User talk:NSWFire

September 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at United Firefighters Union of Australia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bakilas (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring on United Firefighters Union of Australia. Jim1138 (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NSWFire. Thank you. Bakilas (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NSWFire. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article United Firefighters Union of Australia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Meters (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can assure that I am now no longer employed by or affiliated with the UFU or FBEU. I have also placed some discussion on the talk page, noting that there have now been undiscussed edits made to the page. NSWFire (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Meters[reply]

You are an WP:SPA on this topic. That, combined with the content of your edits and your user name very strongly suggests a conflict of interest. You don't have to be currently employed by either of them to have a conflict of interest. Read WP:COI. Meters (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge the possibility, and have attempted to engage in discussion with other editors about the content to increase the amount of contributing, and incorporate feedback into my writing (see: the section on the NSW split). However, it is frustrating as other users appear as conflicted as I, but are still deleting slabs of text freely. NSWFire (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly does "acknowledge the possibility" mean? Stop beating around the bush. "now no longer employed by or affiliated with" certainly sound like a COI. Were you affiliated with one of the groups? Do you know someone who is or was affiliated with one of these groups? Did someone ask you or pay you to make these edits? Meters (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has paid me and no one asked me to make these edits. I have admitted already to being affliated due to past service, but due to the current violent industrial environment, I do not wish to provide any more identifying information to an anonymous person on the internet. Who are you? I have read the COI and are happy to comply, and have submitted the page for review based on a perceived conflict of interest. I deny there is an actual conflict, and I notice that other users who nominate themselves as firefighters do not have this questioning. I have attempted to engage other users in discussion, but they appear favoured in that they are able to delete slabs of text without any discussion. Can you describe why you are impartial? NSWFire (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who am is none of your business. It is a violation of Wikipedia rules for you to ask that. I'm impartial because I have no connection to either of these groups or to firefighting in general, I have no edit history on these articles, and I have no interaction history with any of the editors (at least as far as I know). I explicitly said in the ANI thread that I would not comment on the content until the edit warring ANI thread was done, and in fact, I have not even looked at the content. I'm simply looking at the edit warring claims in the ANI thread. I've recommended blocks for both of the editors who broke 3RR, and I would also support a block for the editor who did not technically break 3RR. None of the editors are favoured. I've given other editors COI warnings too.

You said you were a firefighter [1]. You did not say that you had past service with either of these groups. Your username suggests it, but that is not the same thing as a declaration of a COI. Meters (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article if now fully protected because of this, which means that only admins can edit it. You are at both ANI and SPI. Make your responses at the appropriate threads. Meters (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Wikipedia allows for accusations without ground to be treated as gospel, and I cannot challenge it? If you look on my userpage, my service is named, and I have paid service across five emergency services in both Victoria and NSW (Fire and Paramedic) as well as volunteer duty as well. I've never been a member of either the UFU or the FBEU, as I disagree with both of them, and am now retired, with the closest I get to emergency service being involved in amateur radio and emergency comms. If a past association is a conflict of interest, I'm surprised that anything at all gets done, as most intelligent people live a broad life, and have exposure to many subjects. Hiding behind the wiki rules when challenged illustrates the problem - you can barge into a room, shout an accusation and then refuse to engage. It's that kind of attitude that has lumbered the world with the politics we have now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSWFire (talk • contribs) 23:17, September 7, 2017 (UTC)

Sign your talk page posts, and don't ever pipe them to someone else's page. Meters (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your service is not named. As I said, all your user page says is that you were a firefighter. It says nothing about where, or that you were a paramedic, or with which service, or with which union. We are not mind readers.

Yes you are allowed to challenge accusations. That's why I said Make your responses at the appropriate threads.

Throwing your own accusations in this matter is not helping. You violated WP:3RR after an edit warring warning. You are fortunate not to have been blocked. Again, discuss this on the article's talk page and if you cannot reach consensus then seek dispute resolution. Meters (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh block away. Imagine life without a place to be yelled at? I mean, where would we be without the internet to provide a place for cowards to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSWFire (talk • contribs) 05:12, September 8, 2017 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I require advice. I am accused of many things, and can't really find a way around. I am attempting to contribute my knowledge and am now aware of the COI and I am trying to observe them. What options are there to defend myself? 05:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators here are more like janitors; our advice is no more valuable than anyone else's. That said, since you asked, here's mine:

Use the article talkpage more. Leave the article alone (you can't edit it right now anyway). Explain what you want include/excluded, and provide sources that support your arguments. Work with other editors to compose a version of the article whose wording you can all accept.
Don't get your mates involved. Creating new accounts yourself is an obvious no-no, but asking real-life people you know to join Wikipedia and support your case is equally frowned upon.
Edit something else. I'm sure you have other interests; somewhere in this site's 5 million+ articles there's got to be another topic you can write about.

With the article currently under protection, this is an excellent time to resolve the issues that have come up. Once the protection expires, leave the actual page alone until consensus on the talkpage is achieved. Consider dispute resolution if you feel it's necessary. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:NSWFire. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Meters (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]