User talk:Swaters68

Conflict of interest with Sasha Waters article

Hello, Swaters68. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Sasha Waters, 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, clients, 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. Lopifalko (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create this page, but I do upkeep it. Is it a "conflict of interest" to wish to represent myself and my work in the manner of my choosing? I don't receive any compensation and I comply with the rules and use proper citations and such. It's weird that you even care! You don't even know me!! And you made MAJOR deletions and structural changes to my page, so please just let it be. I'm sure you have much better things to do. hockeymom (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Swaters68 The article about Sasha Waters is not your article, even if you are Sasha Waters. See WP:OWN where it says Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say.

This means that if parts of the current article don't comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, they will be changed and you don't have any right to dictate what the article may or may not say. Nobody (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your perspective and the policy, thank you. I think it is important to point out that Sasha Waters is part of a generation of feminist, experimental and independent film and media artists, MANY of of whom have pages structured along a similar, biographical / narrative format. I would be happy to provide numerous examples and my only hesitation in doing so is I do not want to see other women artists - who of course have been historically erased, marginalized and had their narratives controlled by men and patriarchal institutions - I don't want to see these artists' pages radically re-structured as well. To be more specific, when the edits to the pages of a female-identified, feminist independent artist are radically re-written according to heirarchies of a dominant culture paradigm such as bullet-points, privileging features and documentaries over shorts and avant-garde works etc. - the very FORM of the page comes into conflict with the values and commitments of the artist represented. In this sense, it is not about "Sasha Waters" as a person or a page, but about how these larger values are communicated. The radical erasures enacted by Pete Boyd were, in his words, to make the page "more readable." To which I asked: More Readable to Whom?? As noted, there are MANY artist pages that generally flow along the same path as the current one for SW. 96.228.60.82 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's fundamentals are the Five pillars, all content on an article has to comply with these pillars, in this case pillar 2: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person.

Which means Lopifalko was right to remove the unsourced content per WP:Verifiability and you have to add WP:Reliable sources if you want the content to remain in the article. Also IMDB is not a reliable source, see WP:IMDB. Nobody (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did not realize IMDB was not considered an adequate source so I changed those two citations. hockeymom (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Stop restoring your preferred version with unsourced content. You have a clear Conflict of Interest and if you can't stop making these disruptive edits i will report you to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Nobody (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report me, I don't think it is a "conflict of interest" honestly, and I am adding citations where needed and making reasonable changes as requested. I think you and Pete Boyd are acting like absolute bullies and it is weird and unconscionable. As I have written several times now, this page is in keeping, format-wise and in narrative structure, with the community standards of it's COMMUNITY - other independent feminist media artists. if you have a SPECIFIC change or suggestion, that's fine, but your and Pete's RADICAL ERASURE of a woman artist - one whose work you obviously do not know - is hostile and uncool. I would love if if you would drop it and walk away. hockeymom (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the conflict of interest guideline it says in the first sentence: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.

And 2 lines down it says: Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing.

The content you have tried to re-add has several unsourced statements. That is why I've reverted it. I've told you abve that: Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say.

If you can't comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines then it's not me that needs to drop it and walk away, it's you. Nobody (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Swaters68: You are trying to mould this article around a structure that comes from outside of Wikipedia, a structure that reflects the subject of the article. This is not how wikipedia works, which has its own guidelines on its structure. This is a Wikipedia article, it is not your own web site where you have the choice to structure it how you like. This is one example of how you have a conflict of interest with the stated intentions of Wikipedia. Arguing that other Wikipedia articles are written a certain way, and thus this one should also be is not an argument that has merit here. Likely those other articles are in ndeed of restructuring. Having looked at some of these other articles, they are awash with unsourced content and need radical work doing on them.

You claim you are complying with Wikipedia policy and yet you continually add huge amounts of unsourced content. This is a community effort, built by people who do not know the subjects about which they write, able to do so because they are guided by what appears in independent reliable sources. The fact you are working on an article about yourself is the odd thing here, not that people who do not know you are maintaining this article. You continually revert edits which, in my case I believe make this article of far higher quality in terms of Wikipedia policies. Any wishes you have to revert such changes, you should take to the talk page to discuss with others with an interest in maintaining this article. That would apply to anyone, but more-so as the sbject of the article it is policy that you really should always only suggest changes on the talk page and not edit the article directly yourself.

You wish for the article to have a kind of flat structure that is somehow reflective of feminism, e.g. mentioning shorts with the same prominence as feature films. However Wikipedia is led by what appears in independent reliable sources, as an indicator of notability and as a way to ensure verifiability. Wikipedia content is a reflection of that notability. We're aware that the patriarchy surfaces male artists over female, but the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are what we have to work from — it can only be known what is notable work, by what is reported in the sources Wikipedia trusts. This is why the article gets structured around major works. The work we have done to achieve that, to my mind, does not mean that there is an intention to erase, it is instead editing within the confines of Wikipedia policy. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Section Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Sasha_Waters:_Article_subject_COI_editing_article_about_themself Nobody (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are serious fucking ASSHOLES who need to examine your life priorities. I am deleting the page, so I guess you win since you seem to LIVE to be the fucking WIKI-COPS and erase women. Well done, jackass. hockeymom (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to try to delete the page in order to stop the erasure of women? Interesting strategy. — Czello ^(music) 12:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I would rather not have a page than be continuously bullied and harrassed by these two complete and utter strangers that know nothing about me or my work. It's really very stressful, and I don't care about wikipedia as much as they do, apparently. Don't care to be on here any longer. They win! I'm erased. At least that is what I am now asking the administrator to please do. hockeymom (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you from editing the page, as you're unable to edit constructively. Editors above have pointed you to resources and help pages on editing, what is appropriate to cite, and our conflict of interest guidelines. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs, can you delete the page please? This is causing undue stress. I am really not trying to build out some impressive bio or anything, and I deleted and / or cited things that were pointed out as being problematic. The format of the page - the categories etc - in my version, are compliant with a large number of independent women media artists ON WIKIPEDIA. I do not understand why these guys - who don't even know me or my work - are being such jerks but it is really stressful to the point that I would rather not be on wikipedia at all than have these total strangers micromanaging this page and harrassing me. hockeymom (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swaters68 I would have to take a closer look at the sources, but Wikipedia doesn't do courtesy blanking for individuals who are clearly notable. If you want to suggest changes, you can do so via edit requests and they will be checked via other uninvolved editors. But individuals don't get to own or control how their biographies appear on Wikipedia; they are very much supposed to be biographies based on the sources present, not structuring it into novel formats for a specific academic discipline. If the sources focus on certain aspects, so too will Wikipedia, and if secondary sources aren't covering something, it generally means we don't include it. As for being jerks and attacking you or harassment... no one is out to get you. You can feel however you want, but that doesn't change that everyone's supposed to be editing according to the same ruleset. Frankly you have not covered yourself in glory on this page or in edit summaries, and that's no one's fault but yourself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at the very least please change the page back to being named "Sasha Waters" not "Sasha Waters Freyer"? I have been using "Sasha Waters" professionally since 2019, which you can confirm on my website at pieshake.com. These guys are harassing me - I changed things they said were inadequate and added citations and it's just very misogynistic for them to dictate the format and structure of a page of a woman artist whose work they are not familiar with!! Not to mention the name issue, which I explained to one of them earlier. Please change it back to "Sasha Waters" and I will let this ridiculousness drop because I have more important things to attend to. Thank you in advance. hockeymom (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a bit to what David Fuchs said above, sysops cannot unilaterally delete pages except in extremely limited circumstances. If you genuinely believe the article is not notable you can initiate a discussion to find consensus for deletion (you would need some assistance to complete the nomination now, but that should be actioned if requested). Before doing so I would encourage you to at the minimum review WP:N and WP:PROF, then conduct a search for sources, and if still confident the article is not notable, subsequently follow the process detailed at WP:AFDHOWTO, using an edit rquest to have the page tagged.

You may also wish to verify your identity through WP:OTRS as a request by the subject of a page carries some weight in edge cases.

As to your other points, the fact that some other articles are structured a certain way isn't really all that relevant. As far as I can tell, no one involved is harassing you or trying to be a jerk, they're just acting in good-faith so the article complies with our policies and guidelines.

I understand that Wikipedia can be a bureaucratic maze to newcomers, so you may also wish to visit the teahouse where there are many willing volunteers to help answer any questions you may have. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They actually are harassing me and being jerks - for example, I explained that I stopped using my married name in 2019 and they keep moving the page back to "Sasha Waters Freyer" instead of my professional name, "Sasha Waters." It's all very man-splain-y and misogynistic (not you, I appreciate that you are trying to ease tensions) but I need to call it what it is. They are radically re-structuring the pages of a woman artist whose work they don't know at all! It's hostile. But anyway I do need to let it drop because I am busy with other things. I only hope to have the page changed back to my actual and correct name, Sasha Waters. hockeymom (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are named in accordance with the article titles policy. Since the majority of the sources appear to prefer the longer version, editors are understandably reluctant to move the page. If a majority of WP:RS begin to use the professional name a page move will likely follow. Regardless edit-warring is never the solution (see also WP:BRD), instead please discuss on the talk page.

It is not required that one be an expert in a topic to edit a page. For the most part articles are written by generalists rather than specialists, for better and for worse. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha, I'm sorry but - no one is being misogynistic to you. You aren't being harassed by any user, from what I can see. As far as "mansplaining" goes, neither myself nor 1AmNobody24 have revealed our genders as far as I can see. Please be careful with accusations like these as they can be construed as personal attacks, which is prohibited.

We have a variety of policies on how these articles should be presented, and your edits were reverted because they contravened those policies. You then attempted to blank the page because you'd rather not have one about yourself, but this isn't your decision to make - please see WP:OWN. It's not an agenda against you, it's simply representing what our sources present.

My suggestion to you is that you propose the changes you make on the article's talk page (Talk:Sasha Waters Freyer) and that way they can be reviewed by experienced editors who will either be able to make the changes or better explain why they're not appropriate. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 08:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a move

Hello. I am writing to kindly ask that you move the page titled "Sasha Waters Freyer" to "Sasha Waters." My professional name has been "Sasha Waters" for some time now, and I am happy to send you many external links to demonstrate this, including dozens of recent screenings at film festivals where my name appears as "Sasha Waters" on their websites. I am blocked from editing this page, and I would like to be unblocked as well, but barring that, please move the page to my actual actual, professional name. I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Sasha Waters hockeymom (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2024 (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).

Swaters68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to update this page occasionally

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2024 (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.

Hello. I would like to be able to move this page to my professional name "Sasha Waters." I respectfully request the ability to access this page merely to keep it current and factual. Thank you for your consideration.

Hello, I hope you can see this reply. Yes I understand why I was blocked almost a year ago. I have no other history of being disruptive, I was obviously angry (as you can see) for reasons I don't need to reiterate here. I promise not to make any major changes and not to be disruptive. Personally, I feel it is disruptive to me professionally to have the wrong name listed on this page - my professional name is "Sasha Waters" which is well documented. I hope you can see why this is a problem an reconsider my request to be unblocked. I am really only interested in making positive contributions, keeping things factual on this or any other page that refers to me. As I wrote in an email to David Fucks (another admin):

"I understand that in the past you concluded I was trying to "build an encyclopedia" of some sort, however, I still disagree with that assertion. From my perspective, I was modeling my page on other feminist filmmakers of my cohort and age (and older, who I admire) such as Lynne Sachs, Irene Lusztig, Su Friedrich and more."

I do not have the time or energy to fight with strangers on the internet - live and learn. If you unblock me - please! - I promise to follow the rules and only engage in a positive manner moving forward.

Sasha