User talk:Cowboy128

Welcome!

Hello, Cowboy128, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --John (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Ray R. Irani

What is your motivation for trying to add negative information on this living person to Wikipedia? --John (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply adding relevant information. Thanks for your interest! Cowboy128 (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irani, Oxy

Hey Cowboy128, I'm a regular editor around here and sometimes help paid, corporation-employed editors to abide by our policies (sourcing, neutrality, etc.). CBuiltOther, with whom you've been having a bit of an edit war on the Occidental Petroleum article, asked me if I could help the two of you find consensus about recent edits. I'd like to do that if you're open to the input. A few things off of the top of my head:

It's okay for editors who work for a company to edit here so long as they are transparent and follow our WP:COI policy. CBuiltOther has been doing that consistently, so please, even if you dislike his point of view, respect that he has been making an effort to be neutral. Assuming that people are corporate lackeys or media spinners or just brainwashed capitalists won't help us find consensus efficiently.
If you're adding information critical of the company or its officers, it's absolutely essential that every fact be sourced to a major news outlet and that the description of that topic not reveal any bias on Wikipedia's part, for or against it. Such criticism is appropriate in articles, but it must be evenly handled and always carefully cited.
Remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for advancing any agenda, pro-corporate or anti-corporate. We advance only one agenda and it is to be encyclopedic--to verifiably summarize reliable published sources.

Now that myself, CBuiltOther, John and yourself are all involved it's expected we find agreement through civil discussion and following Wikipedia's policies and standards. What I'd like to do is have you paste the pieces you want to include (or keep included) on the article's talk page so that we can look at them individually, improve their phrasing and sourcing, and come to a consensus. Please let me know if you have any ideas, thoughts, or questions. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 04:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocaasi. I have no problem with much of what you said. However, my contributions were deleted completely without proper discussion and, in my opinion, any real persuasiveness. Since every deletion was of information the company would find objectionable, true or not, sourced of not, even handed or not, I am having real difficulty taking this conversation seriously. The deletions took place before any civil discussion. One problem with John and CBuiltOther is their lack of familiarity with the company and issues. The material is completely known to the world and of a factual basis. I think it is likely that we will need help from other editors to fully resolve our differences. I would like a decent interval to invite additional editorial input since I think you'll agree that none of us can claim sole ownership of this page.Cowboy128 (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I live around some ranch country, I just wanted to add that we have a cowboy code of ethics that we abide by. Cowboy128 (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowboy. I'm very interested to know what this "cowboy code of ethics" is and just what you are implying by this assertion. Enlighten me please.

After you do that, please go and read our biographies of living persons policy and abide by it. We are not amused by people who violate it, tendentiously, repetitively, and with a clear purpose to be here to do nothing else. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not amused by your ingenuous comments. You are clearly here to to nothing but delete my factual material on the subject matter. We are not impressed by this rather facetious game you are playing. I completely reject your false characterizations of my motives. Cowboy128 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CBuiltother (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Obviously, I will be documenting each of your edits along with corresponding Wiki policies and guidelines and informing all relevant parties of your issues as well. Cowboy128 Cowboy128 (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occidental Petroleum". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You, specifically, appear to be edit-warring to include your agenda concerning Irani and Chazen. I suggest you self-revert, since consensus is against you and obvious edit-warring on your part will prejudice your case for mediation, not to mention placing you in jeopardy of summary blocking. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concerned that you have not read the discussion page on Occidental Petroleum. The fact that company employees are unhappy with properly sourced material and constantly wipe out my contributions does not support your conclusion that I, alone, am edit warring. The consensus is contrived and Antandrus has not revealed his conflict of interest as a writer of Vintage Petroleum articles. We have anonymous contributors pushing the undo button and the rest cannot identify specifically what they are contesting. Please add up the number of undo changes performed by Antandrus and others. Who is edit warring? They have an agenda to sanitize the page. BestCowboy128 (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have, in fact, read the whole page and reviewed your edits, and did so before I warned you. You appear to have a single agenda: to denigrate two individuals in violation of several Wikipedia policies. You have edit-warred to keep your preferred version in place. Antandrus has answered you in detail below. It is a common tactic for editors who fail to gain consensus to try to discredit those they perceive as opposing them, not recognizing that the agenda-driven editor's commitment to a particular cause may lead them to treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and to try to force the issue by attacking the perceived opposition rather than constructively addressing the content in contention. Such an approach wears down the patience of other editors. I've seen this twice in the past week alone, and many times before then, where process-wrangling and personal attacks are used instead of constructive engagement on the content. Acroterion (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Writer of Vintage Petroleum articles", eh? You are edit-warring, and now there are six editors in good standing opposing your agenda-driven editing. Cease and desist; stop wasting our time. Antandrus (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I predict a block in your near future. You clearly do not understand the nature of WP:CONSENSUS. It does not mean "Cowboy128's way". Antandrus (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion: I do not really understand your belief that I have only one agenda: "to denigrate two individuals in violation of several Wikepedia policies." What I have actually done is provide information on major topics that have been widely reported in major publications such as the WSJ, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg, etc. and presented it fairly blandly if you will. I can't imagine how you can call that denigration. It is almost completely devoid of adjectives. The material itself is honest. Therefore, since the material is not even remotely personal but exclusively about business the notion of denigration is simply absurd. No one is even remotely defamed or ridiculed. I merely stated Chazen's compensation so I am even further bewildered over your suggestion that he has been denigrated. Even so, I concede that it could be rewritten to include facts to support the notion that Irani contributed significantly to the company success over the years. Yes, and perhaps citing the use of the Boeing Business Jet by a retired CEO is not that important or even the question who is actually running the company. Okay, Chazen runs the show.

I have invited constructive criticism time and time again as you will see from my entries and you might well review such comments (again, I'm afraid) by the other editors directed at me such as " get a life, stop wasting our time, it is time for you to go (and this from someone who has made little or no contributions (perhaps hitting the undue button a few times) to the article!) Frankly, the piece reads for the most part like a company publication and probably is largely derived from the Occidental Annual Report. It is true that some of the more disturbing and controversial chapters in the company history are included but in very little detail.

If I (instead of you, sir, with all due respect) could identify my own "agenda" let me just state that it is simply to give a full and true picture of this company so that the reader can really understand the history of Occidental. Pretending that it's all about barrels of oil and the geography of the operations, corporate platitudes and slogans, and not about real history with real consequences is short-sighted. Again, no one has been able to explain to me why legitimate news story items placed in Wikipedia represent a "hit job." Please educate me. However, use specifics if you please. Cowboy128 (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring, as you did at Occidental Petroleum. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. tedder (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DR. Edit warring is not appropriate, especially with a strong consensus. tedder (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2011 (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).

Cowboy128 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'd think I should be able to communicate with Tedder and the mediation committee-- I can't respond to their inquiry about my request Cowboy128 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per Tedder below. Max Semenik (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2011 (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.

You can communicate. In fact, you are doing so now. You are now allowed to continuously edit war against consensus. I also don't see an active mediation committee request- just one that is a week stale and has zero interest from others. You were given the benefit of the doubt by using page protection last time. You came back and continue to ignore consensus and the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Please take the next 60 hours and read through the linked pages, perhaps also read WP:Advocacy and similar essays. tedder (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do thank you for the page protection. The holiday might well explain that lack of response from the others. Nonetheless, I will read the linked pages. Cowboy128 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request that all parties agree to partcipate in the mediation process

I respectfully request all parties to agree to the mediation process. Cowboy128 (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment for the individuals and groups being promoted.[1]

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor.

Cowboy128 (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowboy128. Since you referenced me in your edit summary, asking me to disclose my conflict of interest, it's only fair that I respond. First of all, a minor apology: I've been quite aggressive with you, and will tone that down. Sorry. Eight years of editing here, seven as an administrator, have frayed my patience a bit. -- We try to assume good faith of all editors here. That applies from me to you, and from you to me as well. Your edit history suggests that you have an agenda regarding Occidental and Irani; I don't know what or why, but one hundred percent of your edits have been on that topic, and all negative. You do recognize this, yes? You may notice that I have not asked you to disclose a COI. You asked in your edit summary, “Please disclose conflicts of interest – Antandrus”. I have no relationship with Occidental, nor do I have one with its subsidiary, Vintage. None. Vintage operates a lot of the oil fields where I live (south-central California), and since I write articles on California oil and gas fields, I am necessarily going to mention them a lot. That's about it. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Antandrus: Thanks for the apology. We can't categorize facts as negative or positive in an honest piece of work. They simply represent reality. People will draw their own conclusions. The lack of adjectives in my contributions and the consistent references to articles published in the WSJ, New York Times, Bloomberg News, Los Angeles Times, etc. means that I have not invented some propaganda piece to assail capitalism or even Occidental. I would never place something that was not true or not one-hundred percent verifiable. "Hit piece" is something done in politics. We all know what that is. There are lot's of corporate platitudes, slogans, and brochure type material in the article that one might call "positive." I think we need more of a balance. I, too, live in the Santa Barbara area so sure-- I accept your good faith. We have a lot of editing to do on this piece. Looking forward to working with you. Cowboy128 (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of edits

The following shows the two articles where Cowboy128 has edited, with links to the full history, and diffs for each sequence of edits performed by Cowboy128:

Occidental Petroleum: history, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Ray R. Irani: history, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

I am placing this here so anyone interested can readily check the edits and form their own view about their appropriateness. Johnuniq (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood my comments. First of all, you are confusing what you consider to be "negative" material with some kind of agenda. Facts are facts, neither positive nor negative but simply a reflection of reality. Nowhere in the article will you find a statement that something is wrong with any of the actions of the company or its executives. The controversies associated with Irani and Occidental have been written about extensively in the WSJ, New York Times, Bloomberg and many other major international publications. You say that too much of the "focus" on Irani is negative but you clearly prefer that only a positive focus be employed on this page. Lastly, obviously, I wasn't suggesting that there are "problems" on the BP page but rather that the article was far better written than the current Oxy page and worth looking at as an appropriate template for further revisions. I certainly hope you don't start editing the BP page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboy128 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Cowboy128 (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About your accusation

Here: you wrote, here, "...Yet another has written a number of articles about Vintage Petroleum, a subsidiary of Occidental yet claims absolutely no connection to the company." Which articles exactly did I write "about Vintage Petroleum"? Answer me, please. Precisely, and honestly. Preferably soon. Understood? Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Response

I don't think you can say for example "I write about the San Miguelito Oil Field" not Occidental or Vintage. It's sort of like saying "I write about the Chevy Impala but I'm not really writing about General Motors." However, in your latest response, you seem to be saying that you don't even write about Vintage. If I wonder if you have some connection with somebody in the petroleum industry on some level are you shocked? Or some organization that represents the industry or Vintage or Occidental? If this is merely and truly your hobby then I apologize in advance. Even so, you seem very heated about this subject and I can't help but wonder about your connection to the industry. Here are the articles that I had time to find.

The San Miguelito Oil Field is a large and currently productive oil field in the hills northwest of the city of Ventura in southern California in the United States. The field is close to the coastline, with U.S. Highway 101 running past at the base of the hills, and is sandwiched between the larger Ventura Oil Field to the east and the Rincon Oil Field, which is partially offshore, to the north and northwest. Discovered in 1931, and with about 7 million barrels of oil remaining out of its original 125 million, it ranks 44th in the state by size, and at the beginning of 2009 had 61 producing oil wells, all operated by Vintage Production California LLC, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum.[1]

The South Mountain Oil Field is a large and productive oil field in Ventura County, California, in the United States, in and adjacent to the city of Santa Paula. Discovered in 1916, and having a cumulative production of over 158 million barrels (25,100,000 m3) of oil, it is the 37th largest oil field in California and the second largest in Ventura County (after the Ventura field).[1] As of the beginning of 2009, it retains 316 active wells, and has an estimated 1.4 million barrels (220,000 m3) of oil remaining recoverable with current technology. Vintage Production, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, was the largest operator as of 2009.[1]

The Rincon Oil Field is a large oil field on the coast of southern California, about ten miles northwest of the city of Ventura, and about 20 miles east-southeast of the city of Santa Barbara. It is the westernmost onshore field in a series of three fields which follow the Ventura Anticline, an east-west trending feature paralleling the Transverse Ranges. As of 2009, the primary operators of the field were Occidental Petroleum for the onshore portion, and Greka Energy for the offshore portion. The offshore part of the field is operated mainly from Rincon Island.Cowboy128 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are about places. Geographical, geological features containing petroleum. As part of the writeup I mention the past and present operators, which seems reasonable (they are hardly articles "about Vintage"). This whole thing has me highly amused: because I like writing about industrial infrastructure, including oil fields, you have come to believe that I have some sort of connection to one of the companies I mention in passing in the articles I write on oil and gas fields. One of many, by the way -- I wrote the articles on Greka Energy and Plains Exploration and Production, but since they are not -- get this -- subsidiaries of Occidental, that probably doesn't bother you, right?

There is yet another really, really important policy you need to read. Assume good faith. Has it struck you that no one yet has asked you if you have a conflict of interest? We assume good faith, but it's not a suicide pact, and there comes a time to call out routine NPOV violators for what they are.

Mr. Cowboy128, I have been editing Wikipedia for almost eight years, and have been an administrator for almost seven. During that time I have made over one hundred thousand edits, on a variety of subjects; it's a hobby. I explain this on my user page if you are curious. When I look at your history here, I see one very, very, very committed single-purpose account, curiously, and hilariously, accusing me of a conflict of interest. In those eight years on Wikipedia I am yet to encounter a single purpose account -- and you gave away your agenda on your very first edit, by the way -- that did not have a conflict of interest. My interest, as an editor and administrator, is in maintaining WP:NPOV on Wikipedia. See number 9 on my little list. I wrote it in 2006, but I seem to have written it with foreknowledge of this meeting, no? Why are you so committed to adding negative information about Oxy and its former CEO? Why? To the exclusion of all other topics. Why? Antandrus (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.

June 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--John (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]