User talk:Edit0695

Laurie Patton
You haven't deleted the redirect, you have blanked it leaving the page without content. Please solve the problem.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Laurie Patton (Internet executive), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Edit0695. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Laurie Patton (Australian executive) ‎, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear ScrapIronIV. Why do you persist in reverting legitimate additions to the entry for Laurie Patton (that's me) despite my CIO declaration and the provision of supporting references? I have discussed this via emails with Wikipedia and as I understand things my actions are in accordance with the rules. Could you please unrevert? Thank you Edit0695 (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

COI
Please be aware that if you persist in making substantive changes to the article about you, even if it is to re-instate text that was previously there, the COI tag is going back onto the article and will stay there. Propose your changes on the talk page and let the community decide. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone has reverted your recent edits. If you want changes to the article, you must propose them on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist. I have exchanged emails with Wikipedia and drawn attention to the fact that someone keeps reverting legitimate additions to my entry despite my COI declaration and the provision of supporting references. Edit0695 (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

SPA
You appear to be a single purpose account working on this and a few related articles. I see that conflict of interest discussions appear regularly here. Frankly, the sources you are supplying to support the statements being made in wikivoice are inadequate for a biography of a living person. If you don't want me to go through and delete anything inadequate, I suggest that you make yourself aware of our sourcing policy and fix anything you want to retain.

I suggest non-tabloid mainstream media. Get rid of primary sources, get rid of blogs, get rid of anything this guy has written.

If you continue to add poorly-supported puffery, I will push this up in visibility and all the crap will be ruthlessly deleted by the sort of editors who enjoy making Wikipedia a better place.

I also suggest that you look through WP:SYNTH. If this guy is widely published, it shouldn't be difficult to find someone who says it. We need a source, and we cannot ask our readers to join the dots. --Pete (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made changes and added references. Please indicate any further concerns you have and/or remove the notificatins at the top of the entry. Thank you. Edit0695 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like the article to comply with BLP and our sourcing policy. I think it's a load of fluff as written, and you'll see areas of concern in about a week when I remove them in order to comply with policy. Read the guidelines and fix the problems, because if you don't understand why things are happening, you are going to go through a lot of stress, if you have the sort of attachment to the subject I imagine. --Pete (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this entry has been there for a very long time now. It has been refined over time by others such as yourself (as is evidenced from the edit history). I merely updated a couple of things and added new references. It is 100% accurate. It has been referred to Wikipedia panels before and accepted. ````

Well, it isn't accepted by this editor, nor those above. I suggest two things: 1. Familiarise yourself with our sourcing and BLP policy. We need top quality sources for biographies of living people, and what we say in wikivoice must be supported by those sources. You may have better information yourself, but if it isn't available in a reliable source, we can't use it. I've left good MSM and a few other sources, and scaled back the claims to match what is stated there. 2. Don't edit your own BLP. That's a COI right there and nothing good ever comes of it.

And. Don't try to hoodwink experienced Wikipedia editors. If the subject of the article is indeed notable, then it should not be difficult to find plenty of good sources saying this. Self-penned opinion pieces, blogs, primary documents and the like aren't generally acceptable. Work with us here. We have a community of people keen to get as much useful knowledge recorded as possible and made accessible to a wide audience. Over the years procedures for doing this have evolved, and I think the results speak for themselves. Going against the procedures and rules of Wikipedia is merely going to create friction and not a lot of joy for anybody, most of all yourself. --Pete (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
Greetings Edit0695,

I have reverted your edits to the Arbitration Clerk procedures page as this is not the appropriate place for arbitration requests. Please do not continue to add information there.Arbitration requests are a last resort for dealing with intractable conduct disputes after all other forms of dispute resolution have been exhausted. This particular issue has not yet reached that stage. The correct place to discuss this dispute is on the article's talk page. You have been given some good advice above; my earnest suggestion for you is to review it in detail, and do not be afraid to ask questions if you do not understand something. It can be difficult to contribute to Wikipedia as a new editor, but there are many people who can help you do so in a constructive way. Thank you and happy editing.  C Thomas3   (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cthomas3. I will make changes to the entry with appropriate references. I'm not sure that we have not reached the point where arbitration is needed. Let's see what happens next. If Skyring decides to hack into the entry again it will need to go to arbitration I thinkk. Edit0695 (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings Edit0695,
 * I would suggest that if you need additional input from other editors to help form a consensus, I would first start with asking for a third opinion, and then perhaps looking at filing a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you believe that someone is not acting in good faith to resolve the issue, you are welcome to visit the administrators' noticeboard and file a complaint there. All of these venues should be tried before filing a formal arbitration case. I am happy to help you navigate them if you need assistance  C Thomas3   (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if you need additional input from other editors to help form a consensus, I would first start with asking for a third opinion, and then perhaps looking at filing a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you believe that someone is not acting in good faith to resolve the issue, you are welcome to visit the administrators' noticeboard and file a complaint there. All of these venues should be tried before filing a formal arbitration case. I am happy to help you navigate them if you need assistance  C Thomas3   (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all comfortable about being involved in a slow-motion edit war with the subject of a BLP. I've removed non-compliant material, discussed it here and on the BLP talk page, and subject continues to restore contentious material from unsuitable sources.


 * I'm a little miffed that this editor attempted to open an ArbCom case without notifying me, even to the extent of copying and pasting instructions to do so into his two requests, and then ignoring them. Dispute resolution requires transparency and full involvement from all parties.


 * I've opened a discussion here, requesting additional and hopefully BLP-experienced eyes on this article. Subject doesn't like my version because stripping away all non-compliant text and sources leaves the thing a little bare, and I don't like his version because it's fluffy and poorly sourced. --Pete (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you entirely. My personal thought regarding the ArbCom case filing was that it was merely a misunderstanding about what ArbCom is for, and not realizing what other dispute resolution options exist. I think the BLPN thread is an excellent idea, and hopefully that will help resolve the issue. Please feel free to ping me if I can be of any assistance.  C Thomas3   (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello Edit0695. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Edit0695. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 09:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

02 March 2020
Dear GSS and anyone else involved. I am the subject of this entry as I have previuosuly disclosed. I did not create it but the person who did has subsequently died. I am not being paid to edit it. What's more it has previously been referred to Wikipedia on the COI issue and on the content and it was aproved. Since then I have simply updated the entry to ensure accuracy, which is surley important if Wikipedia is to be regarded as accurate? The edits that SkyRing keeps making create an entry that is not only out of date it is inaccurate. I wish he would stop doing this. Please GSS, on the basi of common sense could you please revert everything to the last edit by me? Thank you.

Edit0695 (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You are not "simply" updating the entry, you are making rather massive deletions without any real rationale. The sources that the article has cited are not "out of date" they are simply sources. More than one editor has questioned your blanking of content on the article's talk page. Please explain your position on the article talk page, not your own talk page, and do not make substantive changes to articles with which you have a conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear everyone involved... I have referred this matter to Wikipedia (via Jimbo). Pease leave the reduced entry in place pending an official determination. Edit0695 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See Dispute resolution. Going straight to Jimbo is not one of the steps. Therefore, he is extremely unlikely to get involved. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @Edit0695, Can you please shed some light on hiring freelancers to remove maintenance templates from your article? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 03:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Laurie Patton (Australian executive) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding
Dear Anachronist. You are the one who for some time now has continually interferred with and unilaterally reverted changes made to a long standing entry. You have emasculated it to the point where it makes no sense. Please refrain from any involvement with his matter until Wikipedia has intervened and resolved things. You started this edit war. Thank you. Edit0695 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As an administrator here, I am concerned only about the stability of the article, and my view of the history shows that the stability was harmed by your drastic removal of valid sources. I have already told you to explain your removals on the article talk page, and you have failed to do so, instead posting more diatribes there without saying anything specific about what you object to. You have a conflict of interest. YOU stay away from the article. It is not yours to edit.
 * I'll add that the Wikipedia community is more than willing to work with you, but you need to be willing to work with us and abide by the policies and guidelines we have. For one thing, stop editing the article about you, and propose your changes on the talk page. You haven't done that. Second, help us understand exactly what the problems are. What sources are problematic, and why? What sentences are problematic, and why? Until you help the community understand the problem, the problems will persist.
 * As far as it looks to everyone else, you are removing perfectly valid sources and content. I have not been the only one restoring it; others have as well. If you try to blank it again after being warned, your account will likely be blocked. Please work with us rather than against us. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What? Hey Anacronist. It was not me who was responsible for the "drastic removal of valid sources". That was SkyRing - who hacked the heart out of the entry. PLEASE understand, I did not create this entry and the guy who did has since died. I simply updated it so that it was current. I'm not being difficult. What is there now makes no sense. What was there a year or so ago was approved by a Wikipedoa review. The stuff I added is factual and was referenced. You ask: "What sources are problematic, and why? What sentences are problematic, and why?" That question should be referred to SkyRing as he is the one who did the deletions not me. How would you feel if you had a perfectly reasonable and accurate entry for so many years and all of a sudden someone comes along and unilaterallly hacks it to pieces? If anything it has always uderstated and left out material that while factual is hard to reference. How do we reoslve this? Edit0695 (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When I see an edit like this from you, that indeed constitutes drastic removal of validly sourced content. Work with us on the talk page. Do not edit the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Work with us, please. My "drastic removal of valid sources" was as per policy. I gave reasons for each edit, as can be seen in the edit summaries. For example, I removed one source because on checking the URL and doing a search for the subject name, it came up empty. Our wording and the source had no apparent relationship.


 * I removed a paragraph of career summary because it had been flagged as unsourced, and it remained unsourced. Maybe it was true, but our policies require all text to be sourced, and this applies double for BLP.


 * I removed another paragraph which claimed various jobs and appointments because the source supplied made no mention of these positions. Again, we cannot have an encyclopaedic article about a living person which makes claims that cannot be substantiated. You undoubtedly have your own internal resources and memories, and you know perfectly when what steps you took along your career path, but we need a third party to state this as part of the public record before we can state this in wikivoice.


 * And on and on. I removed all this stuff because it was contrary to established policy. There was ample notice given, and when the non-compliant material remained, I removed it, or reworded it according to what could be reliably sourced. Our BLP policies allow unsourced claims to be removed immediately, and flagging the article as needing work months or years beforehand is a signal to editors that concerns have been raised.


 * We're not out to get you or make your life difficult, and we would actually prefer to have the best possible biographical article on you, your life, and career as a person of some recognised notability within the Australian community. If you have any precise concerns, rather than a sense of general outrage, please raise them on the talk page and they will be addressed.


 * If you familiarise yourself with our biography of living people policies, that would help a great deal. We work on established policy rather than just rattling down whatever sounds like a good idea at the time. I think I may have suggested this once or twice previously. --Pete (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Response to offer of assistance
Dear SkyRing

As I have previously stated the editor who created this entry has since died. My efforts have simply been designed to maintain its currency and accuracy. I really appreciate your interest in helping resolve the current issues relating to its content. As you have no doubt deduced I am not a regular Wikipedia editor and therefore my skills and knowledge of the processes is limited.

I have no problem with the opening paragraph but would prefer a full stop after (TelSoc) as “and is a former CEO / executive-director of Internet Australia” is only one former role and by no means the most significant. It is also noted further down. I'd also like to add... and bloggs at The Lucky General (https://theluckygeneral.biz/) [That is obviously a fact]

My major concerns are with what was cut from the career section and what was left. I will go through this line by line.

Career

1. Now active in the non-profit sector Patton is a former CEO / Executive Director of Internet Australia,  the peak body representing the interests of Internet users and a chapter of the global Internet Society, where he initiated a campaign for #BetterBroadband.

[This is a statement of fact. I held the role for three years and there are numerous references substantiating this including but not restricted to the ones I have posted. This link is to the official IA website that names me: https://www.internet.org.au/team/26-about-us/62-roll-of-honour]

2. During his tenure with Internet Australia and since he has commented on matters such as data retention, digital literacy, and national broadband policy.

[Again this is a statement of fact as is demonstrated in the references I have provided. Here are some more…

https://www.technologydecisions.com.au/content/networking/news/nbn-connections-grow-to-6-6m-in-dec-quarter-833948398

https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/nbn-offering-not-good-enough-for-21st-century-australia,13647

https://www.themandarin.com.au/125569-opinion-sports-rorts-shows-need-for-public-sector-re-think/

https://www.technologydecisions.com.au/content/networking/article/opinion-oh-dear-what-can-the-matter-be--883223376]

3. On Internet Australia’s behalf Patton told a parliamentary inquiry the drafting of the controversial Date Retention Act (Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015) was "a monumental stuff-up" and “fundamentally flawed”.

[Also a statement of fact. One article contains this paragraph: “The peak body for internet users in Australia has formally requested that a review of the attorney general’s data retention scheme be brought forward, calling the legislation a “monumental stuff-up” as the government seeks to expand access to include civil lawsuits. Laurie Patton, the chief executive of Internet Australia (IA), has written to the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security to request that the review of the Data Retention Act be held sooner owing to “continuing disquiet” over its effectiveness and implementation.” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/12/data-retention-law-a-monumental-stuff-up-says-internet-users-group. This op-ed appeared in the country’s major national broadsheet. They wouldn’t have run it without checking that it was accurate: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/news-story/lessons-from-the-data-retention-disaster/81247c72445a9c6716c69612c1317135]

4. Patton is a former executive at the Seven Network. He created the World Movies Pay-TV channel, was founding CEO of community station TVS (Television Sydney),   secretary of the Australian Community Television Alliance and CEO of the Australian Smart Communities Association.

[These are statements of fact. This article was authored by a well-known TV critic who wouldn’t have descried me inaccurately: https://tvblackbox.com.au/page/2019/8/22/opinion-james-warburton-needs-to-stamp-out-the-arrogance-at-seven?rq=laurie%20patton “Laurie Patton, a former executive at Seven told TV Blackbox; “It looks like Seven’s management was so pleased at having finally beaten Nine and become the ratings leader they thought the good times would just roll on forever. Meanwhile the media landscape was dramatically changing and they were simply left behind. Kerry Stokes is correct. They need a change of strategy”. This article is from a leading IT journal: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/tv-exec-named-first-ceo-of-isoc-au-398187. It states: ” The Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU) has attracted a former senior television executive to become its first ever chief executive. Former Foxtel and Seven Network executive Laurie Patton has been appointed to the role following a review of the society’s operations, which aimed to identify its key priorities.”

This article is from the leading film and TV industry journal: https://www.if.com.au/tvs-laurie-patton-signs-off/. It states:” The future of the nascent community television sector is in the hands of community producer groups who should grasp the chance to have their programs seen by wider audiences, according to the Chief Executive of Sydney's community channel TVS. After six years in charge of establishing TVS, Laurie Patton signs off at the end of the week having led the successful campaign to allow community channels to move to digital broadcasting.”]

5. Patton was a speechwriter and policy advisor for Frank Walker, who was Attorney-General and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Neville Wran NSW Government. He successfully campaigned with Walker to have logging banned in the Terania Creek rainforest – one of the country’s first major environment battles.

[This article on page four contains this statement, which was made in an public address to the NSW Society of Labor Lawyers: ”On one occasion he despatched Laurie Patton, who is here tonight, and another adviser to Terrania Creek in far north NSW to report on what was happening with the felling of old growth forest up there. It was looking like becoming an early manifestation of the greenie versus timber worker conflict and threatened to cause serious internal ructions. Based on Laurie’s report, Frank pushed through cabinet a proposal to compensate and retrain displaced timber workers. Not only were those trees spared, but an internal war was avoided.”]

6. Patton has held for-profit and not-for-profit board roles, including the National Heart Foundation of Australia and the NSW Film & Television Office (now Screen NSW). As deputy chair of the FTO he initiated and led the first official Australian delegation to the Shanghai International Film Festival. He was a member of an expert panel for a review of the Indigenous broadcasting and media sector for the Australian Government.

[This link shows my Heart Foundation board membership at page six and notes that I was a member from 2006: https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/images/uploads/main/About_us/NSW-Annual-Report.pd. This article reports on the China visit I organised: https://www.screendaily.com/china-assesses-co-production-potential-with-south-africa-australia/4011383.article as does this: https://media.opengov.nsw.gov.au/pairtree_root/16/11/8d/de/d2/e0/34/57/9a/08/05/94/a7/19/ab/d3/obj/document.pdf.

The last statement is clearly true as I am named in the official government report on page seven: https://firstnationsmedia.org.au/sites/default/files/files/Stevens-Review-2010-review-broadcasting-investment.pdf]

Edit0695 (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mr PatTon, I'll go through these when I have a moment. In the meantime, could you glance into WP:BLP and delete non-compliant sources? IA isn't a reliable source for anything, and certainly not for a BLP. I see others in your list that we cannot use. --Pete (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear SkyRing.

Just wondering if you might find time to review the information above?

Also, why is Internet Australia not a relable source? It is a registered non-profit organisation and I have no involvement with it these days. In any case back when I was the CEO I reported to an independnet board that was meticulous in what it allowed to be posted on its website or pubished in its name.

Thanks Edit0695 (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The more well-known Independent Australia is not a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear SkyRing Not sure why you don't like Independent Australia but I'm happy if you delete that reference as it is only used once and other references substantiate the point. So I trust that I have provided enough evidence for you to re-edit the page and reinstate the factual material. I'd be very gratefull if you could do this for me. Please let me know if you have any other issues. Edit0695 (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you. You may always explore other avenues; we're all volunteers here. --Pete (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I realise you are all volunteers. I'm not sure what other avenues there are Pete. I was hoping you'd help. The site is a bit of an embarrassment right now. All I've ever sought is an accurate account. Cheers Edit0695 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Re proposed deletion
A couple of Wikipedia editors have reviewd this entry recently and have made changes. The entry was created about 15 years ago by a Wikipedia editor who was the social media guy at the company I then ran. He has since died. As the subject I have subsequently sought to keep the entry up to date and have declared my COI. The entry was considered for deletion about ten years ago but on review by Wikipedia it was accepted to be retained. Since the outbreak of the Coronavirus broadband access has become a subject of considerable media interest. I have received unsolicited requests and have appeared in television interviews and I have contributed articles at the request of a number of online and print media outlets. I have more than 21K connections on LinkedIn on which I post articles (my own and others) that are widely viewed and commented upon. Edit0695 (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)