User talk:Arcenter

Welcome!

Hello, Arcenter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Timothy Parker (puzzle designer). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dudel250 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of content from Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

Instead of reverting and causing an edit war (which is not allowed on Wikipedia), please visit the article's talk page and discuss or explain why you believe this content should be removed. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Timothy Parker (puzzle designer). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Arcenter. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Timothy Parker (puzzle designer), 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:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Parker or someone affiliated with him, please understand that right now making large edits to the article's page is quite possibly one of the worst things you can do right now. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is a very, very public place and while you might be doing this with good intentions, this sort of thing usually backfires spectacularly. There have been cases where news outlets have picked up on people trying to edit their own pages and then run articles that claim that the individual is trying to use Wikipedia as a PR outlet for image rehabilitation. Some news outlets play a little more coy about this while others will run full on smear campaigns. It's rarely pretty and the person always comes out looking poorer at the end of it. I think that there's at least one case of someone doing something along these lines and it actually got enough news to where the Wikipedia edits made it onto their page as well.

The claims of plagiarism seem to have received some coverage, so there is reason to mention it on the article and it cannot just be a mention of Parker refuting the claims. Not only does that not really clearly explain what is going on but it also makes it easy for people to assume that this is an attempt at trying to do damage control via Wikipedia. I really recommend that you discuss the edits on the article's talk page.

Now if you are Parker or someone affiliated him - which looks likely given some of your edits and your username - you must disclose this on your userpage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the page to give a little explanation and I'm in the process of making a post on the talk page. The main thing to remember right now is that these are allegations and no definitive statements should be made on either side, stating that Parker is absolutely innocent or guilty. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Timothy Parker

I need to be very direct with you about what's going on right now. You've been asked questions about your identity and edits, only for you to not give any answers.

You have been editing the article for Timothy Parker, who was recently accused of plagiarism. The edits you made seemed to downplay these allegations in favor of Parker, as it mostly centered around you posting only a refutation of the allegations. Your username is similar to the name of a website that Parker had years ago and you also uploaded this image, claiming it as your own work.

Right now there is strong evidence to suggest that you are Parker or someone he knows. This means that you have a conflict of interest and the chances of you being a completely separate person is very slim. If you have a conflict of interest then the worst possible thing you can do right now is not respond to people's questions about your identity and purpose for being on Wikipedia, either on your talk page, the article's talk page, or at the administrator's noticeboard where someone has complained about you constantly trying to revert other people's edits to a preferred version.

Now here's the difficult part: when you don't respond administrators like myself have to make a judgement call based on the evidence, which heavily suggests that you have a conflict of interest. Without hearing your side of the story or even hearing that you're willing to compromise, I have to assume that you're here to promote Parker and will likely not agree to a compromise. If you are Parker or someone affiliated with him that means that you have a conflict of interest. You can still edit, but the edits will need to be minor and/or just suggestions made on the talk page. Because of this, and because you haven't responded to anything at this point in time, I'm going to give you a temporary block. This block will only last for about a day or two. During that time I need you to answer some specific questions, which I'll post below the block notice. They will be things I've mentioned here, only more concise. I've made all of this so long because I want to make sure that you're fully aware of what is going on here.

Something else to take into consideration is that news sites do watch Wikipedia on occasion. Some sites even use it as a place to get information and background on a person, so it's possible that they might see the talk page and see that someone who may or may not be Parker is editing the article and not responding to concerns about their editing. Most of the time this isn't reported on, but sometimes it is and it usually ends up reflecting very badly on the person in question. I hate that this all sounds so negative, but I do feel obligated to warn you about the potential fallout that can and has come about when people edit (or are suspected to edit) their own pages. (And this is already getting some coverage on Twitter.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the questions you need to answer:

Are you Timothy Parker? If you are not Timothy Parker then we need to know how you are affiliated.
What is your purpose on Wikipedia?
Will you communicate clearly with other editors?

There are other things, but these are the three largest concerns at this point in time. Anyone with a conflict of interest must divulge this information when asked. Not answering is not an option, especially in situations like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

an-notice.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

March 2016

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you have resumed edit warring on the same article, and have not provided any answers to the questions above, I have blocked this account again. Kuru (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: I'm actually going to turn this into an indefinite. I've given them several lengthy posts about transparency (since it seems very likely that it's Parker or a representative) and about making edits like this one. Their first edits were to remove nearly everything about the allegations other than Parker's rebuttal, but this new move removed everything. This makes me believe that they'll just do the same things once the block is up, especially since they've never responded to anything here or on the talk page. If they're willing to respond here to the COI concerns and talk on the article's talk page (rather than just remove information) then they might be unblocked, but offhand I just see another temporary block ending the same way as the first one did. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections; I was wavering between the two options. Kuru (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be unblocked if you can do the following:

Disclose your conflict of interest. There has been some evidence to show that you may be Parker or a representative.
Promise not to make any more direct edits to the article without discussing things on the article's talk page.
Show that you understand why you were blocked (ie, edit warring without comment, not responding to concerns on your talk page and on the article's talk page)

I'm just really concerned that you've been repeatedly doing the same actions on the article without ever actually communicating with anyone and automatically assuming that the addition of the material was trolling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]