User talk:Stewiedv

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Identity confirmed
The VRTS ticket number is 2013042110005254.

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

April 2013

Hello, Stewiedv. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Vanilla DeVille, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic Vanilla DeVille. Thank you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 21:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

April 2013 (cont)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:COIN. Thank you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanilla DeVille, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Since you are a new user, I brought up all those policies because I thought it would help you to understand why some of your edits were questionable. Disagreeing with me is one thing, but it doesn't mean you have the right to follow me to every venue on here and then try to talk down on me and repeat long arguments in the hopes of trying to sway people your way. In other words, I'm not the one harassing you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the articles for deletion post, I stayed out of that debate until you brought me into it, using my name in an attempt to defend another one of your bad articles. You refuse to let this go, but instead keep posting about it in new places when you don't get the response you want from the community in previous locations. If you want me to stop replying to your inaccurate posts, then stop posting about me. I took responsibility for my actions, and it's time that you did the same. I have never started a conversation about you, but have only responded to your continued posts about me. You are harassing me by continuing to post about me in every venue you can find. Stewiedv (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Erpert, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Simple explanations to other users about what is going on does not constitute harassment, no matter how you try to spin it. I tried talking to you on the article talk page but you didn't seem to get it, so I calmly brought the matter to WP:COIN. The only reason I briefly mentioned you in the the AfD is because another user incorrectly thought you created the article. But you know what? I'm done trying to explain myself to you. You bother me one more time and I'm taking the matter to WP:AIV. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is YOUR last warning. You've done nothing but make false accusations and threats since I first posted here. You are not an admin, even though you like to act you are one, and you do not intimidate me. Stay away from my pages and stop posting about me or I will take immediate action. Stewiedv (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia is a pretty awesome place! (Usually.)

Hey Stewiedv, I'm LethargicParasite (talk · contribs). I've read much of the interaction between you and Erpert, and I think a large part of the reason it blew up like it did was because both parties did not assume good faith. Here are some examples:

"showing that he did not even read the sources cited"
"It seems like an issue of WP:OWN."
"Again, you're sounding possessive and grasping at straws."
"Now you're just starting to sound desperate."
"As far as your age issue, there is this thing called math"

And so on.

If you agree the language you used could have been more civil, then I'd like to recommend a simple apology to Erpert (talk · contribs) for that and that alone. Somebody needs to take the first step to rectifying the situation; why not you? :)

For more information on keeping Wikipedia civil, please read the article on staying cool. Thanks! LethargicParasite (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LethargicParasite, thank you for your feedback and for trying to help the situation. However, I don't agree 100% with your assessment. I do agree that things got heated between us, but as a new contributor, I feel that I have been attacked from the moment I started here, discouraged from posting, and have only replied in self defense.

I welcome feedback and I believe I have been civil to everyone that has interacted with me directly, including thanking Erpert on his talk page for his original comments. My issue was never with the COI portion of his comments (to which I have identified myself, had my identity confirmed, refrained from any further edits, requested feedback from other editors and offered any COI-compliant assistance I can provide). My problem was his blanket reverts of all edits, including COI-allowed non-controversial edits and corrections of inaccuracies, as well as his comments about sources when he was using similar sources (or in some cases the same sources) that I had used. If my sources do not work under the guidelines, the same can be said for most of his sources as well (which was confirmed by comments from other editors in the article deletion discussion). I tried to discuss this with him on the related talk pages, but after one interaction he took the matter to COIN (where he spent more time attacking sources and corrected information instead of COI). When that didn't work for him, he took it to the Admin notice board, and when he didn't get the response he wanted, he took the issue to the deletion and talk pages (all well after I addressed the COI issue). He policy shopped and accused me of breaking policy every he could find, denied any mistakes or wrong doing, and has continued to threaten me and post warning after warning. I have never started a conversation about him, but have only responded to his posts about me (I even tried to stay out of the deletion discussion until he brought me into it). It seems as if he believes that can write whatever he likes wherever he wishes, but anything I post is not allowed. This is not the first time that he's had issues with other contributors, and I've seen him make similar dismissive comments when other editors make changes to his articles. As for examples of his civility as a seasoned contributor during this situation:

"Did you even READ the talk page?" (his second comment to me)
"Sheesh, grow up."
"...you're going a little crazy."
"...I'll also have to conclude that maybe you're not mature enough for Wikipedia."
"...so you're the one that isn't paying attention."
"It seems more like you strategically added information in the article right near sources that were already there to give the impression that said information came from those sources."

All that being said, I would be happy to put this to rest, but honestly don't believe he sees any issues with his behavior. I am willing to work this out, but I won't be threatened or intimated by him. I have admitted my fault with COI and have tried to make amends. If he would like to do the same with his issues, I am open to hear him out. I would work with him or any other editor to make the article better.

Again, thank you for taking the time to try to help. I will take your comments into consideration for future posts. Out of curiosity and with all due respect, if you truly believe that both parties are at fault and neither assumed good faith, why didn't you post similar feedback on his talk page? Stewiedv (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stewiedv! I agree his language could have been better and I agree it merits a discussion, though I think we should take everything one step at a time. The reason I didn't post on his talk page is because I'm reasonably sure about what will happen if you take the first step. However, as you don't have an extensive posting history, it's difficult for me to make the same assumptions about you that I can about him. Once a week or two has passed, I'd be happy to go through what I think happened blow-by-blow.

Please understand that I agree he made mistakes, but talking about those mistakes is a much easier task once everyone feels they're no longer being personally attacked. Do you agree? LethargicParasite (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LethargicParasite, again I appreciate the feedback but humbly disagree. Based on his previous issues and arguments with other contributors, I don't see how anyone could make that positive assumption about his reactions. Especially since I took several days off and stayed away from wiki to let things calm down, and in that time he has posted more false accusations about me on even more pages, and used my COI again to justify reverting to an inaccurate and poorly-sourced version. He just won't leave me alone so I have taken the matter to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks again for trying to help. Stewiedv (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. As you participated in the related deletion discussion, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Vanilla DeVille you might be interested in. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cavarrone, thank you for the notice. I have added my comments to the discussion. Stewiedv (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hey, there. Just wanted to let you know that brief, short incident reports on WP:ANI are preferred. When editors see a lengthy report like the kind you just added, they tend to ignore it per WP:TLDR. In the future, you'll get a better response with a report consisting of 50-150 words. The best time to say more is in response to any questions asked. Once you are familiar with the board, you can "ride" a pattern of responses (have to insert a surfing metaphor here, heh) which allows you to chunk your original report in the form of five or six responses to questions. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a level head really works best for these matters, but I am assisting as best I can. I know the problem is a personal matter, but taking the issue out of both your hand is probably for the best. Mediation on Wikipedia is terrible, trust me with this, drama begets more drama and will ruin and tire both of you out. Relaxing and remember that no matter how bad the other person seems, their decision is based on their interest. Identify the interest and stick to that and communication becomes easier. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the feedback and assitance, I'll take that into consideration for future posts. In reading all of the policies about details, examples, diffs, etc I thought I had to be more thorough. Plus, I thought it would reduce arguments on the ANI over specifics. Stewiedv (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, I have requested assistance with the article on the BLPN board. [1] While it doesn't address Erpert's inappropriate behavior, I hope it will help end the situation with the document itself. Thanks again. Stewiedv (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]