User:LeoRomero/tools

Edit Source to see how to transclude leads into other articles

The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.

Main page: User:LeoRomero/tools

The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.

Table used for tracking statements and evidence in complicated disputes

My first and only attempt at a case summary, ever. We have a shortage of diffs. Missing diffs are marked as ? under the diff column. I think this includes all relevant points, though I may have accidentally left some snarkiness in. Please edit as you please, esp for brevity. - Thanks; Leo

POL/REQ	+/-	statement	diff	by
WP:COI	-	as this article shows, Mr. Alva has, by his own admission, violated the laws on Conflict of Interest over the course of several months	?	KirkCliff2
WP:COI	-	editor has explicitly stated it at Talk:The Hunting Ground	?	Ricky81682
WP:COI	na	COI issue turns out to have press coverage.[1]	na	John Nagle
WP:COI	+	From the beginning, I have been upfront about my affiliation, and I have worked to seek consensus among other editors for more substantial changes. I’d ask that Wikipedia admins take a close look at Talk:Jameis Winston, where on multiple occasions I brought things up for discussion	?	Edwardpatrickalva
WP:COI	+	Prior to my involvement, the lead section of the Winston article was at odds with Wikipedia policy ... I took steps to address that significant problem, seeking input from other Wikipedians, striving at every step to work with Wikipedia’s standards in mind, not to narrowly advance my employer’s interests.	?	Edwardpatrickalva
WP:COI	+	acknowledged the COI early on and generally engaged on talk pages to suggest/discuss sensitive changes before making them	?	Rhododendrites
WP:COI	-	clear evidence of violation of the guideline WP:COI It is *not* a cause for leniency to say that he complied with the Terms of Use to disclose his employer - that is just a minimum requirement to edit.	?	Smallbones
WP:COI	-	His declaration of his involvement with the movie was only just added recently, and the user seemingly has not made edits that aren't related to the subject matter of the film in some manner or another. From all indications, this account of his was created solely to give the film a PR boost, while trying to manipulate Wikipedia to conform to a false narrative	?	KirkCliff2
WP:COI	+	I have not edited the articles themselves since this issue came up, and I don’t see why I would, as long as there is a healthy amount of attention from diligent Wikipedians. Before yesterday, there were far fewer editors working on any of these articles, and edits and talk page comments were much less frequent. I did not want to nag, and in some cases was explicitly advised to just make changes myself ... In the meantime, the extraordinary bias in the Jameis Winston article that I worked to slightly reduce has been fully restored. The widely respected publications Wikipedia is supposed to respect barely mention his name without making his behavior a central focus; the 6,000 word NY Times article, written by a Pulitzer winner, was not an account of his athletic prowess. ESPN dubbed him "this years most polarizing player" on the cover of their magazine. The GM of the team that drafted him said one day he might write a book about the extraordinary steps they took to vet his character. But Wikipedia editors seeking to correct for my alleged bias have minimized those issues, paying more attention to a couple of opinion columnists and the president of a university with his own conflict of interest.	?	Edwardpatrickalva
WP:COI	+	one user did tell me not to edit The Hunting Ground on two occasions. I did take note of what the user said; in hindsight, maybe I should have explicitly acknowledged it. But I also noted that my edits were mostly received favorably, and I was confident I was not breaking any rules. I did make sure after that first statement to be more diligent about bringing substantial edits up for discussion.	?	Edwardpatrickalva
WP:COI	-	regardless of how your edits were received, and irrespective of how many editors these articles had working on them, you should never have been editing everything from the film article, to Title IX, anti-rape movement, and Jameis Winston's article, and certainly not for the purpose of making your film seem accurate when the real facts dictated otherwise. ... No matter your intentions, no matter what the circumstances may be, the rule is immutable: Where editing the article(s) in question would result in a conflict of interest, stay clear of editing said article(s).	?	KirkCliff2
WP:COI	-	I concur. If you have a bias strongly in favor of a subject, your word alone is not sufficient to assure everyone you will not try to push your bias. If you want to make changes, you should stick to the talk pages and ask uninvolved editors to supply the information you believe needs to be added, and only after it has been verified as accurate.	?	Arcane21
WP:COI	+	disclosed COI precluding someone from being in a discussion is completely wrong.	?	NeilN
WP:COI	+	He did declare his COI. He did use the talk page. We must still AGF. Misunderstandings occur between all good faith editors, and that includes COI editors.	?	BullRangifer
WP:COI	na	Jimbo has mentioned this issue and this news story on his talk page	na	Etamn
WP:COI	na	Jimbo personally addressing the topic on his talk page has added a sense of urgency to the matter.	na	KirkCliff2
WP:COI	na	Jimbo says a lot of things on his talk page. There's no added sense of urgency for this matter.	na	NeilN
WP:BLP	-	edits to articles on the film's subjects would seem an even more serious issue	?	DGG
WP:BLP	-	made edits regarding the rape accusation. That's a major BLP issue. Those edits started in March 2015.	[2][3]	John Nagle
WP:BLP	na	article (the subject is a football player) has many edits since then, including some recent section blanking by an anon.	[4]	John Nagle
WP:BLP	-	clear evidence of violation of the policy WP:BLP	?	Smallbones
WP:DIS	-	clear evidence of disruption	?	Smallbones
WP:DIS	-	A cursory review of Mr. Alva's edits shows clear disruption, including replacing entire paragraphs that would cast doubt on the allegations made by the movie, replacing them with favorable content, using unreliable sources and dubious wording, self-promotion (where "self" means the film), and stern warnings about his bad-faith editing which he ignored.	?	KirkCliff2
WP:DIS	-	disingenuous with both edit summaries and his methodology, in addition to editing on his own where a consensus should be reached beforehand. He has been warned, several times, and in numerous places, to cease with the flagrant gaming, yet even as this discussion is happening, he remains engaged in discussions on the talk page of The Hunting Ground.	?	KirkCliff2
WP:DIS	+	No damage is being done. A cursory look at the talk page of Winston's bio shows Alva working extremely well with other editors and his edit requests meeting their approval.	?	BullRangifer
WP:DIS	-	even if his edits are well-received, are they factually accurate? And were the editors aware of Alva's Conflict of Interest, which should technically have precluded him from being in the discussion? Meanwhile, many of his other edits are far less constructive, and were essentially revisionism so that his film could be seen by Wikipedia as more accurate.	?	KirkCliff2
WP:NPV	-	changing articles to match the accusations of the film	?	KirkCliff2
WP:NPV	-	The NPOV of Wikipedia is to ensure the minimization of any bias, or at least as much as possible when presenting information, and as such all things that might insert bias, such as editors with a vested interest in the topic, are not exempt from making sure bias is not inserted, even if the NPOV Wikipedia strives for doesn't make the topic at hand look good.	?	Arcane21
WP:VER	-	changing articles to match the accusations of the film	?	KirkCliff2
REQ	na	issues be addressed with the guilty party, and that this bad-faith editing is halted	na	KirkCliff2
REQ	na	shouldn't be editing either article	na	John Nagle
REQ	na	step away from editing in this subject area entirely	na	Kelly
REQ	na	could an admin consider taking action to deal with the vandalism on my user page this morning? It has been reverted once, which I appreciate -- but I do not look forward to having to deal with schoolyard insults while this issue plays out	na	Edwardpatrickalva
REQ	na	refrain from editing any article for which you have a COI for at least a while until these articles can be evaluated and stabilize	na	Rhododendrites
REQ	na	permanent ban, and I believe that any admin can do it	na	Smallbones
REQ	na	A topic ban might be wise, if such infractions are clearly proven to be more than just differences of opinions.	na	BullRangifer