awards and recognition
The reference for the Guinness Word Records claim appears to be Parker himself.

There is no evidence of such an award: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search?term=Timothy+Parker

A Guinness search for "Crossword" also shows nothing relevant: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search?term=Crossword

Also see: https://twitter.com/datageneral/status/706539304613507073

Econrad (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Guinness record appears to be confirmed, here's a screenshot of an email from Guinness: https://twitter.com/ollie/status/706598143069167621/photo/1 Econrad (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've re-added the Highbeam source that Arcenter removed. Highbeam is usable as a source despite it being paywalled, as long as you put down that it's paywalled. I'm also in the process of giving Arcenter a very stern warning about not responding to any of the questions or concerns. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert needed
The edit war on this page continues, despite bans on some on the participants. In the middle of the war, the citations were lost, leading to Mike1901's sadly correct reversion due to improper citation. I say we revert the page back to EconRad's edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Parker_(puzzle_designer)&oldid=709838402, since it includes the citations and is free from the effects of the edit war.

Also, the aforementioned IP's 104.244.53.* are not only committing an edit war, but also including uncited personal information about Parker, suggesting a possible COI. In fact, due the unanimous condemnation of Parker in the crossword community, I would consider all parties who make edits to mitigate Parker's role or absolve him of guilt to be placed under suspicion of COI.

Xmaster8621 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I made one small revert but I agree that on the whole this version of the page is better the most-recent version I reverted to. I'm not sure when the paragraph about Parker's response to the article was deleted (or by whom) but I think it is fairer to Parker to include it. If you revert to this version, I suggest that the "Puzzle Career" section be moved above "Television" since Parker's TV production credit derived from his crossword career, and the crossword editing/syndication is a more significant part of his CV. Fheaney (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism summary?
I was wondering if there's a way that we could include some of the content from this edit. The current edit has a lot of information, but it also reads a little like a news report and I'd like to include a bit of Parker's response to the allegations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not just restore the page to that edit? It's not like that edit was discarded because of constructive editors trying to improve the article... Xmaster8621 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought about doing that, but I just wanted to make sure that there was a bit of a consensus for this first given the article's edit history. I've missed out on the last few days due to school, so I didn't know if there was a consensus elsewhere that the current version was the best version. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and start making some of those edits then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Add to the list of related COI accounts

 * and . I've requested administrative assistance and page protection. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Video documentary of the scandal


 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  02:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)