Talk:VoteRiders

Untitled

Since I was a key contributor to this article, I wanted to clarify that I’m not connected to VoteRiders in any way. The individual who placed the tag, without prior notice, alleged an “appearance” of a close relationship thus implying neutrality issues. This is incorrect and I have deleted the tag. Appearances are often misleading. For example, if someone were trying to damage or defame VoteRiders - a 501(c)(3) non profit - one might place such a tag. Said tag was placed on December 23rd - the most damaging possible moment since that is prime time for receiving end-of-year tax exempt donations So, there is an “appearance" of willful infliction of damage to this non-profit organization. Nevertheless, I reject the notion that the editor was intentionally trying to damage VoterRiders. Even though it appears that way, it was probably unintentional and unfortunately timed. Thanks to the active involvement of many Wikipedians over the past three years, the VoteRiders article is well-referenced and conforms to Wikipedia’s rules and standards including the neutrality protocols. I appreciate your interest in improving this article as we all want it to be as accurate as possible.Momto2 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am reverting the recent deletions and bogus calls for "citations needed" as they are clearly a case of vandalism and defamation designed to denigrate a non-partisan, non-profit organization. The timing of aforesaid activities occurred suspiciously in the latter half of December -precisely at the time when a 501(c)(3) non profit is most reliant on public donations. The nefarious edits were not in keeping with Wikipedia policy and an affront to any sense of neutrality. On the contrary, the specious allegations were a transparent attempt to damage VoteRiders and its Founder.(Momto2 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC))

COI tag

I've added a COI tag. Monnaliza clearly has a COI, as this user uploaded File:Kathleen Unger.jpg and claimed it as an own work. It appears likely to me that BA McMurtry (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest with respect to VoteRiders and Kathleen Unger based on the WP:SPA-style editing on tboth articles. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest to disclose and request removal of the tag. Thanks. BA McMurtry (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I went over the Conflict of Interest protocols for sourcing and objectivity, and the content doesn't seem to be in violation, so I removed the COI tag. my story; my source code; my life in strings of text 00:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney Stencil (talk • contribs)

I readded the COI tag as it was previously removed by an editor with a confirmed COI. SanJacintoPeak (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Greetings SanJacintoPeak. I recently contributed to the VoteRiders article and noticed you applied a COI tag. Was the only issue that a COI editor removed the tag? Are there other specific, articulatable, fixable problems? I have no problem researching and addressing open issues and removing the COI tag. Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia COI template guidelines, a request was posted on this article’s Talk page seeking clarification and additional information concerning the re-publishing of a 3 year old COI tag. No feedback was received from the posting editor nor others from the Wikipedia community.

To recap the Revision History, an editor with potential COI removed their questioned contributions and the article’s COI tag in April 2020. Subsequently the article has been actively updated with 110 edits, doubling the citations from 74 to 152, and increasing the size of the article from 46,000 to over 77,000 bytes. None of the labeled COI editors have posted to this article since the initial placement of the COI tag from April 2020.

As it appears the original COI tag was reported as resolved and no current specific problems have been identified, I am removing the existing COI tag. Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Advert Tag

I do not believe the advert tag that remains on this page to be an accurate depiction of the information given about the organization here. This is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Nonetheless, I will go through and updated the language to reflect a more neutral point of view in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdaviskc (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I went over the guidelines for tag removal, and I have removed the advert tag from this page. User:Sidney Stencil 23:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This is what concerns me about the page

I found a link to this opportunity on the organizations web page:

https://www.mobilize.us/voteriders/event/553694/
Join the Wikipedia Team! Interest Form Details Are you an experienced Wikipedian or do you know anyone who is? We are looking for volunteers to join our team and help update VoteRiders wiki page with factual and reliably sourced material. We'll provide the training and ongoing support, can you give us the time?

100.6.112.82 (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's not good...Marquardtika (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, any editor who signs up with that organization, participates in the training offered, or otherwise coordinates with them on editing Wikipedia will have to declare a COI. - Donald Albury 16:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

policy violations

This is probably one of the most egregious examples of a self-serving article on WP. While there's the issue of whether someone actually associated with VoteRiders is responsible for these edits, or an actual paid editor made these edits, or someone whose only connection to VoteRiders is their desire to assist in its mission, this doesn't actually matter. The plain fact is that in its current form, this article just doesn't belong on WP.

Some possible options are:

• Strip it down to a bare minimum article.
• Wipe the article out completely.
• Some unaffiliated and bona fide editor may volunteer to create a suitable replacement article.

(I'm not really fond of this last option because I'm just hostile to an organization that has abused WP so seriously... I don't like the idea that an organization gets rewarded for so blatantly ignoring the rules.)

FWIW, the 3 September 2018 version was pretty much okay, but if we posted that, we'd have to provide some way for it to be kept current.

For the moment, I suggest just blanking the page (or posting some appropriate notice), and blocking any edits. Fabrickator (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of 'Advert' template

@Roman Spinner: You removed the "Advert" template that I placed on the article page with the justification, "per similarly styled articles". That is not a valid reason for removal of a maintenance template. The presence of other articles that do not conform to our policies does not exempt any article from such policies. If other articles are also as promotional as this one, then those articles also need to be cleaned up. Please revert your removal of that template. Donald Albury 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I appreciate your contacting me and would like to discuss the matter further. Having read the article, I could not differentiate between what is purported to be promotional and what appears to be factual based upon the 189 inline cites appended under section header "References".

I have seen "{Advert}" or "{Neutral}" tags that had been placed atop articles ten or fifteen years ago with no one taking steps to remove such tags seeing that there was no specificity as to which portion of the content was deemed to fall short of Wikipedia standards.

Since at the top of the talk page is the text "This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale", the talk page should serve as discussion central for a point-by-point examination regarding each disputed sentence or claim that appears in the article, ultimately enabling the article to maintain its "B-class" rating.

Although I did not create the content of this article and have no connection to this organization, the text with the accompanying citations appears to state its points in clear language, thus creating the opportunity for all users who are interested in this topic to participate as to the detailed steps needed to be taken in order to improve this article. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This will have to wait. Due to real life, I have no time to work on this for the next few days. Donald Albury 10:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

proposed deletion of supporter lists

I propose that the following categories under "partner organizations and supporters" be removed:

• Corporate philanthropy
• In-Kind Benefactors
• Individual supporters

These contribute to article bloat and do not materially improve our knowledge or understanding of this organization and its mission. Fabrickator (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you and would support removal. Marquardtika (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I also agree and support removal of those sections. Donald Albury 14:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removing the list names on the three sections specified, while retaining the cited bullet-pointed content. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Done - except for individual supporters, which were cited with notable secondary sources (anything relying on primary sources were deleted due to lack of notability) Superb Owl (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)