MiddlewareMaster

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Kgardner2007 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

"Truth, Fact, Neutrality." - MiddlewareMaster (talk)

COI edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am currently employed by PrismTech Ltd. As such I have a COI, I will be working on a suitable PrismTech page for review on my Sandbox. I am aware of the policies regarding the notability of companies, and would appreciate any and all input regarding page creation. MiddlewareMaster (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Talkback edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, MiddlewareMaster. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 18:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

SarahStierch (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Continued promotion edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Accounts

Despite multiple warnings in multiple noticeboard discussions it has become apparent that your accounts and IP's are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote PrismTech Ltd, so it has been blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hu12, I asked permission from the deleting admin (Sarah) to re-submit the PrismTech page for aproval. I was pointed at the treehouse, where I was then instructed to submit it to AFC. I have done that, and yet you have blocked it, and seemingly instigated the delete in the first place. I believe I found reliable sources (one even being suggested by Sarah), and if not then I would welcome input on why they are not reliable (they're not written by PrismTech, published in independent works, and are reputable). You have failed to provide a reason for blocking the re-submission, other than citing past activity (implied here is that you could not find anything wrong with the article, but you merely dislike the company). I clearly declared my CoI, and made no move to promote PrismTech beyond requesting a page be created by another user. I have acted within the guidelines, and respect them. I would therefore ask that you un-ban my account and either publish the PrismTech page, or suggest improvements. I do not see the assumption of good faith here. MiddlewareMaster (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The suggestion to take it to AFC is SOP ... you had the opportunity to prove that it was not an abuse of the fact that Wikipedia is not a business directory, and that the business was actually notable. Turns out it was not suitable for an encyclopdia yet. It happens - regularly. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bwilkins, the article was deleted speedily and I was unable to locate sources within the short time the discussion was open (a matter of days). I have since located sources and provided them on my re-submission. They were, I fear, overlooked in the hasty deletion. Any input is greatly appreciated MiddlewareMaster (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The discussion was open for a week. If that is not enough time for someone employed by the company to find evidence that the company is notable, what does that say about the notability of the company? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have fully complied with the guidelines: declared my CoI, made no edits that could be regarded as advertising or abusive (in fact I made very few edits just so that I could not be viewed as being abusive), sought (and gained) the deleting admin's approval for re-submission, and made the appropriate changes to the article in question. I was then blocked with no warning, no discussion, and no (valid) reason.

Decline reason:

I appreciate the fact that you declared your conflict of interest: clearly that is better than keeping quiet about it. However, declaring it does not take it away. If you sincerely believe, as you say, that you have "made no edits that could be regarded as advertising", then that is a reason for not unblocking you, and certainly not a reason for doing so. It suggests that you are so closely involved in the subject you are writing about that you are unable to stand back from it and see how your editing will look from the detached perspective of an outsider. A number of editors did see your editing as promotional. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage editing on subjects in which you have such an involvement: it can be difficult or even impossible in such circumstances to edit objectively, even if one intends to, and your frank statement that you are unable to see the promotional nature of your own editing suggests that this applies in your case. As for there being no warning and no discussion, there has indeed been discussion, and there have been messages about the issues to various accounts working for your company over a period of at least five years. It seems improbable that you were completely unaware of the history of your company's attempts to use Wikipedia as a free medium for publishing information about itself. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
James, the reason why I submitted the article was precisely this reason. I understand the it is impossible for someone employed at a company to be seen (despite what the actual content may be) to be neutal, hence my submission for approval by another user. I had the proposed page on my sandbox for some time, and submitted the article after input from other users. I did NOT simply publish the page without going through the proper procedures. As such I submitted it to AFC for review by users presumably experienced in identifying suitable articles. I would have been disappointed if the article was rejected, but would have taken any suggestions on how to improve the article. However I don't see how this merits a block? If asking for an article to be reviewed merits a block, then how is anything ever published? I do appreciate your help/input on this as I would like to understand Wikipedia better! MiddlewareMaster (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2012 (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.

Wikipedia doesn't have an article about PrismTech. The recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrismTech discussion indicates that the company isn't one that Wikipedia needs an article about. Which of your accounts would you be using in the future, and what kinds of edits would you be making? It isn't at all clear that you are interested in volunteering to help write the encyclopedia in ways that aren't related to PrismTech. -

My area of expertise is middleware (hence my username), but as I work for a company in the field I erred on the side of caution and refrained from editing (so that I would not be accused of bias or any other breaches of guidelines). However it seems I am "dammed if I do and dammed if I don't" edit, I would be happy to contribute to middleware articles (DDS, JMS, CORBA, game engines, etc.), but there seems to be a lack of faith that edits made by those employed in the field can remain neutral. As for the comment about whether or not Wikipedia "needs" an article on PrismTech, Wikipedia seemed perfectly happy with the article until information was made up-to-date. I would put forward that there needs to be some improved guidelines with regards to privately held companies, as it would amount to censorship to exclude companies based upon whether or not they are on the NYSE or not. If there are any example articles to use as a template (that are similar in both field and size/notability), then I would welcome the insight. P.S. The accounts listed as sock puppets are not mine, this is my only account. MiddlewareMaster (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic