User talk:Richard.eames

Welcome!
Hello, Richard.eames, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of article content
In this series of edits, you removed sourced information from an article. If you believe the information is incorrect, or that it misinterprets the sources, or that the sources are invalid, please discuss that on the article's talk page to get consensus for the removal of the information. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Richard.eames. We welcome your contributions, but as you have declared an external relationship with the subject of the article International Anti-Corruption Academy, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Please see discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and ask there if you need advice. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Thanks for disclosing your relationship with the International Anti-Corruption Academy. So you have a conflict of interest for that organization and related topics, as we define that in Wikipedia. Please be aware that Wikipedia is in the real world, and if you are not aware of it, you should read about ways that conflicted editing in Wikipedia has bought negative press to people and organizations that do it - see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (an actual WP article, not an essay).

I added a tag to the IACA article's talk page, so the disclosure is done there.

There are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
 * a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
 * b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily -  and provide notice to the community of your request -  by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline.  I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:X -  there is a link at "request corrections or suggest content" in that section --  if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.  You can also add a  tag to flag it for other editors to review.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

The latter is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the IACA article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please reply here. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Jytdog,


 * Thank you for your messages. Earlier today you deleted practically the entire Wikipedia page about IACA, including referenced factual content similar to that found on the Wikipedia pages about other international organizations. What remained were three short paragraphs that were almost exclusively negative in tone towards the organization.


 * I started to restore this deleted content, with my IACA affiliation clearly stated on my user page.


 * Best regards, Richard Eames Richard.eames (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, managing COI in Wikipedia has two steps - disclosure and peer review.
 * As a paid editor (with a COI) you should not directly edit the article. This is an extremely important element of managing COI here.   Do I need to point out to you the irony of the PR person for an anti-corruption academy refusing to learn how COI is managed in Wikipedia, refusing to learn the policies and guidelines that govern content, and violating Wikipedia policy and guidelines in order to promote the school?
 * As I noted above, there is a place for PR people in Wikipedia but you must follow WP:PAID and the rest of the policies and guidelines here, and you do not understand them yet.
 * Again, would you please agree to follow the conflict management process as I laid it out above? Once we agree on the ground rules, we can start discussing the problems with the content. But we have to get your COI managed first.   First things first.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, I've just posted a message on the IACA talk page. Best, Richard Richard.eames (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at International Anti-Corruption Academy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Appeal is moot, block has expired. MER-C 12:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)