| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Wikibrands: Reinventing Your Company in a Customer-Driven Marketplace |
| Status | Close |
| Request date | 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Jdechambeau ( talk) |
| Parties involved | User:Jdechambeau, User:ConcernedVancouverite |
This dispute focuses on Wikibrands: Reinventing Your Company in a Customer-Driven Marketplace, (and a redirect to that page, from Wikibrands) and Mike Dover
The list of the users involved. For example:
As of 17:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) ConcernedVancouverite does not seem interested in mediation. Any guidance on how to proceed would be appreciated. -- Jdechambeau ( talk) 17:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
On Friday August 19th, I created two Wikipedia articles, one about Mike Dover, a former colleague of mine and Canadian business executive, and a second about his recently-published book, Wikibrands.
Within several minutes of creating the wikibrands article, it had been tagged for speedy deletion by ConcernedVancouverite. The page has since been deleted, so I am not able to link to the edit history. After the article was flagged for deletion, I posted on the talk page my justification for why it should be kept. An anonymous user also posted their support, a named user also did the same. This prompted ConcernedVancouverite to request a sockpuppet investigation. While I don't think the issue has yet been resolved by an admin, there was no sock puppetry. What's more, this appears to run contrary to the notice to assume good faith that ConcernedVancouverite has on their talk page.
Focusing specifically on the Mike Dover article, as CV (if you don't mind the shortform) requested a speedy deletion, which was overturned by admin User:Causa sui. CV requested that the article be better sourced, so I went about doing exactly that. Following this, user User:Gurt Posh added a nomination for deletion, which CV rejoined with a fresh collection of tags, as well as a number of {{fact}} next to all of the references that I added at their direct request.
At this point I decided to reach out to CV to try and resolve this. I felt I must have been missing something to find myself greeted with such hostility. I therefore posted on User talk:ConcernedVancouverite#Mike Dover article asking basically: whoah, what's going on here?
In response CV 'thanked me for openly admitting my conflict of interest.' I put the term in quotes because, as CV suggested, I read the conflict of interest guidelines--before posting the original article--and so far as I can see, there is absolutely no conflict of interest. I fail to see how working with someone a few years ago constitutes a conflict of interest. Frankly I was baffled at being told to read a rule that I had read and was not violating.
What's more: the charge CV seems to be raising is that the article is unambiguously promotional. It clearly is not, and is built around factual statements that lack even adjectives to bias the content. The article, if it's unambiguously anything, is unambiguously factual (and dry!).
At any rate, the while I was improving the Mike Dover article as per CV's suggestions, the Wikibrands article was pushed through speedy deletion. This happened very very quickly. So quickly in fact that there was no time for any sort of discussion or consensus. There was no suggestion of merging the articles, there was no constructive feedback given on how to make the article better, or a fair chance to demonstrate it's noteworthiness. From my perspective, the message felt very clear that the decision had been made, and that was that.
Following this, CV appears to have gone through my through my edit history searching for other articles to tag for deletion, effectively stalking through my other contributions. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this seems downright vindictive.
For some extra info, here's a post from Jim Wales about ' rampant deletionism' that seems pretty apt in this situation. -- Jdechambeau ( talk) 17:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like the main Wikibrands article back, and for the aggressive editing on CV's part to stop--if it is the decision of the mediator that CV has been unduly aggressive. I don't like feeling as though I'm being followed around the site by someone who, for reasons I am not privy to, is not the biggest fan of mine.
I'd like to have other members of the community weigh in. I'm trying in good faith to add a factual and valuable article to the community. My contributions have been met with what feels to me like undue antagonism. I'm looking for the mediators to shed some light on the situation. Is the article really out of line, or is CV reacting with undue zeal? If the article was valid and CV's behaviour is in fact outside of what the community deems acceptable.
Collaterally, I'm left curious as to how common this experience is to people joining the wikipedia community. I'm very curious about the mediation process, though I'm skeptical that many newcomers would take the time to request mediation.
Jdechambeau, an editor who has been editing since 2006, has openly declared a conflict of interest here [1] as having worked closely with Mike Dover (the co-author of the book), and having a desire to promote his new book. The original article was written, in my opinion, in a promotional style which would have required substantial rewriting to be acceptable for article space. As such, I nominated it for speedy deletion as G11. Administrator Fastily appears to have agreed and speedy deleted the article: [2]. The deletion of that article left a broken redirect at Wikibrands, which for housekeeping purposes I nominated for speedy under G8. Administrator Skier Dude apparently agreed and deleted the redirect: [3]. I should note that there is an open sockpuppet case as well, as several SPA editors suddenly appeared to help preserve the articles Jdechambeau has been working on about Mike Dover and his book. Details: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jdechambeau. Regarding going through other edits by the same editor, it is fairly normal quality control practice after locating some questionable edits to look into the editing history of the editor making them and conducting quality control on any other edits which require such. Upon reviewing his edits since 2006 Special:Contributions/Jdechambeau the bulk of them appear to be around Mike Dover, his associates, and their books. While it is perfectly fine to have a strong interest in a single domain, combing through those edits and removing promotional content, or tagging articles that require more reliable sourcing is normal quality control practice. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 15:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not clear on how your opinion is a sufficient litmus test for whether or not something is promotional. As I've mentioned on other comment pages, the style of the prose is without adjectives to inject bias, and is built entirely around factual statements.
- Further, at no time did you make any effort to work with me to improve the article, and you acted very, very quickly to delete it. Wouldn't it be better to help improve an article than to have it deleted?
- To your claim that I "worked closely" with Mike Dover, I'm going to have to throw a citation needed at you there. I said I worked with him, please provide further evidence to substantiate your claim. You also have inferred seemingly on your own that I have a desire to promote his book. I do not. I do, however, have a desire to document its existence. I've very carefully read the conflict of interest guidelines, and being former colleagues does not disqualify someone from contributing to wikipedia articles about them. In fact, the tech business strategy thought leader world is so small that it would be difficult for you to find someone who I haven't worked with at some point (though some would be peripherally). By your logic I am immediately disqualified on writing about topics on which I am most likely to be an expert--specifically because I am an expert. To show the structural problems with this point of view, should people be banned from editing the wikipedia article about gravity simply because they deal with it as a force everyday?
- I further introduce a point raised by Jimmy Wales back in 2003 wherein
he argues against the type of 'rampant deletionism' that, in my estimate, characterizes your involvement with wikipedia:
- Let me make my point more clear: arguments about what we ought to if someone really starts to abuse wikipedia with thousands and thousands of trivial articles do not prove that we ought to delete any and every article that's too trivial today.
- Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world.
- I assume that from your perspective you are working do defend wikipedia from whatever you think my agenda is. I appreciate and respect that you take this task seriously. I do however think that the situation has been misjudged, and some guidelines are not being applied correctly in the pursuit of this goal. -- Jdechambeau ( talk) 18:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Having worked with the subject in the past is a conflict of interest. Being thanked in the acknowledgments of the book is a conflict of interest which substantiates the claim that you have a strong personal relationship with the subject. Please refer to page XV of the book in question, which I have spent the time to dig up and read to understand your true connection to the subject. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 18:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding your question about my judgment being a litmus test, I simply nominated the page for speedy deletion. A different editor, who is an administrator, seemed to agree with the view and chose to delete it on that basis. I recognize you have strong views, considering your connection to the subject matter, but the views of other editors who are not directly connected generally will hold more weight in deciding if it is promotional content or not.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just skimmed a look at the acknowledgments page, there are 26 lines averaging about 5 names a line. Meaning 130 people are thanked. Are all 130 of these people to be disqualified? Furthermore, how do you know I'm acknowledged there? You cannot concretely infer that I am any of the people thanked in the acknowledgments. Beyond that, you don't know the nature of any of the relationships of any of the people in that book. Your case is on very thin ice, and supposition is not sufficient for your charge against me. Finally, referring to the COI page: "
Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And "always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing." I feel that neither of these principles have been upheld in this situation. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I do not want to reveal more information about you than appropriate in a public forum, so I will communicate this in a way you can understand without revealing your identity. Your bio at your current employer speaks specifically of you developing your skills with Don Tapscott and enjoying debates. Your editing pattern is consistent with such. I will not provide links, as that would not be appropriate. But please recognize you do in fact have a conflict of interest and are closely related to this group of authors, and as such may not have an unbiased view of what is promotional. If you would like to work on improving such an article, then by all means ask for it to be placed into your userspace, appropriately edit the article, and then ask for it to be moved back to the article space by a non-conflicted editor. I see you have already requested to have it moved to your userspace, so that is a good first step. Once it is placed there, go ahead and try to improve the article with reliable secondary sources, and when it is ready, ask a neutral editor to move it back to article space. Best of luck with your editing. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 18:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just skimmed a look at the acknowledgments page, there are 26 lines averaging about 5 names a line. Meaning 130 people are thanked. Are all 130 of these people to be disqualified? Furthermore, how do you know I'm acknowledged there? You cannot concretely infer that I am any of the people thanked in the acknowledgments. Beyond that, you don't know the nature of any of the relationships of any of the people in that book. Your case is on very thin ice, and supposition is not sufficient for your charge against me. Finally, referring to the COI page: "
Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And "always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing." I feel that neither of these principles have been upheld in this situation. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can neither confirm nor deny any of your search results but I have filed an abuse report with the Wikipedia admin teams for your attempts to reveal my identity and provide anyone reading with search terms that you believe will lead them to my professional biography. You are completely and entirely out of line and are working violate my privacy. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I had no intention of revealing your identity. You had asked, "Furthermore, how do you know I'm acknowledged there?" and I responded without disclosing your identity, but in a way you could receive the answer to your question. I'm going to step back from responding here, as your continual escalation and argumentative style does not suggest you would like to work on improving the article at this point in time, and are instead just enjoying engaging in a debate. I do not enjoy such debates, and will no longer play your game. When you have had a chance to calm down, and decide you would like to work on improving Wikipedia, then you have already been provided with adequate instruction and guidance on how to do so in the bounds of having a conflict of interest. Best of luck with your editing.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dude, you've clearly been trying to stalk me online. You called attention to two search terms and said they were on a webpage that you believe to be mine. How is this not beyond creepy and unacceptable? I would say that I am calm, but taken aback by this incredible display. I look forward to administrator clearing this up. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- First, I am not a dude. Second, you specifically stated you had a conflict of interest in having worked with him in the past. After revealing that information you then said
[4], "...please provide further evidence to substantiate your claim." I did not feel comfortable directly responding to such a request, considering your stated conflict, but instead provided you with corroborating hints to substantiate the claim, per your request. If you feel your privacy has been violated by my responding to your request, then you have my sincerest apologies, and I would be happy to have that portion of the conversation reverted. That said, it still appears you do in fact have a very strong conflict of interest with the subject matter and should likely follow the previous advice regarding the article.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your apology but we're still in this mess, and you still violated my privacy in your zeal. Also 'dude' can be an exclamation, as it was there. In substantiating your claim you're bound by respecting the privacy of your fellow editors, you disregarded that duty. You've also not demonstrated any conflict of interest, your argument amounts to linking to the page and saying "you may not realize it, but you're in violation of this rule" with no further evidence. Please point me to specific guidelines about how I've committed a conflict of interest. I have read the page several times and even sought an expert third opinion. We can't see anything wrong. Your assurances are not sufficient.
- First, I am not a dude. Second, you specifically stated you had a conflict of interest in having worked with him in the past. After revealing that information you then said
[4], "...please provide further evidence to substantiate your claim." I did not feel comfortable directly responding to such a request, considering your stated conflict, but instead provided you with corroborating hints to substantiate the claim, per your request. If you feel your privacy has been violated by my responding to your request, then you have my sincerest apologies, and I would be happy to have that portion of the conversation reverted. That said, it still appears you do in fact have a very strong conflict of interest with the subject matter and should likely follow the previous advice regarding the article.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dude, you've clearly been trying to stalk me online. You called attention to two search terms and said they were on a webpage that you believe to be mine. How is this not beyond creepy and unacceptable? I would say that I am calm, but taken aback by this incredible display. I look forward to administrator clearing this up. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I had no intention of revealing your identity. You had asked, "Furthermore, how do you know I'm acknowledged there?" and I responded without disclosing your identity, but in a way you could receive the answer to your question. I'm going to step back from responding here, as your continual escalation and argumentative style does not suggest you would like to work on improving the article at this point in time, and are instead just enjoying engaging in a debate. I do not enjoy such debates, and will no longer play your game. When you have had a chance to calm down, and decide you would like to work on improving Wikipedia, then you have already been provided with adequate instruction and guidance on how to do so in the bounds of having a conflict of interest. Best of luck with your editing.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can neither confirm nor deny any of your search results but I have filed an abuse report with the Wikipedia admin teams for your attempts to reveal my identity and provide anyone reading with search terms that you believe will lead them to my professional biography. You are completely and entirely out of line and are working violate my privacy. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Finally, can you please explain to me why you opened this all up with such misgivings and hostility? What have I done to deserve this in your eyes? I've tried to be civil and met with nothing but detached hostility and links to guidelines that do not apply. Is this how all new editors are greeted? --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
19:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- First off, you are not a new editor. You have been editing since 2006: Special:Contributions/Jdechambeau. Granted the majority of your edits are all around this particular subject matter and its related articles. But you are not new, and claiming such is misleading. Second, I have not revealed personal information. I specifically chose to not reveal such information after repeated requests for additional proof of your conflict of interest by you. I tried to simply let you know the basis for my interpretation of your editing actions, without revealing who you are. Third, I will not engage on giving you any more evidence regarding your conflict of interest, as I fear you will simply misinterpret my reply and accuse me of trying to reveal your identity. I am not someone who enjoys engaging in debates for the sake of debate. I prefer to focus on verifiable evidence. Based upon reading over your edits, your editing history, your declared conflict of interest, and your editing actions, I believe you have a conflict of interest. As I have stated, by all means, please work on a userfied version of the article and try to bring it up to Wikipedia standards by citing reliable secondary sources, and then asking a neutral editor to review and potentially move it back to article space. Best of luck with your editing. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 19:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Finally, can you please explain to me why you opened this all up with such misgivings and hostility? What have I done to deserve this in your eyes? I've tried to be civil and met with nothing but detached hostility and links to guidelines that do not apply. Is this how all new editors are greeted? --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
19:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This is all very silly. THE CABAL HAS SPOKEN! Xavexgoem ( talk) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Wikibrands: Reinventing Your Company in a Customer-Driven Marketplace |
| Status | Close |
| Request date | 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Jdechambeau ( talk) |
| Parties involved | User:Jdechambeau, User:ConcernedVancouverite |
This dispute focuses on Wikibrands: Reinventing Your Company in a Customer-Driven Marketplace, (and a redirect to that page, from Wikibrands) and Mike Dover
The list of the users involved. For example:
As of 17:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) ConcernedVancouverite does not seem interested in mediation. Any guidance on how to proceed would be appreciated. -- Jdechambeau ( talk) 17:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
On Friday August 19th, I created two Wikipedia articles, one about Mike Dover, a former colleague of mine and Canadian business executive, and a second about his recently-published book, Wikibrands.
Within several minutes of creating the wikibrands article, it had been tagged for speedy deletion by ConcernedVancouverite. The page has since been deleted, so I am not able to link to the edit history. After the article was flagged for deletion, I posted on the talk page my justification for why it should be kept. An anonymous user also posted their support, a named user also did the same. This prompted ConcernedVancouverite to request a sockpuppet investigation. While I don't think the issue has yet been resolved by an admin, there was no sock puppetry. What's more, this appears to run contrary to the notice to assume good faith that ConcernedVancouverite has on their talk page.
Focusing specifically on the Mike Dover article, as CV (if you don't mind the shortform) requested a speedy deletion, which was overturned by admin User:Causa sui. CV requested that the article be better sourced, so I went about doing exactly that. Following this, user User:Gurt Posh added a nomination for deletion, which CV rejoined with a fresh collection of tags, as well as a number of {{fact}} next to all of the references that I added at their direct request.
At this point I decided to reach out to CV to try and resolve this. I felt I must have been missing something to find myself greeted with such hostility. I therefore posted on User talk:ConcernedVancouverite#Mike Dover article asking basically: whoah, what's going on here?
In response CV 'thanked me for openly admitting my conflict of interest.' I put the term in quotes because, as CV suggested, I read the conflict of interest guidelines--before posting the original article--and so far as I can see, there is absolutely no conflict of interest. I fail to see how working with someone a few years ago constitutes a conflict of interest. Frankly I was baffled at being told to read a rule that I had read and was not violating.
What's more: the charge CV seems to be raising is that the article is unambiguously promotional. It clearly is not, and is built around factual statements that lack even adjectives to bias the content. The article, if it's unambiguously anything, is unambiguously factual (and dry!).
At any rate, the while I was improving the Mike Dover article as per CV's suggestions, the Wikibrands article was pushed through speedy deletion. This happened very very quickly. So quickly in fact that there was no time for any sort of discussion or consensus. There was no suggestion of merging the articles, there was no constructive feedback given on how to make the article better, or a fair chance to demonstrate it's noteworthiness. From my perspective, the message felt very clear that the decision had been made, and that was that.
Following this, CV appears to have gone through my through my edit history searching for other articles to tag for deletion, effectively stalking through my other contributions. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this seems downright vindictive.
For some extra info, here's a post from Jim Wales about ' rampant deletionism' that seems pretty apt in this situation. -- Jdechambeau ( talk) 17:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like the main Wikibrands article back, and for the aggressive editing on CV's part to stop--if it is the decision of the mediator that CV has been unduly aggressive. I don't like feeling as though I'm being followed around the site by someone who, for reasons I am not privy to, is not the biggest fan of mine.
I'd like to have other members of the community weigh in. I'm trying in good faith to add a factual and valuable article to the community. My contributions have been met with what feels to me like undue antagonism. I'm looking for the mediators to shed some light on the situation. Is the article really out of line, or is CV reacting with undue zeal? If the article was valid and CV's behaviour is in fact outside of what the community deems acceptable.
Collaterally, I'm left curious as to how common this experience is to people joining the wikipedia community. I'm very curious about the mediation process, though I'm skeptical that many newcomers would take the time to request mediation.
Jdechambeau, an editor who has been editing since 2006, has openly declared a conflict of interest here [1] as having worked closely with Mike Dover (the co-author of the book), and having a desire to promote his new book. The original article was written, in my opinion, in a promotional style which would have required substantial rewriting to be acceptable for article space. As such, I nominated it for speedy deletion as G11. Administrator Fastily appears to have agreed and speedy deleted the article: [2]. The deletion of that article left a broken redirect at Wikibrands, which for housekeeping purposes I nominated for speedy under G8. Administrator Skier Dude apparently agreed and deleted the redirect: [3]. I should note that there is an open sockpuppet case as well, as several SPA editors suddenly appeared to help preserve the articles Jdechambeau has been working on about Mike Dover and his book. Details: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jdechambeau. Regarding going through other edits by the same editor, it is fairly normal quality control practice after locating some questionable edits to look into the editing history of the editor making them and conducting quality control on any other edits which require such. Upon reviewing his edits since 2006 Special:Contributions/Jdechambeau the bulk of them appear to be around Mike Dover, his associates, and their books. While it is perfectly fine to have a strong interest in a single domain, combing through those edits and removing promotional content, or tagging articles that require more reliable sourcing is normal quality control practice. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 15:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not clear on how your opinion is a sufficient litmus test for whether or not something is promotional. As I've mentioned on other comment pages, the style of the prose is without adjectives to inject bias, and is built entirely around factual statements.
- Further, at no time did you make any effort to work with me to improve the article, and you acted very, very quickly to delete it. Wouldn't it be better to help improve an article than to have it deleted?
- To your claim that I "worked closely" with Mike Dover, I'm going to have to throw a citation needed at you there. I said I worked with him, please provide further evidence to substantiate your claim. You also have inferred seemingly on your own that I have a desire to promote his book. I do not. I do, however, have a desire to document its existence. I've very carefully read the conflict of interest guidelines, and being former colleagues does not disqualify someone from contributing to wikipedia articles about them. In fact, the tech business strategy thought leader world is so small that it would be difficult for you to find someone who I haven't worked with at some point (though some would be peripherally). By your logic I am immediately disqualified on writing about topics on which I am most likely to be an expert--specifically because I am an expert. To show the structural problems with this point of view, should people be banned from editing the wikipedia article about gravity simply because they deal with it as a force everyday?
- I further introduce a point raised by Jimmy Wales back in 2003 wherein
he argues against the type of 'rampant deletionism' that, in my estimate, characterizes your involvement with wikipedia:
- Let me make my point more clear: arguments about what we ought to if someone really starts to abuse wikipedia with thousands and thousands of trivial articles do not prove that we ought to delete any and every article that's too trivial today.
- Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world.
- I assume that from your perspective you are working do defend wikipedia from whatever you think my agenda is. I appreciate and respect that you take this task seriously. I do however think that the situation has been misjudged, and some guidelines are not being applied correctly in the pursuit of this goal. -- Jdechambeau ( talk) 18:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Having worked with the subject in the past is a conflict of interest. Being thanked in the acknowledgments of the book is a conflict of interest which substantiates the claim that you have a strong personal relationship with the subject. Please refer to page XV of the book in question, which I have spent the time to dig up and read to understand your true connection to the subject. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 18:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding your question about my judgment being a litmus test, I simply nominated the page for speedy deletion. A different editor, who is an administrator, seemed to agree with the view and chose to delete it on that basis. I recognize you have strong views, considering your connection to the subject matter, but the views of other editors who are not directly connected generally will hold more weight in deciding if it is promotional content or not.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just skimmed a look at the acknowledgments page, there are 26 lines averaging about 5 names a line. Meaning 130 people are thanked. Are all 130 of these people to be disqualified? Furthermore, how do you know I'm acknowledged there? You cannot concretely infer that I am any of the people thanked in the acknowledgments. Beyond that, you don't know the nature of any of the relationships of any of the people in that book. Your case is on very thin ice, and supposition is not sufficient for your charge against me. Finally, referring to the COI page: "
Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And "always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing." I feel that neither of these principles have been upheld in this situation. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I do not want to reveal more information about you than appropriate in a public forum, so I will communicate this in a way you can understand without revealing your identity. Your bio at your current employer speaks specifically of you developing your skills with Don Tapscott and enjoying debates. Your editing pattern is consistent with such. I will not provide links, as that would not be appropriate. But please recognize you do in fact have a conflict of interest and are closely related to this group of authors, and as such may not have an unbiased view of what is promotional. If you would like to work on improving such an article, then by all means ask for it to be placed into your userspace, appropriately edit the article, and then ask for it to be moved back to the article space by a non-conflicted editor. I see you have already requested to have it moved to your userspace, so that is a good first step. Once it is placed there, go ahead and try to improve the article with reliable secondary sources, and when it is ready, ask a neutral editor to move it back to article space. Best of luck with your editing. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 18:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just skimmed a look at the acknowledgments page, there are 26 lines averaging about 5 names a line. Meaning 130 people are thanked. Are all 130 of these people to be disqualified? Furthermore, how do you know I'm acknowledged there? You cannot concretely infer that I am any of the people thanked in the acknowledgments. Beyond that, you don't know the nature of any of the relationships of any of the people in that book. Your case is on very thin ice, and supposition is not sufficient for your charge against me. Finally, referring to the COI page: "
Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And "always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing." I feel that neither of these principles have been upheld in this situation. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can neither confirm nor deny any of your search results but I have filed an abuse report with the Wikipedia admin teams for your attempts to reveal my identity and provide anyone reading with search terms that you believe will lead them to my professional biography. You are completely and entirely out of line and are working violate my privacy. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I had no intention of revealing your identity. You had asked, "Furthermore, how do you know I'm acknowledged there?" and I responded without disclosing your identity, but in a way you could receive the answer to your question. I'm going to step back from responding here, as your continual escalation and argumentative style does not suggest you would like to work on improving the article at this point in time, and are instead just enjoying engaging in a debate. I do not enjoy such debates, and will no longer play your game. When you have had a chance to calm down, and decide you would like to work on improving Wikipedia, then you have already been provided with adequate instruction and guidance on how to do so in the bounds of having a conflict of interest. Best of luck with your editing.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dude, you've clearly been trying to stalk me online. You called attention to two search terms and said they were on a webpage that you believe to be mine. How is this not beyond creepy and unacceptable? I would say that I am calm, but taken aback by this incredible display. I look forward to administrator clearing this up. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- First, I am not a dude. Second, you specifically stated you had a conflict of interest in having worked with him in the past. After revealing that information you then said
[4], "...please provide further evidence to substantiate your claim." I did not feel comfortable directly responding to such a request, considering your stated conflict, but instead provided you with corroborating hints to substantiate the claim, per your request. If you feel your privacy has been violated by my responding to your request, then you have my sincerest apologies, and I would be happy to have that portion of the conversation reverted. That said, it still appears you do in fact have a very strong conflict of interest with the subject matter and should likely follow the previous advice regarding the article.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your apology but we're still in this mess, and you still violated my privacy in your zeal. Also 'dude' can be an exclamation, as it was there. In substantiating your claim you're bound by respecting the privacy of your fellow editors, you disregarded that duty. You've also not demonstrated any conflict of interest, your argument amounts to linking to the page and saying "you may not realize it, but you're in violation of this rule" with no further evidence. Please point me to specific guidelines about how I've committed a conflict of interest. I have read the page several times and even sought an expert third opinion. We can't see anything wrong. Your assurances are not sufficient.
- First, I am not a dude. Second, you specifically stated you had a conflict of interest in having worked with him in the past. After revealing that information you then said
[4], "...please provide further evidence to substantiate your claim." I did not feel comfortable directly responding to such a request, considering your stated conflict, but instead provided you with corroborating hints to substantiate the claim, per your request. If you feel your privacy has been violated by my responding to your request, then you have my sincerest apologies, and I would be happy to have that portion of the conversation reverted. That said, it still appears you do in fact have a very strong conflict of interest with the subject matter and should likely follow the previous advice regarding the article.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dude, you've clearly been trying to stalk me online. You called attention to two search terms and said they were on a webpage that you believe to be mine. How is this not beyond creepy and unacceptable? I would say that I am calm, but taken aback by this incredible display. I look forward to administrator clearing this up. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I had no intention of revealing your identity. You had asked, "Furthermore, how do you know I'm acknowledged there?" and I responded without disclosing your identity, but in a way you could receive the answer to your question. I'm going to step back from responding here, as your continual escalation and argumentative style does not suggest you would like to work on improving the article at this point in time, and are instead just enjoying engaging in a debate. I do not enjoy such debates, and will no longer play your game. When you have had a chance to calm down, and decide you would like to work on improving Wikipedia, then you have already been provided with adequate instruction and guidance on how to do so in the bounds of having a conflict of interest. Best of luck with your editing.
ConcernedVancouverite (
talk)
18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can neither confirm nor deny any of your search results but I have filed an abuse report with the Wikipedia admin teams for your attempts to reveal my identity and provide anyone reading with search terms that you believe will lead them to my professional biography. You are completely and entirely out of line and are working violate my privacy. --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Finally, can you please explain to me why you opened this all up with such misgivings and hostility? What have I done to deserve this in your eyes? I've tried to be civil and met with nothing but detached hostility and links to guidelines that do not apply. Is this how all new editors are greeted? --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
19:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- First off, you are not a new editor. You have been editing since 2006: Special:Contributions/Jdechambeau. Granted the majority of your edits are all around this particular subject matter and its related articles. But you are not new, and claiming such is misleading. Second, I have not revealed personal information. I specifically chose to not reveal such information after repeated requests for additional proof of your conflict of interest by you. I tried to simply let you know the basis for my interpretation of your editing actions, without revealing who you are. Third, I will not engage on giving you any more evidence regarding your conflict of interest, as I fear you will simply misinterpret my reply and accuse me of trying to reveal your identity. I am not someone who enjoys engaging in debates for the sake of debate. I prefer to focus on verifiable evidence. Based upon reading over your edits, your editing history, your declared conflict of interest, and your editing actions, I believe you have a conflict of interest. As I have stated, by all means, please work on a userfied version of the article and try to bring it up to Wikipedia standards by citing reliable secondary sources, and then asking a neutral editor to review and potentially move it back to article space. Best of luck with your editing. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 19:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Finally, can you please explain to me why you opened this all up with such misgivings and hostility? What have I done to deserve this in your eyes? I've tried to be civil and met with nothing but detached hostility and links to guidelines that do not apply. Is this how all new editors are greeted? --
Jdechambeau (
talk)
19:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This is all very silly. THE CABAL HAS SPOKEN! Xavexgoem ( talk) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)