Talk:Y&R ANZ

Repeated attempts to remove controversy

I have been watching this page, alongside hundreds of others, for several years now. During this time I have seen multiple attempts to remove the controversy section from this article. This has been done by:

• User:Georgepatts [1] - an account which based on the username is clearly affiliated with the company
• IP address 122.56.103.190 [2] - this IP address also made an attempt to game the system by making a minor edit after removing the controversy
• IP address 203.185.200.26 [3]
• User:Songforkaren [4] - a single-purpose account that only ever made edits regarding this article
• IP address 203.111.137.49 [5] - this IP address actually started an edit war removing the information multiple times and refusing to discuss the issue
• IP address 165.228.153.136 [6] - this IP address was used to revert two registered editors who restored the controversy

And now we are subjected to the biased and uncivil editing of User:Peacenik162, an account which appears to have been created for the sole purpose of promoting the subject of this article. This user has repeatedly removed referenced content without explanation, has used unreliable sources to promote the company (I actually left a friendly message about this on their talk page explaining why the source is unreliable, but they have not replied to my comment, and have continued to add the unreliable source back to the article), and is deliberately skewing sources to say things they don't back up. For example, an article by Crikey simply states "The Australian Defence Force has sidestepped conflict of interest concerns over a social media review awarded to George Patterson Y&R, the advertising behemoth that also handles the ADF’s coveted $40 million recruitment account." Peacenik162 has repeatedly used this source to say "Following the controversy, an external probe into the matter found that there was "no conflict" of interest between the ADF and GPY&R", which is not backed up by the reference. And Peacenik162 is now accusing me of having an agenda against the company because I am defending this article from their promotional bias. I mention this so that other editors can have an understanding of the kind of biased attacks this article has been subject to. I'm sure the media would find this information interesting as well. Freikorp (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Freikorp reported to administrators' noticeboard for incidents

User:Freikorp has been reported to administrators' noticeboard for incidents, for repetitive and disruptive editing to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacenik162 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

For the record, Peacenik162's attempt to have me blocked backfired severely. Their complaint was dismissed, and they instead received an official warning for edit warring. They ignored that warning, just like they've ignored every other piece of advise they have been given on here, and accordingly they have been temporarily blocked from editing. That's what happens when you completely trample all over Wikipedia's guidelines then falsely accuse other people of violating them. Better luck next time. Freikorp (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit war

@Peacenik162 and Freikorp: try discussion rather than edit warring. On first look it looks like the changes Peacenik162 wants to make in the Controversy section is gives undue weight to a single source. I am always wary of the editing around PR and advertising company articles, doubly so when a brand new account shows up to completely change the tone of the article. I know that we assume good faith here but neither was I born yesterday. Jbh ^Talk 05:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've tried very hard to discuss the issue, I mentioned in edit summaries to take the dispute to the talk page and I even left a friendly message on Peacenik162's talk page hoping to instigate a conversation about the matter but Peacenik162 responded by ignoring my comments and instead reporting me to administrators, which has backfired significantly and resulted in himself being blocked. I'm still very willing to talk about the issue. Freikorp (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Freikorp has never wanted to talk about this subject since he inserted the incorrect information to Y&R ANZ way back in 2011. He has gotten away with making false edits, reversing correct edits, and partaking in edit warring with many users in respect to Y&R ANZ for the last 7 years. Contrary to what he wrote above, he doesn't wish to talk about edits - he just makes them without discussion. I see no point is discussing this matter with him when he clearly has an ulterior motive to discredit the company in question. I am glad that other unbiased users have stepped in and have removed Freikorp's inaccurate statements. --Peacenik162 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, they are here now and there are several other editors watching the page. I suggest that rather than rehashing old complaints you say, specifically, what you think is wrong and how you think it should be addressed.

I also strongly suggest that should you, in the future feel you need to make accusations like you have above, that you support them with diffs. Should you make such unsupported accusations again I can say with some degree of confidence that you will end up loosing your editing privileges on Wikipedia for violation of our policy against personal attacks. I assume though, since you say you are here to discuss the matters, that the issue will not come up again. Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping Peacnik162's false accusations would stop after he was temporarily blocked from editing, but I feel the need to defend myself from these further baseless accusations. Contrary to their lies, I never inserted false information, I inserted the information that was reported in the mainstream media. The issue here is that Peacnik162 thinks the accusations were false. Maybe they were, but that doesn't change the fact that they were made. We can report accusations that are made, and any rebuttals to them, providing they come from reliable sources. Further contrary to Peacnik162's lies, the only inaccurate statements that new editors have removed are those made by Peacnik162. Their inaccurate statement regarding the conflict of interest source has been removed. This is Peacenik162's version: [7] which states "an external probe into the matter found that there was "no conflict" of interest between the ADF and GPY&R", a statement which is a not backed up by the source. The current version of the controversy section, as edited by Winged Blades of Godric: [8], has the statement "the ADF "side-stepped" allegations that they had a conflict of interest in awarding the contract to George Patterson Y&R", which is actually backed up by the source. I completely support this change, and for the record I also support the specific examples of the controversy being shortened with a condensed version of what happened. I'm glad new editors are here. I will not respond to further accusation that are made here, as I am only interested in improving the article, as opposed to making personal attacks in retaliation to a block attempt failing spectacularly. Freikorp (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Peacenik162 has previously been warned by an administrator against making accusations and legal threats. As this warning has been ignored I have reported them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents based on their above comment. Freikorp (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)