VirtualVisionary

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, VirtualVisionary. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page John Horgan, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.
This is based on your statement at my talk page that you are involved in a lawsuit against the Province because of John Hogan's back to school plan and you are one the subjects in some the sources being cited.
S0091 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Wilkinson

Firstly, removing content from Andrew Wilkinson on the grounds of purported bias, while simultaneously adding content to John Horgan which has also been disputed as biased, does not make you a trustworthy judge of what is or isn't neutral — it puts you under serious suspicion of being a BC Liberal partisan who's determined to make sure that we portray Wilkinson in a positive light and Horgan in a negative one.

And secondly, as a new editor it is not your prerogative to demand that other people "stop editing this article", as you have repeatedly done in your edit summaries — that is not how this place works, and it's especially not the prerogative of a person who's been editing Wikipedia for just three months to give orders to a longtime site administrator, or to editwar when other editors dispute your edits. You're welcome to raise a discussion of why you believe the content to be biased; however, it is not your prerogative to simply remove the content yourself, and your edit privileges will be blocked if you either (a) revert other people without discussion again, or (b) ever, ever use the words "stop editing this article" in another edit summary. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that you allowed obviously biased sections to be added in by an anonymous user. The "whacky times" controversy and "sexism controversy" were added in by this user without any discussion. For John Horgan, I tried to add in comments about the highly controversial election call which was covered all over the news media since the election was called. That section I added in was removed and I was told to "take to it to the talk section to reach a consensuses". So why are you allowing controversial statements and issues for Andrew Wilkinson to be posted without any discussion by anonymous users yet for John Horgan, these statements are being immediately removed (washed) and we are told to "Take it to the talk section"? There appears to be a bias here.

Firstly, no, the problem is that you're editwarring, and that you appear not to understand how this place works. Nobody has to propose content for discussion before they're allowed to add it to an article — if somebody adds content and you have a problem with it, then the onus is on you to explain why it's a problem, not on other editors to have asked for your personal permission before they were allowed to edit the article in the first place.

You have not, for example, actually explained why the "whacky times" controversy and "sexism controversy" should be seen as biased — you have simply asserted that they are, without explaining a damn thing about why, and have repeatedly tried to arrogate to yourself an arbitrary right to deem them inadmissible. Again, not how this place works: neutral does not necessarily mean "agrees with you" and biased does not necessarily mean "disagrees with you" — if you believe the content is biased, then the onus is on you to explain why, not to just assert it as a given and go around screaming at people to obey your demands. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There does appear to be a bias at play then, but not by you! When I added in a section to John Horgan's article about the highly controversial election call that was done during the pandemic, that section was removed. I was not told the reason why. They just kept removing it and eventually told me "take it to the talk section". Same for the highly controversial back to school plan. John Horgan was the Premier and those actions were highly controversial and covered all over the news media for months now. There is normally a section about a premier/governor when there are controversial issues yet here in BC, any mention of such a thing is being removed. I was not told why those sections were considered biased nor was I told why they were being removed. Again, please check that for yourself. To me, it simply appeared as if people didn't like mere fact that the mere mention of the controversies were added in to the articles.

If your explanation as to how Wikipedia works is true then can you please have a talk with the people that removed the sections I added in because they are clearly going against everything you have explained to me. Since you allowed and posted a "whacky times" and "sexism controversy" section about Andrew Wilkinson, am I allowed to repost the section about the controversy surrounding the election call by John Horgan? Again, no one has explained why they removed what I added in. They simply said to take it to the talk section (see for yourself). And can I add in a section about the controversial back to school plan? Again, these are two issues that have been covered all over the news for months now so I see no reason as to why a "whacky times" section and "sexism controversy" section is added in about one leader but controversies about the other leader are not being allowed and "washed".

To sum this up, I think that ALL THREE leaders in this province should have a "controversy" section about them. Every time I tried to add one in about John Horgan, it was removed and I was told "we don't like that, take it to the talk". That is part of the problem in this province. There appears to be people employed by the various parties or political supporters that are removing very relevant content. So again, I am NOT asking that you remove the sections about Andrew Wilkinson's controversies. In fact, we should expand on them. But in all fairness, if you are allowing those sections to be added in without question about Andrew Wilkinson then you should also allow similar sections to be added in about John Horgan and also the leader of the Green party. Can I please proceed as such and can you please monitor those articles as well to ensure that they are not "washed" and that I am not told to "take it to the talk" page? I will add in more context/controversies for all three leaders.

If you examine what I have done in the past, you can see that this is what I tried to accomplish, a balance and fairness for all three leaders. We need to eliminate any type of bias and as such, we need to expand on the controversy section for all three leaders, including Andrew Wilkinson. Please let me know. Thank you!