DoomDoer

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, DoomDoer. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Time to Die (Electric Wizard album), 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 Wikipedia: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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You received an email response about this - please stop trying to re-insert the material in the article, or your account may be blocked. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Time to Die (Electric Wizard album). 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for your message. I am simply updating the page because the album has been withdrawn from sale until the band pay Mark Greening. There's is no conflict of interest, it's purely fact which can be checked & verified easily with a Google search. I further enclosed important documents backing up the information. The user who keeps deleting the update does have a conflict of interest, as he is either in the band or the band's manager, therefore they are the party committing vandalism on the page & that user should be blocked.

Decline reason:

It is up to you to provide reliable sources for your edit, especially those that involve statements about living people. You also may not edit war to maintain your unsourced material. Kuru (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The material was NOT unsourced - I provided a number of reliable sources, including a letter from the record label's solicitor confirming the facts which I added to the page. As stated earlier, a simple Google search for the album would prove that the album has in fact been withdrawn from sale everywhere, by the record company. Now that I'm blocked, I'm unable to add further sources, which is another reason I feel I should be unblocked. As also stated previously, I was simply adding factual information about the album to update the page. Obviously this is something the band are not too pleased about the public knowing, and keep deleting the update. This does not make the information false or mean that it hasn't happened, so why is such deletion allowed? Surely deleting facts because you are actually in the band IS an actual conflict of interest and continually deleting said facts is edit warring - so it makes absolutely no sense that I have been blocked but the band have not? Now please to respond to the other matters I raised, as highlighted above. Just in relation to your so-called “conflict of interest: policy, who do you imagine actually writes most of the stuff? If people aren’t allowed to puff up themselves, their band/businesses/products/talents etc etc etc there would be nothing on Wikipedia at all.

Decline reason:

Just because information is true or false, it doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia that somebody would be interested in reading about in 10, 50, 100 years time. For example, the death of Charles Kennedy is worthy of note, but the death of my pet cat isn't, much to my chagrin. Also, you clearly evaded the block here to post the information back. You need to find a source like Rolling Stone or Billboard that takes no sides in the debate. 24 hours is not a long time to be blocked, I'd recommend looking for higher quality and neutral sources, and reading up on some of the other policies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Note that you have added a link to a storefront saying that some unspecified product is unavailable. If you feel that this supports the entire paragraph of claims you have made, then it is possible you should not be editing here. Please note that if you resume this poor behavior, it is very likely that you will be blocked again. Kuru (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} Sorry to hear about your cat Ritchie333. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who would in fact think that the death of it is worthy of note - this is the Internet after all. Thank you for your reply, I have in fact read through all of the applicable policies and still disagree with the blocking, which was supposed to have ended around 30 minutes ago, yet I'm still blocked. I didn't avoid the block on the link you've provided and can only assume that this was done by a fan, as the updated page was posted on Facebook and shared many times before it was continually deleted by the band. Anyway, the page is about an album recorded by a doom stoner metal band, so unfortunately the chances of them appearing in Rolling Stone or Billboard magazine are extremely slim. Please note also that my update, 1 paragraph, was simple and factual and not biased in any way. If you feel that it is biased, I would be grateful if you could please explain your reasons why. Despite this, the genre, of which this band are extremely well-known, has a very strong fan-base who have all been following the dispute, so although the update may not be noteworthy to you, it is actually extremely interesting for a lot of fans of the genre, and will continue to be in 10, 50 and 100+ years time (or at least for as long as there are metal-heads, who have now been around since the dawn of rock n roll, so quite a long time). Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source, not an actual encyclopedia, so surely it should be up to the public to decide what's interesting rather than a few Wikipedia members who appear to be somewhat unfamiliar with the genre. As stated previously, a simple Google search on the matter would show just how interested the public are in the band's ongoing dispute, as well the fact that you can no longer purchase the album (apart from places such as eBay, of course). I further provided a letter from Universal Music Group International's lawyer confirming the withdrawal from sale of the album, which is a far greater reliable source than any website or magazine that might write about it, as that very letter is their source.

Kuru (talk) Kuru, if you look at the link address provided in the update, you will see that the product is indeed clearly specified and as the update was specifically about the album being pulled by the label as a result of the band not paying or obtaining Mark Greening's permission to use his compositions and performance, what could be more relevant or reliable than the label's (the biggest major label in the world) own storefront saying that the album is unavailable. If you feel that this link doesn't support the single paragraph updating the status of the album, I can provide many, many more links to other popular retail websites that also show that the album is no longer available. Again, as stated previously, a simple Google search would show you this, and if you feel that blocking someone for providing a factual, unbiased update on the subject of the page on which is was written without doing your homework, then it is perhaps more possible you should not be an administrator. The only poor behaviour here is by the band and you - I'm simply providing a factual, unbiased and reliable update on a matter of interest to a lot of people, which you are ignorantly censoring.

Decline reason:

Your block had expired. If you're still unable to edit, please post another request with the message you're seeing. However, I have to warn you: our policies on verifiability, reliable sources and original research are non-negotiable, so if you attempt to inset the same text with the same error message as a reference, you will be blocked again, probably indefinitely this time. Please read these policies before attempting to edit again. Max Semenik (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

{{Max Semenik (talk FreeRangeFrogcroak As stated several times now, I've read all applicable policies and still fail to see why the major record label's own store showing the product had been removed is not a reliable source or the letter from their solicitor setting out why the product was removed? Anyway, please could you advise if this reference, from another reputable encyclopaedia is an acceptable reference: http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Electric_Wizard/407 }}

So: you added a bunch of text about copyright dispute, lawsuit and album withdrawal, with a single reference out users might use to confirm the validity of this paragraph. This reference says "This product 157452 is currently not available." That's all! What does it mean? Maybe, it's just a broken link to an album that never existed. Maybe, the whole site is broken. Or maybe the album's not there because alien yeti reptiloids from Sirius B asked the label to remove it? Because the source says nothing about it, may be the case! :P The text added is not supported by the reference, and that means that this text is not verifiable. Which means that this text shouldn't have been added in the first place. Also, you copied this text from Encyclopaedia Metallum - this is a copyright infringement. In addition to EM being, strictly speaking, a tertiary source that should be used with great caution as it appears to be user-contributed. Hope that helps. Max Semenik (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I'm checking this band out right now! :P Max Semenik (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Max Semenik (talk The text wasn't copied from EM, I'm a frequent contributor for them, which is why I don't see how the paragraph I added was in any way biased, which I believe was the original concern. As I said, the actual link ADDRESS (i.e. not the page itself) clearly states the name of the product that's not "available". If you click here http://store.universalmusic.com/spinefarm/ & then click on the album, it takes you to: http://store.universalmusic.com/spinefarm/*/*/Time-To-Die-CD/3DHO0000000 (the album is "Time To Die") & as I've also said previously, a Google search will show that the album is no longer available anywhere & probably quite a few articles about the dispute. Decibel did a great story on it around August last year. The dispute has only just resulted in the album being pulled until Mark Greening gets paid/gives permission for it to be sold, as per the letter by Universal's lawyer I originally supplied, which is why it's being updated. It will take a while to come out in music magazines (metal specific ones, still not Rolling Stone or Billboard), which is another reason why it's being updated on user-contributed and social media websites. So is the EM link OK to use or do we have to wait for other websites to publish the update?}}

The chances of this being included in the article with the sourcing you have thus far provided are essentially zero. You need a reliable secondary source that specifically supports the claims you've made: Greening was fired by the band and the album was released without Greening's permission ... legal action by Mark Greening against the band ... failure to pay him for his work ... Universal Music Group International and Spinefarm Records ... withdraw the album ... from sale ... without that being copied from somewhere else (which supports the idea that you or someone associated with you added that to Encyclopaedia Metallum). Period, end of story. "just Google it" is not enough, the non-existence of something is not enough, social media is not enough, user-edited websites are not enough, etc. Surely if this was a big deal then someone in the music industry should have mentioned it, and if that's not the case then there's nothing more to do. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You do know this is Wikipedia, not the Constitution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoomDoer (talk • contribs)

In Wikipedia you will abide by the project's policies and guidelines. If you don't like that, you are welcome to simply leave. Also, please sign your comments. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Humor

Thank you again for your helpful input FreeRangeFrog. Have you ever considered a hobby?

That's hilarious. And yet here we are. So now you have a good source for the firing, but I'd have to question what the point is if it doesn't support any of the other claims. As it stands your addition is irrelevant trivia, which is why I did not revert the IPs removal (I don't doubt they also have a COI but so far their reverts have been appropriate). I will ask you again, and for the last time, to not edit the article directly, since you have a declared conflict of interest. Please follow the instructions here to create a request instead. Please don't bother with the trivia thing again, go find some sources that actually provide some information directly relevant to the subject of the article. Failing that, I suggest you just go find a hobby or something. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry User:FreeRangeFrog, it's been a long day & despite reading the page you kindly provided, I cannot figure out where the create a request thing is. I would like this page edited properly, so if you could please expand on how to create a request, I will happily do so. The update made news today so there are finally several credible sources already published, & I imagine there will be more to come, so hopefully it's now within Wiki policy & guidelines? I've re-read the COI page you sent to begin with & do not feel that it is applicable in this instance. Is there a page that tells you how to stop someone who actually does have a conflict of interest in the subject from deleting the facts? Isn't there something about edit-warring? Max Semenik did you check the band out? What did you think? talk

Well, if it made the news you should be OK then. Tell you what, you paste your links here along with the proposed wording and we'll figure it out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Time to Die (Electric Wizard album), feel free to comment. I think you have enough for inclusion now, but I object to your original wording and one of your sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you FreeRangeFrog^{croak! The links & proposed wording are:}

Shortly after writing and recording the album, and prior to the album's release, Mark Greening was fired by the band (this link is an interview with the band confirming Greening was fired) & (another confirmation of Greening being fired) & (Greening confirming he was fired from the band after writing & recording the album)

The album was released by Spinefarm Records, despite Greening's claims that he had not been paid by the band for his work or given his permission for his performance on the album to be used. Upon hearing this, a fan set up a controversial Facebook page in protest of Greening being fired and unpaid, with the hope of prompting the band to resolve the matter with Greening It is understood that the band's excuse for not paying is that they spent the record advance from the label recording the album, however in a number of interviews, the band confirm that it was entirely paid for prior to signing with Spinefarm. &

As a result of the ongoing legal action by Greening against the band's infringement of his copyrights and failure to pay him for his work on the album, on 20 May 2015, Universal Music Group International and Spinefarm Records made the decision to withdraw the album and all associated products from sale until the dispute is finalised so as not to infringe Greening's copyright claim. & &

Please let me know your thoughts on the proposed wording! Any suggested edits are welcome. Thanks again! ~~DoomDoer~~

Just did a search & it's really made the news!

http://www.musictimes.com/articles/40836/20150613/electric-wizard-acclaimed-time-to-die-pulled-due-lawsuit.htm http://www.metalinsider.net/legal-woes/time-to-buy-electric-wizard-album-removed-from-retail-streaming-outlets http://www.rockmusicupdates.altervista.org/7461-electric-wizards-time-to-die-removed-from-retail-and-streaming-outlets-in-wake-of-financial-dispute-between-the-band-and-former-drummer-mark-greening.html

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4273/1374/1600/lionelrichie User:FreeRangeFrog