User talk:Eljaydubya

Welcome!

 * }

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ontario Ombudsman has been reverted. Your edit here to Ontario Ombudsman was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/OntarioOmbudsman?ref=hnav) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest concerns: Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin
Hello Eljaydubya,

You use the same handle on Wikipedia as you do on other social media and you publicly disclose your direct employee/employer relationship with the subject of the pages you are editing: Ontario Ombudsman and Andre Marin. You also publicly disclose that you manage his communications. I wanted to draw your attention to Conflict of interest policy. I’ve included portions I believe apply to you in these two cases (paid advocacy, political):

"While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest.

Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing

Paid advocacy – that is, being paid to promote something or someone on Wikipedia – is a subset of paid editing. Sue Gardner, executive director of theWikimedia Foundation, wrote in October 2013 that the Foundation regards paid advocacy as a "black hat" practice that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people."

If the following applies to you:

you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as an employee or contractor; as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes; as owner, officer or other stakeholder; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about), then you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly. ...

The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited.

Political

Editors should not edit articles in which they have a political conflict of interest. Examples:

Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, or political party, or articles about their political opponents, opposition groups, or controversial political topics, with the intent to slant or spin an article in a manner that is politically advantageous to their employer."

I hope this is of some assistance. Thissilladia (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

This is to let you know that I have put the following on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page:

Ontario Ombudsman and Andre Marin pages are edited and maintained by two of the subject's employees, his communications director Eljadubya and his digital/social media person Abursey. Both use the same username on other social media and links directly to their profiles that name them, place of work and positions at Ontario Ombudsman. According to the protocol as I understood it, I first informed them of my COI concerns with as it pertains to paid communications and to political relationships. I will also inform each, according to protocol, that I have placed this here. I am new to Wiki and had not planned on spending all my time on these two sites, so if any help is available, that would be greatly appreciated. Thissilladia (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thissilladia (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

formal COI warning
Hello, Eljaydubya. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

If you have not read WP:COI please do so. Also, please see the article Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia - conflicted editing often bounces back to the public embarrassment of people who do it. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contacting me and sharing this information. I am happy to confirm my identity as Linda Williamson, Director of Communications for the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario. For transparency, I have used the same username here as on Twitter, where my job title is easily found. I have no problem disclosing this on my user page as well, now that I am aware of that requirement. My edits were all made earlier this month after the sudden addition of large amounts of material to the Ontario Ombudsman, André Marin and David Paciocco pages by a couple of new users. A great deal of the information contributed by these users was improperly sourced and inaccurate, used inflammatory and defamatory language, and gave disproportionate weight to inaccurate, outdated and off-topic information. I researched Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest and advice for subjects of articles, and noted the advice that "removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable" and that it is not necessarily a conflict for someone connected with an organization to make edits as long they adhere to Wikipedia's interest in creating accurate, balanced articles. All of my edits were made on this basis - with caution, with sources, and with NPOV. Many were reverted immediately by the new users. I also sent my concerns about the sudden disruptive edits by email, as advised on the Help pages, but did not get a response. I welcome the response of experienced Wikipedia editors in this situation, and thank you for your advice. I am a neophyte on Wikipedia, but I have decades of experience as a newspaper editor and communications professional. I am a public servant in an office that is independent and non-political, tasked with investigating and resolving public complaints against the government in the interests of fairness and accountability. All of which is to say that I welcome the efforts of neutral editors here to bring balance to these articles. Eljaydubya (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for making the disclosure and your kind response. btw, There is no obligation here to actually give your real world identity but you are free to do so; you were obligated to disclose your conflict and it is great that you did. On the articles, we will see what we can do.  I urge you to refrain from making any edits to the articles directly, other than simple updates of facts (a date, the number of employees, etc).  You can also suggest content, or object to content, on the article Talk pages.
 * You can also go to noticeboards. If you have concerns about the neutrality of the ombudsman article,  the place to bring that is WP:NPOVN.  If you have concerns about how Marin is depicted that may be a violation of our policy on the Biographies of Living People (here: WP:BLP), the best way to get input from others is to bring that up at the relevant noticeboard, which is here: WP:BLPN.  There is already a discussion there: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.  Feel free to join.  I suggest that if you join the discussion anywhere, you include a statement that you work for Marin (people get upset when they have to find that out themselves and adds unneccessary layers of drama... and detracts from whatever it is you want to communicate.
 * Finally, as you are gleaning, this place is not a wild west - the community has built polices and guidelines over the years to help it govern itself. Whenever you want to make a claim or argument about content, please try to base the argument on a policy or guideline, not just on what you think is right or wrong.  Things will go much better if you do.  Key policies and guidelines for you are WP:BLP (already mentioned);  WP:NPOV (this defines what "neutral" actually means in Wikipedia - please actually read it and consider it before you deploy it.  It does not mean that we keep negative information out of WP, nor that we strive for "balance".  Instead we give more weight to what the bulk of reliable sources (also something that is defined in WP, see WP:RS) say, and represent that.  (this is nothing like what the news media do - people have a very hard time understanding this).  Anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)