User talk:DowntownRalph

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, DowntownRalph. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Yoko Ono, 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:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to 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);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

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. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 18:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anthrax (American band), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Giraffage. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hi, I note you were given advice 4 days ago about conflict of interest policies and paid editing. It seems you continued to make edits without addressing the concerns raised. I suggest you (re)visit the guidelines on WP:COI. Also note that the publishing company of an artist generally isn't encyclopaedic and as it seems quite likely that there's a link between an organisation you may represent and the edits you're making, it seems these edits are promotional in nature. I suggest you check the guidelines and respond here before attempting further edits of a similar nature. For any help, please feel free to ask for assistance at WP:Teahouse. Rayman60 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Doc Watson. Sundayclose (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:02, 27 July 2016 (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).

DowntownRalph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I now realize the mistake I made with my editing. I have been editing musical artists’ wiki pages to include who their current publishers are but for certain artists I could not find a direct source to cite the fact. I now realize that without a source for this kind of fact, it is unconfirmed and should not be published on wikipedia. In the future, I will be sure to cite such facts when editing on Wikipedia. The publishers' roster sections on their websites list out their artists and I have found this to be a useful source for finding such information. I apologize for my error and hope that I will be unblocked as I enjoy editing pages and updating them with reliable information that others can use. Thank you for your time and effort. I sincerely appreciate it.DowntownRalph (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not why you were blocked. You were blocked for advertising/spam. Yamla (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2016 (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 personally would like for you to address your understanding of WP:COI. While sourcing is necessary for editing, it is not always sufficient. You clearly are here to promote a business, regardless of whether you source. You lack objectivity in some of your editing. For example, in John Lennon, you placed your promotional edits in the WP:LEAD even though it was not notable enough to be included there. The edit was sourced, but it was still promotional. You were cautioned about COI editing twice, but you continued the same pattern of promotional editing. Wikipedia is not your free venue to promote this business, and I think you need to clearly state that you will carefully follow all of the precautions stated in WP:COI, and be specific. Now that you have been warned and blocked for promotional editing, there are other editors watching your edits. If you continue promotional editing, you are likely to be blocked again. Sundayclose (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on the user's name and activity, and activity related to linked articles in the past, it seems very much so that the company involved is asking interns to add information to every artist they're linked to (something that I think was confirmed in dialogue by a prior editor in a similar situation, and with a similar username), and this information is unencyclopaedic in nature, i.e. publishing deals. For example it is not relevant to put an artist's agent, management or publishing company in their article, although this is something that is often done by COI editors who represent those companies. Look at articles by Lady Gaga or Britney Spears and notice the lack of such information, and similarly the informative and definitive encyclopaedic content curated by a multitude of seemingly more neutral editors. So to me the inherent issue is not one regarding primary sources, but about an SPA with a link to a company making COI edits that are promotional in nature and unencyclopaedic. Rayman60 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|To whom it may concern:

Please find the attached as a response towards comments by Freshacconci, Mlpearc, Jim1138, Yamla, Rayman60 and Sundayclose. My account has just recently been blocked and this is a response in rectifying that. I’d like to apologize for my misguided actions and edits. I have indeed been warned twice however, I did not see these warnings. As a new Wikipedia user, I am still getting acquainted to the communication interface, and did not see these warning messages until I was blocked.

I’d like to start by addressing the Conflict of Interest (COI) policy. As a Downtown Music Publishing Intern, I am not receiving compensation for these edits. While I do work for the company, I do so as an unpaid intern. However, since I am a representative of the company, I do appreciate any feedback to help to keep my tone of edits objective. My goal isn’t to add any new content to Wikipedia that is considered promotional in nature for the company, but help others find factual information about the company and/or industry.

Next, I would like to address the issue of publisher’s information being on Wiki. I can understand your thinking that this information could appear as promotional in nature, but there’s valid cause to my updates. Downtown Music Publishing has received a lot of feedback from various constituents in the music and advertising industries that it is often extremely difficult to find who a songwriter’s publisher is. These individuals include music supervisors at advertising agencies, media, TV and film management companies, sub-publishers, as well as other artists, lawyers, and management.

The goal of updating artist and songwriter articles to reflect that Downtown Music Publishing represents them, is not to promote the company or advertise Downtown, but to inform individuals (including those mentioned above) that the company represents the song rights for that specific individual.

If a company wants to obtain a sync license for a commercial, film, video game, or advertisement they have to find out exactly who represents the rights to that song that they are interested in. Companies have spent countless hours searching the web for this information and very often do not come up with anything, resulting in them having to call resources.

For example, when a brand like Coke wanted to use Selena Gomez’s song “Kill Em with Kindness” for their Share a Coke campaign they had to get permission from a publisher in order to use it.

I do however understand that I violated Wikipedia's verifiability policy by adding unsourced or original content as I did with the edit to Giraffage and by adding or change content, as I did at Anthrax (American band), by not citing a reliable source. These were mistakes which I understand 100% as citations verify facts. I comprehend that as sure as I am that something is true, I still have to be able to verify it before I can add the contribution. As some Wiki users may notice I have successfully edited other pages with the same source of information about publication of an artist's song rights with verified citation such as from sites Billboard and Music Business Worldwide.

Thank you for your time. My apologies for misunderstanding promotional edits, the COI policy and the verifiability policy. I now understand these policies. In moving forward, I will pay be sure to pay attention to warnings, and I would appreciate any advice. For the article pages of artists who don’t have articles are we able to use Downtown’s own website as a source? Please let me know so I can be sure to go about this in the correct way. DowntownRalph (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

I personally find your explanation and understanding of COI inadequate at best. Whether you are paid is irrelevant to COI. You are affiliated with the organization; that is enough for COI to apply. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place for the company to assist its constituents about publishing information for artists. Wikipedia is written for general readership. If the information added to an article meets all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and coincidentally allows a particular group of people to find information, that's fine. But often that is not the case. This is especially true of many of your edits. You clearly failed to grasp (or follow) the policies applicable before making your edits. If you had more general interests in editing Wikipedia rather than a single purpose account, such errors for newcomers are tolerated although pointed out and corrected. In your case, however, you were focused on adding information for one purpose only: to advance the needs of the company you intern for. And even after you were asked to pay attention to COI policies twice, you plowed ahead undeterred as if you owned Wikipedia. And you still don't seem to understand that just because it's sourced doesn't mean that it can be added to an article. You have done little to convince me that you understand and are willing to abide by COI. I'll make one strong suggestion and then let others comment. I suggest that you agree to placing your suggested edits on the talk page of each article, including a statement about where you plan to place the edit. If enough people agree with you, it likely is not a COI problem. If you can't agree to that, I'm not convinced that you will stop trying to put promotional edits in articles in the hopes that they will go unnoticed by the Wikipedia community. Sundayclose (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Sundayclose here, very concise response to the unblock request. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that a huge number of linked articles have quite transparent COI issues ranging back to 2010. It seems Ralph is but a semi-innocent minion is a much larger systemic abuse by the upper echelons of Downtown - there are so many examples of SPA & COI editors responsible for so many similarly promotional, unencyclopaedic and non neutral edits ranging way back to 2010. Some of these have been rather transparent but others have been seemingly clandestine to outsiders, but having clicked through the web of linked articles and their history, it seems the abuse has been long-standing and quite unashamedly knowingly breaching numerous wiki guidelines (with the creaking weight of evidence against, I refuse to accept the plea of ignorance from the higher powers even with a most generous application of Wikipedia:Assume good faith). So I hope this episode brings a line under Downtown's COI editing. This will no doubt be discussed at a high level within the company, and I really hope that the guidelines of wiki are acknowledged and respected from here on in.Rayman60 (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Thank you for the feedback, it has been helpful and enlightening. As a student pursuing a career in music, and learning about various fields of the industry, I was under the impression that this information would be important to the community as a resource to easily locate vital information, not for a promotional purpose. As songs have unique properties and copyrights (the original composition of a song verses a recorded version), I believe that every artist/writer page should list the relevant publisher, not just those that are affiliated with Downtown Music Publishing.

However, after hearing from multiple people that publisher affiliation is unencyclopedic in nature, I have decided to not make any more edits on behalf of Downtown Music Publishing. I have spent a lot of time reading and learning about policies to be followed on Wikipedia, and I now understand them. For example, the COI policy is much broader than my original understanding of just financial interests. I understand that my affiliation with the organization is enough for COI to apply, regardless of me trying my best to keep a neutral tone.

Yes, I am currently a temporary intern for the company, but I wish to pursue other interests in my field outside of Downtown. I would sincerely appreciate if I was unblocked so I can contribute to the community in other subjects and continue to grow as well as expand my knowledge in editing, writing, research etc. In those future edits, if unblocked, I will take your advice and drop my suggested edits on the talk page of every article as well as a statement about where I plan on placing the edit.

I once again apologize and vow that I will not make further edits as I have done previously for Downtown Music Publishing.DowntownRalph (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

It will be up to an administrator to make the final decision, but if you don't edit any articles related to Downtown (including their artists or articles in any way related to their artists or other clients, because that's COI) I don't think you have to submit non-COI edits to talk pages unless you do that for your own benefit. But carefully follow any admin's instructions. Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you prepared to accept a topic ban on Downtown, embracing their artists, productions, affiliates and publishers? Note that a topic ban includes talk pages as well as article pages.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

DowntownRalph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am anticipating the administrator’s final decision and hope that they find my sincere reasoning fitted for an unblocking. I agree to 100% carefully follow any admin’s instructions. And yes, I am prepared to accept a topic ban on Downtown. That is completely fair and understandable.DowntownRalph (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You are unblocked with the agreement that you have accepted a topic ban related to Downtown (including their artists or articles in any way related to their artists or other clients). PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]