Jump to content

Talk:Sylvain Charlebois

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CFPR2021 (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 25 September 2022 (→‎Recurrent vandalism: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other paragraph

here we go again, someone making publicity for itself on wikipediaGenesisPRO (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This statement Also, an additional reference was added which clearly desmontrates that the university did not follow its own rules, recruited complainants and leaked to story to media. It is explained in the reference added to the story. The investivation was never completed as the subject resigned because the investigation went public. It is clearly cited in references used for this story inbtroduced by JANVEZ has no background, no sources linked

Still have to delete it GenesisPRO (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/high-profile-dal-dean-sylvain-charlebois-stepping-down-1.4796909

there Brian Leadbetter, a spokesperson for the university, said the investigation into Charlebois has now concluded and no further action will be taken. It has action taken, They accepted resignation GenesisPRO (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


JANVEZ keep introducing personnal view on article, with any evidence, sources, citations. It has to stop.

souces are clear

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/high-profile-dal-business-dean-stepping-down-1.4796909

The announcement comes following an investigation the university began in May into complaints of bullying and harassment against Charlebois. GenesisPRO (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

019282abc keep adding an interview of Charlebois speaking... No journalistic proof, only personnal view--GenesisPRO (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Advocacy

Users are making claims that aren't verifiable. Cannot say consumers were dismayed without citing it. Cannot claim that Charlebois coined the term buttergate without citing it - it's actually not true, the first person to use the term in association with the issue was journalist Denise Wong well before Charlebois did ( https://twitter.com/DeniseTWong/status/1344049936975851522 ). Cannot claim farmers are feeding their cattle palm oil without citing it, that is misleading as the issue actually concerns small amounts of a feed supplement that contains a palm by-product - it's not like they are feeding them pure palm oil. Cannot claim there exists a social contract without citing it. Foodprofessor (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching this article to see if administrative action might be needed. Edits must improve an article. Your recent changes to remove advertorial text are good, but leaving it at "Charlebois wrote an op-ed on 21 February 2021" is not. It is fine to note attributed claims in the op-ed without the flowery language. The npr.org report seems to be suitable for that. Please strive to fix the article rather than taking it to the opposite of how you found it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of talk pages

I have removed a comment here that seemed to be speculation about the identity of another editor. At Wikipedia, that is known as WP:OUTING and repetition will result in an indefinite block. It is clear that some off-wiki coordination has led to people with a variety of conflicts of interest arriving here. You must understand that article talk pages are available to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. If anyone attempts to mock living people on this page or in the article ("amazing", "brilliant") they will also be indefinitely blocked. Please pay attention to my previous comment at #Consumer Advocacy above: edits should improve the article; it is fine to use npr.org to briefly describe advocacy using neutral terms. Edit warring over that will lead to questions about whether those involved are here to help the encyclopedia or are here to settle an off-wiki squabble (in the latter case, indefinite blocks would be required). Questions can be asked here or at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq Can you check if there's a probably link between Janvez and Foodprofessor? Janvez is blocked on French Wikipedia. It should be blocked here and probably Foodprofessor also. Thank you.

DALalumni is also reverted and GenesisPRO suspicious too on French Wikipedia.--Pastelli (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Continued edits by accounts already flagged for conflict of interest including 24.89.229.255. User's edit history includes SC and SC-related topics, likely COI with SC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoonersFan (talkcontribs)

Anything to declare, SchoonersFan?--- Possibly (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For years multiple accounts have been allowed to contribute puffery and whitewash particular elements of the subject's background and advance the subject's narrative. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a source... SchoonersFan (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The situation on fr-wp

Hello, apologies because English is not my mother tongue. FYI I blocked editors on fr-wp. The article about Charlebois attracts many SPA. Janvez kept writing promotional content + deleted any criticism + used edit warring + sock-puppets in a debate. See RCU. On the opposite side (people writing criticism), there are also sockpuppets and edit war: DALalumni = GenesisPRO see RCU. So... there are people creating fake accounts on each side to fight about Charlebois: this is getting ridiculous. The page is now under ECP. Maybe fr-wp sysop should just kick any SPA who writes about Charlebois. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 10:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bédévore: Thanks for that. I will post your comment content, up to coin. scope_creepTalk 12:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scope creep: Janvez = Yaskyask See RCU. What a surprise, another sockpuppet! Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 12:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bédévore and scope creep. I have added extended-confirmed protection to the page for three months and I have indef blocked Janvez, Yaskyask, DALalumni, and GenesisPRO based on the evidence from French Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations and their behaviour here. Foodprofessor is already username-softblocked. Fences&Windows 13:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there's another suckpuppet on fr-wiki : Guruledled check. The Professor should have mercy on that great fan of his and send them a signed copy of all his books, it will be the ultimate gift for the sockpuppeter. Anyway there's a page on the Janvez's sockpuppets fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Janvez. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 17:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bédévore: Yip, another one. The pace of change on the article has stopped now, which is good. I did a search for that editor and couldn't see it, so perhaps they have given up the ghost, although I suspect somebody will be in, in the next 2-3 months to update it. Maybe the CU guys will check on it, if it flairs up again. I will keep an eye on it. scope_creepTalk 17:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep FYI Janvez = 24.138.40.15 = Atkcp fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/juin 2021#Janvez, 24.138.40.15, Atkcp - 5 juin - fr:Wikipédia:Faux-nez/Janvez. Now the extended protection runs for 2 years on fr-wp. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 09:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bédévore I requested the same protection here to Fences and windows, the situation is back here too.--CAQeux (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CAQeux = ConsumersDistributingonline: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline--Jean-Mahmood (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent vandalism

This page is constantly vandalized by dairy farmers with the intent to damage Charlebois' reputation. It happened again yesterday. This page needs to be deleted or fully protected. 2605:B100:B25:7274:1D39:87D:A274:4B3F (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who did the edits this page. I am not from the dairy industry (in fact, lactose intolerant).
There is no agenda from my part. I simply reinstated a story from Sylvain Charlebois, which was highly publicized, and factual. I provided news sources and properly referenced the page. This is ultimately an important story that gained national attention and led to the stepping down of a dean from a high-profile university. However, this story was completely removed.
I believe there is an agenda to whitewash Sylvain Charlebois' name and completely erase this story. I don't believe that Sylvain Charlebois should be demonized for the bullying investigation done against him. I simply think it's important to prevent this story from being completely removed from his bio (as has been attempted multiple times). Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually been editors with agendas both pro- and con-Charlebois, both here and on the French Wikipedia (see #The situation on fr-wp above). This is why I treated you with suspicion initially, Ariel. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you jekse, and I actually agree that maybe I did a bit of overemphasis on the investigation scandal, which is why I think the current version in the Charlebois article is a happy unbiased medium.
One more thing. You reinstated the "consumer advocacy" subsection on his page. But note that this "consumer advocacy" subsection is redundant with two paragraphs on his "studies" section. Should I go ahead and try to remove this section again? Nosfer ariel65 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nosfer ariel65 is over stating what happened 4 years ago. It was not an highly publicized "scandal". I'M at Dalhousie, the university funded his Lab. No point adding irrelevant information about him as Dean, since this page is about him as a scholar. Ariel is attempting to vandalize the page as a few others did in the past. --CFPR2021 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should either be deleted or protected even further. CFPR2021 (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]