User talk:RSN813

March 2013
Hello, RSN813. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Robert Stuart Nathan, you should consider our guidance on Conflicts of interest and take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.< Widefox ; talk 11:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Robert Stuart Nathan, and I noticed that the username you have chosen, "RSN813", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself. Please note that you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website, and Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or accounts that are shared. If you are willing to use a personal account, please take a moment to (create a new account or) request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our Conflict of interest guideline and Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Hi Alex Davidson, I noticed that your username is RSN813, the initials and birthday of the WP:BLP article you have been working on Robert Stuart Nathan, which misleads people into thinking your account is the author, best to rename it per above. Widefox ; talk 11:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Widefox ; talk 11:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments to User:Widefox
Hello RSN813. I have seen the comments you posted to Widefox's talk page and I feel compelled to interject. I have highlighted several words and phrases in blue links to illustrate key points, so I recommend you follow them.

I don't know the nature of the message you supposedly wrote to Widefox, or why it mysteriously "vanished". Your edit history shows that the last thing you posted before your comments on his talk page was a typo fix. There is no evidence of any other postings other than what's listed there. Perhaps it was something wrong with your web browser, or an unrelated technical problem. Do not assume that there is some malicious action directed at you.

Tags on an article are a normal part of the editing process on Wikipedia - you should not feel insulted or unfairly treated. The tags alert people about concerns raised by other editors about the article's content. Once the problems are addressed, they can be removed. The article's edit history shows that I added the self-published tag to the page. If you follow the link, you will see that a self-published source refers to a site that contains user-generated content with no editorial oversight. IMDB is considered a self-published source, and therefore cannot be considered reliable. This contrasts with other sources you included, such as the New York Times and Harpers, which are considered reliable.

I see that there is concern about who is accessing this account. This edit ends with the name of "Alex Davidson", and this edit  ends with "Robert Nathan", which suggests that two people are using this account. Be advised that there is no sharing of an account as per Wikipedia's username policy. If you are indeed the subject of the article, then you should know that writing about yourself is highly discouraged. There are clear rules about autobiographies, and how persons with articles about themselves should handle contributing new material and correcting inaccuracies.

While I understand it can be frustrating for new users, it is not acceptable for you to be uncivil towards others. Accusing other editors of being dishonest, lying and committing libel without any evidence to support such a claim is considered a personal attack, behaviour that is not allowed. In particular, accusing someone of libel can be perceived as a legal threat, which is not permitted under any circumstances and can lead to you being blocked from editing.

Finally if you feel that there are "airbrushed" biographies of other people on Wikipedia, you are quite welcome to challenge them at your leisure. Your opinions and supporting evidence will be welcome for consideration by the community.

I hope that I have given you some useful information, and look forward to constructive contributions from you in the future. --Drm310 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Robert Stuart Nathan could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Clearly your rant on my talk page is emotional, this is no excuse for making legal threats, or the other things you have said, of which, if you check the editing you will see there is nothing to this. Widefox ; talk 23:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments to User:Widefox and User:Drm310
To Drm03 and Widefox regarding Widefox, et seq.: Folks, may we be sensible? You raise a large number of complicated issues. Among the most disturbing is the idea that an uncivil threat was made. No threat at all was made and to suggest that one was made is to misread willfully the tone of what was said. Saying the sky is blue is a definition to some extent of “sky” and “blue” and no more. To imply in print that someone is dishonest, which was distinctly in the tone of the edit notes, is a dictionary definition of libelous and nothing more. No mention was made of intended action, and to suggest that such action was implied is not merely disingenuous, it’s also ironically a threat in itself. Among the other issues you raise is the idea that it is ethically okay for information to be labeled as conceivably false or of dubious provenance merely because in the very specific case of Wikipedia it is not incumbent upon the editor to perform the traditional editorial function of an editor in checking citations. If this is not in its way uncivil, may I ask what is? A magazine or newspaper editor, at least in the era immediately preceding the current era, would consider having or being a fact-checker a duty. Which is why, for example, The New Yorker still has a staff of fact-checkers paralleled by none.

The original editor’s comments in this case were by any conventional standard somewhat provocative. We may use that word, or we could say “uncivil,” even if preceded by “mildly.” First the editor calls for citations. When he gets them, they are inappropriate because they are from “primary sources,” which is for some reason the all-time gold standard in academic research but not preferred by Wikipedia, and they are inappropriate or deemed inaccurate because they are supplied by someone who knows the subject. (But then who better to supply them, one wonders?) The subject in question has a 30-year history in journalism and entertainment with a track record visible throughout the American, and in some cases European, media. One hardly has to look far to determine whether or not the information on his biographical sketch is honest and true to the facts. As for the log in, what is RSN813? How in Lord’s name could the editor not notice that RSN813 are the initials and birthdate of the subject of the piece?  That’s hardly a reason to call it a "promotional company." Would you disagree that such a label, by any reasonable standard, was provocative and vaguely insulting? It’s a log-in for the subject and his assistants that’s easy for them to remember, which hardly constitutes a “shared” log-in. And calling it a promotional company, when it is an obviously memory-jogged log-in, seems weirdly suspicious, would you not agree? Further, if the subject’s professional colleagues send in corrections to the subject’s assistants and suggest they be made, who is making the correction? The editor in question suggests that the biographical piece is a sales or advertising tool. This is not just insulting; it’s patently inaccurate. You have many Wikipedia pages pushing actual products. What exactly would Widefox suggest that this subject’s biography is selling, advertising or promoting? Are there any products for sale or promotion? The sketch simply tries to fill in factual details that were missing. What is most silly here is that the subject of this biographical piece is fairly well known in the entertainment industry. He doesn’t need to be sold or promoted to anyone, and almost everything in that biographical sketch is available on the web elsewhere. Additionally, the editor and Wikipedia suggest that anyone, or anyone’s assistant, supplying information is automatically suspect, except, again, for one thing: every fact in that biographical sketch is easily checkable with the simplest net search. (I myself would more likely consider an academic who wrote a book on Henry Kissinger rather more suspect in anything he contributed to Mr. Kissinger’s Wikipedia biography, since he has a fairly obvious axe to grind, and not a very nice one.) As for IMDB, is it possible -- could you even conceivably acknowledge? -- that either you or Wikipedia have perhaps not kept up with the times? Credits at IMDB are not, in relation to those with traditional credits, self-generated, nor are award lists. IMDB verifies all of those with several outside sources, among them the MPPA, the Writers Guild of America (all TV and movie credits on IMDB are WGA-approved for pictures made under union contracts), the Screen Actors Guild (similar), the Studio System (a database into which all the studios enter the results of their contracts with each kind of creative talent they deal with), and assorted other industry databases. I’m afraid to say, lest you think I am being uncivil, that IMDB’s accuracy is surely as dependable as Wikipedia’s, which does not, to my knowledge, have anything like IMDB’s centralized fact-checking mechanism. Additionally, you did not seem to notice that the IMDB citation in this case was meant for only one thing: as a source for the reader to find “external reviews” of a movie merely to show that the movie in fact was released (which is also backed up by a prominent reviewer and the Monaco Film Festival site, in case there were any doubts.) The Law & Order citations about episodes and awards, rather than relying on IMDB, are backed up by two independently published books about the Law & Order franchise, so IMDB is not cited as a source for anything important. (As for the subject’s Emmy writing nomination cited having being the only one in the history of the Law & Order franchise, this can be further checked on the net or through the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.)

May we look again at Widefox’s characterization of the response to his posting as a “rant?” You might reasonably object to the term “borders on libelous” but it is disingenuous – at best -- to call it a threat and then turn it into a return threat. A legal journalist or lawyer would perhaps tell you that an editor ought to take care before citing something as “self-published” when it could be taken to mean many things. “Self-published” to the common ear would translate as “fraudulent,” and perhaps you will agree that this approaches libelous. It appears that it's perfectly okay for an editor to accuse someone who post changes to a piece as being unethical or dishonest, but it is not perfectly okay to say that such implications are entirely inappropriate and beyond the bounds of civil discourse. If there is to be a double standard here, then at least let's acknowledge it; let's not pretend that it doesn't exist. There is not a single fact or citation in that biographical sketch that could remotely be seen as “self-published” (including, by the way, the movie website, which was put up by the production entity), and from your historical record it is surely clear that the original Wikipedia entry was done by someone the subject never knew or met under any circumstances.  Moreover, the editor objects to several citations that back-up facts in the text because they are apparently “self-promoting.”  Well, when the editor doubts that the subject of the piece actually did write a dozen or more pieces for The New York Times Book Review, wouldn’t it be appropriate to cite five or six of them (or would he prefer eight or ten of them, also easily available)? If the editor still doubts the facts, he or she need only go either to a search engine or to the New York Times web site, type in the subject’s name, and see what comes up. (A long list of reviews by the subject and several pieces about the subject and several additional pieces in which the subject is quoted, and several that exist in a period before the database was created can eventually be found elsewhere, or several that could even be sent as PDFs if that is the extent of documentation necessary, though it seems unlikely you would ever have asked for such documentation from anyone).

Finally, to settle the issue of “self-published,” here are your standards, as cited by you, for what may be considered appropriately self-published: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

'Is there anything in the subject’s biographical sketch that does not satisfy those requirements? What, for example, is self-serving, exceptionally claimed, involves a claim about third parties, does not involve events directly related to the source, is inauthentic, or is insufficiently and not independently sourced?'

If any of those apply, it would be helpful to hear them specifically.

Let’s look at the bigger picture. The ultimate suggestion at the top of this subject’s biographical sketch is that it is a form of advertising, implying indirectly that it’s either a lie or designed to sell a product. Both of these are clear falsehoods. The subject here is sufficiently well known that a lie would quickly be uncovered. And the subject is sufficiently well known that there is nothing to advertise about him that would redound to his economic benefit. Thus one asks, what is the editor’s intention or goal in posting such tags at the top of an entry? There are any number of possible answers, none of which immediately present themselves as sensible.

If, ultimately, it is necessary to tag the subject's Wikipedia entry so as to question the integrity of the subject or his career, a career the details of which are widely available on the net, I have suggested to the subject that since little will satisfy Wikpedia’s editors, he should do what the editors seems on some level to prefer: remove most of his entry, leaving his name, birthdate, and principal credits. There is no reason for the subject of this piece to see his integrity or motives impugned when he and his colleagues were merely attempting to leave a more complete record to make up for one that was at its worst inaccurate and at its best extremely deficient.

If you think the tags on the piece still apply, and you can’t suggest specifically what would make them not apply, which so far is not the case, the subject of the piece is willing, if you prefer, to remove all references, all footnotes, all descriptions, and the majority of the specifics of his life’s work. RSN813 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi RSN813. As a non-admin, having seen this issue while lurking at WP:ANI, I'd like to mention a couple of things that you may find useful. Note that I'm not commenting on the article that spawned this (which I haven't read) – I'm responding to your commentary in this section only.


 * FWIW, in no particular order:
 * Any argument against the one-user, one-account rule is a non-starter. It's a policy that is necessary and works well, as described at WP:ISU and related docs.


 * Hi, Alan M: I understand the reasons for that policy completely. My assistant will never again use my account, which of necessity means my own contributions will be limited (of which some editors will certainly approve). Nevertheless, an assistant who types and edits for someone who, for personal reasons that have no place here, cannot type contributions quickly or easily, does not seem by any standard to be a "shared user." I would venture to guess that most academics and other professionals who contribute to Wikipedia do not do their own typing. I would guess that Stephen Hawkings doesn't type every word he contributes to Wikipedia or any other reference work.  RN RSN813 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the long delay. I'm pleased to see things were mostly worked out. I hope you don't mind – I've changed the indenting to follow normal discussion formatting. Responses to just a couple of things, indented like this one, are to be found below. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 01:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP's core content is intended to be from facts that have been previously published by reliable sources (as described at WP:RS). This seems primarily to be to make use of someone's fact-checking mechanism, since there is no guarantee that one will be applied within WP. Once that and other goals (as described in detail in WP:POLICY, on down) are taken into account, the reasons for the bias against primary sources, non-edited blogs, self-publishers, "vanity press", etc. start to become apparent. This is not a typical publication, and many pretty smart and creative people have contributed a lot of blood, sweat, and tears along the road towards figuring out how to make it work. Much of that is documented, if you want to investigate. The policies at WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:COI, etc. all have their roots in this idea of publication by independent, reliable sources.


 * Alan M: Nothing in the article in question comes from vanity presses, blogs, or anything remotely similar cited as sources. Apparently the one source not approved by Widefox is IMDB, which will be removed -- this despite the fact that the entire entertainment industry considers IMDB to be not "self-published" and extremely accurate. You may notice that the original editor referred to my response as a "rant" and then didn't bother to address a single issue he raised in terms of what is "self-promotion" or "unreliable."  Why not just fix them as an editor instead of insulting someone publicly?   RN RSN813 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was addressing only what you wrote above, and did not intend to comment on the merits (or lack thereof) of any claims that were made by the other respondents. It seemed like you were arguing against the policy itself.


 * From the standpoint of operating a non-profit, the threshold between what is and is not a legal threat is purposely set and understood to be very low. Characterizing something using a common legal term or phrase (libel especially) is an easy way to trip people's threat sensors. That's just how it has to be to avoid spending a fortune reviewing every word for legal exposure. If someone claims an editor has libeled them, the "cheapest" solution from a liability standpoint is to "shoot both parties and let the lawyers sort it out later". The "cost" of missing contributions from a couple of editors is nothing compared to the potential costs of legal action.


 * Alan M: That's completely reasonable in every respect. Still, I think you'd agree that life's a two-way street even at Wikipedia.  Editors should be rather careful in publicly questioning someone's integrity or the integrity of the sources cited.  The way to avoid people's threat sensors being tripped might be not to tag articles with statements that are themselves implicitly threatening.  RN RSN813 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess I'd just say that questioning by addition of maintenance tags like "citation needed" should not be taken as insulting. The WP ideal, much like some branches of academia, is for every statement to be cited. It's annoying (and annoying to read, IMO), but it's the right of any editor to do it. Bios are subject to an even higher level of scrutiny for reasons I mentioned below. Some prefer to find and simply note areas that may be an issue, while others will go further and investigate first. I'm guilty of the former sometimes, especially when in a hurry and happen to see something that doesn't quite "smell" right, but I don't have time to work on, and don't want to slip by without attention. Some people's sense of "smell" is better than others. (I fixed a homonym error we both made in the above sections. )


 * AFAIK, your contributions to a WP article irrevocably become part of WP once you save them, for WP and its editors to do with as defined in the licenses everyone agrees to. You don't get to remove them later unless the community agrees. See WP:OWN.


 * Alan M: Do you see a double bind here?  On the one hand, the editor says the material doesn't meet Wikipedia standards but the editor then leaves the material there with accusations appended as tags. You suggest that one can't remove material that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards even though Wikipedia's editors have labeled it as such.  So if the editor doesn't remove it, who's supposed to remove it if not the person who put it there in the first place?  RN RSN813 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's reasonable to remove something that someone else has tagged as non-standard. I was referring to the wholesale reversion of one's own edits, which others may have made edits on top of, other edits in reliance of them, etc. since they were made.


 * As far as promotional tone, consider that WP has hundreds of people every day creating accounts and editing articles whose sole purpose is to promote themselves, their companies, products, ideas, etc. for free, none of which should ever be part of a useful general knowledge encyclopedia. Now, try to write usable editorial policy to deal with it. In addition to setting notability thresholds, a useful tool is is to require a neutral, non-promotional tone, generally devoid of anything that resembles the "ad-speak" that has become so finely perfected in Western culture. This hopefully will cause any such marketeers to look for a more suitable platform.


 * Alan M: I think we should be clear about one thing. I didn't decide that I was notable.  Someone created a Wikipedia entry in my name without my knowledge.  I have no idea who that was and I assume Wikipedia will not tell me.  I tried to correct implicit factual omissions and errors. I've since looked at dozens of Wikipedia biographical sketches. They all seem pretty much written in the same tone and language as the one under my name. If there's "ad-speak" in there, then rather than accusing someone of putting it there, shouldn't the editor just remove it?  If a threshold was crossed, why doesn't the editor uncross it?  If there is "ad-speak" in the piece (which I can't see) why doesn't the editor just eliminate it?  Isn't this what editors do?  RN RSN813 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 00:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 01:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Widefox ; talk 02:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice regarding multiple users of this account
As you explicitly state that this account is used by multiple people, you should be notified that accounts used by more than one person are not allowed under Wikipedia policy. You must state that this account will only be used by one person, and no others, and have only a single person edit from this account, as to do otherwise is a violation of Wikipedia policy and will result in your account being blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of anyone with remaining concerns on this subject, see . —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 01:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
--Drm310 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
—&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 07:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)