User talk:SpecialFXavier

Duncans

A family friend? Excuse me? I live in south Wales. I disagree that the film industry information is relevant and you've written it in such a way as to attack them. marinij.com, cinesource Magazine, fxguide.com etc do not appear to meet WP:RS and accusations that they've been involved in fraud etc without being convicted is damaging to them and against our WP:BLP guidelines. The article biographies are about Ray and David, not Kevin anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpecialFXavier. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Mike V • Talk 15:29, 21 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was not strictly sock-puppetry; it was another editor in my office. And yes, we knew each other and he was supporting me. So probably not cool either. I have disclosed soft COI (fan of subject) but the user that nominated the page for deletion appears to have undisclosed COI. <Content redacted> I asked my buddy to support me against him. The subject is notable but CITOBUN doesn't want to hear it. SpecialFXavier (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is explicitly prohibited. See WP:MEAT. Yamla (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2016 (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.

Two more points:

It looks to me as though Paleomaan may not be the only one of your sockpuppets/meatpuppets.
Please point me to where on Wikipedia the editor you refer to states that he or she is from the town you say he/she is from. Unless you can do so, you are either making false claims or you are in violation of Wikipedia's policy on outing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am sorry. There is not a clear statement of where he is from. <Content redacted> He has denied COI but since he has been picking on this page for years including placing COI tags without making any edits or even suggesting edits, I wonder about his sincerity. He also requested the Deletion of the page some time ago.

I spent a few hours this weekend, since I can not edit ( :-) ) doing research and I would simply like to post the research I have found. CITOBUN makes a variety of claims about notability that don't make sense to me. For instance, he claims that Variety only provides 'glancing references' to edmeads when they ran a number of articles, including an investigative piece. He also claims no secondary sources discussing the subject; I have found countless interviews, blogs, case studies (including two in published books) about edmeades.

With regard to other 'sockpuppet' accounts, I can only say that I believe there are only two possible ways that this is possible:

1) I have made edits without logging in at various times when editing form machines that did not have my creds saved. I don't think this has happened recently. (months?)

2) I did have an old account (a long time ago) but don't remember the username / creds for the account. I also don't know if I ever used it on Edmeades' page. (I don't recognize any of the usernames there but I can not guarantee that there was not a different account at some stage. Again, if this is true, it would have been a long time ago (years?).SpecialFXavier (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some accounts which look as though they may be connected to you, but the evidence is far from conclusive, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not you. I strongly advise you to avoid editing without logging in, to avoid giving people the impression that you are doing so to avoid scrutiny. If you do find it convenient to edit without logging in on some machines, you may like to state that it's you editing without logging in. I have removed the comments relating to another editor. Those statements may or may not be true, but even if they are Wikipedia's confidentiality policy does not allow posting them. As for the issues regarding conflict of interest, it looks to me as though there may well be a conflict of interest, but on the basis of what I have seen so far I am not prepared to come to any decision on that. I am also correcting a mistake above, where I accidentally put the name of the person you have edited about, instead of the username of another account that has edited. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]