FilmExec
January 2018
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Cahk (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ryan Wiik, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Greyjoy talk 09:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Ryan Wiik. Cahk (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN talk to me 14:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)This is absurd. There have been no legal or paid threats or any other such thing. Just a statement of facts that we do NOT have that information available to us that they are posted. They are referencing tabloid articles and not actual existing facts. This is not a threat. What I am saying is that we do not have that information due to the nature of the information which happens to fall within certain legal and corporate guidelines. Once and if it is made public then all is fair game. But as of now Danlig55 is making assumptions and promoting ideas to negatively attack and shed negative light on Ryan Wiik. You guys are rewarding a person that is campaigning against Ryan and guilty of what you just accused me of. He has refused anyone else from making changes or updates. Regardless of how major or minor. Dont you think something is wrong with that? He has continue to post a single strain of the information. This affects others who have had in the past and will have in the future, any dealings with Wiik. This information is misleading and false and you are allowing it to exist. Danlig55 has persisted in maintaining his agenda and blocking any other venue or even stopped the information from being limited to the known facts until this issue resolves itself. It is simple, there are no threats, there are no other agendas other than what Danlig55 is promoting. It is simple, very simple, the legal and corporate facts being stated here are in detail false and in subject matter held private by the corporate and legal entities involved. Danlig55 has no more access to that than you or I or anyone else. Therefore, how can he persist to make public this information and refuse to allow anyone else to update it. It is on an almost instant basis. Which means he is monitoring this page for an absolute self serving purpose. How is that not apparent to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmExec (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- You are free to appeal your block. I would recommend unblocking you per this. --NeilN talk to me 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Neil, thank you for that. Appealing the block is one thing. But what I want to make clear as well is that there is a relentless and unbelievable effort on the other side to make sure only one narrative is put forth. That should be against your policy. He has been given many many alternatives in copy. Minor changes or changes that literally take it down to the minimum so as to maintain an unbiased page. Furthermore, the litigation involves others that in no way are being references on their wikipedia pages. This is a serious issue.
- Sorry, the above should read not unblocking you. --NeilN talk to me 19:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
FilmExec (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
your reason here
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲水 09:05, 23 January 2018 (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.
This block is not just at all. There were many options in reaching a compromise with the other editor. Minimal changes, changes to content throughout and even a stripping of the content down to the absolute bare minimum so as to remove all controversy until the facts can be publicly resolved. There is a statement that there were threats made. That is ridiculous. No threats legal or financial were made. It is a simple statement saying that we DO NOT have those facts as they are protected under those legal and corporate proceedings and we do not have access to them. Any changes made to that page are immediately reverted by one user to the narrative that he wants about someone else. And furthermore, the wikipage references other people and you do not see those legal and corporate issues stated on their wikipedia page. How is it possible that one person can so equally and easily make changes to someone else public page and they are granted full access on a second by second basis to make changes as they see fit.
- I don't think you understand we don't write articles based on "legal and corporate proceedings" (please also tell your client that). We use independent secondary sources like newspapers and trade publications. --NeilN talk to me 19:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I apologize but I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying you are at all. I am saying that the user Danlig55 is misleading the public with using such articles to drive his narrative. And how is it that he has become the defacto moderator of the page. Why is it that his version is the only acceptable version? And he is just as responsible as me or anyone else in making changes yet he is not blocked. I just went back to a previous source code and updated it to what I thought was the most accurate representation. That was immediately taken down by Danlig55, and any other attempts as well and any attempts to even make moderate changes or stripping it down to the acceptable information. He has become the defacto moderator of this information. And the information that refers to the litigation is not represented on the pages of others involved in the litigation. Their pages remain free from such information. You are permitting that user to make instantaneous changes as frequent and rapidly as anyone else. The information is misleading. It is simple and hard fact. It is not complete and it is taken out of context and the issue are by their nature private and not disclosed. The articles are referring to assumptions put forth by one party and not facts of the cases. Those facts are private and not disclosed. Either the page should be stripped down to a basic bio or removed. Right now you are allowing harm to be committed to a person by another person that has an alternative agenda. That agenda can be seen elsewhere in campaigns against him and you are now allowing it on Wikipedia. I dont understand how this is not clear. One person has been given full access to 100 percent decide what is to be posted about Mr. Wiik
@FilmExec: Sorry to butt in here, but there is so many accusations. You are the one who has declared a conflict of interest as "Ryan Wiik" is your client, as you stated. You are editing on behalf of your client. You decided that it would be in the public interest to delete over 90% of the article about "Ryan Wiik" simply because you did not like it. You think it's ok to delete over 35 news articles, which in this case is deleting the history of a person, and I did not agree. I invited you to discuss this on the talk page yet you refused to have a discussion with me or others. The news articles on your client are from reputable news sources and are from Norway's biggest financial and daily newspapers, certainly not 'tabloid' as you call them. No one is adding private information, only what is already in the public domain. Your client is a person of public interest as documented by the hundreds of news articles online and in print, a TV news documentary and numerous tv and radio clips. Danlig55 talk to me 9:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Danlig55 talk to me No that is not true. The way you have written and updated that page serves only your interests as it misrepresents the facts. I was not stating anything in any way or matter that I thought was going to benefit him. Just take it down to what is actual fact. Furthermore, your article references the CEO and others and it does not link to them or reference them. Just makes sure that the content that you are using to promote against Mr. Wiik stays only on his page. You and I both know that you have a concerted effort in making sure that Mr. Wiik's image is represented the way that you want it to be represented. The litigation is Private and the Corporate affairs are private. The rest of your entries are hear say and have a specific agenda in their efforts. My efforts were simple. Let what is known about him for sure be up there until all other actions are proven. And the first attempts were not removal of all information or sources. It was only after I saw that you would not under any circumstance agree to anything that I thought, well then a generic page might satisfy you as well. Which it did not. It doesn't matter anymore. These issues will be resolved soon and then updates to this content can be made then when the information is made public. Until then you are free to keep promoting whatever it is that you need to promote here or on twitter and facebook as you see fit as you have been doing. Facts are facts and they will be made public sooner or later. This was to try and reach an amicable resolution. But the fact that you are a second by second basis are up and monitoring this page and immediately reverting it to the content that you see fit very very clearly shows your intent. Why are you so dead set on making sure this particular issue is visible? Why are you not making sure that content regarding the other parties that are involved being presented on their pages as well? You have a clear agenda here. It is a massive campaign effort on your part and an effort you are pursuing relentlessly. Good for you. I hope this gives you purpose in life. When it is over it will be over. Good luck in your efforts, I wish you the very best in whatever it is that you are trying to achieve.