User talk:Harringhome1977

Hello, Harringhome1977. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Kevin Deutsch, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * 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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I am unconnected to article subject. No COI on my part.Harringhome1977 (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Because of the continuing good discussion on the other page I am clarifying: I AM ENGAGING ON WIKIPEDIA INDEPENDENTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH AND HAVE NO COI. If I did I would just say so and talk on the talk page. Standing up for what I see is wrong/innaccurate is not being COI.

Harringhome1977 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have been blocked as a sock puppet but I am not COI or puppet. I am an independent editor. I have engaged in good faith on an administrative page for several days. Again, I HAVE NO CONNECTION THE ANY ARTICLE SUBJECT I HAVE EDITED. I am a geek who likes reading and wants to contribute. "Kevin Deutsc"h was my first article and then I was on a contracted job without much Internet access. Hence my time away. There couldn't possibly be any proof I am acting against policy because I'm not and never would. Please restore my access. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info and for the direction. No one has bothered asking me about the images I posted until now, or else I'd have discussed them in full, as I will here. Also, I have had such a negative experience here involving uncomfortable bullying by a single user that I will NEVER touch the Kevin Deutsch page again, despite the obvious need for revisions. Onto the images: I first posted a photo of the article subject, Kevin Deutsch, after a colleague sent me a few articles about him when the controversy described in the article was playing out, including the original Rolling Stone article. I work in academia, teaching and practicing law. And given my interests, I found the issues discussed in the article extremely absorbing, from both a professional and intellectual perspective. I '''even used the Deutsch dust-up as an example, including the RS article, in one of my classes. In advance of that lesson, I decided to print out copies of the Kevin Deutsch Wikipedia article for my students and, in doing so, realized it would be good to have a photo of the subject, as I strive to incorporate visuals and visual examples into my lesson plans. It seemed easy enough to add a photo to the article, and to make what I assumed would be non contentious revisions reflecting well-sourced, properly cited research I'd conducted with the source materials - getting the article ready for printout for a law school class. So I added a photo of the subject myself, in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I even read up on Wikipedia policies to make sure I wasn't violating any policies or guidelines and norms before doing so!''' In doing so, I became vested in the article in the way any person interested in a unique news story or controversy becomes intellectual vested in it, and this one drew me in. Anyway, I used the Wikipedia materials in class and found the article a very good teaching tool. The students were engaged and interested and I even had a Deutsch question on the final! Now, I'll fast forward: I didn't teach that course the following semester(s) (I had a baby and lightened my teaching load for a while), but I recently got assigned the course again - DIGITALLY for the COVID age - for our next academic semester. In gathering my old course materials last week, I found the old Deutsch Wikipedia article printout and thought I better check to see if there was any new information in the case, given the time the amount of time that had passed between lessons. I delved back into the Deutsch story to see what was new and, in my research, saw the Rolling Stone update and clarification - also found during my research - was not mentioned in the subject's Wikipedia article. The RS clarification alerted readers to the fact the story had been changed, essentially negating the story's non-bylined subheadline. I researched Deutsch to see what else had occurred after the controversy (given what I'd seen in the RS update, this seemed prudent) and found a lot of new journalism by him, checked out his podcast, social pages, the psychedelic story I cited, Bronx Justice News (which I'd also cited in an edit), etc. Given what I learned and saw - the article subject looked considerably different, in terms of appearance - and in the interest of fairness to him and his "case",  I thought it vital to bring a Wikipedia article to class that accurately reflected his more current work and appearance. After all, these aren't just articles. They are people's lives! So I went back into the article and added the current photo, updated some carefully sourced details (reflecting the newest, most current news sources), and moved on. I definitely did not expect such vehement opposition to what I thought was distinctly neutral language/light revisions compliant with all Wikipedia policies and standards. But a single user deleted them all unilaterally. This, despite the talk page reflecting an earlier consensus that did not feature this user's non neutral, policy violative language. Between the RS update and the subject's newer work and professional activities applicable to the article, the fact that someone was trying to keep those newer details out of the piece seemed wrong to me, so I stood up for what I felt was clearly the correct course. Next, I read up on and followed Wikipedia consensus building policies, seeking a negotiated resolution. I rather enjoyed this as it's taught me a lot, despite all these new gray hairs! In summary, when used as a teaching tool, any Wikipedia article I use as a teaching tool must be current and reflect the most recent status of a case or individual involved with/pertinent to a case. All I wanted in this case was an article that did so. That way, a hot shot student can't call me out for being the old person who missed the latest updates in a case I'm teaching. It's also just the right thing to do!

I hope that helps clear things up. I enjoy the site and have been using it more as this process has played out. I'd like to contribute more, as I have time to spare with home teaching and a lot to give! Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * For the unblock reviewer, a few notes:
 * Harringhome1977 had an identical agenda on the Kevin Deutsch article as the three previous blocked accounts. Even if somehow he wasn't a sockpuppet, he'd likely be eligible to be blocked for his extremely aggressive edit warring (he wasn't kidding about having time to spare above), and certainly doesn't provide a reassurance that Harringhome1977 would be a collegial editor elsewhere on Wikipedia.
 * Not to be overly pedantic about copyright labels, but Harringhome1977 uploaded the two photos of Deutsch... two years apart...  by tagging each of them as "Own Work".  Innocently wrong tag?  Maybe, but not a good sign.  SnowFire (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I just can't understand why snowfire won't see what I'm doing here as good faith suggestions. I didn't make any aggressive edits. That was snowfire, actually. The revision history bears that out, especially with regard to his disrupting a neutral, consensus version multiple credible users contributed to and seem to have found no fault with. It's true that I did not know how to properly tag photos, given my limited experience on the site before this week. I'm not a suck puppet, have no agenda (other than that of a law teacher desirous of neutral articles on legal subjects), have no COI, and have provided a full and detailed explanation of my interest. I'm a lawyer and teacher who occasionally uses Wikipedia articles as teaching tools. I have not disrupted any article nor violated any policies or guidelines. When we were asked to discuss our dispute in the administrative page, I did so, citing voluminous policies and laws (it's a fairly clear case). Snowfire cited none. What is the issue with these photos and adding newer sources to an older article? I'm sincerely interested. Frankly, I don't feel safe communicating with this user and would like to know how to file a bullying complaint. This is not civil - I am being attacked for trying to play by the rules. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I should add: in the single instance this week in which snowfire had an issue with any minor edit I made in an article he alerted me to, I reverted based on his critique. I don't want any trouble. I want to learn! Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your general point re: Polanski as an example. But I think my arguments are well reasoned and prove the language in the Deutsch article is violative of the policies cited. We can agree to disagree. But shouldn't we be able to reach some sort of compromise? I thought that was the point of the forum started by the admin, and the site in general. I simply wanted to see the new sources/info reflected atop the article I'll be teaching. I think I'm right and compliant, and so do you. Compromise should be the answer. Not unilateral editing and language reversals. Thanks.Harringhome1977 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "I did so, citing voluminous policies and laws (it's a fairly clear case). Snowfire cited none." First off, this is flatly wrong, of course I cited policies. Secondly, yes, upon seeing others mention policies, you too have made long, wall-of-texty "let me paste this policy I found and claim it supports my case". But you surely have to admit that merely quoting a policy doesn't mean it actually supports your position. You talk about contributing to other areas of Wikipedia, so fine, let's talk about other areas of Wikipedia. Roman Polanski is someone who's had a lot of hostile press written about him, as well as good press. There's good faith arguments to be had about how much of each should be discussed in his article. But, some editor citing WP:BLP (a real policy) to change the article to portray Polanski as innocent / justified / no big deal/ etc. at every turn would be doing so incorrectly; that would be using BLP as a shield for WP:POV-pushing in defiance of the WP:DUEWEIGHT of the sources. I don't bring this up to invite a debate about Polanski or suggest he's similar to Deutsch, but rather just to point out that real humans have to look at the argument provided and make a judgment, not a robot, even when both parties are operating in good faith rather than just attempting to whitewash a subject. Arguments like yours can still be wrong, even if they come with random Wikipedia policies attached. SnowFire (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that you tagged both photos as "own work", meaning that you personally took the picture. That certainly would have required you to be there to take the picture, both the three-year-old one (apparently taken at a book signing) and the one taken just this month (clearly a posed, portrait-style picture). And that further implies that you have a personal connection with the subject. In the wall of text above you don't answer the key question: If you didn't take these pictures, where did you get them? In particular, how did you come up with a new picture that was only days or weeks old? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Melanie. I understand. Honestly, I wanted to get the uploads done quickly and kept getting error messages, so when I saw "own work" listed in the directions as a way to fix formatting text entry problems, I copy and pasted "own work" without fully understanding the implications. I didn't realize what consternation it would create for either image, and I should have asked for help from more experienced editors. I did not take either picture and accept full responsibility for the tagging errors. To reiterate, I have no personal connection to the article subject. Only the purely academic one I've explained above. To answer your questions: The first picture I posted came from the subject article's Authors Guild profile, and was his profile picture on that organization's website. I'd come across the photo by Googling the article subject. It came up on the first page of my image results. I read the caption on the subject's Author's Guild profile and, because of my familiarity with intellectual property law, understood this to be a professional page; it contained contact information for many authors' agent(s) and other professionally oriented information. Most importantly, the photo's caption language as I recall declared it usable on other websites/waived copyright. So I thought it a safe, legal, appropriate, and Wikipedia-compliant picture. I can't speak to how old the image is, just when I found it (shortly before I uploaded it) and where I found it (the aforementioned Guild site). As for the newer photo, I found it in the very same place on the first page of "Kevin Deutsch" Google results. Deutsch was still in my search results and, when I did a new search earlier this week, the Guild profile came up again, with this new photo, caption, and some new information on the subject's more recent doings. As was the case with the other photo and caption I uploaded, I can't speak to how old this newer image of the subject is, just when I found it (shortly before I uploaded it), and where (the same Guild site). I am not aware of whether it's days, weeks, or even years old. Just that it looked significantly different from the earlier photograph of the article subject. It was easy to find, had caption language declaring it free of any copyright/available for public use, and seemed more recent/of much higher quality than the other one, (for which I was no longer certain of the copyright situation). So I figured, why not include the newer photo in the article I'm sending my class? That's the long and short of it. Sorry again for the photo captions/improper copy and pasting. In retrospect, I understand why there might have been the appearance of non neutrality. But I am truly neutral, and just want a neutral document I can use in class. Hence my tenacity. And yes, I am working from home these days like so many of us. So I'm happy to chat and engage on Wikipedia anytime. Please consider unblocking me so I can do so. I enjoy the site and truly need it as a resource. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The two photos are not the same size (1695x1130 versus 1229x791) or file size (352K versus 79K) and they do not contain the same metadata. The metadata at the Authors' Guild site identifies it as a screenshot while the file that you uploaded is the larger original.

I understand and respect Wikipedia's standards, or else I would have never turned to it as a resource, but I really feel this is a little much in terms of the suspicion and hostility/bullying. I think of Wikipedia as the People's Encyclopedia + a place where information flows freely. An educational resource, not a place where I have to worry about my metadata or dusting of digital fingerprints. Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's because my Canon initially tags photos uploaded from my computer (screen grabs, internet downloads, etc.) as original, and vice versa. I take a lot of pictures and they move between devices. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. There are other sites that displayed that Guild photo, too. The larger file tagged by my Canon probably came from one of those.
 * "I take a lot of pictures and they move between devices." Got it. You took the photo or had it before the screenshot was uploaded to the guild site. After your story fell apart above, you try to say that you downloaded it to your computer then your camera just woke up and somehow grabbed it, making up completed metadata that wasn't there before, changing the file and image size and then it made it back to your computer where you then uploaded it. Doesn't work that way. The camera doesn't make up exposure time, f-stop, ISO rating and so on. Interestingly, the photographer field had nothing though...odd that it would "create" the others and not that one, too. "There are other sites that displayed that Guild photo, too." But that isn't where you say that you got it and I don't believe you. Deflection doesn't work here.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet you're still wrong, and have now barred an educator from in class use of Wikipedia. How do I appeal, or are you the final arbiter on this? Thanks. Harringhome1977 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your current appeal is still open.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note 's newer cu results showing further socking. Any admin should be able to decline this now.