TechMediaEditor
| This is TechMediaEditor's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: John Textor has been accepted
edit
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.
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!
Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Managing a conflict of interest
edit
Hello, TechMediaEditor. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page John Textor, 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
- 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. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 19:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit (blether) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
TechMediaEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not engaged in socket puppetry and am not connected to other accounts. I do not have a Conflict of Interest, simply because I have a prior history with the subject (I was employed by one of the company's he owned from 2014 to 2016, leaving more than 5 years ago. I am a journalist and I have also run for public office. I am not employed (or paid) by anyone to create this material on Textor. I am definitely new to Wiki and it does seem as if I need to better understand how to respond to Talk page items, especially as I still don't understand who has the authority to act as an admin. Please consider the history - I first encountered a COI accusation by a User named 'SLBedit', someone that clearly states in their user name that the edit the topic of the Portugal club SL Benfica. I was in the process of creating Wiki material on John Textor and I noticed untrue information (that had been debunked by several reliable sources), so I removed and corrected a prior SLBedit post. This user then responded in defense of their prior insertion by immediately claiming a COI. So, I provided the following response to SLBedit: "Respectfully, the fact that I wrote an initial draft of a Biography (and a Wiki biography of Textor) does not meet the definition of a conflict of interest. My work has led me to become well informed on John Textor. That is not a conflict of interest, especially as it relates to an article on Vieira which contains incorrect information. Also, subsequent reporting from the same sources as your citations of Sol have cleared up the CMVM reporting issues. The purchase was not closed." I also removed the COI language because I did not know how this worked, and I did not understand how a User that was clearly not an Admin could make such and accusation just because he/she was upset that I corrected their poorly cited and outdated work. I did not know who would remove the COI issue, if not me (sorry!). Not understanding much about Wiki, I believed this response should have addressed the COI. I gather it did not. So, please consider this additional explanation. At the time of my work at a Textor owned company (Pulse Evolution), I considered writing a feature article about Textor for a Florida magazine that was biographical in nature. I would have been paid for this article by the magazine, which wanted a comprehensive piece on Textor as a 'comeback story'. The article was never fully written and I was never paid for the work. I decided back in 2017 that I didn't want my work to go to waste, so I started to play around with Wiki as a place to publish the Textor biographical material. At some point, I dropped the project, got busy with other things, focused on other projects. After a few years, it became obvious that the 'comeback story' on Textor became an even bigger story. There was a shortage of press and news coverage on Textor for a number of years. There was not much to write about. Then in 2020 with fuboTV, followed by purchases of soccer interests in multiple countries, there were dozens of articles - so I decided to build a draft in Wiki that could finally be supported by paper citations. I have no other history in Wiki. As a former employee of a Textor company, and a person who came to know him, I am very qualified to have assembled this biographical information. Now that it is launched, I expect others will contribute and edit. Regarding the other user that is wrongly tied to me as socket puppetry, I believe this is just a misperception of the coincidence - I was not the only former employee that considered drafting a wiki page on Textor - there was nothing on Textor for a few years, then suddenly there is a ton of press. I think my draft, which sat in draft form for a while, was seen by many and it likely started this new interest, including interest from former and current employee affiliation with Textor. Finally, I became aware that one of the company's connected with Textor tried to hire an outside firm to prepare a similar page, but I understood that effort dragged on and was not completed. I did use some of the language provided to me by another former employee of a Textor company, but, by the time my draft page was submitted for review, it was probably 80%-90% of my original work, and I believe its a good balance of positive and negative information - and very well cited. Is there anything else I need to address to unblock my account? As I said, wiki is not my specialty.
Decline reason:
Per below. And if you make another request, consider keeping it shorter and using paragraph breaks — Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2021 (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.
- (non-admin comment) You say you don't have a WP:COI then go on to say: I have a prior history with the subject (I was employed by one of the company's he owned from 2014 to 2016, leaving more than 5 years ago (emphasis mine) err that is most definitely a WP:COI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Response to Non-Admin comment above: Please consider reading the definition of a Conflict of Interest. An current employee position would be a conflict of interest, as it would create a conflict of loyalty that is clearly explained in the COI definition. Five years removed from such a position, no such conflict exists. There is no pecuniary relationship and no personal relationship. A conflict of interest needs two conflicting loyalties. That is no longer the case. This is not a COI.
- (non-admin comment) Please indent your replies to specific posts on talk pages by using colons, so the thread of conversation can flow. Also, you cite the Wikipedia article about the general concept of a "conflict of interest," but it's the Wikipedia policy about editing with regard to a conflict of interest that is being enforced here. An undisclosed past connection to a subject is no different to a present one. I think that everyone can understand why writing about an employer or a former employer is against policy, and why original research is not acceptable. Matuko (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
TechMediaEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please Unblock my account. There is no proof of socket puppetry. The 'evidence' are just the accusations of a user named SLBedit. This user name clearly means Sport Lisboa Benfica, a club that Mr. Textor was attempting to buy. It was a hot and controversial topic for some fans of 'SLB' (like SLBedit) and my account was targeted by this individual simply because I made corrections to his unsourced and incorrect claims on the SL Benfica page. Anyway, he claimed a COI and he also claimed multiple accounts in Use...which is just not true. It is true that I contributed heavily to the article on that subject, as I was LONG AGO an employee of Mr. Textor and I am qualified to be a subject matter expert. The definition of a COI does not say that a long ago former employee would have a conflict, especially is there is NO recent relationship with the subject. In any case, I was not Blocked for a COI. I was blocked for allegations of socket puppetry, even though I only have one account. Please allow me to continue editing. An indefinite block seems really severe, especially when there is no evidence that any of my posts were inaccurate, and they were all very well supported with reputable citations.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2022 (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.