Frequent cooperators table Information
This table format, posted on Quentin Tarantino by 199.111.175.171 (THANK YOU IP, freely, from the bottom, a.s.o) is the best I'd seen so far for noting frequent Cooperators. Got a better one? Please let me know. Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 03:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Frequent collaborators table
created via MediaWiki Table Utility by @MarianoGappa
- ^ 1976: Romero wrapped up his work as Associate Producer of Apocalypse Now (1979)
Edit Source to see how to transclude leads into other articles Information
The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.
The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the
section before the
table of contents and the first
heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style
lead or lede paragraph.
Table used for tracking statements and evidence in complicated disputes Information
My first and only attempt at a case summary, ever. We have a shortage of diffs. Missing diffs are marked as ? under the diff column. I think this includes all relevant points, though I may have accidentally left some snarkiness in. Please edit as you please, esp for brevity. - Thanks; Leo
| POL/REQ | +/- | statement | diff | by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP:COI | - | as this article shows, Mr. Alva has, by his own admission, violated the laws on Conflict of Interest over the course of several months | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:COI | - | editor has explicitly stated it at Talk:The Hunting Ground | ? | Ricky81682 |
| WP:COI | na | COI issue turns out to have press coverage. [1] | na | John Nagle |
| WP:COI | + | From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion | ? | Edwardpatrickalva |
| WP:COI | + | Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy ... I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests. | ? | Edwardpatrickalva |
| WP:COI | + | acknowledged the COI early on and generally engaged on talk pages to suggest/discuss sensitive changes before making them | ? | Rhododendrites |
| WP:COI | - | clear evidence of violation of the guideline WP:COI It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit. | ? | Smallbones |
| WP:COI | - | His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:COI | + | I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself ... In the meantime, the extraordinary bias in the Jameis Winston article that I worked to slightly reduce has been fully restored. The widely respected publications Wikipedia is supposed to respect barely mention his name without making his behavior a central focus; the 6,000 word NY Times article, written by a Pulitzer winner, was not an account of his athletic prowess. ESPN dubbed him "this years most polarizing player" on the cover of their magazine. The GM of the team that drafted him said one day he might write a book about the extraordinary steps they took to vet his character. But Wikipedia editors seeking to correct for my alleged bias have minimized those issues, paying more attention to a couple of opinion columnists and the president of a university with his own conflict of interest. | ? | Edwardpatrickalva |
| WP:COI | + | one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion. | ? | Edwardpatrickalva |
| WP:COI | - | regardless of how your edits were received, and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. ... No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s). | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:COI | - | I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate. | ? | Arcane21 |
| WP:COI | + | disclosed COI precluding someone from being in a discussion is completely wrong. | ? | NeilN |
| WP:COI | + | He did declare his COI. He did use the talk page. We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors. | ? | BullRangifer |
| WP:COI | na | Jimbo has mentioned this issue and this news story on his talk page | na | Etamn |
| WP:COI | na | Jimbo personally addressing the topic on his talk page has added a sense of urgency to the matter. | na | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:COI | na | Jimbo says a lot of things on his talk page. There's no added sense of urgency for this matter. | na | NeilN |
| WP:BLP | - | edits to articles on the film's subjects would seem an even more serious issue | ? | DGG |
| WP:BLP | - | made edits regarding the rape accusation. That's a major BLP issue. Those edits started in March 2015. | [2] [3] | John Nagle |
| WP:BLP | na | article (the subject is a football player) has many edits since then, including some recent section blanking by an anon. | [4] | John Nagle |
| WP:BLP | - | clear evidence of violation of the policy WP:BLP | ? | Smallbones |
| WP:DIS | - | clear evidence of disruption | ? | Smallbones |
| WP:DIS | - | A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored. | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:DIS | - | disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground. | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:DIS | + | No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval. | ? | BullRangifer |
| WP:DIS | - | even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate. | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:NPV | - | changing articles to match the accusations of the film | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:NPV | - | The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good. | ? | Arcane21 |
| WP:VER | - | changing articles to match the accusations of the film | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| REQ | na | issues be addressed with the guilty party, and that this bad-faith editing is halted | na | KirkCliff2 |
| REQ | na | shouldn't be editing either article | na | John Nagle |
| REQ | na | step away from editing in this subject area entirely | na | Kelly |
| REQ | na | could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out | na | Edwardpatrickalva |
| REQ | na | refrain from editing any article for which you have a COI for at least a while until these articles can be evaluated and stabilize | na | Rhododendrites |
| REQ | na | permanent ban, and I believe that any admin can do it | na | Smallbones |
| REQ | na | A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions. | na | BullRangifer |
Frequent cooperators table Information
This table format, posted on Quentin Tarantino by 199.111.175.171 (THANK YOU IP, freely, from the bottom, a.s.o) is the best I'd seen so far for noting frequent Cooperators. Got a better one? Please let me know. Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 03:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Frequent collaborators table
created via MediaWiki Table Utility by @MarianoGappa
- ^ 1976: Romero wrapped up his work as Associate Producer of Apocalypse Now (1979)
Edit Source to see how to transclude leads into other articles Information
The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.
The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the
section before the
table of contents and the first
heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style
lead or lede paragraph.
Table used for tracking statements and evidence in complicated disputes Information
My first and only attempt at a case summary, ever. We have a shortage of diffs. Missing diffs are marked as ? under the diff column. I think this includes all relevant points, though I may have accidentally left some snarkiness in. Please edit as you please, esp for brevity. - Thanks; Leo
| POL/REQ | +/- | statement | diff | by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP:COI | - | as this article shows, Mr. Alva has, by his own admission, violated the laws on Conflict of Interest over the course of several months | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:COI | - | editor has explicitly stated it at Talk:The Hunting Ground | ? | Ricky81682 |
| WP:COI | na | COI issue turns out to have press coverage. [1] | na | John Nagle |
| WP:COI | + | From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion | ? | Edwardpatrickalva |
| WP:COI | + | Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy ... I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests. | ? | Edwardpatrickalva |
| WP:COI | + | acknowledged the COI early on and generally engaged on talk pages to suggest/discuss sensitive changes before making them | ? | Rhododendrites |
| WP:COI | - | clear evidence of violation of the guideline WP:COI It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit. | ? | Smallbones |
| WP:COI | - | His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:COI | + | I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself ... In the meantime, the extraordinary bias in the Jameis Winston article that I worked to slightly reduce has been fully restored. The widely respected publications Wikipedia is supposed to respect barely mention his name without making his behavior a central focus; the 6,000 word NY Times article, written by a Pulitzer winner, was not an account of his athletic prowess. ESPN dubbed him "this years most polarizing player" on the cover of their magazine. The GM of the team that drafted him said one day he might write a book about the extraordinary steps they took to vet his character. But Wikipedia editors seeking to correct for my alleged bias have minimized those issues, paying more attention to a couple of opinion columnists and the president of a university with his own conflict of interest. | ? | Edwardpatrickalva |
| WP:COI | + | one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion. | ? | Edwardpatrickalva |
| WP:COI | - | regardless of how your edits were received, and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. ... No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s). | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:COI | - | I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate. | ? | Arcane21 |
| WP:COI | + | disclosed COI precluding someone from being in a discussion is completely wrong. | ? | NeilN |
| WP:COI | + | He did declare his COI. He did use the talk page. We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors. | ? | BullRangifer |
| WP:COI | na | Jimbo has mentioned this issue and this news story on his talk page | na | Etamn |
| WP:COI | na | Jimbo personally addressing the topic on his talk page has added a sense of urgency to the matter. | na | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:COI | na | Jimbo says a lot of things on his talk page. There's no added sense of urgency for this matter. | na | NeilN |
| WP:BLP | - | edits to articles on the film's subjects would seem an even more serious issue | ? | DGG |
| WP:BLP | - | made edits regarding the rape accusation. That's a major BLP issue. Those edits started in March 2015. | [2] [3] | John Nagle |
| WP:BLP | na | article (the subject is a football player) has many edits since then, including some recent section blanking by an anon. | [4] | John Nagle |
| WP:BLP | - | clear evidence of violation of the policy WP:BLP | ? | Smallbones |
| WP:DIS | - | clear evidence of disruption | ? | Smallbones |
| WP:DIS | - | A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored. | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:DIS | - | disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground. | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:DIS | + | No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval. | ? | BullRangifer |
| WP:DIS | - | even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate. | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:NPV | - | changing articles to match the accusations of the film | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| WP:NPV | - | The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good. | ? | Arcane21 |
| WP:VER | - | changing articles to match the accusations of the film | ? | KirkCliff2 |
| REQ | na | issues be addressed with the guilty party, and that this bad-faith editing is halted | na | KirkCliff2 |
| REQ | na | shouldn't be editing either article | na | John Nagle |
| REQ | na | step away from editing in this subject area entirely | na | Kelly |
| REQ | na | could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out | na | Edwardpatrickalva |
| REQ | na | refrain from editing any article for which you have a COI for at least a while until these articles can be evaluated and stabilize | na | Rhododendrites |
| REQ | na | permanent ban, and I believe that any admin can do it | na | Smallbones |
| REQ | na | A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions. | na | BullRangifer |