Crash0ut

Welcome!

Hello, Crash0ut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Best practices for editors with close associations
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, 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! Graywalls (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, nice to hear from you! This has been a recent interest of mine, enough that noticing its absence today I decided to finally make a Wiki account. I've attempted to make small edits over the last few years pre-account but I think the IP range is banned in the area I live in. I can assure you I am not editing from a compromised position, even if I'm unfamiliar with the specific way you do things here.

In fact, I was happy to see Thanks for my edits, immediately!

Now that I'm more familiar, I will try not to use sources provided by the company in the article, and can easily replace both citations with NYT, American Jeweler, or many others, your choice. Crash0ut (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you edited before, or did you recently just register? I was wondering, because there's a huge swath of edits from various IPs to the CFDA article. Graywalls (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Past edits that I had made were cursory, typically to fix blatant grammar issues/typos. The only edits I made to the CFDA article were after registering (today) Crash0ut (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you use any other user names? Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

No, and we're talking about maybe 5 minor edits over the last decade. The impetus for finally signing up was when I noticed the missing program information on the Tiffany & Co. and CDFA articles. Edits which I still contend are relevant and inclusion worthy. You seem to think that the burden of proof is consistently on me: 1. The burden of proof about my edits inclusion worthiness, 2. The burden of proof that I'm not a part of a larger conspiracy, and that I don't know the other editor.

The first I can accept. I have articulated my position which you refuse to engage due to your personal skepticism of me.

The second I can't even begin to understand how one could prove a negative; I don't know that other editor, I'm not involved in any scheme. I, in good faith, fixed the citation issue and apologized for not knowing the procedure—but you've just looked for more and more to pick apart. Crash0ut (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

CFDA award

Okay, so I’ve had the opportunity to think about your question, re: how this award can be included in the article in a way that wouldn't be considered promotional...

I should say first of all that I’m reluctant to involve myself in an existing content dispute, which is something that I try to avoid. However, I’m happy to give some general guidance.

To start off with, it does not seem to me to be unreasonable to include some mention of the relevant award in the article. The issue is how that is to be achieved.

Your first edit, here [1] is based very heavily on the form of words used in the CFDA source that you cited, and also this related CFDA source [2] which you didn’t cite. Most of the material in your edit is lifted directly from one or the other of those sources, to the extent that it was really a copyright violation under WP:COPYVIO, but we will ignore that for the sake of this discussion.

Those 2 sources were specifically composed by the CFDA to promote the existence of the award, and thus to promote the award. The sources were almost certainly worded by marketing professionals and by lifting or paraphrasing that text you were essentially introducing undiluted marketing text into Wikipedia – which is probably the reason that triggered the subsequent chain of events leading to COIN.

As you say, the award is designed to promote something. Whether that thing is the CFDA, Tiffany & Co, inclusivity in the design industry, or the awarded individuals is arguable and we needn’t worry ourselves on that score (probably the answer is all four, to differing degrees). The issue is rewording what is essentially a press release into neutral wording.

The policy WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) includes some high level guidance on that score, which I would advise you to look at, but in general terms you need to try to word the edit in such a way that it is as different to the source as physically possible and is entirely neutral. So, examples of words and phrases in the original edit which are not neutral are…

partners with: that wording is pure marketing speak.

for the stated purpose of: i.e. stating directly what the subject states (so, not independent).

uplifting is again marketing speak.

outstanding is probably accurate but it is unnecessary to use the word directly. After all, most awards per se are for people, companies, teams, etc who are outstanding in the relevant field. That is what an award is.

committed to driving inclusivity this is factual and is obviously a laudable goal, but we need to be careful that whenever organisations publicly use this kind of language in press releases they are probably more interested in trying to present themselves in a certain way than they are in actually promoting the stated goal.

experts is potentially non-neutral (experts according to whom, and based on what criteria?) and is probably irrelevant as all such awards in various industries are determined by panels of experts (or at least panels of recognised industry faces of some kind).

emerging is a word typically used in organisations’ descriptions of their awards but is ultimately non-neutral marketing-type language not used in normal speech.

# A one-year paid fellowship within Tiffany & Co.'s design department / # A $50,000 USD award Listing the details of the prize in this bulletpointed way (and including the unnecessary use of ‘award’) looks like it is straight from a brochure for the award.

The list of finalists is then probably non-encyclopaedic as the individuals are all, probably, (at this point in their careers) non-notable (as defined by Wikipedia) individuals who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. For an award of this nature (i.e. young designers starting out in their careers) I think it would be safer ground to simply list winners rather than nominees (and if there are no winners yet then to wait until there is a winner before naming individuals).

So, pretty much all of the edit was non-neutral in one way or other(!). Some of the above is quite subtle, but that is how most promotion/PR/marketing/advertising works. The overall effect works by the inclusion of all of the different subtle elements.

As I say, I'm very much not interested in getting involved in a content dispute. However, purely as an illustration of how the info in that original edit could have been placed in neutral language I would suggest something along the lines of as follows:

“In 2024, the CFDA launched a new award to recognise young American jewelry designers. Shortlisted applicants participate in a design challenge set by the design team at Tiffany’s & Co. The winner of the annual award will be determined by an independent panel and will receive $50,000 and a one year paid fellowship on the Tiffany’s design team”.

I think it's important to note that those involved are ‘applicants’ rather than ‘nominees’, as this is significant. I'm slightly concerned that this distinction means that the award is not really an industry award in the standard sense - and this distinction may be perceived to be problematic by other users. I'm reluctant to fall on either side of that argument.

I have omitted the issue re: “committed to driving inclusivity” because at the time of writing I am unsure how this is supposed to relate to the skills of the applicants (i.e. as you said in your edit American jewelry designers who are committed to driving inclusivity) and whether it instead does not relate solely to the goals of the award giver. The award appears to relate to success in the design challenge rather than to the contestant’s attitude to inclusivity. The info on the CFDA website seems to rather botch this distinction and I'm unsure of how emerging young designers can realistically be in a position to assist in driving inclusivity. However, I don’t doubt that how that element might be included in an edit might be resolved by further digging. If, as I suspect, the award is intended to promote inclusivity in the jewelry industry then that could easily be included somehow.

Hopefully these notes are of assistance. Axad12 (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to walk me through this. This is incredibly helpful. I was sympathetic to the idea that there was some, as Graywalls said "flowery" language, but I chocked it up to being a strict interpretation; at the time I couldn't easily see how to decouple award language from a description of the award. I clearly leaned too much on the article as it was written (I included the awards as bullet points simply because the program above my edit included them!) I now totally understand the concern. Crash0ut (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. A lot of the attraction of Wikipedia as a project is that it requires all types of people. Some have the subject matter interest, some are good at writing, some are knowledgeable on the underlying policies or the house style guidelines, and some just have a lot of enthusiasm. Most of the content thus ends up being a team effort and better than what any single person could have contributed individually. Axad12 (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crash0ut. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

WHAT? I edit the same article as someone and respond to posts around the same time and suddenly I'm engaged in a conspiracy with them? I appreciate policy that maintains the integrity of the platform, but @Graywalls has consistently moved the goalposts: First my edit was incorrectly cited (which I corrected), then it was too flowery (which I questioned), then I'm accused of coordinating with a user in a different country, and now my account is a sock puppet for that user?

As an aside I noticed that Graywalls has a habit of conspiratorial thinking, as there is at least one other COIN they introduced that does not specify any specific accounts, IPs, or edits and instead is framed as "I think there is a conspiracy going on X article" / imo their personal bend towards conspiracy should include a higher level of evidence. Ultimately as there is no way for me to prove a negative, the onus for that evidence should be on Graywalls and should rely on more than "You edited the same article within the same month / You reply to messages at similar times"

I engaged from the start in good faith: updating citations on my first entry and trying to understand how to manage creating an NPOV for an award-giving entity. My primary mistake was basing my entry too closely on the source material / on the entries already present in that article. This is a noob mistake, but it's hardly conspiracy.

Thankfully you have editors like @Axad12 who took the time to explain to me what aspects of my entry were non-neutral. If you read my talk page, you can tell that I'm interested in understanding my errors and contributing positively. Crash0ut (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Crashout, if you want to challenge this block, you have to address the concerns. Your comments here accuse other editors of various things and talk about neutrality, but that is not why you were blocked. You specifically need to address the "multiple accounts" thing. Neutrality and all that, that's another thing--it's not the reason for the block. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Crash0ut (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here: I find the evidence circumstantial and dubious, I don't have multiple accounts, I am not the user they accused me of being

Accept reason:

I've decided to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your assertion that the IP is not yours. Good luck to you. Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies With respect, this does address this issue. I don't have multiple accounts, I never have, I wasn't and still am not the second user they accused me of being.

The editor that accused me of being a sockpuppet account first accused me of many other things, namely the lack of neutrality and incorrect citations. This snowballed.

The issue is that it didn't snowball with any real evidence. Their evidence consisted of the following:

1. Myself and another editor edited the same article at similar times
2. Myself and another editor responded to the accusations against us at similar times
3. Myself and another editor both use the @ tag to address other users.

I would love to specifically address the "multiple accounts" thing but truly, HOW? What evidence could I find or give that exonerates me here? Crash0ut (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

So that would make this meat puppetry instead. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot Please explain. I don't know this user. From what I can glean they are in a different country than me. We just both accused of non-neutrality when editing an article. That accusation snowballed, with the evidence listed above, which I still contend is not enough evidence.

I ended up asking for and receiving advice on how to create a more neutral tone when dealing with award-granting institutions because neutrality was the issue in my edit. While good intentioned, this whole goose chase about corroboration, sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is in my opinion without merit. Crash0ut (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies:, in situations like this, can you use do a CU behind the scenes without revealing the outcome publicly to verify what that they're saying doesn't fail technical evidence? Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, PLEASE DO. I recall you saying that other user was in Toronto, I've never been to Canada in my life. Crash0ut (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It's behavioral evidence that raised suspicion though. Not technical. The technical evidence is something left to the admins to handle though. Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, in the minutest way, but you have to admit you snowballed this entire thing. Your first critique was about citations, then non-neutral language, then the "flowerly" language of the entire article, then potential undisclosed paid editing, then sockpuppetry.

At no point did you engage in a dialogue about any of your critiques, despite my asking for help in understanding, as a new user. I'm really happy that another user chimed in and gave me well considered advice to help me to become a better editor. I was gruff with you, and I'm sorry. I'm glad the community has people upholding rules, but they were incorrectly applied here. Crash0ut (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23 I should note that there is no CU connection between CrashOut and the IPs, and have unblocked the IP in question. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)