User talk:Tomoo Terada

Re: A personal appeal from Tomoo Terada

Concerning this comment of yours, I moved it to your user page. You might want to post it elsewhere since what you are discussing relates to systemic bias, and not systematic bias.

COI

Hello, Tomoo Terada. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I templated the standard disclaimer above but I'll also some personal comments. The COI guidelines strongly discourage you from editing directly when you have a conflict of interest which you clearly do when it comes to your most recent edits as they concern information you have helped publish. As I mentioned at BLP/N, the problem with when you edit directly is that because of your COI, it's very hard for you to have the right objectivity and therefore your edits tend to be a problem as anyone would say if they look at your edits even if unaware of your COI. The fact your knowledge of our policies, especially our BLP policies are I limited (I assume), is a further problem. You continue to use unsuitable sources (either self published sources or opinions columns or worse both) as pointed out by everyone who is familiar with our policies. Given your conflict of interest, it's going to be very difficult for you to both learn our policies and put aside your personal feelings so that your edits are not a problem. If you continue to make problematic edits, it would be quite appropriate to block you from editing, probably in the form of a partial block of those articles. It would be better for everyone if instead of requiring us to do this, you simply stop editing directly and instead propose changes on the article talk page or WP:BLP/N. Nil Einne (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that in the days of partial blocks, we don't have to block you from all editing which is fortunate since it means if you continue to edit inappropriately, you can probably still contribute to article development on the talk pages. But you shouldn't be relying on that. If your editing is too bad, you may simply be blocked point blank. In that case, you cannot help in any way. In other words, if you really want to improve our coverage despite your COI, since you've already found that your understanding of our policies is lacking and you're unable to sufficiently put aside your bias, please just stop editing the article directly and instead discuss changes on the article talk page. You can edit be a help or a hindrance to improving our coverage. At the moment your a hindrance. Note as I said at BLPN, I'm not threatening to block you personally for many reasons including that I can't, but I may very well report you asking for a block if you continue. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, nothing you or me or anyone else says on your talk page is private. Anyone in the world with access to (the entire online English) Wikipedia can read them. This may not be so obvious in your case since you have few edits, but some editors have lots of talk page watches so it's very common for people to read messages and reply (or remove the messages if they're inappropriate) before the editor the talk page nominally belongs to. (Although to be clear, talk pages ultimately belong to the community even if the editors they belong to are given fair discretion to manage them.) The most extreme example is User talk:Jimbo Wales where it's very common for there to be long discussions with zero involvement of Jimbo Wales. User talk pages are intended for personal discussions with an editor, but they are not intended for private discussions and generally anyone else is free to participate in them within reason, and they're definitely entitled to read them. If you want to communicate privately, you need to email someone, but private discussions of Wikipedia matters are strongly discouraged in most cases. I will not communicate with you privately, I have no desire to, sorry. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saludos, Tomoo Terada, can we discuss this calmly? To summarise the issues I see:

Please avoid long, unstructured posts on BLP/N and at Talk:Chloe Melas: be brief, precise, and stick to the topic so others know what you want to be changed. Melas' biography now includes Freeman's response and that of his lawyers, Tyra Martin's disavowal, and the claim of fabrication. You may be used to a journalistic style of writing, whereas we use a bland tone and avoid sensationalising, especially for living people.
You are in an off-Wikipedia dispute with Melas. WP:BLPCOI says "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Please do not edit about her in any article.
Your post was an opinion piece with a disclaimer: "Las opiniones expresadas en nuestra sección de blogs reflejan el punto de vista de los autores invitados, y no representan la posición de la FNPI y los patrocinadores de este proyecto respecto a los temas aquí abordados." We cannot use this source for controversial claims about a living person per WP:BLPREMOVE. We might compromise to include El Mundo and La Opinión: they're in there now.
You edit under your real name and you're a public person, but we don't know for sure it's you: see WP:IMPERSONATE. Please contact WP:OTRS to verify your account.
Some of your comments breach WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, including unsupported claims of paid editing and agendas. Those commenting are regulars at the BLP Noticeboard. I asked Nil Einne's opinion because they'd commented in the section. When Wikipedians say "we" or "our" we mean all contributors to the project - you included. Nobody owns the article, but if there's a dispute we need to reach WP:CONSENSUS, taking into account our policies and guidelines. If you read the policies I've linked to, you'll have an easier time editing.

Fences&Windows 11:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I´m answering Fences&Windows as soon as possible at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chloe_Melas.

I´m glad Fences uses a very civil tone without threats even if we still disagree in some points. But that´s the way to a real and mutually respectful dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Tomoo Terada (talk • contribs) 22:12, April 2, 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Chloe Melas. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Meters (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing an editor of being an undisclosed paid editor is a serious personal attack. It particularly ironic given your thanking user:Fences and windows above for being civil. Meters (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chloe Melas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fences&Windows 03:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Meters. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Stay off my talk page. Meters (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Chloe Melas. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Meters (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content on Chloe Melas has been removed by an editor claiming a WP:BLP issue. That means it should not go back in until the discussion (actually discussions in this case since it is on two different pages) reaches consensus to do so. You have already broken WP:3RR by restoring it four times in 5 hours. 3RR is a bright line issue, for which you can be immediately blocked. Breaking 3RR on a BLP issue is particularly bad. Don't restore it again. And stop attacking editors. Meters (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And has already been pointed out by user:Nil Einne you appear to have a conflict of interest in this article and should not be making direct edits to the article. Discuss things on the article's talk page and please stay calm. Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being undisclosed paid editors is not going to help. And despite your claim on my talk page, I do not know Marquardtika. I have had no prior interaction with that editor, and as far as I can remember I have never edited this article before. I noticed you making a personal attack on Marquardtika in an edit summary (by accusing them of being an undisclosed paid editor) when you undid an removal (made on BLP grounds) and I restored it and warned you for it. Marquardtika chose to thank me for it. That's it. Meters (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my talk page too Meters. You´re not welcomed.

Anyway, I keep record of my post in your talk page. I don´t erase those people I don´t like as you do. https://web.archive.org/web/20210809050928/https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMeters&oldid=1037858808

¿So saying you´re clearly one-sided is a "personal attack" against you? You are the one that need to calm down, and practice what you preach, man.

So, conversely, disqualify someone as being "a blogger" it´s not a "personal attack" according to you?

Well,since it was not me the one that broke the consensus on a writing done months ago by Fences not me, that erasing guy now falsely claims it´s "dubious sourced" it seems like a personal attack against me. And "delicate" erasing guy joked about it, so I don´t see the severe damage done to him.

Because you must check it, I reversed to editing NOT DONE BY ME. Where is the "COI" there? And as I showed at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard there´s a lot of media (secondary sources) amplyfing and supporting what it was erased without any real argument. No, this is censorship attempt. And looking who benefit of that are not "personal attack". You can block me "without warning" because that´s your "argument."

For the record, as you must know there have been paid editing scandals at Wikipedia, that´s public knowledge. I tried to ask questions to Jimmy Wales on that and I was expelled from Wikimania15. Fences know about it. So, it´s not "personal atacks" but my experience with some of you. {{subst:unsigned2}} Tomoo Terada (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]

You made another accusation of paid editing on my talk page. That is a personal attack, and is why I warned you. Meters (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's because you chose one side and want to defend it through threats. Of course that guy is a suspect of paid editing because when had the chance did not make any complaint. That includes Fences writing.

Now that CNN knows that the entries exposing their fraud exists at Wikipedia, well, you're the one attacking personally those consulting the NPV Encyclopedia. Because then you think they can be duped.

Time ago, I wrote to Jimmy Wales on what you´re doing.

https://twitter.com/Tomoo_Terada/status/943967264721784832?s=20

Tomoo Terada (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]

To be clear, your unfounded accusations of paid editing are personal attacks. Personally, I find your accusation against me so dumb that I don't care. However if you keep at it, someone is eventually going to block you. So if you want to keep editing here, you need to stop. Note that this is not a threat to block you. As I've told you at least once, I do not have the ability to block you, anymore than I have the ability to delete images.

I'd also note that while I don't care enough about the personal attack to pursue it further, I do care about BLP. Your comments so far IMO are okay but getting close to BLP violations. They don't quite cross it yet, but if you do cross the BLP line again, I will ask for you to be blocked. Again this is not a threat to personally block you. Indeed, as much as I care about BLP, even if I had the ability I'd incredibly unlikely I'd block you since I'm clearly WP:INVOLVED and in the unlikely event I felt it severe enough to block you rather than just report you to ANI, I'd open a thread on ANI immediately after I blocked you so my actions could be reviewed.

BTW, you are the writer of an article about the conflict between Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman so you have a COI about anything related to the conflict between Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman, whoever writes the content. In fact, while you are not mentioned by name in the text you reverted, it relates to a blog written by you as you must know, so you are re-introducing text which is directly about an article you wrote. By the same token Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman have a COI about the whole conflict whoever wrote the content whether here on Wikipedia, or the external content we are linking to. In the same fashion if I really was employeed by CNN, I would have a COI about pretty much anything related to CNN, no matter if I'd never even heard of the people at CNN involved.

To be clear, in all cases the conflict would arise even when the editor is simply reverting an edit. Indeed the conflict would arise even when reverting vandalism, although reverting clear-cut vandalism is one instance when it's acceptable to directly edit despite having a conflict of interest. That's how conflicts of interest work. You're a journalist, you should not need this explained to you.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I answered his bad faith non-sense up there to Nil Einne under the title "Bad faith are not good reasons" at his own talk page.Tomoo Terada (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Chloe Melas. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Specifically the last paragraph of this diff is a personal attack against an editor. You were warned above Nil Einne on August 9 about personal attacks. Masem (t) 13:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I answered Masem at https://web.archive.org/web/20210812055202/https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Chloe_Melas Tomoo Terada (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]

Notification of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Masem (t) 18:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I´ll check it Masem. Hope to be a good faith discussion now. Thank you. Tomoo Terada (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]

Linking to archive.org copies of Wikipedia content

You need to stop linking to archive.org copies of Wikipedia content. If the content was truly deleted i.e. has been removed from the history and only visible to administrators or even suppressed and visible to almost no one, then there is generally a good reason. You linking to a copy of it on some external site doesn't generally fix the reason that caused it to be deleted. From what I can tell, most of the time this hasn't been the case, the content hasn't been deleted simply removed. If that's the case, you can link to it via WP:diffs but not archive.org. I'd note that User:Oshwah did not delete the content you claim they did. While Oshwah used rollback [1] they reverted themselves in 16 seconds [2]. While I can't speak for Oshwah, this most likely means they accidentally clicked on rollback in their watchlist or elsewhere. You did not revert anything. To be clear, you are free to keep archive.org copies for your own personal use, and to do whatever you want to do with them externally this is not something which concerns any of us. However you need to stop linking to them here. Archive.org copies of reliable sources are a different matter, and as I mentioned at BLPN are often usable. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was an accident. Sorry! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that while technically there is no harm in linking to archive.org copies of content if the content you're linking to haven't been revision deleted, the problem is you need to actually know this hasn't happened. This means you need to check out the edit history anyway. So you might as well just link to the diffs or at least a internal permanent link of the content you are referring to. This also allays the concerns of anyone reading your posts. When you say something was deleted and then link to a archive.org copy, there are fears you are linking to content you should not link to. This isn't a concern I simply made, only a few days ago, I had to ask for an edit to be suppressed because of a link to an external copy of content which had been suppressed here. (Nothing to do with you, or CNN, or any for that matter Morgan Freeman or Chloe Melas.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ~Oshwah~. I accept your apology as you never appear saying bad about me, but you will understand that this led to a situation that was already tense, to become even more tense. And it was very unfortunate that the phrase you say it was accidentally and briefly erased "And why CNN keep silent of being accused of fraud, and instead of a rebuttal prefered to promote an anonymous attack against the author?"

it was refering to CNN, an entity that has a clear interest in protecting Chloe Melas and themselves burying here any information on how Spanish media revelead how they committed fraud fabricating the Morgan Freeman sexual harassment report. No doubt with tactics like even using Wikipedia editors secretly in their payroll.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210814172204/https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

As you will understand, by any accounts that it was suspicious, even more you being an experienced editor investigating sockpuppets accounts and so. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Oshwah

Anyway, it seems you are a sympathetic and kind guy with no ulterior motives, which is in stark contrast to the attitude of your fellow wikipedians I had to deal with. So, as it seems you´re of those idealistic people that really wants Wikipedia being the sharing of human knowledge for good let me tell you that I admire you, guys. But that you must take care of not being used by those people here that are not idealists like you.

Years ago, I was like you, but I lost any ilusion after being kicked out from https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania for asking for an interview with Jimmy Wales on then recent Sarah Stierch paid editing scandal, and other controversial issues. Wales and his team, including then Wikimedia Mexico president, Iván Martínez, had any right to deny me the interview if he don´t want to give it to me. But had no right to kick me out from Wikimania15 for expressing my intention

Two years later I confronted Wales at Twitter, and I left him quiet after his many lies being rebutted.

https://twitter.com/Tomoo_Terada/status/943967264721784832?s=20

So, that´s the old story that combined with the obvious lies now of your fellow wikipedians I had the bad luck of having to deal with made me lost my patience, so I changed my approach to take it with light humor their cynical conduct.

For instance, it´s not a problem for me that you do use a pseudonym. But if you will try to lecture me on morals when you´re hiding behind a pseudonym I will say that I don´t take seriously anyone that have not guts to criticize me right to the face without using a mask. Well, one of your fellow wikipedians wants to lecture me now on my conduct because any rebuttal of the lies this group has been saying supposedy is a "personal attack." He refers to a COI issue, that it wss already announced it will be answered back to what Masem wrote. So he just pretends to be "offended", as any touchy self-rigteous person.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210814072222/https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

But I´m gonna answer that, and to each one of them, if they are not too scared so they block me so I can´t answer back to them their many lies, as I did with Jimmy Wales. Take care. The best for you. Tomoo Terada (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Tomoo Terada[reply]

Of course Nil Einne I will not stop linking to archive.org copies of Wikipedia content. As you yourself recognize, there´s not harm in that.

But, in fact, you asked for it when y´all threat me that I will be "blocked from editing without further warning" for any "personal attack" when you call "personal attacks" my vigorous rebuttals to your lies, and the criticism that I do of your suspicious conduct. So, I had to start archiving copies after each one of my posts.

But thanks, because you made me use the archive.org copies to make you accountable. If I´m blocked or even banned I´ll have the evidence that even being under threat, I rebutted as many lies coming from you as I could. To put it later online or even, in the future, as a material for a fellow honest journalist to work on it as a material exposing corruption and abuse at Wikipedia.

For instance, concern to you, my use of archive.org copies made you backpedaling recognizing that you dismissed El Mundo as a source.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210814172204/https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Concern to Masem while you say nothing has been erased, to justify the linking to archive.org copies the fact is that, as the disingenous picking of facts and quotes to support a narrative against me as Masem did at the incidents board shows, this is about what is more evident.

As the fact that the former discussion it was archived, it´s hard for those not directly involved to keep trace. So what I do it´s keeping some kind of diary of my experience confronting your bad faith. I had tried each copy uploaded to reflect the changes that are happening with time.

Anyway, it´s not so hard for anyone to check how a page is at the present time, if they want to.

Returning to Masem, the fact is that I showed how he was spreading as a fact the allegued harassment to Chloe Melas in retaliation for her negative reporting on Morgan Freeman, an unverified claim at best or, worst, a deliberate move by CNN´s David Vigilante to spread a manipulative lie so the audience to sympathize with Melas and her family as being victims of death threats. Masem has not answered me back on that. Little by little the truth is appearing, no matter the wikibullying.

So the cumulative number of proofs and arguments that I will show to you and anyone reading, will make clear who is saying truth, and who only rationalizing to justify censorship and manipulation.

Of course, I´ll answer back to all the shit y´all said after Masem ended his misrepresenting indictment against me.

Of course, I´ll take copy of this. Tomoo Terada (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for treating editing as a battleground and WP:SOAP.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will not appeal to legitimze this farce. They want you to recognize as guilty at the end. I asked about policies mentioned but not precised by ARoseWolf. Clearly they are here to make an encylopedia... according their vested interests.

Anyway, now that Wikipedia adms that already threatened me before the block (Johnuniq) they made good on their threat, I have a whole chapter for my book. and as their abuses are on reccord they could not deny it. "Treating editing as a battleground" they say. It seems they call it that way when they are losing in their twisting of facts. When an "accused" like me could turn the table. They are so obvious.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210816211853/https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

https://web.archive.org/web/20210816213709/https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Tomoo_Terada Tomoo Terada (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]