Talk:Evan Blass

Autobio discussed on IRC

To avoid confusion, I want to say that this article was discussed in depth on IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help on freenode, and we all agreed that this is a good enough article. I'm not going to post the logs but I'll email a shortened relevant portion of them to anyone who asks for them. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 22:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Autobio tags

I removed an autobio tag- unless there is something to fix, don't add a tag- tags are not badges of shame. If you'd like to change something, just do it or tell the author or me or someone else to. Please don't add autobio without something you want someone to do about it. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 02:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Suspension of @evleaks by Twitter

On November 17, 2014, Twitter suspended the @evleaks account for reasons yet to be determined. After some discussion among editors of this page, the decision was made to refrain from including the suspension in the article until third-party sources can illuminate the significance of the suspension. It should be noted by the reader, however, that as of this writing the @evleaks Twitter account does not exist. This note will be updated if and when the account is reinstated. Wikigeek2 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: On November 20, 2014, Twitter reinstated the @evleaks account. Blass tweeted the reason for the temporary suspension was due to an illicit DMCA filing against him, although that claim hasn't yet been independently verified by a third party. Wikigeek2 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerns of Article Bias

As noted here on my Talk page, the subject of this article has attempted to improperly influence and intimidate editors who attempt unbiased changes to this entry. Evan Blass, aka @evleaks, has stated he "will get 100 different people to edit this entry" on his behalf.

Furthermore, as noted here on my Talk page, editor User:Lixxx235, who is the only other major contributor to this article besides Evan Blass himself, stated he is a personal friend of Evan Blass. He then threatened to investigate/report me for making edits to this page that were made in 100% good faith.

The reader should be cautioned that this page may be under significant influence and bias by the subject and his friend(s). Wikigeek2 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Good luck continuing your personal attacks. For what it's worth, if you're innocent, you'll be proven so at investigations. --L235-Talk Ping when replying 17:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I hardly see how posting my concern is a personal attack. You yourself stated you have a COI, but were acting regardless of that COI. I have commented here in good faith, and even posted on your Talk page to make you aware of the comment in the spirit of fair notice. I eagerly look forward to the investigation. Wikigeek2 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Let the record show that as of 26 November 2014, eight days after editor User:Lixxx235 threatened an investigation into my integrity as a contributor to this page, he still has not initiated the investigation or provided an update on its status. I eagerly accept any investigation in order to prove my innocence, however User:Lixxx235 evidently deems it appropriate to make public allegations without following through.

Editors to this page should take careful note that User:Lixxx235 is a self-described personal friend of Evan Blass with clear conflict of interest who attempted to exert a chilling effect on my contributions to this article. While sockpuppetry should never be allowed on Wikipedia, neither should empty threats or assumptions of bad faith. Wikigeek2 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wikigeek2: Frankly:

• I have always been open about any conflict of interest, telling you right away on your talk page, which was in no way required of me;
• You've been the one pestering me with this; posting messages to my talk page, pinging me, while I have silently backed away from the page due to frustration with you;
• You are a self declared WP:SPA and engage in tendentious editing on this article;
• Your edits, overall, to Evan Blass have been undisputably negative;
• You have, if I remember correctly, threatened me and User:EvanBlass;
• You post notices on this talk page that sole purpose are to discourage me from editing this page, because those notices have no administrative or policy-grounded effect;
• You have modified comments made by me, in giving you a cookie to attempt to start a discussion;
• You assume bad faith on my part simply because I am a friend of the subject of the article, without considering that my contributions to this project extend far beyond any possible friendship with Blass- see WP:AAGF;
• You are quick to assume my friendly question regarding previous accounts a threat, and when I do some further probing because of my (admittedly small, but I have read through at least 30 SPIs) experience with recognizing sockpuppets, you become very defensive;
• This article, when it was accepted, was described on IRC as the most non-COI sounding COI article seen by several experienced editors, even if you don't count me.

Some points may be duplicates. I have tried to diffuse any misunderstanding with you, and when that proved impossible, I quietly stopped editing this article and asked other experienced editors to add this page to their watchlist. Why don't you remove the authoritative and legal sounding but not policy-grounded notices you put in your comments? I've completely given up on trying to patrol the edits made to this page because I'm simply fed up with it. This is also a formal request for you not to post on my talk page in the future except for required and courtesy administrative notices; if you have any further disputes with me please take it to WP:AN/I. In reply to your earlier post about threatening an SPI and not following through, I noted that a) there wasn't enough evidence to block and b) the checkuser I would have requested would have turned up stale because the suspected sockmaster hadn't made a logged action in 3 months. Best, --L235-Talk Ping when replying 01:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, User:Lixxx235. Your concluding sentence on reasons why there was no investigation--thus exonerating me--is all I was seeking. I'm committed to making this a better, more balanced article in 100% good faith. Wikigeek2 (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: On 2014-12-11, an accusation of sockpuppetry was submitted for investigation by EvanBlass, himself. A CheckUser test was conducted and found no relation between the alleged "sockmaster" (Mhannigan) and "sockpuppet" (me, Wikigeek2). The investigation was closed on 2014-12-18 and both accused parties have been exonerated of the claim. For more information, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhannigan. I will continue contributing to the Evan Blass article in good faith. Wikigeek2 (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the comment by the closing admin was just as important as the CheckUser evaluation: "Wikigeek2 and Mhannigan have demonstrated childish behavior with sarcastic and rude comments, inappropriate emails, and an unhealthy level of contempt towards the article subject. Note that if both users are unable to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, it's likely they will be on the receiving end of a block." EvanBlass (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that, EvanBlass. I'm happy to have the investigation behind me and exonerated from the charges so I can continue being one of the top contributors to this article. All the best, Wikigeek2 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading between the lines here, he seems to be saying that if these "two accounts" continue with this grudge-fueled style of editing, they will be blocked. But if that's a risk you're willing to take, carry on. EvanBlass (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for Mhannigan, but personally I have no grudges against you. Why not help me with some of the questions I've posted to this Talk page and we can work together on making this a great article? Wikigeek2 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding Balance

I am considering adding balance to this article by briefly noting (in a sentence or two) some of the significant leaks @evleaks got wrong, which were widely published before correct information came to light. Most notably:

• Leak that there would be no Nexus 6, and the Nexus line would be replaced by "Android Silver."
• Leak of OnePlus tablet, which was ultimately fake.
• Leak of HTC "Volantis" (Nexus 9) specifications, which were ultimately fake.
• Possibly others.

These would be added to the article in a way that clearly identifies them as exceptions to the rule, as @evleaks was generally very accurate. Because I have been accused by another editor as being a sockpuppet, and accused by @evleaks himself of being a troll, I would like to get other editors' opinions of adding this information before I do so. If you have an opinion, please advise. Thank you. Wikigeek2 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The first of those references doesn't seem to mention that evleaks' claim was wrong (and if you intend to add a second source that contradicts it but doesn't mention evleaks, see WP:SYN). References two and three are identical and refer to related incidents on the same day (ie the same fake source used by evleaks). Huon (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, particularly on WP:SYN. I will review the sources. Wikigeek2 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Reviewing the guidelines put forth in WP:SYN and based on the third (acceptable) example of original synthesis, I believe the following statement would be acceptable: "In some rare yet notable case, Blass's widely published leaks were ultimately proven false. For example, on May 16, 2014, Blass stated 'There is no Nexus 6.' However, on Oct. 15, 2014, Google announced the Nexus 6." Wikigeek2 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Only the box with the green checkmark is considered appropriate, and there Jones is responding to Smith while contradicting him. What you're aiming for is much more akin to the inappropriate "UN and wars" examples. If that Android Silver example of evleaks being wrong were notable, a reliable source would have noted it. Huon (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the explanation/clarification. Wikigeek2 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Training Joshua Topolsky and Nilay Patel

I am researching the veracity of the claim that Evan Blass trained Joshua Topolsky and Nilay Patel while at Engadget. This is currently unsourced in the article, and all sources I can find are either (a) not notable or reputable, and/or (b) point back to the same interview with Blass in Android Police. In other words, this claim came from Blass himself and can't be independently verified. (The sentence was originally included by Blass in his own submission of this article at Wikipedia.)

If other editors can find a notable source for this, I would appreciate you adding the citation. Otherwise I will delete the claim. Thank you. Wikigeek2 (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have removed this and all other uncited statements that could not be independently verified by a reliable third-party source. If an editor can properly source these statements, please add them back in. Wikigeek2 (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorsed

In the first paragraph of this article, a website called Sorced is cited for the claim that Blass published a "series of numerous highly accurate smartphone and tablet leaks." I'm struggling with this as a reputable and notable source, however, for the following reasons:

1. Sorced only cites 64 leaks, stopping in November 2013, excluding all of Blass's output in December 2013 through 2014 until his retirement. These later leaks could help or hinder his "score." 2. Sorced does not describe how it calculates Blass's "score." It merely re-posts links to the original leak. This is not evidence to support the claim. 3. Sorced is not cited by any other notable or reputable publications. A Google News search on the date of this writing produced zero references.

That said, I think the same/similar idea could be found elsewhere. Unless another editor has a valid reason to support the Sorced citation, I will remove it and replace it with a difference source and statement. Wikigeek2 (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

After keeping this discussion open for over 2 months, I've made the change. I went with the BBC News article, which states: @evleaks "become a trusted source for many technology journalists." Wikigeek2 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference Clean-Up

I'd like to clean up the references section, which is beyond the point of overwhelming. For example, does Blass's leak of the LG G3 require 5 separate citations?

Unless anyone disagrees, can someone please point me to Wikipedia guidelines on cleaning up references? I don't want this to seem like a negative edit where I'm removing validation from the article. Thanks in advance. :) Wikigeek2 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

After keeping this discussion open for about 2 months, I've made the changes to clean up the citations. Please advise of any concerns. Thank you. Wikigeek2 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wikigeek2: Good to know. Did I ask you or Mhannigan not to ping me or leave me talk page messages? If it was you, I'm withdrawing that request. Feel free to ping me, and if you start a discussion regarding this page (or revive an inactive one) as a courtesy, mind pinging me? Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

TK O'Connor/TK Tech News Controversy

There was a recent addition to the article about the controversy surrounding Blass, TK O'Connor/TK Tech News, and alleged criminal acts. This addition was removed by another editor.

I'm opening this section of the Talk page for discussion on this area of the biography, should any editor wish to pursue it further. I'm personally of the opinion it is not significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia article, nor has it gained widespread coverage by notable, reputable media.

I suggest that we please discuss it here before adding anything further on this topic. Thank you. Wikigeek2 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wikigeek, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to open discussion on this talk page. I won't participate much, but allow me to offer my interpretations of consensus:

• In BLPs, all negative material must have a source and must show it's significance.
• Positive material still requires a source, but it doesn't need to be as "significant"; it just has to adhere to WP:NPOV.

I'll be keeping an eye on this talk page and offer my views sometimes. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 23:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to ping: Wikigeek2 (other interested editors: User:EvanBlass User:Mhannigan) --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evan Blass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129052340/http://evleaks.at/ to http://evleaks.at/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)