User talk:HeadOverHeels

Welcome

Hello, HeadOverHeels, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

HeadOverHeels, good luck, and have fun. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hey there!

I am HeadOverHeels, a burning fan of public governance, specifically international organizations, and I will be eagerly looking at various articles as well as hoping to create a lot of new and useful stuff here.

Best wishes for all of your projects! HeadOverHeels (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Please reply, and state whether or not you have any connection with Richard.eames or the International Anti-Corruption Academy, directly or through a third party. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jytdog,

First of all thank you for paying attention to my edits.

I heard about IACA by a diplomat, who I happened to meet at an international convention in early spring 2016 but do not have any relationship to anyone there. I recently started looking into anti-corruption instruments such as the UNCAC and during my research stumbled again over IACA. I do not know Richard Eimes, apart from what seems to be visible to other users...

To me the notion of a post-secondary educational entity run by a world-wide community of states was an exciting idea, and it happened just recently that I started googling and listening around. I find their website very resourceful and like other IOs that's the most authentic place to retrieve information. Just look at the other IO articles and you'll see what I mean. I think it's worth informing the public since it's a good cause (engaging in the fight against corruption, which is omnipresent in all states around the world, not only in Azerbaijan and Russia). Just think of all these big armament-deals made by industrialized states where billions of dollars of tax-payers money are burnt by pre-fixed transactions.

Regarding my edits:

Still plenty of issues are unclear for me although I've read all related policies of Wikipedia.

Why should incorrect information remain, how does that serve the Wikipedia mission? For example IACA has been established in 2011 not in 2010. Typos, removed by me are now reinstated. A reference to an article of the NEWS magazine is simply unrelated to what is stated in the article (revolving door, unusual staff turnover). Please read it yourself and judge. Moreover I thought, even there would be unusual staff turnover (how's that defined), that information about IACA is probably as conclusive or valuable for the community as the daily menue of their canteen, if they have some (unless you're about to get hired). I do understand the criticism on rogue-states and that seems to be supported by the referenced press-sources. I deleted only the details because it repeated the language used in the articles and I thought that's fairly unbalanced to bomb the community with the text of bad press whilst having just one paragraph on the organization itself. To me this article as it stands does not read encyclopedical and informative but clearly aimed at discrediting IACA. Facts are discarded and bad press remains unreviewed. And that would infringe Wiki-ethics. Sufficient information about IACA is available on the web. People like me who know how public IO's work are familiar with founding statutes, facts and data, could be helpful for the encyclopedical Wiki-mission and that's what I tried to share...

Now here is my point: Is your concern that I'm editing at the IACA-article then I'll move on to any other IO. But that one seemed to be extremely "unusual" and unsourceful compared with those of other IOs such as the UN, the IAEA, UNESCO, ect.

Hope everthing is clear. Now, again, if this a "hands-off-article" (that's what it apppears to me) then please say it clear and I'll move on...I do not intend spending a lot of time on research about IACA if that is not appreciated.

Please respond, thank you! HeadOverHeels (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank I find this impossible to believe. I will deal with you at the article Talk page with respect to content, based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines.

Please take time and make sure that you understand the content policies and guidelines. What you or I feel or believe about the agency has nothing to do with how we edit. Content is Wikipedia is based on independent reliable sources -- we follow what they say. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Now I feel encouraged again to working with you and the others on this article in a constructive way. One thing, though, is important to stress: I have read almost every guideline and policy about editing, before I got started, and I will do so over and over again. I never questioned the independence and reliability of these sources but I made a valid point about following what they say, because what is stated in regard of the employment-related suggestions, is not what THIS ARTICLE says. I also have no intention to convey my feelings but facts and figures that can be of interest for the public. Nothing else. We will talk it through at the article's talk page.

Thanks, HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are demonstrating no signs of being interested in improving this organization - Wikipedia -- or in learning how Wikipedia actually works. It is very clear that you are here to promote another organization, namely the IACA. The conflict of interest you are demonstrating in your behavior is blatant. What is worse, is that you are sucking up my volunteer time dealing with you. Doubly harmful to this organization. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, these are stark words, which I clearly can echo in your regard. Just read how often I pointed out clear mistakes which you blatantly ignored. Seems your agenda does not allow for any changes oft eh current text. Still missing the point and I'm loosing hope that with you as admin this will get anywhere useful for Wikipedia. You are hiding behind policies which you clearly misinterpret and what is most obvious is that you are ignoring WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable and fundamental. From the history it appears that you were engaging as editor and making up the current text of this article. And now you are invoking WP-policies to protect these unbalanced and partially ill-sourced content from any change, or enrichment, even ignoring typos. Read WP:INVOLVED and you will understand that what you were doing is much more than acting as Admin, you are in the middle of it, it's you not me but you who has a COI or at the least is biased towards protecting your own contribution. You did not even bother with my argument to the flawed non-english source. Read WP:NONENG and you will understand. If you could provide useful quotes translated in English and supporting your second paragraph the community could independently judge its relevance, but you did not even get to that point. I will do more efforts to help you out of this situation and make this article rich and useful, but you too have to advance for the benefit of the community. I still would like to avoid any dispute settlement. HeadOverHeels (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

Dear HeadOverHeels,

Following my recent discussion with Jytdog on the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) talk page, I've filed a DR/N request in the hope of better understanding, with the help of other Wikipedians, what constitutes independent sourcing. Once again, let me declare my conflict of interest here. I’m the Senior Coordinator for Advocacy and Communications at IACA and previously edited the page directly in my own name. Owing to my COI I stopped doing that and am trying to propose content that might lead to a more informative, fact-based page.

Best wishes, Richard.eames (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Richard. I responded to you and Jytdog at the IACA talk page. Looking forward to the DR/N request. HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HeadOverHeels, I will be on vacation for the next 2 weeks and won't check in on Wikipedia. My colleague Adrian Ciupagea will step in for me, using his own name. He's also in IACA's communications team, so let me declare his COI here (he will do the same as and when he contributes). Hope we can continue the civil discussion and improve the page. Best, Richard.eames (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Richard! Enjoy your time off this article. And we will certainly welcome your colleague. I am positive that there will be some improvements soon so that the article is useful and informative for the community. HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Richard.eames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 27 August 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is not a sock puppet account. I am a specialist with strong interest in international relations (admittedly a niche-category), and a diplomatic contact from a previous job triggered my interest in IACA. I made this very clear multiple times. Both are facts and not "phony" as claimed by User:Jytdog, who obviously instigated this sock-puppet investigation. I don't know Richard Eemes, apart from Talk Page discussion on the "IACA" article. My obvious mistake was to get to this article as a newbie and make one substantial direct edit, though in good faith. After being instructed that this was wrong I formally apologized for this on the dispute resolution page regarding the contested IACA article. Please note that apart from this one initial edit I did not make any edit, even not a typo-removal but raised instead every bit on the article Talk Page and during DR. All the substantial changes to the article made during the DR to get the article to a NPOV (by USER:BU_Rob13), as well as to remove ill-sourced content; clearly show that the dispute resolution and also my humble input were not in vain and useful for the encyclopedia. My arguments and my focus during the dispute were to some extent different from the alleged sockmaster Richard Eemes, with whom I've been accused to be associated. Being a specialist on international organizations, I used word-by-word the terminology of the treaties. No wonder, that Mr. Eemes from IACA has been using the one or the other expression literally the same way like me (e.g. "institution of post-secondary education") since that's the wording of the laws, which are restated a hundred times by governmental and other sources on the web. No wonder that two users, though unrelated, do have the one or the other argument in common, when buildingan article. I thought that's what balancing content to a NPOV is all about? No sock-puppetry at all. My focus was to get my first edits right, to contribute to a strong article showing the big picture of IACA as well as controversy. I expressed my dismay at the end of the DR when I realized that the only outcome of DR was the removal of clear errors instead of building up an useful article. I intended to take a break from WP, and then move on to another article in my genre. I made that clear at the end of the DR. As a new and motivated user, though with his first edits, I find it very unfortunate to learn two weeks later to be blocked and not even being heard before. Kindly ask to check my postings and see the substantial differences to Mr. Eeems, and fairly reconsider...HeadOverHeels (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is one of several accounts which clearly exist to make an article about an organisation present that organisation in the way it would like to be seen. Having carefully examined the editing history of the various accounts, I find it totally implausible that you are not connected to the other accounts. It is almost certain that you are actually the same person as the operator of at least one of the other accounts, and failing that you are working with the other person or persons involved. However, even in the very unlikely case that you are not, it is totally certain that your only purpose here is to impose your preferred point of view in the article in question, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and so there is no case for unblocking you. The place for an organisation to publicise its own preferred view of itself is on its own web site. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2017 (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.