Tamara Santerra

Welcome!

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

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Ecolint, which 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
• Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• 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

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, 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! Lard Almighty (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Conrad Hughes has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Conrad Hughes. Thanks! - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Conrad Hughes has been accepted

Conrad Hughes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Superboilles (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Potential COI

Tamara Santerra, you appear to have a very strong connection to Michael D. Aeschliman, and your account appears to be a single purpose account. Please provide a statement here that you have no WP:COI and/or are not the subject himself.174.208.235.142 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:A. Roderick-Grove per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove. 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 think 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) 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no COI with the article in question (Michael D. Aeschliman), and of course I am not the subject of the article! Neither has the subject of the article ever approached me concerning it. I have been operating in good faith, and there is nothing personally at stake for me in this article. For professional reasons, I happen to be well informed about the subject, and I have therefore tried to ensure that it is thoroughly covered, with as many facts and valid citations as possible. However, I am not a member of any organization or institution connected with the subject of the article.

Was the amount of information included in the article excessive, in view of the subject's notability? This can be discussed or questioned by other bona fide editors, and I learn from their corrections.

However, on several occasions the article in question was edited with an evidently hostile intention by someone who vandalized it (removing most of its contents indiscriminately) and ridiculed the subject by labelling him as an "inkeeper and B&B owner", when his status as a professor and intellectual of some stature is abundantly documented.

The controversy regarding this matter has attracted the attention of other, serious editors who have rightly or wrongly confirmed most of the deletions, suspecting that I am a sockpuppet. I am not; but I now understand this concept, and why corrective action or blocking in such cases may be necessary. I also understand the need to be more circumspect, sober and restrained in my editing. But a specialist's interest in a subject to which she or he is contributing (perhaps, in the eyes of some other, more experienced editors, excessively) should not be sanctioned with a permanent blockage, when the contributions were reasonably substantiated and made in good faith. Tamara Santerra (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. For admin consideration, please accurately and fully state your relationship with the International School of Geneva. You've been socking mainly on two WP:BLPs, and the school appears to be the commonality. JFHJr (㊟) 22:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Also: same as to Conrad Hughes, please. Are you the subject? If not, please explain your connection to that subject and the school. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your response.

I am an alumnus (former student) of the International School of Geneva, so naturally I am familiar with the institution, and take an interest in it. However, this interest (which is quite different from a conflict of interest) has always been bona fide, responsible and respectful of objectivity, to the best of my understanding about how Wikipedia works. Everything that I've contributed is accurate, factual and supported by citations (though perhaps I need to learn more about what constitutes ironclad citations in Wikipedia, and how to prioritize secondary sources).

I have no vested interest in Conrad Hughes (it's almost funny that someone might suspect that I am him!), but, like other alumni, I'm aware of his considerable impact as Director General of Ecolint (as the school is known), and it seemed to me that his academic stature, publications and standing in the educational world (in which he is extremely active through lectures, publications, conferences and projects -- and he is quite a prominent public figure in Geneva) warranted a Wikipedia article. Given the size and historical importance of Ecolint (which is the world's oldest international school, has some 30,000 alumni world wide and created the International Baccalaureate), I assumed that its Director General satisfied the notability criteria -- rather like the Director General of an international organization, such as the World Health Organization. If, in your estimation, and that of other senior Wikipedia editors, his article was inadvertently too flattering or detailed (I've never consulted Hughes about it), then I bow to your superior understanding. It was never my intention to promote Hughes, nor do I agree with all his educational views. As stated above, my interest is focused primarily on the school, concerning which I have considerable knowledge. However, I will point out that a now deleted source was a major article in TED (which is a highly respected publication in the educational world) devoted to a project that Hughes masterminded. That seemed like a pretty solid secondary source.

By the way, currently the syntax of that article's opening sentence makes no sense -- but, since I'm blocked, there's not much that I can do about that!

Regarding Michael D. Aeschliman, because of my professional field and activities I've become familiar over the years with his critical output, and I'm interested in his philosophical position on various issues, which is well known in academic circles. He is quite a prominent intellectual, especially in US and European conservative circles, author of a vast range of publications, and a major figure in the influential National Review (check this out: https://www.nationalreview.com/author/m-d-aeschliman/) . Therefore, the idea that his Wikipedia article might simply be deleted rather amazes me. It has made me suspect that there might be an ideological bias against him (though not on your part, I'm sure), which would be quite wrong -- his particular views should not influence an estimation of his notability. This suspicion was triggered by the incident that unleashed the current, radical revision of his article: a vandalistic attack that was glaringly malicious, with the purpose of ridiculing him. But (as in the case of Hughes) I have no vested interest in Aeschliman, other than the satisfaction of helping to inform Wikipedia readers about the work of someone whom I thought was worth reading.

Anyhow, I've found it quite hurtful to be labelled a "sockpuppet" (an unpleasant term, previously unknown to me). I dare say that there are all kinds of self-interested, sordid and sinister manipulations going in the Wikipedia world, hence your necessary watchfulness -- but it greatly saddens me to be included in that category. 83.79.254.53 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry -- I wasn't logged in. Here is my reply again:

Hello. Thank you for your response.

I am an alumnus (former student) of the International School of Geneva, so naturally I am familiar with the institution, and take an interest in it. However, this interest (which is quite different from a conflict of interest) has always been bona fide, responsible and respectful of objectivity, to the best of my understanding about how Wikipedia works. Everything that I've contributed is accurate, factual and supported by citations (though perhaps I need to learn more about what constitutes ironclad citations in Wikipedia, and how to prioritize secondary sources).

I have no vested interest in Conrad Hughes (it's almost funny that someone might suspect that I am him!), but, like other alumni, I'm aware of his considerable impact as Director General of Ecolint (as the school is known), and it seemed to me that his academic stature, publications and standing in the educational world (in which he is extremely active through lectures, publications, conferences and projects -- and he is quite a prominent public figure in Geneva) warranted a Wikipedia article. Given the size and historical importance of Ecolint (which is the world's oldest international school, has some 30,000 alumni world wide and created the International Baccalaureate), I assumed that its Director General satisfied the notability criteria -- rather like the Director General of an international organization, such as the World Health Organization. If, in your estimation, and that of other senior Wikipedia editors, his article was inadvertently too flattering or detailed (I've never consulted Hughes about it), then I bow to your superior understanding. It was never my intention to promote Hughes, nor do I agree with all his educational views. As stated above, my interest is focused primarily on the school, concerning which I have considerable knowledge. However, I will point out that a now deleted source was a major article in TED (which is a highly respected publication in the educational world) devoted to a project that Hughes masterminded. That seemed like a pretty solid secondary source.

By the way, currently the syntax of that article's opening sentence makes no sense -- but, since I'm blocked, there's not much that I can do about that!

Regarding Michael D. Aeschliman, because of my professional field and activities I've become familiar over the years with his critical output, and I'm interested in his philosophical position on various issues, which is well known in academic circles. He is quite a prominent intellectual, especially in US and European conservative circles, author of a vast range of publications, and a major figure in the influential National Review (check this out: https://www.nationalreview.com/author/m-d-aeschliman/) . Therefore, the idea that his Wikipedia article might simply be deleted rather amazes me. It has made me suspect that there might be an ideological bias against him (though not on your part, I'm sure), which would be quite wrong -- his particular views should not influence an estimation of his notability. This suspicion was triggered by the incident that unleashed the current, radical revision of his article: a vandalistic attack that was glaringly malicious, with the purpose of ridiculing him. But (as in the case of Hughes) I have no vested interest in Aeschliman, other than the satisfaction of helping to inform Wikipedia readers about the work of someone whom I thought was worth reading.

Anyhow, I've found it quite hurtful to be labelled a "sockpuppet" (an unpleasant term, previously unknown to me). I dare say that there are all kinds of self-interested, sordid and sinister manipulations going in the Wikipedia world, hence your necessary watchfulness -- but it greatly saddens me to be included in that category. 83.79.254.53 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Tamara Santerra (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. You state no WP:COI but it is apparent you have a massive WP:POV problem editing biographies of living persons, especially as it pertains to living persons associated with Ecolint. I hope the edits at Hughes and Aeschliman stress you out less once those articles are deleted. Also, it's probably going to be unproductive to protest against being labeled a WP:SOCK in the face of a WP:CHECKUSER confirming you used multiple accounts in an unsanctioned way. If you decide to request an unblock, I hope you'll also propose your own topic bans from all WP:BLP content and from all content relevant to Ecolint. But that's only if you plan to follow the instructions in the block notice, and prepare a *succinct* statement swearing off further use of any other accounts. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to follow up, sock puppetry shouldn't have come as a surprise. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)