Hello, Clarawood123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clarawood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarawood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Davey2010 Talk 17:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia. –
Davey2010
Talk
22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Clarawood123. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia and my attention was called to your situation by the ANI filing. Apparently nobody has talked with you about what we call "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia, which is pretty clearly at the root of the problems you are experiencing. You made it clear in this comment that you are "a very long term resident of Clarawood with direct experience", and every edit you have made has been about Clarawood. And your username of course reflects that. I'm giving you notice of our conflict of interest guideline and will have some comments and questions for you below.
Hello, Clarawood123. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:
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).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).
As I noted above, it is clear from your username, your editing, and your actual disclosure that you are a long time resident of Clarawood. It is not clear to me if you own the place where you live and have an actual financial conflict of interest, but it is clear that you are very invested in how people see Clarawood, and in your notions about it. This connection to Clarawood - your "interest" in it, is creating a conflict of interest here in Wikipedia, and that conflict is in turn driving the problems you are having with other editors.
Can you see that?
If so, I would I would like to explain what you should be doing (what you should have been doing all along) -- and if you can agree to that stuff, the problems should diminish and the community will not have to ban you (which is where things are heading at ANI). Please do reply here and let me know if you acknowledge the conflict of interest, and we can take it from there. Please do reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 00:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys, nice to know there are sensible, rational people on here. It seems many of those with a little editing power have turned into despots and are guilty of everything they accuse others of Clarawood123 ( talk) 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia.
I noticed that your username, "Clarawood123", may not meet Wikipedia's
username policy because Your username implies that you represent the
Clarawood housing estate. See
WP:CORPNAME for more information. Please seriously consider creating a new account using a neutral username.
If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a
change of username by completing
this form, or you may simply
create a new account for editing. Thank you.
North America
1000
00:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Clarawood123 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
User:Bbb23 has blocked me in connection with a sockpuppet investigation of me. I have just discovered this today. There is absolutely no way any investigation of this would have been able to prove any sockpuppetry as I am a genuine account and have no connection whatsoever to the disruptive editor or anyone else. I am not able to defend myself as I have been blocked. I would like to be unblocked immediately so that I can defend myself as I have, once again, been accused of multiple things I have not done.
Decline reason:
Confirmed sockpuppet. And you are able to defend yourself just fine while blocked. You still have access to this page. You don't need to edit articles in order to defend yourself. Yamla ( talk) 11:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Yamla: Clarawood123 is not a sockpuppet, but is suspected of using a sockpuppet; there appears to be a mistake in the investigation as the account is probably unrelated (even if not, indefinite is excessive) and the request for unblock category:Requests for unblock should be granted. Peter James ( talk) 11:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
As the person who won the race to initiate the SPI, I do have some sympathy for Clarawood123's position. He started with good intentions, wrote the article in good faith, and it was a welcome addition to the encyclopaedia, though it obviously needed a major cleanup and was even nominated for deletion and the author accused of COI, which did not help.
Unfortunately, when experienced editors started cleaning up the article to bring it into line with WP standards he reacted antagonistically and has generally maintained that stance ever since. His position has not been helped by his long tirades where whatever valid points he was making just got drowned. It looks like he did set up the sock account, though we'll never know for sure.
I would like to see Clarawood123 committing to working constructively and amicably to improve the article, one issue at a time, and accepting that while he has personal knowledge of the area, other editors have much more experience in producing quality articles. We're actually lucky to have people from both "sides" willing to work on it. Maybe then he can be unblocked.
In the end, it's all about a small quiet housing estate; there's no need for all that drama. — Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
As a result of an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. However, I strongly suggest that you get consensus for any possible controversial edits. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Clarawood123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clarawood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarawood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Davey2010 Talk 17:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia. –
Davey2010
Talk
22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Clarawood123. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia and my attention was called to your situation by the ANI filing. Apparently nobody has talked with you about what we call "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia, which is pretty clearly at the root of the problems you are experiencing. You made it clear in this comment that you are "a very long term resident of Clarawood with direct experience", and every edit you have made has been about Clarawood. And your username of course reflects that. I'm giving you notice of our conflict of interest guideline and will have some comments and questions for you below.
Hello, Clarawood123. We
welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:
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).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).
As I noted above, it is clear from your username, your editing, and your actual disclosure that you are a long time resident of Clarawood. It is not clear to me if you own the place where you live and have an actual financial conflict of interest, but it is clear that you are very invested in how people see Clarawood, and in your notions about it. This connection to Clarawood - your "interest" in it, is creating a conflict of interest here in Wikipedia, and that conflict is in turn driving the problems you are having with other editors.
Can you see that?
If so, I would I would like to explain what you should be doing (what you should have been doing all along) -- and if you can agree to that stuff, the problems should diminish and the community will not have to ban you (which is where things are heading at ANI). Please do reply here and let me know if you acknowledge the conflict of interest, and we can take it from there. Please do reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 00:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks guys, nice to know there are sensible, rational people on here. It seems many of those with a little editing power have turned into despots and are guilty of everything they accuse others of Clarawood123 ( talk) 20:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia.
I noticed that your username, "Clarawood123", may not meet Wikipedia's
username policy because Your username implies that you represent the
Clarawood housing estate. See
WP:CORPNAME for more information. Please seriously consider creating a new account using a neutral username.
If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a
change of username by completing
this form, or you may simply
create a new account for editing. Thank you.
North America
1000
00:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Clarawood123 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
User:Bbb23 has blocked me in connection with a sockpuppet investigation of me. I have just discovered this today. There is absolutely no way any investigation of this would have been able to prove any sockpuppetry as I am a genuine account and have no connection whatsoever to the disruptive editor or anyone else. I am not able to defend myself as I have been blocked. I would like to be unblocked immediately so that I can defend myself as I have, once again, been accused of multiple things I have not done.
Decline reason:
Confirmed sockpuppet. And you are able to defend yourself just fine while blocked. You still have access to this page. You don't need to edit articles in order to defend yourself. Yamla ( talk) 11:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@ Yamla: Clarawood123 is not a sockpuppet, but is suspected of using a sockpuppet; there appears to be a mistake in the investigation as the account is probably unrelated (even if not, indefinite is excessive) and the request for unblock category:Requests for unblock should be granted. Peter James ( talk) 11:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
As the person who won the race to initiate the SPI, I do have some sympathy for Clarawood123's position. He started with good intentions, wrote the article in good faith, and it was a welcome addition to the encyclopaedia, though it obviously needed a major cleanup and was even nominated for deletion and the author accused of COI, which did not help.
Unfortunately, when experienced editors started cleaning up the article to bring it into line with WP standards he reacted antagonistically and has generally maintained that stance ever since. His position has not been helped by his long tirades where whatever valid points he was making just got drowned. It looks like he did set up the sock account, though we'll never know for sure.
I would like to see Clarawood123 committing to working constructively and amicably to improve the article, one issue at a time, and accepting that while he has personal knowledge of the area, other editors have much more experience in producing quality articles. We're actually lucky to have people from both "sides" willing to work on it. Maybe then he can be unblocked.
In the end, it's all about a small quiet housing estate; there's no need for all that drama. — Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
As a result of an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. However, I strongly suggest that you get consensus for any possible controversial edits. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)