User talk:G.W. Schulz

Writing about exonerees

I'm a former journalist who now documents criminal convicts who were exonerated from their crimes in Oklahoma after serving prison sentences. I do this work on behalf of attorneys who represent these exonerees (specifically Oklahoma attorney Joseph Norwood). G.W. Schulz (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Draft:Glynn Ray Simmons—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello G.W. Schulz. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:G.W. Schulz. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=G.W. Schulz|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. What is your connection with law firms associated with the people you have edited about? Magnolia677 (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a former journalist who now writes for Oklahoma attorney Joseph Norwood. He specializes in wrongful convictions, general criminal defense, personal injury, family, and business. I couldn't figure out how to make the necessary COI disclosures, but I've done so now with your help. Thank you.

-George Schulz G.W. Schulz (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit you made when you opened your account last December, was to declare a conflict of interests, which means you were aware of Wikipedia's policy. You then went on to make several edits promoting your employer. Please note that paid editing is not permitted on Wikipedia. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Yes, it is correct that I had by then figured out how to disclose COIs on a new page I created. But I had not yet figured out how to do it for existing pages I was editing. Thanks to your email, I've made the necessary changes. The content itself is neutrally written, thoroughly sourced, and in the public interest. We saw that the story of Glynn Ray Simmons, the longest-serving wrongfully convicted man in recorded U.S. history, had not been told well on Wikipedia. We were seeking to remedy that with accurate information. I was under the impression that editing for compensation was allowable as long as any potential conflicts of interest are disclosed. If you still see me as odious, that's unfortunate. I don't have ill intentions. As you can no-doubt see from my profile, I'm new to Wikipedia. Thanks. G.W. Schulz (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you indefinitely, because you are still editing articles where you have a conflict of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I'm new. I interpreted Wikipedia's policy to mean it was okay to contribute as long as any conflicts of interest were disclosed. I wasn't trying to be deceitful in any way. I'm seeking to add noteworthy content in a neutral tone and with full citations. I see now that it's better to use the talk page perhaps. G.W. Schulz (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Glynn Ray Simmons

A tag has been placed on Draft:Glynn Ray Simmons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Duplicate of Glynn Simmons

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Magnolia677 (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G.W. Schulz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey there. My name is George Schulz, and I am a former journalist who writes about major legal cases for Oklahoma attorney Joe Norwood. I'm new to Wikipedia. Joe Norwood has been involved with a number of wrongful conviction cases, and he is an attorney for Glynn Simmons. I believed the deep knowledge we had of Simmons's case made it worthwhile for me to contribute to a number of Wikipedia pages, including the Glynn Simmons page. The other pages were University of Tulsa School of Law, eyewitness memory, Oklahoma, tort reform, and Tim Harris (attorney). I was under the impression that contributing to pages where a conflict of interest exists was allowed as long as the conflict of interest was disclosed. An administrator has blocked me from contributing, however, and said that editing with a conflict of interest was prohibited. If that's the case, is it possible I could at least have permission to post to talk pages and make recommendations that way? My intent is to contribute noteworthy, neutrally written, and well-sourced material. G.W. Schulz (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be here to tell the world about the good work Mr. Norwood is doing to get wrongful convictions overturned and about the general issue of wrongful convictions in Oklahoma. As a human being I think that's a good thing to do in the right forum- that's not Wikipedia. Our purpose here is to neutrally summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Examining what you have written already, I think that you may be either too close to this topic, or too much of a journalist, to write in an encyclopedic manner about this topic. That probably sounds worse than I actually mean it- it's not a bad thing, it just is, and you haven't shown us that you can overcome that yet. We'll want to see edits in other, unrelated areas first, before permitting you to edit about your COI. You are absolutely correct that proposing edits as edit requests is the correct thing someone in your position should be doing, but our experience is that usually allowing people in this situation to dive right in without showing us they understand relevant policies just takes up the time of everyone involved(including the editor). If you can show us you understand relevant policies, however, you may do so in a new unblock request for someone else to review.

You declared conflicts of interest, but you seem to work for Mr. Norwood/his firm, meaning that the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From G.W. Schulz: Hey there, 311dot. Thank you for your timely response.

-you seem to work for Mr. Norwood/his firm I do freelance work for Joseph Norwood and other attorneys on the law and wrongful convictions. But it's far from the only thing I wish to contribute to Wikipedia as a new user. In fact, you mentioned that new users might first contribute to pages that are not related to their COIs. I'd love the opportunity to do that. But I'd still love the opportunity to contribute to subjects about which I know more than most people, like anti-trust laws, wrongful convictions, and eyewitness testimony. From what I've studied, Wikipedia does not expressly forbid contributing to pages while having COIs. My guess is that Wikipedia does not want to directly exercise too much editorial control over content, because that would edge it closer to being regulated like a traditional media organization. In addition, I had already made all of the relevant COI disclosures on both my user and talk pages. You don't appear to have checked that information. If you're telling me now that contributing with a COI is expressly forbidden, of course I'll contribute to unrelated pages first and then stick to talk pages if that's what Wikipedia prefers.

-Our purpose here is to neutrally summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. That is my intent as well, and that is what all of my content so far has sought to do. My content has been on important, topical, noteworthy matters that Wikipedia's audience deserves to see. Why should contributing be restricted just to people with lots of free time on their hands who aren't necessarily experts on a given subject while so many other people are experts but can't contribute?

-you haven't shown us that you can overcome that yet Please give me a chance to show Wikipedia.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G.W. Schulz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked as a new user, and I'm trying to earn my way into the good graces of Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I do freelance work for Joseph Norwood and other attorneys on the law and wrongful convictions. But it's far from the only thing I wish to contribute to Wikipedia as a new user. In fact, I understand that new users might first contribute to pages that are not related to their conflicts of interest. I'd love the opportunity to do that. But I'd still love the opportunity to contribute to certain subjects about which I know more than most people while sticking to talk pages. My contributions so far have been on important, topical, noteworthy matters that Wikipedia's audience deserves to see. Why should contributing be restricted just to people with lots of free time on their hands who aren't necessarily experts on a given subject while so many other people are experts but can't contribute? Please give me an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. I have a lot to offer. G.W. Schulz (talk) 12:46 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Please read and heed WP:PAID and WP:COI, There are disclosures you need to make. You will not be unblocked to promote yourself, your employer, or any other subject. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hey there. Thank you for the reply. You asked that I describe how my "edits merited a block." Can you elaborate? Do you mean how my edits merit an unblock? And do I add my response here? The Wikipedia edits I've made so far, I believe, are very constructive. I had already read PAID and COI. As I state below, I have not seen where Wikipedia expressly prohibited contributing to a page when a conflict of interest existed. I interpreted PAID and COI to say it was allowed but required disclosure. That's what I thought as a new user. I would welcome the opportunity to instead contribute to non-COI pages and maybe offer suggestions on some talk pages.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not the place to document the exhonerated, as noble as that cause is. Probaly your employer's website would be best suited for that. Thanks.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thank you for the reply. What's noble and whether or not wrongful convictions belong on Wikipedia would seem to be an editorial opinion, rather than a justification for blocking someone. People will always disagree about what belongs on Wikipedia. I thought my block was occurring because of my fully disclosed conflicts of interest. As I state below, I still have not seen anything from Wikipedia that absolutely forbids contributing where a conflict of interest exists. As an alternative, I would love the opportunity to contribute to non-COI pages and maybe contribute to select talk pages in the future.

Mr. Schulz, I am not an administrator, but have followed your edits. Regarding summarizing what reliable sources say, you respond above, "That is my intent as well, and that is what all of my content so far has sought to do." You have made 13 total edits to Wikipedia, and every one of them was to promote your employer, including this unsourced edit where you added your boss to the alumni list of his college. And here on a blog for your employer you write, "When the time comes that you need us, contact Norwood.Law for a free consultation". It certainly appears as if the only reason you opened a Wikipedia account was to promote your employer. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Thank you for your response. I'm learning that on Wikipedia, it doesn't seem to make much difference if you're an administrator or not. If you have enough free time on your hands to participate in these sorts of things as a self-appointed police enforcer, there's much I can do about it.

Conflicts of interest are not inherently negative. Still no one has shown me where Wikipedia expressly prohibited contributing to pages where a conflict of interest existed. The people following my contributions seem to be experiencing confirmation bias and are selectively interpreting my actions to be evidence of efforts to undermine the public interest. You were careful to point to one missed attribution, for example. Wikipedia is crawling with missed attributions. You failed to mention that 99% of my contributions were thoroughly attributed, because that didn't comply with your perception of me as corrupt.

I didn't evade the attribution to be sneaky. It was an accident. But that's being overlooked to support the hypothesis that I'm a villain. (A single, missing citation could easily be added to the University of Tulsa College of Law page.) From what I can tell, you gravitated toward me in the first place, because I properly disclosed a conflict of interest.

The fact that I'm using my real name on Wikipedia also made it very easy for you to search for me online. (You, on the other hand, use an anonymous screen name.) So forgive me if my lack of experience wasn't obvious as I was contributing to the site for the first time. As I stated above, I'm still new to this and welcome the opportunity to prove myself by posting to non-COI pages and then perhaps propose content for certain subjects where I have a considerable amount of useful knowledge. G.W. Schulz (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PROMOTION, a policy on Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your response on this. As I said, I'd welcome the opportunity to contribute to non-COI pages and then in the future maybe make suggestions on the talk pages of certain subjects where I have a disclosed conflict of interest. As for blocking and rule-following, I seem to still be in compliance with the PAID and COI pages, but I'm still being blocked. The promotion page you sent makes sense, but I did not urge anyone to pay for the services of a specific attorney in my attempted contribution. I focused on the noteworthy information. I mention attorney Joe Norwood very little. I could strip any mention of hi out if that would please the administrators. I'm not trying to cheat the system. G.W. Schulz (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G.W. Schulz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. I've been blocked as a new user, and I'm trying to earn my way into good standing with Wikipedia. Thank you. I do freelance media work for Joseph Norwood and other attorneys on the law and wrongful convictions in Oklahoma. But I understand that new users might first contribute to pages that are unrelated to their conflicts of interest. I'd love the chance to do that. My contributions so far have been on important, topical, noteworthy matters that Wikipedia's audience should see. Please give me an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia. I have a lot to offer. I thought my block was occurring because of my fully disclosed conflicts of interest. However, I have not seen anything from Wikipedia that absolutely forbids contributing where a conflict of interest exists. As an alternative, I would love the opportunity to contribute to non-COI pages and maybe contribute to select talk pages in the future. Thank you. G.W. Schulz (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are correct that there is not an absolute proscription against COI editing on Wikipedia. Therefore, I am amending the reason for your block to be violation of our behavioral guideline against WP:DISRUPTIVE editing as the form, nature, and context of your COI edits have the practical impact of "disrupting progress toward improving ... the encyclopedia". Because this has been, up to the point of block, an essentially dedicated COI account, and the nature of disruption relates to COI edits, I believe our enforcement maxim directing that "accounts used primarily for disruption will most likely be blocked indefinitely" applies.

I'm personally confident this can be quickly resolved with another unblock request that meets the unblock standards previously communicated by 331dot with respect to demonstrating understanding of "relevant policies". Though there is no specific list of which policies might be relevant in this situation, communicating your awareness of, and commitment to, non-policy practices and technical points like, for instance, WP:EDITREQ might meet that requirement.

Though you are not able to continue editing Wikipedia during this interregnum, you are welcome to continue participation in the Wikipedia project as a non-editing reader. Thank you for your contributions to, and interest in, Wikipedia! Chetsford (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not reviewing this(for fairness). It is true that COI contributions are not prohibited, but it must be done in the right way, according to WP:COI. But that is not a license to just dive right in and directly contribute. Now that you are blocked that bridge is burned and to get unblocked you will need to first rebuild that bridge by editing in other areas to demonstrate that you understand relevant policies and can set aside personal interest in your contributions. Please tell specifically what topics you want to edit about in the meantime. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Have you reviewed any of the content I attempted to post? I complied with all of the rules that I'm aware of. I did everything the link you sent called me to do. Still no one can show me explicitly how I broke Wikipedia's rules in the first place. You folks may not like Wikipedia's rules, but these are their rules I'm abiding by. They do not expressly ban editing with a conflict of interest. I fully disclosed my conflicts. But since you folks are going to do whatever you want anyway, here's what I would edit: homeland security, Coast Guard, Tulsa, and "The Undoing Project." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6701:B500:60DD:C43C:9FEF:839B (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Glynn Ray Simmons

Hello, G.W. Schulz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Glynn Ray Simmons, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Glynn Ray Simmons

Hello, G.W. Schulz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Glynn Ray Simmons".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]