Talk:Robin Winters

COI

The butcher boy (talk · contribs)'s entire contribution is about Robin Winter and it is a WP:SPA which strongly infers COI/U editing. Graywalls (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, do you have any actual evidence that supports your assertion? Is there material in the article that could only have come from the subject himself or from someone who has access to information that has not been published anywhere, for example? Vexations (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm arguing the combination of use of single purpose account, significant authorship in the list-out of collections without adequate citations and the general pattern of embellishing accomplishments gives a cause to have an appearance of COI and the tagline of COI is "article appears to" which is a hunch or a bit over a hunch. What evidence are you suggesting is needed and evidence to the level of reasonable suspicion? Probable cause? If you could link to community consensus regarding that, I would appreciate that. Graywalls (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, something that is not as subjective as "a hunch". Something that any other editor could read and come to the same conclusionas you. for example, if an editor provides biographical details that have not been published anywhere and that are not available in publicly accessible databases. Fir example, If you think that User:The butcher boy is Robin Winters, because he writes things that no other editor could reasonably know, point out what those are. Vexations (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Please direct me to prior discussions supporting your school of thought is the way it is seen in the wider consensus. Graywalls (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, Post whatever public evidence you have to support that there is a COI, or that it is causing a problem, in the form of edits by that user or information the user has posted about themselves. per WP:COICOIN Vexations (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations:, doesn't support your argument wrt burden of proof required for templating. "Dealing with single-purpose accounts[edit source] Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Disruption-only, and Wikipedia:Single-purpose account Accounts that appear to be single-purpose, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic editing. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. Templates[edit source] Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{connected contributor}} or {{connected contributor (paid)}}. The article itself may be tagged with {{COI}}. A section of an article can be tagged with {{COI|section}}" from the same thing you linked. Graywalls (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Graywalls, I don't see how you could read " "Post whatever public evidence you have", and think that you don't need evidence. Vexations (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe reasonable suspicion was established by edit pattern, this is not a diff specific. In fact, on diff wouldn't show it. Descriptive evidence from looking at the article creator's edit history. Again, you failed to produce prior consensus on the burden of evidence required to tag articles. Graywalls (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

edits by Graywalls

On 01:19, 4 April 2021 User:Graywalls made this edit [1] with the edit summary "Robin Winters Think Tank : April 29-June 15, 1986, the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston By Robin Winters · 1986 is NOT independent source." where they remove all content (Edit (10:02, Thursday, May 23, 2024 (UTC):with one exception, leaving the citation intact 10:02, Thursday, May 23, 2024 (UTC)) cited to that book. On 10:07, 4 April 2021 I (Vexations) reverted that edit with [2] with the edit summary ("museum catalogues with essays by notable critics are reliable sources, even when the artists is also listed as an author, because he contributed the art" On 21:29, 4 April 2021 Graywalls undid my revert [3] with the edit summary "not a matter of reliability. matter of WP:DUE". Vexations (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

When I looked up that ISBN, it listed Robin Winters as the author. Here's the link. So that makes the book NOT independent. Is the book written by someone else? Your claim that I removed ALL reference is false. I preserved it when it was only used as a supplementary source to something else. I removed it in instances where it was the sole source of the statement made and this is verifiable by the fact that book still exists in references right now. Graywalls (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Contributions by Susan Davis, David A. Ross, and Roberta Smith. See https://www.worldcat.org/title/robin-winters-think-tank/oclc/994237023&referer=brief_results Vexations (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The citation Graywalls used was David A. Ross, Roberta Smith (1986). Robin Winters : Think Tank. Boston: The Institute of Contemporary Art. ISBN 0-910663-45-9. Wile that's a poorly formatted and incomplete citation, it should have been possible to discern that David A. Ross (the the former director of the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston and the Whitney Museum of American Art and Roberta Smith (the chief art critic for the New York Times) were listed as the authors. That google books only mentions Winters as the author might have been a reason to change the citation and remove Ross and Smith, but one cannot legitimately claim that the book only has one author (the subject of our article) and then cite it with two different authors. Vexations (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one who inserted that citation in the first place. Take it up with who inserted it. Graywalls (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)