Talk:The Burke Group

More info?

If anybody has more information to add on this company, especially its history, finances, staff names and activities, it would be appreciated. Wikidea 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

lengthy discussion about and by sock puppet who has been banned and is not currently editing the page: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oppo212 for resolution

Trolling

I reverted the recent additions by the mysterious user because

• the article page is not a discussion page to question the content. It is a place to add content that is referenced and accurate
• the article is not a general discussion about the merits of unions - that can be done on the trade union page. This is a page about a specific company
• the discussion which included references to the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the NLRA are misplaced, and did not add much. In particular, the sentence which said that the ERA had changed the ability of employers to communicate with trade unions and employees is dubious. I refer the trolls to the text of the Act, and invite them to show how this is the case, and under which sections, and why they feel this changed the position for companies like TBG Labor. And then once they have done that, they can use that information to improve the Employment Relations Act 1999 page, and stop putting irrelevant stuff on this one
• furthermore, considering there is a debate about whether to keep the page, I would suggest that the material should stay as it is currently presented.
• if there are disputes about neutrality, then the appropriate tags should be used
• nevertheless I am sceptical that any of these people have anything constructive to contribute whatsoever. Yet I live in hope.

Wikidea 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add, I kept one valuable comment by the user that came to Wikipedia because he did not like this page. He said he had phoned TBG and they told him that in the FlyBe campaign they only had 2 workers trying to stop the union getting recognised. I added that to the article to note that the facts are contested. It's a welcome addition. More like that would be positive! Wikidea 14:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jbowersox, please respond

Jbowersox, you have been suspected of a Conflict of Interest and/or Sock Puppetry by five editors.

The main article in question has a confirmed history of sock puppetry (which i will tie in, below.)

One of these five editors has come to your defense, citing civility and positive contributions. At least two others (including myself) are expressing not just concern, but significant concern. One has asked you to temporarily stop editing, until these issues are resolved. My own significant concern relates to the fact that civility and positive contributions can be outweighed by other issues, including the following:

With this notice, i am raising the issues of falsification of source information to justify edits by Jbowersox, repetitive plagiarism and/or copyright violations by Jbowersox, conveying false information about edits to fellow editors, and concealing intent related to possible COI and sock puppetry.

The grounds for the Conflict of Interest charge relate to editing The Burke Group in particular, and Union busting as well, while being suspected of holding a close but undetermined personal interest in the Burke Group company.

Jbowersox, your edits have served to sanitize the Burke Group Wikipedia article to remove any sort of controversy. Some of your edits, if allowed to stand, would transform The Burke Group article into sales brochure language for the company.

You have consistently attacked two important sources, Martin J. Levitt and John Logan, removing content attributed to them, or (on talk pages) denigrating their accuracy, reliability, or integrity, while puffing the CEO and President of The Burke Group.

You removed information about political donations:

[1]

When someone reinserted the information, you changed it, seeking to enhance the reputation of the CEO and President of the company, declaring that "The CEO and President of TBG ... David J. Burke [is] a donor to the best political candidates regardless of party affiliation.":

[2]

You removed sourced information that painted the company in a bad light, and you offered a false accusation against the source as justification:

[3]

Your edit summary states that you "Removed John Logan citation which quotes autobiography Confessions by MJ Levitt whose book never mentions TBG--"

The source, [4] , doesn't quote Confessions for this information, it doesn't even cite the Levitt book for this information, but rather, cites general sources including the Levitt book. There are no footnotes in the document, let alone indicating Logan's specific sources for what he has written about The Burke Group. While this may impeach Logan's reliability for specific attribution, that wasn't your complaint. With no footnotes specifically identifying Levitt as his source for the deleted information, the justification that you've provided is a red herring, and false.

(Late insertion: i include updated information on this deletion, below Richard Myers (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC) )

The content might easily have come from a number of other sources cited by Logan, including:

Bureau of National Affairs, Labor Relations Consultants: 
Issues, Trends and Controversies (BNA Special Report, 1985). 
Bruce Kaufman and Paula Stephan, “The Role of Management Attorneys 
in Union Organizing Campaigns,” Journal of Labor Research 16.4 (1995). 
Gene Levine, Complete Union Avoidance (Gene Levine Associates, 2005).

Let me be clear: whether the passage belonged is one issue. Falsifying the reason for its deletion for ideological purposes is quite another.

I asked you about your insertion of links to videos, here:

[5]

You denied adding any links to videos, stating, "I have added no YouTube videos and wouldn't have a clue at how to do such a thing", here:

[6]

At first i was willing to credit your denial before i closely examined your edit history. Now i am convinced that you have been untruthful about this as well, and i again cite this link:

[7]

So now is your chance to come clean on the videos -- is this not your edit?

You have committed repetitive plagiarism and/or copyright violation, as cited here:

[8]

You have sought to take the side of the company while adopting a subtle anti-union bias, narrowly defining terms with unsourced edits, such as declaring that (only) labor and trade unions use terminology such as "union busting":

[9] (and other examples)

The intent appears to be portraying unions as narrow special interests. While this type of edit is not in itself grounds for investigation, many edits of this sort further support concerns about your rigid alignment with the company.

You have also been suspected of editing the two articles, The Burke Group and Union busting, under at least two different identities; Rgcroc, and subsequently, Jbowersox. The evidence consists of an IP analysis, plus a comparison of content, style, and purpose.

Changing one's ID is not in itself a concern. But when you began editing as Jbowersox, you stated that you were a new editor, and you made comments about previous edits, which indicated that these were edits by others, even though it appears that some of them were your own edits under the identity of Rgcroc. Comments described here:

[10]

This raises the issue of willful sockpuppetry for a specific purpose.

The targeted articles in the contributions histories of Jbowersox and Rgcroc are identical:

[11] and [12]

References for IP analysis:

[13] and, here [14]

A COI notice was placed here:

[15]

One comment by Rgcroc specifically triggers a question of possible COI, suggesting that the industry (or the companies in the industry) have decided to systematically change Wikipedia articles in their own interest. Rgcroc wrote, "I am not doing this alone. There is a team of us who know union busters well and we've conferred on this." The comment is here:

[16]

Suspicions relating to your editing of The Burke Group and Union busting were first raised here:

[17]

...and have been discussed more specifically here:

[18]

I note as an aside that The Burke Group has a prior history of sock puppetry, as indicated here:

[19] and here: [20]

I also note strong similarities in the content and style between Jbowersox/Rgcroc, and Oppo212, who was blocked as a sock puppet: "...You demonize David Burke but worship Martin Levitt..."

Jbowersox, this is your opportunity to try to resolve our questions, before someone triggers the formal investigatory mechanisms of Wikipedia.

In response to the question,

Do you work for the Burke Group company or one of its consulting agencies or subsidiaries? Have you ever worked for the company, or know someone who works for the company? Are you in any way paid or otherwise reimbursed for your efforts to put The Burke Group's point of view into Wikipedia articles about The Burke Group?

...you responded, "I am not The Burke Group."

With all due respect, i wasn't asking if you are, or were, The Burke Group. You did not answer my questions in a way to allay the concern so far mentioned by several of us, that you appear to have the classic Wikipedia indications of a corporate Conflict of Interest.

But it appears, from this commentary by Rgcroc (assuming confirmation), that you are not only intimately familiar with the details of The Burke Group, and you not only know David Burke personally -- "I know Burke as well" -- but you even know where he goes drinking -- "I also recognize you are a fellow "beer" drinker and it would certainly be more interesting to chat at The Audley or Red Lion in Mayfair....both places you will find David Burke when he's not at the Reform Club."

[21]

You have stated this potential Conflict of Interest -- that you "know" the CEO and president of The Burke Group, including where he "drinks" -- under the identity of Rgcroc, albeit in an obscure location, a now-archived user talk page. But you have declined to make any such disclosure as Jbowersox, "That is as far as I will 'out' myself..."

[22]

So i ask again. I know that you are not The Burke Group. No individual is a major corporation, so i'm not looking for another clever response. What is your relationship with The Burke Group?

Have you edited under the identity of Rgcroc, as well as under Jbowersox?

Understand that in itself, this change of ID is not necessarily an issue. It becomes an issue only in relation to other concerns, such as the above-mentioned Conflict of Interest, including the way in which such identities are used.

And also please keep in mind that Wikipedia administrators have the ability to associate identities with their IP addresses.

Have you, or has anyone that you know, edited under the identity Oppo212?

It is my wish that we can resolve all of these unanswered questions, without having to once again launch a formal investigation, and possibly block IDs. Jbowersox, the ball is in your court.

Richard Myers (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One last chance before what?

I cannot possibly address all the questions you posed on The Burke Group talk page except to wonder a few things. There seems to be a "gang" all working in the same direction. Are you also sock puppets? Who is reviewing your contributions to make that determination? I would also ask based on your message to me where you have access to other people's talk pages, are you editing under the name Richard Meyers and Wikidea? Several names seem to agree with several others which seems more than coincidental so are you the same person advancing a singular agenda? It works both ways doesn't it?

The article of Union Busting describes activities encountered by unions, organizers, employers and employees all whom have a stake in outcomes based on differing view points depending on which side of the aisle you sit. However, that was not portrayed in the content of the article. In its original form, the article portrayed only one viewpoint which is not the purpose or intent of Wikipedia. The 139 some odd citations taken from Levitts biased book contain personal viewpoints with hostile offensive language and had not been edited with any objectivity. This appeared to be the case with the manner in which The Burke Group article was posted as well. I wondered why you isolated that company of dozens if not hundreds in the U.S. to attack and post as though he was the sole embodiment of everything written by Mr. Martin Levitt (who wrote nothing about them) but yet he named Jack Sheridan (Adams Nash Haskell and Sheridan) and Modern Management which still exist today and you didn't choose them?

My purpose along with others with whom I confer was to bring scholarship, fact from fiction, and attempt to insert levity and parity by interjecting other view points without disrupting the original articles. At no time did i take over the article, disrupt it, become uncivil, take massive deletions or bulldoze. In fact I added properly footnoted citations, scholarship, new elements to union busting history and rewrote an intro to the History section very sympathetic to the cause of labor unions. Am I guilty of sock puppetry? Maybe. My students have gone into the sites on my computer (in the classroom) and i suspect made some edits without my review. For that I am sorry but I applaud their enthusiasm and interest. Originally I gave them the assignment of taking several sections of Union Busting and rewriting them (not for Wikipedia) as a class exercise which required them to do their own research and learn the history of unions in America in a more interesting and participatory way than a dry reading assignment.

Further to that, their passion was ignited by a visit to our school by Mr. Burke who was invited with several others in a panel of opposing views in a debate society and it left a positive impression on all. After the debate it was gratifying to see the parties shake hands and congregate with one another in a very congenial manner without the hostilities that one would summons given the tone of The Labor Portal's rhetoric. Mr Burke (a Ph.D.) was invited and brought a colleague who was the former President (an MBA and MSN) of one of the largest unions in the U.S. He was also responsible for providing the contact information for several invitees from union's for the debate. Seeing the congeniality and civil disagreements (and many agreements too) was the experience that motivated me to go into the sites you posted believing I would encounter the same civility similarly among other scholars embracing the idea of OPI or "other people's opinions". Does it surprise you that people in the world of Wiki readers know Mr. Burke? Does it surprise you there are some who do not embrace aggressive organizing or union membership? I have no choice but to be in a union but for personal reasons I would opt out if it were possible.

Burke is not some secret shadowy fellow skulking around like a vampire looking for clients from whom he can suck the collective blood as you would all portray. It's one thing to attack an industry quite something else to attack one company and the CEO personally. I'm sure there are some in his industry who are unsavory but I can tell you I've met plenty of those in unions too. When biased anonymous people behind the mask of Wiki articles write about living people posted into a powerful global portal who know little of their subject except what has been written by very biased individuals, there will always be controversy. Wikipedia is not some small membership blog where you can say things and take no accountability. To disallow people with viable information to add to the dialogue is very POV if not criminal. To create false depictions or accusations is going to trigger argument. The topic of union busting is emotional.

As for your reference to my observation that others have had difficulty getting their view points across based on previous edits I was not referring to MY edits. I was referring to others found earlier on the union busting talk page that voiced disagreements and then disappeared from the page no doubt blackballed by your gang.

Please go back over my contributions and revisit your angst. As LedRush indicated it should not be about the editor, it should be about the "edits". Let the words speak. 'There is a difference between "bias" and "objectivity". An editor may have a point of view.....but if edits are "objective" there should be no issue.

Jbowersox (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, to get a specific answer from the heart Richard Myers' post: do you also use the name rgcroc (talk · contribs)? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Do you? Jbowersox (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, either of you or whether you're one person, or friends or whatever - I don't care. You're a group of disruptive right wing thugs, posing as thought police. You're probably working in the industry, your life isn't worth very much, and you think you might be doing something important by trying to censor others. You're not. Go away. Wikidea 00:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikidea, i don't expect that to accomplish anything.

JeremyMcCracken, with Jbowersox, i think it helps to ask the question without allowing any weasel room (weasel used in the Wikipedia sense, not used as a personal attack...) -- i.e.,

Do you currently use, or have you ever used the name rgcroc (talk · contribs)?

Otherwise, Jbowersox can split hairs and deny it because the use of these two IDs has not been concurrent. Maybe Jbowersox was once Rgcroc, but Jbowersox is not Rgcroc now. And that might be technically correct, but it fails to allay the concerns of other editors.

Of course if there is no weasel room, it is possible that you won't get any explanation at all, i have noticed Jbowersox dancing around questions before. I fear that we may have a basic issue of dishonesty in various dimensions which has not been answered. The response is a redirect, as in, "ignore all of that, but look over here..."

The same is typical of personal attacks. Consider that my entire inquiry above dealt with editing issues, and not with personality. But in response, Jbowersox has described editors with concerns as "a gang", redirected the sock puppet argument at other editors with no basis for doing so, attributed to other editors the selection of hostile offensive language, accused other editors of being "POV if not criminal", and then pleads that "it should not be about the editor, it should be about the 'edits'."

And now Jbowersox has laid the groundwork for blaming students in a classroom. We don't know what classroom, but how convenient this is. If indeed there are students, does Jbowersox offer up the password to his/her Wikipedia account to any student willing to use it? Do these students also automatically adopt the Jbowersox talking points, rhetorical style, and the uncommon ellipses punctuation tendency that Jbowersox has in common with Rgcroc?

Or do we possibly now have a scenario where a logged in Wikipedia account is always available to students in a classroom, in which case we have an additional concern?

But this sounds like a Freudian slip. Jbowersox has responded, "As for your reference to my observation that others have had difficulty getting their view points across based on previous edits I was not referring to MY edits." Is that an admission that this individual did create "MY edits" under a previous ID, which happened to be Rgcroc? (Certainly, "MY edits" under Jbowersox wouldn't have been considered, they were recognizable as being Jbowersox because they were Jbowersox...)

And if that is so (and it seems very probable), then what do we do with the apparent scenario in which Jbowersox plays these games, refusing to cop to an IP-confirmed alternate identity, just because of the way a question was worded?

Of all the items that i've logged above, the one that concerns me the most is the deletion of information painting The Burke Group in a bad light, while entering the dishonest claim in the media summary that it was based upon a book by Levitt, which "never mentions" The Burke Group. There is no basis for such a claim; it is a sham. The passage in the article painted the company in a bad light, and it was deleted under false pretenses. Allowing such dishonest practices to go unanswered gives license to editors to destroy any article that doesn't fit their own narrow ideology.

In the reply, Jbowersox has not explained any of the challenges that i've posed above, and has not answered a single one of my concerns.

But i will answer Jbowersox's concerns. You can click on my contributions link, you will see a diversity of my interests. I edit a wide range of articles, from movies to history to organized labor. I am an individual with a long history which is evident in my record. The same is true for the others who are expressing concern about possible sock puppetry.

In contrast, Jbowersox edits The Burke Group, plus one article that is a probable concern to Burke Group officials. Jbowersox has a history that looks a lot like the editing history of Rgcroc, which looks a lot like the editing history of Oppo212, who was blocked for confirmed multiple instances of sock puppetry.

Now, some may wonder why this type of editing is a concern. I'd like to answer that.

When a corporation is able to spend millions of dollars on publicity, they are able to dominate their own message. In essence, they create their own reality in public perception, whether their message is truthful or not. Wikipedia is one of the rare public forums in which average people can come together to document a reality that is not overshadowed by corporate wealth.

But absent the concerns expressed, and mechanisms provided in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, there is danger that the corporate world can take over and dominate Wikipedia as well. Absent watchful editors, this can easily be accomplished by corporations simply paying employees to edit Wikipedia, or hiring or otherwise rewarding individuals who have a history of editing Wikipedia in ways that flatter the corporate agenda.

With each response from Jbowersox, my concern grows that we have precisely such a scenario. My concern is inflamed because i have this very strong sense that responses from Jbowersox to other editors are just flat dishonest. Richard Myers (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is "un f'ing believabale". Is there some sort of paranoid pathology going on here? You all have invoked so much b.s. it is unreal. Are you so afraid of another opinion? This is very telling. I have nothing whatsoever to do with any group or industry and certainly not the Burke Group. If they were reading this....and I'm sure they are not....they would be incredulous. "When a corporation is able to spend millions on publicity they can dominate their own message"? Please find ONE advertisement from The Burke Group in any publication anywhere in the world. When you findit send it to me because I've never seen any. I am a simple middle class teacher who loves her work and students and actually believed I could create a learning environment within Wikipedia. I will be sure to make this known to not only my students but my entire university environment. Wikipedia has been banned as a resource in my university and I actually thought I could authenticate it as a viable source of scholarship but rest assured I will take this to my board and make SURE that it is banned as a citation on any research paper going forward. Freedom of speech and honesty does not exist within Wikiepedia. And you wanted to invoke the UDHR? You don't understand the meaning of freedom of speech!!!!! This is an unAmerican and unDemocratic and unTRUTHFUL website and I cannot wait to involve Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia legal staff in your shenanigans. You should be ashamed of yourselves!Jbowersox (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Paranoid?

When there are very definite indications of dishonesty in your conversations?

You deny editing as Rgcroc. Let us explore that.

In fact, let us do a brief sock puppetry comparison of edits by Oppo212 and Rgcroc and Jbowersox.

The passage is:

TBG recommends that employers use their management staff to meet workers individually in an attempt to strongly persuade them of the perceived disadvantages of voting to be a part of a union. This may include arguing that a union will decrease pay, that workers could end up on strikes all the time, and that unions would harass them at their homes.<ref>Logan, ''U.S. Anti-Union Consultants: A Threat to the Rights of British Workers'' (2008) pp.6</ref>

Note that this portrays the Burke Group in a bad light, in that it is seen as recommending that management staff badmouth the union to workers. The source is, in fact, heavily critical of union busting consultants in general, and of The Burke Group in particular. But this language did need editing to make it more faithful to the source in terms of general assertions, and specific assertions. (The passage is no longer in the article.)

A proper and non-provocative action might have been either correcting it, or flagging it as not faithfully representing the Logan document. Even deletion in itself wasn't necessarily wrong, assuming there was no conflict of interest in doing so. When the deletion was reverted, the editor had other options, such as discussion on the talk page. But such a course of action was not pursued.

Let us ignore the content for the moment, and explore only the editing history.

Oppo212 deleted this passage, as part of a larger edit:

[23]

This deletion occurred on 22 April 2008. Oppo212 did not provide an edit summary. The deletion was reverted.

The following day, 23 April 2008, Oppo212 was blocked for sock puppetry. [24]

Rgcroc first began editing a short time later, on 29 June 2008.

Rgcroc removed the very same passage with the edit summary,

Deleted paragraph. The data is not found in the corresponding citation. It describes "generic" tactics as written by Martin Levitt, not TBG, belongs in Union buster post, not here)

[25]

The delete was made on 23 July 2008. The delete was again reverted. Again, the deleting editor did not discuss this specific passage (nor any other) on the talk page.

Rgcroc stopped editing on 28 September 2008, for reasons unknown.

Jbowersox began editing on 28 October 2008.

Jbowersox removed this same passage that same day, on 28 October 2008. This was the first edit by Jbowersox, and the only edit at that time.

Jbowersox included the edit summary (note similarity to the edit summary of Rgcroc, for precisely the same deletion) --

Removed John Logan citation which quotes autobiography Confessions by MJ Levitt whose book never mentions TBG--

[26]

I accept that the passage needed improvement, even repair. But if Wikipedia is to be the best that it can be, then one overriding issue is honesty and credibility on the part of Wikipedia editors.

When three Wikipedia identities -- Oppo212 and Rgcroc and Jbowersox -- all remove the same passage; when the edit summaries of two of them explaining that deletion are similar; when the two editors (at least) share the same IP address; when their comments on talk pages express the same pro-company philosophy; when their writing style is similar; and when they share an unusual punctuation practice -- and yet the editor Jbowersox on this page denies editing as Rgcroc -- that denial is almost certainly cause for further investigation of sock puppetry in the specific, and editing integrity in general. Richard Myers (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just one additional note. I don't consider Jbowersox evil, or a "right wing thug" as someone had commented. In fact, some Jbowersox edits have merit, and i have no complaints about incivility.

But dishonesty on the part of Wikipedia editors makes it very difficult to cooperate, and i fear (once more) that's what we're dealing with.

I had hoped that we could get all of this on the table, and that is why i invited discussion, rather than simply filing a sock puppet report which might very well result in a block.

Unfortunately, the response by Jbowersox has been to deny, to shift blame, and to refuse to address the real issues that i've brought up.

Even this last complaint is suspect. When it is now convenient to do so, Jbowersox writes, above,

I have nothing whatsoever to do with any group or industry and certainly not the Burke Group.

But just recently Jbowersox declared,

I am trying very hard to help with the edit of that monster page titled "union busting". I am a 35 year veteran of the industry and know a lot of history and can be useful and neutral.

[27]

Does that mean the whole school thing is just a cover story to explain away past sock puppetry?

Well, which is it?

What a disappointment. Jbowersox should be blocked for COI as well as sock puppetry.

Well, i retract that for now, i wish that someone could find a solution to getting at the real truth in this situation-- about COI, and about sock puppetry. Richard Myers (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Accusation

You said 5 editors? Just for the record so I know what you are referring to could you provide those I.D's? And ccusations of trying to silence people, censorship, right wing thugs working as a group? I'm sorry but that is preposterous and cannot be demonstrated anywhere in my edits. If there is any evidence of censorship or "thuggery" I'd say it is in the Labor Portal's use of the "block" button. I'm just an individual contributor all alone here in this anonymous world of faceless disconnected humans behind computer screens.

Richard, thank you for the recognition that "some" of my edits have merit and that you've seen no thuggery. No matter. And like you said, for Wikipedia to be the best it can be there must be discourse. Some of your edits have merit too. Neither of us will agree with all but that is the point. You know as I read some of this I have to revert to ask if you are familiar with the book "Men are from Mars and Women from Venus"? It is a book about the difference in the use of language between men and woman meaning men speak "Martian". As a "Venutian" (woman) I find myself at times unable to translate here. You have taken certain things I've written and translated "literally" when my words were intended more as a multicolored painting to convey a picture rather than a static word. What I meant by 30 year veteran of the industry and history meant that as an instructor one generally teaches more than one subject within the same genre and often moonlights at night and summers doing things within that area of expertise or "industry". Let's leave it at that. Did you think that meant 30 years as a union buster? Oh my. Richard, I realize you disagree with many editors. I also have had to go back and acquaint myself with other people's edits and I just can't help but read many have registered different perspectives. Where have those people gone? Were they also blocked? I saw a few dialogues between you and (forgive me if I get this wrong cause I can't recall exactly) but "towsonu" and "teeninvestor" and some unidentified IP addresses. It appears to me some may also be students. Towson University or "towsonu" is in Baltimore MD and probably a school IP address so if you blocked him you may have blocked a school library. Teen investor may be the ID for another young student. Oppo212 would indicate someone from New York which uses a 212 area code. People choose I.D.'s from elements of their life so they can remember the ID easily. And yes, I agreed with what they said. Is that being a sockpuppet? If you have to realize that most of us who enter into the wiki world are not famiiar with the rules and lingo as you professionals and don't work in a group and are entirely unknown to one another even though similar words or sensibilities are conveyed. The only thing we have in common is words. We merely see in other editors something that motivates us to jump in alongside. When someone stops writing as RGcroc did there is an appearance that person was blocked never to return and maybe some of us who were following the dialogue and read threats of blockage with other editors enter in to support or carry on a theme? Did you block rgcroc? I was bold enough to use my real name probably not as clever as younger wiki's. Why have I only edited 2 articles? Easy. I've only just found the time in this advanced stage of my career and chose to look at subjects I had knowledge. I looked at Wikidea (after his comment) and noted he seems to stick within his area of expertise also which is law and history. Why is it OK for him and not OK for me? Maybe after years like the rest of you I'll have found a collection of other articles too but who has the time? Anyone with a life can only visit articles where they have interest and only intermittently. You wrote that you blocked oppo212 and I presume you did the same to rgcroc and it appears you are about to do that to me also. I hope wiki readers and inexperienced wiki editors can see this pattern. Either agree with the main authors or be censored, whoops I meant blocked. Is that the Wiki way? This is very time consuming. I'll never get to investigate another article at this rate. Best regardsJbowersox (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You make a lot of assumptions. I've never blocked anyone on Wikipedia, ever, and as far as i know, i don't have the power to block anyone. As far as i can recall, i've never informally recommended a block before, and i've certainly never formally asked for a block.

You also don't understand the procedure. Requesting a block has to involve some violation of the rules, and it triggers an investigation that is carried out by impartial administrators/volunteers.

There is a very strong appearance that you have violated some basic Wikipedia rules. Plus, you are not candid about the issues that i and others have raised. You seem to think this is a game; rather, Wikipedia is a forum with guidelines, rules, and traditions that have been honed over a period of time by community participation.

I have said before, i thought the biggest problem with Jbowersox is dishonesty. I've come to a slightly different conclusion as i've continued to explore edit histories; i think the biggest problem with Jbowersox is an arrogant attitude concerning Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and a disregard of the community.

If you follow the links, above, you'll see who four of the five editors are. I included one who has defended you as one of the five, this editor acknowledges possible (or probable) COI for Jbowersox but doesn't consider it a critical issue.

I haven't seen any indication that Rgcroc was blocked.

Oppo is a company that manufactures electronics. 212 is the Fahrenheit temperature at which water boils, a club in Wisconsin, a restaurant in Los Angeles. How would you know what Oppo212 represented, unless it was you?

As for COI and sock puppetry, i'm not convinced of your innocence. Far from it.

I haven't formally requested an investigation and possible block for sock puppetry for only one reason -- you are communicating with us. When it comes to Wikipedia rules and guidelines, you might even be teachable, i personally haven't yet come to a conclusion. But you have never made it easy, and my patience has limits. Richard Myers (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh Richard, there you go again. I certainly agree patience has limits and both of us are running thin about now. But for heaven's sake you must be able to conclude that I am bright and most certainly "teachable". After all, I'm a teacher! I feel like a little kid begging for a cookie. Please do not think I disregard the community of Wikipedia because I asssure you I have huge respect for it and have stated that in earlier posts. But you must be aware that I have only been editing a very short time and my attitude should not be characterized as "arrogant" but rather naive and inexperienced within Wikipedia. All I need is a wiki mentor. Schumen stepped in to help me very graciously upon my request for guidance. Does that count for anything? You ask "how would I know what Oppo212 represented unless it was me? Oh my again. I thought it was patently clear that I had no idea who that was and just GUESSED that "212" stood for New York. I was trying to demonstrate that the previous editors to whom I referred had an "appearance" of being from spots around the country like Baltimore and New York and were perhaps students, but not ME because I'm in the West. OK, we need to stop this tit for tat. I am not your enemy and you are right, perhaps I have not made it easy. Call it foolish pride. I have not enjoyed being challenged, accused and called names and have chosen not to dignify certain items with a defensive response. Believe it or not I've put in a great deal of time and research before editing for no other reason than to improve the article. Truce?Jbowersox (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Response regarding "You're a group of disruptive right wing thugs, posing as thought police."

Excuse me? What group? Exactly which group posted the union articles? Are you all not part of a group called The Labor Portal? Are there not union sites that nearly mimic specific union homepages using Wikipedia as your proxy server? Do you consider yourselves "left" wing thought police? I found no right wing Management Portal or Union Avoidance Portal so no there is no right wing group of thugs. The Labour Portal appears untethered to promote a POV ideological agenda within Wikipedia. So before you throw out ridiculous invectives take a look inside your own membership and review how it is possible to subscribe to a group ideology and yet adhere to the Wikipedia rule page about POV, NPOV, COI, bias etc. Thought police? Please.Jbowersox (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Business.--Cerejota (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-blatant advertising.

It's generally considered unacceptable to use a company's own website excessively as a reference, aside for basic factual matters. Now this Burke Group is obviously a notable firm, judging from the news coverage of it, but still, using the company's site itself is to be avoided.

For example, using the term "union avoidance consultant" instead of the commonly used term "union buster" is an example of weasel words. The Financial Times - no bunch of leftists there - describes the subject of this article as ‘union busters’. Katana0182 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps compare it to this revision from May. There have been a string of edits from a few IPs and three users I suspect are socks that appear to be made by the company. It might need a revert that far back. I'm filing a report at SPI about the accounts. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Soapbox, Propaganda and Advertising

I have followed this article and all its controversies without comment and have now registered as an editor and hereby disclose I am associated with The Burke Group. Union buster is WP:WTA and the blue word does not link to a description or definition that characterizes our company. I am curious to know the purpose of this article, who originated it and why. Please direct me to the proper place for that answer. It was not originated by TBG nor does TBG have any interest in Wikipedia advertising its web links. There is a considerable amount of fiction contained in several sections and I appreciate the effort of a few fair minded editors. The "Operations" section is very problematic and rather than continue to see opinionated fiction replace fact, I am here to sort fact from fiction. Please reference the WP:Notability source point and then review the articles about The Burke Group and you will see that although there are multiples they are mostly from the same source. The "Logan" report was produced by the British Trade Union Congress or TUC (similar to U.S. AFL-CIO) and the newspaper articles resulted from TUC press releases faxed directly to news media also quoting the same source hardly unbiased. If you review and read the newspaper articles carefully they are largely quotes from TUC officials. A few sources multiplied does not meet the criteria for notability. WP:NOTABILITY If you google this company there is little if any news originating within the U.S with the exception of union bloggers all repeating the same information from the same sources.

As for "Operations" this appears to be a soapbox WP:SOAPBOX non encyclopedic section to advance an agenda from union operatives which includes their Facebook links that should be deleted. Non encyclopedic subjective opinion cobbled together by editors to advance an agenda with little understanding of facts or international labor law is discouraged in every Wiki rule. The CAC and NLRB are legal entities and should not be trivialized in these client descriptions. Vote outcomes are public record. The issues and laws are complex. In the case of The Chinese Daily News the summary is constructed with cobbled themes taken out of context. In the U.S. (unlike the UK) it is unlawful and a violation of the NLRA (Wagner Act) to include supervisory personnel in a bargaining unit. John Logan, a Brit, wrote the citation used by the editor of this section with no understanding of the law that required the NLRB to overturn the union's first election due to "supervisory taint". TBG was retained by CDN to guide them thru the rerun election. Further to that, the law suit mentioned in 2007 WP:COATRACK was as an external civil action filed by an employee against CDN WP:NOR, it is out of context and does not belong in a TBG article.

As for Fly Be, the statement that it was The Burke Group's "first failure" is subjective opinion and not encyclopedic. The Burke Group (UK office) was successful in obtaining a ballot election (a complex procedure) and employees voted rather than accepting automatic recognition. The ballot was the goal. Once established, The Burke Group's services were complete.

Note: I have not vandalized or disrupted the article and have been honest about my identity. TBG is known to hundreds of clients and law firms throughout the world and editors will undoubtedly refine and delete fiction. TBG "Biographies of Living Persons" requires a higher level of care and honesty. TBG is a quiet firm, does not advertise, has authored no books, no negative articles about unions, and we seek no publicity nor do we consider ourselves notable. If you have questions please feel free to ask them via "contact us" in our website.--Tbg2 (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at User talk:Tbg2. THF (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I responded to your talk page. But I may need a tutorial to continue going with this so I can learn proper symbols etc. Am I to respond to "your" talk page or put it in mine? And please do not hesitate to correct me and point out blunders or more artful ways to communicate within Wikipedia.--Tbg2 (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tbg2, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for coming forward with your announced association with the Burke Group.

Here's the problem that you inherit.

The very first edit that you've made to the article is the same first edit made by previous sock puppets who were strongly suspected of close association with TBG, and banned for apparent conflict of interest and sock puppetry.

The passage is:

TBG recommends that employers use their management staff to meet workers individually in an attempt to strongly persuade them of the perceived disadvantages of voting to be a part of a union. This may include arguing that a union will decrease pay, that workers could end up on strikes all the time, and that unions would harass them at their homes.<ref>Logan, ''U.S. Anti-Union Consultants: A Threat to the Rights of British Workers'' (2008) pp.6</ref> (emphasis added)

Here's the edit that you have just made:

[28]

Oppo212 also deleted this passage, as part of a larger edit:

[29]

The following day, 23 April 2008, Oppo212 was blocked for sock puppetry. [30]

Rgcroc first began editing a short time later, on 29 June 2008.

Rgcroc removed the very same passage:

[31]

The delete was made on 23 July 2008. The delete was again reverted.

Jbowersox began editing on 28 October 2008.

Jbowersox removed this same passage that same day, on 28 October 2008. This was the first edit by Jbowersox, and the only edit at that time.

[32]

And now you have started the same way, deleting the same passage as your very first edit.

Since Oppo212 and Jbowersox were both banned for sock puppetry, and since you are making precisely the same edits as Oppo212, Rgcroc, and Jbowersox, and since Rgcroc and Jbowersox had the same IP address, there could be speculation that you are the same person.

Now let me turn to the question of whether this is a proper edit. The question concerns an alleged accusation by the Burke Group that "a union will decrease pay, that workers could end up on strikes all the time, and that unions would harass them at their homes". The source [Logan, ''U.S. Anti-Union Consultants: A Threat to the Rights of British Workers'' (2008)] actually does include each of these examples.

Specifically, the source includes a reference to union busting consultants in general on pages six and seven, and specific examples tied to the Burke Group later in the document. Observe —

On page 6 (the page noted in the reference), discussion of union busting firms in general:

consultants design and implement their campaigns with the sole intention of scaring employees and intimidating them against exercising their right to organize. In the words of one consultant: Our clients pay a lot of money…. If they want aggressiveness, they are entitled to it.” Consultant campaigns consistently stress the same negative issues: the precariousness of collective bargaining; the negative impact of unionization on job security; the futility of unionization; “union strikes”; and union coercion and invasion of employee privacy.

An additional general reference to home privacy issues on page 6:

Employers tells their employees that they are required by law to disclose personal information about them and that the union will abuse this information to harass employees at home.

Another general reference to strikes on page 7:

Consultants tell employees that the union’s ability to “force” them to strike is its “ONLY real weapon” and distribute newspaper stories of disastrous strike campaigns...

On page 17 of the referenced document, we find the specific reference to lower pay, tied to the Burke Group:

TBG has conducted several high-profile anti-union campaigns ... The company distributed anti-union videos to employees’ homes and held one-on-one meetings during which workers were told that that they would end up with less pay under the union.

On page 18, a reference to strikes, tied to the Burke Group:

TBG’s anti-union campaign stressed the "threat of strikes" in the event of a union victory, and, as intended, it seems that this message scared off many of the office workers.

On page 19, more on strikes, tied to the Burke Group:

firms such as TBG...browbeat employers into believing that unionization will mean... strikes...

If the employer hears the message, it is reasonable to believe the employees will hear it.

In brief, the content exists in the source, and anyone interested in verifying it can do so. Yet you justified removing the material with the editing statement, "Removed quote WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability not found on Pg. 6 of footnote citation nor attributable to The Burke Group".

Now, here's the biggest part of the problem. Jbowersox claimed to be a teacher, and blamed sock puppetry on students in her class. Jbowersox was nonetheless banned. We have a very long history of dishonesty from editors making precisely the edit that you have made. The Wikipedia community has determined that just such dishonesty (in the form of sock puppetry, false claims, etc.) does not contribute anything worthwhile to our goals of improving articles on Wikipedia.

You share other identical characteristics with Jbowersox and Rgcroc; for example, disparaging John Logan as a reliable source (he has "no understanding of the law").

You also have the timing issue; you have joined Wikipedia within days after a number of sock puppet identities were banned.

What is to prevent us from suspecting that you are Jbowersox, and Rgcroc, and Oppo212, and that you have just tried a new and different tactic (openly admitting your association with the Burke Group) in order to attempt the same sort of conflict of interest behavior? Richard Myers (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to anyone examining the veracity of statements by Tbg2 -- consider the opening statement to this section:

"I have followed this article and all its controversies without comment..."

It appears to reveal two things: Tbg2's "following this article" is probably true. Tbg2 is almost certainly yet another manifestation of the sock puppets that have plagued this article, as well as the union busting article.

Tbg2 has edited this article, and has mentioned the union busting article, which was the other target of Rgcroc and Jbowersox.

Given the very strong circumstantial evidence described here and just above, the other part of the Tbg2 statement, "...without comment...", is undoubtedly a falsehood. The editor has commented profusely under the sock puppet identities of Rgcroc and Jbowersox.

My greatest concern about Jbowersox's participation here has been the very lengthy history of dishonesty in personal representations on the talk pages of Wikipedia articles and users, not to mention the COI edits to the articles themselves. It appears, here, that the personal misrepresentations continue under yet another sock puppet identity. Richard Myers (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to the sock puppet editor

Because you have serially created new identities, and yet have always pretended not to be the person behind the previous identities, i expect that you will be back to read this.

After an investigation by Wikipedia administrators, and three minutes before i submitted the comment just above, the Tbg2 identity was blocked. The conclusion has been (again) that Tbg2 was yet another sock puppet identity editing with a conflict of interest and a history of abuses.

Please understand that Wikipedia administrators have tools to evaluate your identity beyond what we normal editors have. This may be why the actual, formal investigation by Wikipedia administrators took only 11 minutes.

But here's my essential reason for this comment: the last thing i want to do is discourage editors from identifying themselves as associated with a particular company. There is no rule that prohibits someone associated with a company from participating on Wikipedia. Indeed, individuals with in depth knowledge may prove valuable in making Wikipedia articles fair and inclusive.

I would also like to agree with a comment by THF,

[33]

that persons with close company associations may be more successful if they address their concerns on the talk page instead of editing the article directly. This allows other editors to take their concerns into consideration, and yet avoids any conflict of interest accusations.

My motivation for requesting another sock puppet investigation wasn't based upon the sock puppet issue alone, nor was it based upon specific edits, nor was it based in any way upon the acknowledgment of association with the company; rather, it was based upon your ongoing deception and flagrant dishonesty relating to multiple identities. Together, the COI issues, the sock puppetry, and the dishonesty have created an atmosphere where i and other editors are likely to request investigations the moment you raise such suspicions, no matter how many identities you assume.

And here's the greater problem you've created for yourself. I personally would not feel inclined to trigger an investigation if you came clean, admitted all of the identities that are so obvious to many of us, and asked for (what would now be) a fifth or sixth chance. However, i can speak only for myself, and you've created such a high level of suspicion, any other editor may feel that you've crossed the line too many times. Richard Myers (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe an editor can come to this article unless they are part of the Labor Portal as your agenda appears to be to block all regardless of objective wiki guided content. I came to this page the other day upon observing that it had been reverted to a version from May 2008 with disconnected links, improperly cited subjective POV quotes and several other items contrary to Wikipedia policy. I studied the "About Wikipedia" page then registered following advice from experienced editors. I was honest and instantly blocked. Your group has blocked all those who've displayed what you deem to be similar characteristics while you, Jeremy McCracken, Cerejota, Swatjester, and others together also with similar characteristics remain free to block others as sockpuppets if their edits interfere with your static position. I would like to pose this phenomena to Wiki administrators for an answer. If edits are intelligent and cited and objective where is the issue? You say sockpuppets have been deceptive and dishonest? Please explain how anyone coming to this article can be honest about their identity without being blocked? The labor Portal set this tone when the article was first published in 2008 blocking virtually everyone who objected to it claiming all to be sockpuppets. The article was guarded by Wikidea and all entered at their own peril. This was reported to me by more than one person all of whom became very disillusioned with the Wikipedia culture particularly since they were inexperienced with the process. There are many people associated with this company all of whom could be editing at any given time from the same IP address but unknown to one another. I am reluctant to police my offices asking who may be doing what which would constitute an intrusion into privacy. They are free to do as they wish on their own time. I believe the sockpuppet rule is applied far too subjectively here where BLP is emotional. Blocking should be green lighted after obnoxious disruptive edits but not due to a subjective "belief" in COI. If an editor points out false claims or poorly cited statements there should be no COI, just better research. Debate and exchange of ideas is the essence of Wikipedia. Why would I need to establish other ID's when I dialogued using my personal email address with several Wiki editors when the article was first posted? It doesn't get more honest than that!

Since I'm temporarily back this is my issue. Wiki rules regarding WP:BLP require WP:NPOV secondary and tertiary resource citations of which John Logan and much of TBG article provides neither. The TBG article is short with using a single source so it stands to reason that editors would repeatedly delete the same entries as there are few too choose and yet many inaccuracies. Logan's opinions and accusation are not cited within his own article WP:NOR. This article is titled TBG and is not to be a forum against the labor relations industry and should not be a WP:COATRACK for every law firm or consulting firm ever engaged in labor consulting. Quotes from generic books or papers (see Logan) against all forms of union opposition should be moved to generic articles such as "union opposition". The pages you cite above provided no quotes TBG clients, or workers who voted against recognition in the cases described but provided quotes only from "organizers" oppossed to the ballot process and may be fictitious WP:SOAP WP:V WP:NOR Page 16, 3rd par. line 9 of the Logan paper cited says: "Despite the company's aggressive and dilatory anti-union tactics, the CWU hopes that the CAC will certify it on the basis of "union membership cards" as often happens in the UK." Therein lies the rub. The Logan paper (paid for by the TUC) was written to promote union recognition in lieu of ballots and therefore criticizes companies, consulting firms (TBG), or law firms which support otherwise. Why is it considered "dilatory and anti-union" to vote a ballot? According to whose opinion? The Logan article loaded with emotional adjective laden invectives was written for the TUC with a singular agenda and not encyclopedic. It is written to anger a reader to sway them towards automatic recognition. There are similar battles being waged here in the US regarding EFCA. TBG should not be coat racked to advance a philosophical labor vs management exploration of the the UK's labor law ERA 1999, TUC membership drives, or arguments against ballot elections. They are spinoff articles. If the UK members of the Labor Portal desire an article exploring Union Recognition vs Ballot that's fine. But the TBG article is not the place. If editors continue to cite POV "generic" politicized editorializing without secondary or tertiary backup "specifically" describing TBG or continues linking WP:LINKFARM social networking blog pages against Wiki policy, it will continue to be challenged which is proper and sanctioned by Wikipedia. I will refrain from editing if talk pages are the vote but will edit if entries are disrespectful misrepresentations or cobbled fabrications with a POV agenda. --Oscarnight (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I just undid one of the TBG edits, and it shows the problem with letting them edit here- they're removing things as failed verification, when they ARE in the citation. Those aside, I haven't seen any discussion of the tags placed here. First, why are the Logan reports unreliable? Holding a POV about union busting (assuming Logan does, I don't know his writings) does not mandate that his facts are fabricated. (Actually, while looking to cite FlyBe, I found Logan's position: London School of Economics professor [34] ) Also, what is the recentism tag for? I don't see any recent events mentioned, unless you consider 2007 to be recent. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I just double-checked both cites, and it seems to me that the TBG edit was correct. One cite does not mention any $2.5 million award. The other mentions the award, but makes no claim that it was related to anything The Burke Group did; and its assertion of a ruling of a "Court of Appeals" has no supporting documentation. There's no such US body as "the Court of Appeals" that has the authority to award damages. THF (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If what JeremyMcCracken found is true, then i'm not surprised. I haven't checked that particular edit, but anyone who browses content on this page will discover a couple of other examples in which Oppo212/Rgcroc/Jbowersox/Tbg2 has offered edit summaries that falsely characterized the sources.

I'd also like to draw attention to this excerpt from Tbg2's comments, just above:

There are many people associated with this company all of whom could be editing at any given time from the same IP address but unknown to one another. I am reluctant to police my offices asking who may be doing what [...]

Note that Jbowersox concocted a story that he was a she, and she was a school teacher with students who were to blame for the sock puppetry. Jbowersox had trouble reconciling that with other talk page entries in which he/she chatted about issues related to being a lawyer (as did Rgcroc), about being "in the industry", and about attending labor relations get-togethers (seminars? as a classroom teacher?)

Now we have Tbg2 alluding to being a high level officer in the Burke Group company, and blaming the sock puppetry issue on others in the company whom he is unwilling "to police"...

Rgcroc bragged about knowing the Burke Group CEO personally, and even knowing where David Burke goes drinking.

Oppo212/Rgcroc/Jbowersox/Tbg2/Oscarnight have, together, created a skein of falsehoods which suggest he is the principle of a major corporation who simply cannot tolerate any sort of criticism, even if it is carefully documented, and he's willing to tell any lie in order to sanitize Wikipedia articles about the company.

That is not to say the articles about union busting, and about the Burke Group, couldn't be improved. But the Oppo212/Rgcroc/Jbowersox/Tbg2 methods of improving the articles are not helpful. Richard Myers (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious and disputed tags and $2.5 million award to CDN

That's all well and good, but it does not respond to the concerns I raised, and I'm not any of the people you're complaining about. This is not the page to complain about sock puppets, it's the page to discuss the article. To repeat: I just double-checked both cites, and it seems to me that the TBG edit was correct. One cite does not mention any $2.5 million award. The other mentions the award, but makes no claim that it was related to anything The Burke Group did; and its assertion of a ruling of a "Court of Appeals" has no supporting documentation. There's no such US body as "the Court of Appeals" that has the authority to award damages. THF (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

unbalanced tag

TUC and John Logan are not a neutral unbalanced source for information about The Burke Group, yet this article is essentially a summary of Logan's partisan attack on the organization. While any Burke Group article should include Logan's criticism of the group, it is inappropriate for the entire article to be based on it. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. THF (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To get to the cite about Chinese Daily News' 2.5 million, Logan's "U.S. Anti-Union Consultants...", page 11, I will quote and emphasize:

In response, CDN hired TBG consultant Larry Wong, who immediately started an

aggressive anti-union campaign. In March 2001, CDN employees voted for union

representation, but the anti-union campaign did not end there, as management

told employees that it was prepared to spend $1 million on defeating the union.

True to its word, CDN management paid TBG $221,737 in 2001, $108,389 in

2002, and $480,462 in 2004. On the second anniversary of the workers’ election

“victory” – when the company was still contesting the outcome of the election

and refusing to bargain with the union – US Congressman Sherrod Brown praised

the immigrant workers’ “tireless efforts as they continue to wrestle with the

overwhelming resources of a foreign employer committed to silencing their voices

and thwarting their right to organize.” In September 2005, after an intense antiunion

campaign that had lasted almost five years, the union lost a rerun election

at the CDN. The head of the Newspapers Guild subsequently described the events

at the CDN as “fiercest anti-union campaign I have ever been involved in.” In

2007, the Court of Appeals awarded CDN employees $2.5 million for numerous

labor law violations committed by the company, but they will probably never

gain union representation. The CDN campaign demonstrates that, for workers

facing aggressive and determined consultant campaigns, winning recognition and

collective bargaining rights often looks pretty much the same as losing.

It has not failed verification. Undue weight doesn't mean removing criticism because we can't locate anything good to say about them to match the length. If 95% of the press coverage out there is negative, it would be unrealistic of us to write an article that matches each criticism 50-50. I'd suggest looking for other, kinder sources if you want to change the weight, but the facts surrounding these cases are validly cited. I still haven't seen anything wrong with Logan other than he's saying bad things about TBG. We're citing the facts here, not Logan's opinions. Is there anyhing to suggest that Logan is in any way a pro-union writer, anti-union-buster, etc., oher than what is in these two cites? Unless there is reason to suggest that Logan invents statistics, I fail to see the problems with these cites. I sugges a straw poll for removing the improper synthesis, unreliable source, failed verification, and dubious tags from he CDN section, and the factual accuracy tag from the top (unless something else is in question). Also, I've yet to see a rationale for the recentism tag. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It has failed verification, and the facts of these cases are not validly cited.

1. There is a synthesis violation. Even under the quoted material, there is no evidence that the $2.5 million has anything to do with The Burke Group, as opposed to, say, a fine against the CDN for not properly accounting for overtime hours.

2. It is factually inaccurate.

a. There is no such thing as the "Court of Appeals." Logan must mean either the "California Court of Appeals" or the "United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," probably the latter as most labor law in the United States is federal.

b. It is impossible under U.S. law for either "Court of Appeals" to award any money. Since Logan gives no footnote to support his claim, he is either misinformed, imprecise, or making something up. Court of Appeals decisions are public records, readily searchable on the Internet. Find me a Court of Appeals decision fining the Chinese Daily News for Burke Group activities (as opposed to overtime violations). I looked, and didn't find any.

If Logan is misrepresenting something like this that is easily falsifiable from on-line sources, what else is he misrepresenting? I question whether Logan is a reliable source at all.

Even if Logan did somehow meet WP:RS, it is unquestionably the case that his report was written for a partisan source opposed to TBG. There is absolutely no indication in the article that this most of this article a reprint of a POV source. NPOV requires such sources to be identified for their bias in the main text, rather than as neutral arbiters merely parroted and footnoted. THF (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

more sockpuppet discussion

Agreed. The problem here is, Tbg2 has removed precisely this sort of criticism from the article. Not to mention the fact that sock puppets Oppo212 and Rgcroc and Jbowersox all removed precisely the same content (see above), all while denying sock puppetry. But here's one clincher: the IP address information showed that Rgcroc and Jbowersox were the same. I expect it would tell us something similar about Tbg2 and Oscarnight as well. Richard Myers (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The sock-puppet problem has been resolved. Can we talk about the article now? THF (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but with Oscarnight essentially admitting to being just the latest puppet in the puppet show, and vowing to edit the article(s) again, i don't see how the sock puppet issue has been resolved. As far as i know, Oscarnight hasn't been blocked; the blocks to date haven't permanently resolved the issue; and, it appears to me that escalation is necessary. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the page to talk about the sock-puppet problem. Oscarnight has made no edits to the article. You are bludgeoning the page with complaints about editors who have been banned and are not editing the article. Meanwhile, I'm raising legitimate problems with the article, and you refuse to discuss them or blame them on sock-puppets when the current article reflects no sock-puppet edits. THF (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)