|
Why did you eliminate the sourced information about the former CEO being barred from associating with brokers, and that Vonage's settlement with the IPO investors included a dismissal of all claims against Vonage? Feedback 07:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Feedback, I removed it because press releases from an article's subject aren't generally considered reliable sources for potentially controversial information. I looked long and hard for reliable secondary sources that contained this information and didn't find it (though perhaps I missed it?), so I removed the information. If you're concerned about this removal and would like to discuss it further, I'd be happy to work with you on it, but we should probably move it to the article talk page for more discussion. Thanks for coming to discuss it with me, I hope we can come to a resolution that satisfies both of us. Chrisw80 (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- The information you removed is factual information in the public record. (SEC source, Court documents). The SEC decision is not a press release; it's a public document reporting the governmental agency's decision. You will also find news coverage if you are not convinced of the SEC's reliability, but I honestly can't understand why. While I'd like to assume good faith, it seems like your edits were specifically made to remove embarrassing information. I'd like to ask you up front if any conflict of interest exists. I don't mean this to be a an accusation, but Vonage has a history of having employees and/or paid editors influence their articles, so you should understand why that risk always exists. I intend to re-add the information in the article only after hearing back from you so we can resolve this matter amicably. Feedback 07:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Feedback, feel free to put content back if you have reputable news coverage to support it per WP:RS. The removed content that I believe you are disputing was referenced only to a press release - so I removed it, a perfectly valid thing to do. I also removed a bunch of external links to Vonage websites that failed WP:EXT, did a variety of copyediting to make it less WP:PROMO, and removed content that said Vonage was "the "Biggest Percentage Price Gainer" of stocks on the NYSE" (because it was simply not encyclopedic, and had already been commented as such), I also fixed/expanded a few incomplete ref tags. I also offered, very politely, to discuss the matter with you at the article talk page and stated that I didn't find sources to support the content in question, but that I could have missed them in my own searches for a reliable source. So, for the question regarding potential COI, this would all be pretty bizarre behavior for a COI editor, don't you think? Out of curiosity, did you look at my contribs or try to learn anything more about me before asking that before jumping to conclusions? I made legitimate, policy based edits to the Vonage article, and gave a good edit summary explaining what I did. I edit hundreds of other articles, participate at AfC, AfD, and #wikipedia-en-help connect, I also do vandalism patrol, and help out wherever else I'm able. Your question is really not appropriate given the circumstances. If you really feel that my edits represent some sort of bizarre COI that I am not disclosing, report me at the appropriate noticeboard and we'll let the admins form their own opinions. Otherwise, I'd appreciate an apology. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Feedback, I should add that Vonage doesn't need some bizarre, subtle COI editor, they have a declared paid editor working actively on the article. Chrisw80 (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did not take you up on your offer to move the conversation to the talk page, because I felt that it was more respectful to make the COI question on your personal page instead. Like I said above, I don't want to throw accusations about you being a paid editor, it was a genuine question since Vonage has paid editors in the article. I did go through your contributions and it did raise some red flags. Editors usually have specific interests, but you've edited unpopular articles of small companies from a wide range of different subjects (i.e. It's not like you're only editing ISP articles such as Vonage.) However, that's not conclusive in the least and that's why I didn't mention it. I am happy to take you at your word if you deny that you are paid editor or have a conflict of interest. That being said, nowhere above did you actually deny it so I feel like I have no choice but to ask you again. That you participate in other aspects of Wikipedia does not obviously remove any reason for a COI. A professional paid editor who is truly committed to remaining incognito participates in all aspects of Wikipedia and hides his COI edits under the guise of "legitimate, policy-based edits". Simply put, no paid editor is ever successful making COI edits and nothing more as those will obviously be found out. If you're not a paid editor, I definitely apologize for offending you as that was never my intention. I will however not apologize for asking a simple question in order to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you're not a paid editor or have a COI, please deny it and we can move on.
- But I digress. I intend to add the information, but I'm not going to get stuck in an edit war because you're confused over what occurred. The information that you removed wasn't from a press release, it was a SEC decision referenced directly from the SEC's governmental website, and you removed the source along with the information. I posted the diff above so you can better recall your own edit. You're now also asking me to find a reliable source when I already linked you above to a CNN source above. What exactly do you think is missing here? Feedback 19:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Feedback: PS: Chris edits a variety of pages of small companies due to the fact that he helps at the Wikipedia IRC Help channel, and we get a lot of requests for article improvement etc. there. Thanks! FiendYT ★ 20:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Feedback, I have absolutely no intention of answering your question, as I do not feel that it deserves a response. Wikipedia is not an authoritarian regime where "If you have nothing to hide.." applies, you do not get to interrogate every editor of an article about COI just because an article has had COI editors in past or presently. My edits do not reflect COI editing in any respect. My extremely polite response to your initial message regarding my edits was met immediately with sideways accusations of COI editing no matter how politely you worded it. My edits do not reflect any bias for or against Vonage, they only reflect what the reliable sources say. You continue your rudeness by repeating your accusation and then by stating that you think I might start an edit war, despite my explicit suggestions that you re-add the content using a WP:RS (I have made no comments one way or the other about your CNN source).
- I am hardly confused about what we're talking about, how about you? To quote you: "...about the former CEO being barred from associating with brokers, and that Vonage's settlement with the IPO investors included a dismissal of all claims against Vonage?" You are expressing concern with two of my edits to this article. Again, my edits were policy based, clearly improved content, tone, and sourcing of the article, and I have explained them twice already. However, apparently I need to do so again.
- The first concern you stated is the content that was sourced to a press release. "...settlement included a release and dismissal of all stockholder claims against Vonage and its individual...". I replaced that with a secondary reliable source and modified the content appropriately to match the source (as Wikipedia is only here to summarize what the reliable secondary sources say about a topic). The information is still there and is not promotional or problematic in any way that I can determine.
- The second edit that you seem more concerned with is: "<ref>Citron could not preside over the public stock offering, because he was "barred from association with any broker or dealer" of stocks by.." which was an incorrectly labelled and formatted reference, not actual content in the article. As such, I removed it entirely as it would be WP:OR (the SEC is a primary source). There was already a second reliable source ref to support the content that is there already, as well, which I clearly left intact.
- I also note that you fail to address all the WP:PROMO content I removed from/revised in the article.
- So, let me also understand this, you consider thousands of hours of my work helping new editors and cleaning up crappy articles to be red flags for a COI editor? Someone would really spend thousands of hours editing constructively in order to "hide" a few purely constructive edits to one article that they have a conflict of interest with? If only our COI editors were actually like this, so many Wikipedia articles would be in a lot better shape. I'll say it again, if you really think I'm a COI editor, take it to the COI noticeboard and we'll hash it out there. If you can't be bothered to apologize for your rudeness, please do not post on my talk page again. I will not respond to any further rudeness from you here. If you choose to do the right thing and apologize to me, I'd be happy to explain any of the other ~3000 edits I've made anywhere else on Wikipedia, just don't accompany them with more absurd accusations of paid editing. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- If that will be your final reply, this will be mine. You state that I "can't be bothered to apologize for your rudeness" despite the fact I apologized above as I never meant for you to take offense. You also said I'm being rude no matter how polite I word it which is a rather contradictory position to take. My initial question about whether or not you had a COI was not an accusation. I had no opinion on whether or not you had a conflict of interest, I only asked because of the article's history points to the fact that Vonage's paid editors are the only ones who have bothered to give the article the time of day. If I'm not mistaken, you took personal offense because you feel your contributions are so positive and constructive, that any allegation of a conflict of interest is unfounded and a personal slight. But you're ignoring the fact that most editors who choose to edit articles they have conflicts of interest with are still editing with the purpose of improving them. Vonage's own CEO could remove promotional material for the betterment of the article. Not all COI edits have to be damaging. The implication that you're not being a single-purpose account automatically disqualifies you from having a conflict of interest is also not a sound argument. Many volunteers have conflicts of interests, and they either disclose them or stay away from the articles. Between my workplace, my family and my alma mater, I could name at least a dozen potential articles where I would have a conflict of interest if I chose to edit them. With respect to paid editing, the implication that a paid editor wouldn't waste their time making constructive edits for free elsewhere is a self-defeating argument. If you and I aren't paid editors, aren't we choosing to edit for free because we enjoy it? Most paid editors are in fact regular volunteers who edit as a hobby like everyone else, and later found out they could monetize that hobby. It is your prerogative to choose to disclose whether or not you have a COI. It is also my prerogative to be cautious in light of the circumstances. In my 10 years of editing on the encyclopedia I have never encountered someone acting so defensive over a suggestion that he had a COI without it being true. You said you removed the two pieces of information in the article because you didn't trust the sources, but instead of replacing the sources with news coverage (which I easily found just by copy/pasting the statements into Google), you chose to remove them entirely. Whether or not you have a COI, I'm choosing to assume that was done in good faith. Nevertheless I will re-add these statements along with multiple third-party sources in order to avoid someone reverting it without good cause. I just hope that no one asks for their money back after I do. Feedback 07:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
|
