User talk:SunRiddled

Welcome!

 * }

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page VIP Art Fair has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://briansherwin-artcritic.blogspot.com/2011/01/vip-art-fair-failed-hype-failed-today.html. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Outing policy
Don't post personal information about Wikipedia editors. It's a serious breach of our policies and community standards. I understand your point but can be made without violating the privacy of other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He used his real name as his Wikipedia handle. And it is the same name as someone associated with the literary society he keeps adding content to. I did not violate his privacy. I assumed good faith until I went to his blog and then discovered that he has a connection to both the college and the literary society. By the way you can't edit discussion pages on articles. That is a HUGE violation of Wikipedia terms. Also the removal he and yourself have made is based on the opinions you both have. Wikipedia is about consensus. It is not about personal opinions. Consensus has already been decided twice on Sherwin as being notable. If you don't agree that he is notable I strongly suggest that you open a deletion debate on the article about him.SunRiddled (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You should also know that the rules clearly state, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.". This editor used his name as his Wikipedia handle. He also posted a link to his blog on his page. If you go there you will see that it links to his Facebook and from and on the blog itself he mentions his membership with Phi Alpha Literary Society. I took a screenshot of everything.SunRiddled (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We're recruiting art lovers!
I'd enjoy helping out! I'll read up on it soon.SunRiddled (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR
You may want to have a read of WP:3RR. Mtking (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Whatever. It is clear to me that most editors here pick and choose what rules to follow. Thanks but I'm kinda of done with this 'project'. At least for now.SunRiddled (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re User:John Milito and "WP:COI"
I would refer to a discussion on my talkpage, following a request to OTRS. I would draw your attention to Conflict of interest where it states, in part, "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." WP:COI is a guideline, and does not forbid editors to contribute to articles where they may have a real life association - but requires greater diligence toward ensuring observation of Neutral point of view. Of concern in this matter, however, is that the voluntary disclosure of the editors RL identity - via their use of their own name in their account and a link to their blog - has been further pursued by you outside of Wikipedia to establish more precisely who the individual is, and to be used within an alleged content dispute to effect the outcome. As noted on my talkpage by User:John Milito, per WP:PRIVACY, "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". If you have found issues with the editors contributions, especially in regard to Neutral point of view or Original research, then you should bring it up at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If there are no substantive concerns regarding abuse of policy, but instead there being a content dispute, then bringing up the issue of a potential conflict of interest is Disruptive editing and where accompanied by unilateral research into the editors involvement with the subject is Harassment. Unless you can provide diffs of policy violations regarding edits by User:John Milito to Phi Alpha Literary Society, any further comment relating to the editors association with the subject will be regarded as a violation of No personal attacks (re "Comment on the content, not the contributor"). I see you have already been cautioned that your approach in this issue is inappropriate, and I would now advise you that this clarification is in the form of a final warning. Further references to John Milito's relationship with Phi Alpha Literary Society when not directly referencing policy violation issues will result in a sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * LessHeard, he did not mention his connection to the society until I called him out on it. The info on his user page was updated after the fact. I made the connection because of a blog link that he provided which linked to other material about his identity including his Facebook page.The other account he now mentions on his talk page was also a single purpose account for edits to Phi Alpha Literary Society. I fail to see how he was unaware of COI rules on Wikipedia for all those years combined. Prior to revealing his connection he created bios for past members of his society. During deletion debates of those bios he never once mentioned that he is a member of the society and always voted keep. I find issue with the fact that no one seems to care that he has been making on-going edits to Phi Alpha Literary Society and removing content from the Illinois College page that he does not agree with. He has violated policy from what I've seen and you will see the same if you bother to look. I'm the bad guy in this? Fine. I don't have experience handling COI on Wikipedia. I thought I was doing the right thing. If I handled badly sorry. I know I'm not going to look at Wikipedia the same after this.SunRiddled (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * User:GianniM


 * WP:AfD/Nehemiah Wright


 * WP:AfD/Greenbury Ridgely Henry


 * WP:AfD/Robert Wilkinson (probate judge)


 * WP:AfD/Pike Clinton Ross
 * He created this bios. All members of the society. All faced deletion debates. He voted keep on ALL of them without mentioning his connection to the society. His past user name which he mentions on his user page now is almost ALL edits to the society. Maybe now you can understand why I was concerned with him removing content from the Illinois College article.SunRiddled (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also remember reading "“Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.”. I can't find where I read that now. But I remember reading it and posted the quote in my defense. I did not violate his privacy. I've not been in a situation like this before. Take that into consideration. It annoyed me to know that someone so close to the subject made edits with little reason for doing so. I'm going on vacation starting Saturday for three weeks and will not have internet access. If I return to a blocked account I will know why.SunRiddled (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (I hope you don't mind me formatting your comments for easier reading.) I see no reason why you should be blocked while you are on holiday, as there is no reason to sanction anyone for unfamiliarity with practice made in good faith. When you return from your break I hope you will read my responses, and make what comment or query you wish.
 * WP:COI is a major behavioural guideline, designed to combat a particular circumstance where policy might be violated in a contributors editing - primarily WP:NPOV and often WP:OWN. It is not, however, a policy of itself and thus it cannot be violated by failure to disclose - there may be very many account holders who technically may have a COI in a subject they edit, but are never "found out" because their contributions are policy compliant. WP:COI only comes into play when an editor is acting in bad faith in regard to a topic they have a RL interest in, and more so when that COI is denied or tried to be hidden.
 * None of the BLP's you link to can be described as policy violations (failure to reach WP:N is not a violation), and were created in good faith for the betterment of the project. None of the AfD discussions was disrupted by John Milito. While it may have been preferred that he noted his connection to the society, my review does not indicate that such an acknowledgement would have made any difference to the outcome - very simply, there is no violation of policy and therefore a failure to note a WP:COI is irrelevant.
 * The issue in regard to the removal of content may be slightly different, but it should be initially approached as if COI were not an issue. "Insufficient rationale" is an entirely appropriate reason to query the removal of cited or otherwise policy compliant content, and such blanking might justifiably reverted. Only should John Milito start edit warring or otherwise violating policy may the fact of a (undisclosed) COI be relevant.
 * Regarding your understanding of WP:OUTING regarding that it is not harassment if the link is already disclosed, is specifically when the fact of the outing is intended as harassment - what I linked to was the matter of using a disclosed COI (even one reluctantly acknowledged) as "leverage" in a discussion or in subsequent proceedings. A COI is not a valid reason why references supplied by an editor may carry less weight because they have a relationship with the subject - the only issue would be with the references itself. However, and this is where I have cautioned you, it may fall under harassment for every comment or edit by an editor with a potential COI to have that relation noted and - especially concerning - used as a rationale to revert or query their actions. :::The simple test is; is the edit good, or is it bad even disregarding the potential COI of the author. If it is good then COI is irrelevant, and if it is bad COI only becomes relevant if the other party refuses to abide by policy and consensus in resolving any issues. This is not the case in these matters, and that is why I have warned you not to refer to potential COI regarding User:John Milito's editing unless you can evidence violation of policy which may be due to that relationship with the subject matter.
 * I trust that this clarifies this matter, but I would be happy to further explain any instance you are unclear on or wish further discussion upon. Happy vacation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)