User talk:LoganPublishing

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:MikeWazowski. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Edit/Digital Fanedits conflict of interest?

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Fan edit, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Fan edit. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For details, see the 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Per Wikipedia instruction, I opened a user account for the sole purpose of resolving an edit war, as my anonymous explanations were being flattly ignored and reversed almost immediately. I then next submitted a request for mediation. In the interim, I was abruptly banned (literally, within minutes) at the request of the same individual who would later respond and dismiss my original vandalism complaint. The problem, then, is that after showing successfully that the original "vandal's" spam claims were false, this second individual (TheRealFennShysa) challenges me with a completely new set of arguments, and then ensures there can be no answer. Is the ban itself not a clear conflict of interest?

Decline reason:

You aren't blocked for the contribution so much as for repeatedly inserting it without discussion. This block will expire in 48 hours, and when it does, you can answer TheRealFennShysa's comments... but I have a hard time understanding how you can possibly argue that a site as low profile as the one you want to link deserves to be included. And you had better come clean about your conflict of interest: are you "Logan-5" at digital-fanedits' forum? What is your affiliation with the site? Mango juice^talk 17:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is nothing to come clean about. I first tried to open an account with the following alphanumeric combinations so there would be no question: Logan5, Logan-5,and 5Logan. Wikipedia rejected all three. But you will notice I persisted successfully in ensuring that "Logan" was in the username. The Digital Fanedits website is not low-profile, and I'm going to show this with unambiguous numbers that contradict the previous editor as soon as my editing privileges are restored. Look, the only people who are going to intelligently contribute to an article about fan edits are people in the fan edit community. There are contributors to the fanedit.org website who have also contributed to "major" portions of the article, but I don't consider that to be a conflict of interest. If it is, then I will elaborate on this fact and the article should be marked for deletion. In my view, the conflict of interest lies in the fact that the decision and recent action to remove the Digital Fanedits link is from people with a grudge against the website. Fanedit.org has discussion threads proving there is animosity and resentment against the smaller website. Futher proof that not all parties involved in this issue are being transparent, and this includes the editors, can be seen in the fact that the last link [1] is deemed to be representative even though (a) the website is also not mentioned in text (see EdJohnson [2]), and (b) Digital Fanedits has more ratings and review items in its database. The link, already 1.5 years old now, is to a webpage with reviews/comments for just 11 fanedits. [3]

One difference in the Foster on Film link and your site, though, is that Matthew Foster is an independent writer/critic who also runs a legitimate film festival - his reviews and essays carry a lot more weight, IMHO, as someone with an apparent expert knowledge of independent film and filmmakers. While your site may have a few more listings, they're little more than a directory of films with a few lines of review - Foster's reviews are much more detailed and insightful. Also, Foster's site was added to the article by an impartial editor, and not by someone trying to promote his own site. You keep claiming that "the fact that the decision and recent action to remove the Digital Fanedits link is from people with a grudge against the website", but you've yet to show that to be true - it's certainly not true for me, as I'd never heard of your site before I saw the recent activity on my watchlist. You need to look at this objectively, and realize that there's no grand conspiracy at work here - just independent editors basing their decisions on the facts at hand. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But now you are pulling straws. Also, I wasn't aware that anyone was operating under the assumption of grand conspiracy. I would ask that you refrain from continued speculation in this matter. Your last entry in the article discussion is aggressive presumption for someone with no knowledge of the website. It's also a bit unfair of you, in my view, to divert and expand the issue, knowing full well that I cannot respond. At issue is the recent removal of a link to a fanedit website in an article about fan edits. It is now a foregone conclusion that the original basis for that action was wrong [4]. It was, in fact, another case of a wild conclusion shown to be absurd. This is why the irrelevant speculation must cease. Very briefly, I believe that your and MikeWazowski's strong association/involvement/interest in both Star Wars and fan-films/fan-edits (e.g., [5][6][7]) disqualifies you as impartial. It is TOO coincidental that Digital Fanedits is also linked to a new and significant Star Wars edit. That neither of you support and frequent one or both of the fanedit websites listed in the article would be a remarkable defiance of probability. This is now assumption on my part, so I will learn Wikipedia and work with the Wikipedia community to ensure there has been no hypocrisy, breech of ethics, or abuse of power in the handling of the article and the blocking of my account. As for the more immediate matter, I will challenge and refute your search data when the editing block is lifted, to continue our discussion. Thanks for your understanding and co-operation. -L5

I love how a reasoned rebuttal to one of your claims is recast as "pulling at straws". Now, you state that you weren't "aware that anyone was operating under the assumption of grand conspiracy", yet one of your earlier edit summaries (while editing from 124.8.111.84) claimed that you would "remove the bias and conflict of interest by editors from fanedit.org" - you also like to toss around terms like censorship, so pardon me for thinking that you're seeing ghosts around every corner. You're certainly not having a problem responding here, and once the block expires you can respond on the article's talk page, so that's not really an issue. I don't see MikeWazowski's original removal of the link as wrong, or even a forgone conclusion - links inserted by anonymous IPs, especially from ones with an apparent ax to grind, are commonly removed as linkspam. Your claim that I posted this "knowing full-well that you cannot respond" is also untrue, as I posted that before you were blocked. Also, I'm not an administrator, so I was not the one who blocked you - I simply added the message when the blocking administrator forgot to do it himself. They blocked you based on your actions and the facts at hand.

Yes, I've had quite a lot of experience with the fan-film community, and I've worked professionally on several licensed projects. But the fanfilm and fanedit communities are hardly the same kind of thing, and I don't hang out on those message boards much. Regardless of whether you believe it to be a coincidence or not, I've never had an account at either originaltrilogy.com, fanedit.org, or your site - feel free to check. I'd never even heard of digital-fanedits.com before this. I can't speak for MikeWazowski - I've seen his name here on Wikipedia, obviously, as we clearly share some interests, and have been involved in some interesting debates over the years, but I obviously don't know his off-site habits. But clearly, if you believe that simply my having an interest in Star Wars disqualifies me as impartial, then how can you not see that being the moderator at a website that you're trying to force into a Wikipedia article is being viewed by the community as being even incredibly impartial? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality? I am not crafting new and arbitrary reasons for why the link doesn't deserve to be there. You are, in ever follow up. It doesn't matter what evidence I present to you--you refuse to follow the facts. Again: MikeWazowski removed the link because, through an IP ban, he could not access the page and thus contended it was linkspam. I then confirmed that the site was live, and later provided an explanation as to why he might be seeing a blank page. All other editors ignored this. It is nicely documented in the article's history; please review it. Then you began visiting the website--hence confirming that MikeWazowski's conclusion was false--and decided on the basis of arbitrary criteria that the website does not qualify as fanedit website. This point is so ludicrous that it should have raised a series of red flags.

What will be your response when I show that the website is well indexed on both Yahoo! and Google? How will you react when I answer you that Digital Fanedits is the only fanedit website that is NOT forum-centric (not designed around blog or forum software); it is built on an elaborate CMS, with blogs, software folders, database, news modules, and discussion boards. These components set it apart. Well, I might already know the answer. It is your intent to begin suggesting that people form Digital Fanedits are not supposed to be contributing to the Wikipedia article, "Fan edit." Is this your intent? If the answer is yes, it is a simple matter to show that administrators of fanedit.org have edited signifcant portions of text in the article, in which case the article must be removed. It is surely biased and impartial from period to period. L5

Hello, I was brought over here from the COI noticeboard, and I have never had anything to do with the Fan edit article or, any fan edit wikis or groups, or fan editing at all. (To be honest, I had to go read the article to even know what a "fan edit" was.) So please don't consider me part of any group that advocates Fanedit.org or has anything against the Digital Fanedits web site.

LoganPublishing/Logan-5, you do seem to have at least a small conflict of interest according to Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically where it states that a COI might exist for self-promotion, in that you're attempting to link to a web site you are affiliated with. It's especially not appropriate to edit-war to keep that link in the article (not that edit-warring is ever okay in any circumstance).

I think the biggest issue here is that you want to include an external link against consensus, and that's not correct. If you want the link included, and other editors object, you basically need to convince them otherwise. Unfortunately if you're the only one who wants to include it and nobody else agrees, it's probably not going to be included. The COI only arises in that your motivation for including the link is justifiably questioned. I'm sure you honestly feel that linking to that web site will help improve the article, but at the same time including a link to that site acts as a sort of acknowledgement of the site you are a part of and that will naturally bias you toward advocating its inclusion. There are methods of dispute resolution if you feel that other editors are being unfair in the attempt to reach consensus, and if you feel that way you might wish to pursue them.

The most damaging part of this is that you started this with fists swinging. At least as far as the talk page of fan edit is concerned, the entire dispute began with you accusing others of a conflict of interest merely because they preferred a web site over your own. In reality, you were the only one with a confirmable COI. I'm not an administrator but I caution you that if you continue to argue in this manner, and especially to edit in the way you have been doing, that you might find yourself topic-banned to prevent an attempt to promote your web site against consensus if this reached the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm sure that the last thing you want is to be prevented from editing an article that you have such an interest in, and honestly I think it would be a shame if it happened. It would be much better if you could (A) reasonably convince others that your web site link deserves conclusion or (B) if you fail to do so you stop trying to include the link and instead improve the article itself with the knowledge of the subject that you possess. I hope you would consider doing so, thank you. -- Atama ^chat 22:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]