Talk:Breyers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unsourced list of ingredients in ice cream section

Hello! On behalf of Unilever and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I am submitting a request to remove the (unsourced) third paragraph of the Ice cream section, which is an approximately 100 word list of ingredients. This seems to me to go against WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:UNSOURCED.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my profile page and at the top of this page. I generally avoid editing the main space directly and would prefer to have someone else review this request and update the page on my behalf. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

 Removed Left guide (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove poorly sourced content

Hi again! Continuing my work above, I'd like to suggest another improvement to the Ice cream section. Some of the descriptors like "common artificially separated and extracted ingredients" are unsupported and overly detailed, and sources #7, #8, and #9 are old ingredient lists from the Breyers website.

Therefore, I propose removing the following content: "Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others."

I also noticed that Source #5 is a blog and not a reliable source. Do editors think it may be easier just to remove the first two paragraphs of the section given that the sourcing doesn't meet reliable source standards?

I plan on submitting draft content to improve this section, but for now, I am seeking to remove inappropriately sourced text from the page. @Left guide: I am curious if you have any thoughts since you reviewed my last post.

Thanks in advance for any help! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't love how heavily this section relies on the A Daily Scoop source, but I'm reluctant to remove (sourced) potentially-negative content on a COI editor's recommendation. My preference here would be to see the proposed replacement before removing. Poking around a little for better sourcing, this NYT article may be relevant, though it's obviously, uh, opinionated. Also the Dispatch.

Old ingredients list seem like a fine source (this seems like an uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF especially given that they're legally required not to lie here!) though if there are more recent ingredients lists that contradict this obviously the information should be changed or dated.

I've toned the current content down slightly and removed the content not in the citation, but not removed all of it. Rusalkii (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rusalkii: Thank you for taking a look and updating the article. I'm working on the draft text now and can let you know when it is ready to review. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

History update

Hello again. For my next request, I propose replacing the first sentence of the History section:

• In 1866, William A. Breyer began to produce and sell iced cream in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, first from his home, and later via horse and wagon on the streets.

References

With this updated text:

• The Breyers brand was created in 1866 by William Breyer, who made ice cream in his kitchen and sold it from a horse-drawn wagon in Philadelphia. By the time of his death in 1882, he had opened six shops in Philadelphia while still manufacturing the ice cream in his home.

References

This text is more accurate to the source and adds additional detail about the early days of Breyers. My goal is to make this beginning more complete and accurate to the source material.

 Done. Zefr (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, if editors are interested, I did write a new draft of the article to show what I hope the final product will look like. @Rusalkii: Would you be interested in reviewing this request since you have reviewed others on this article? Inkian Jason (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Inkian Jason, I'm currently going through my backlog of requests that are waiting on a response from me in particular and working on non-controversial small requests; I'll leave looking at the draft to other editors for now. Rusalkii (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr: Thank you for reviewing this request and updating the article. I have marked the request as answered. @Rusalkii: Thanks for the reply, too. I will continue my series of smaller requests for now. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

History update continued

Hello again. For my next request, I suggest replacing these sentences in the History section (all but the final sentence of the second paragraph):

• Breyer's son Henry incorporated the business in 1908. The formerly independent Breyer Ice Cream Company was sold to the National Dairy Products Corporation/Sealtest in 1926. National Dairy then changed its name to Kraftco in 1968, and Kraft by 1975.

With this updated text:

• In 1896, Breyer's sons Fred and Henry opened the first manufacturing facility for Breyers ice cream, incorporated the company, and began using the briar leaf in the company logo. The company opened its second facility in 1904 and became the first to use brine-cooled freezers the following year. By 1914, Breyers Ice Cream Company was selling one million gallons of ice cream annually. The company opened additional plants in Long Island City, New York, and Newark, New Jersey, in the 1920s and became a subsidiary of the National Dairy Products Corporation (NDPC) in 1926. NDPC sold the brand to Kraft in 1952. In 1969, Breyers became part of Kraftco, the precursor company to Kraft Foods, Inc., and began being sold in the southeastern United States; sales extended west of the Mississippi River in 1984.

References

This updated text corrects errors in unreferenced content, adds citations where needed, updates the existing AP citation to better reflect the source, and adds additional context related to Breyers' early years.

My goal is to make this content more complete and accurate. Again, you can view how this request relates to the overall draft I've saved here, if that's helpful or if you're interested in reviewing more of the proposed History section.

@Zefr and Rusalkii: Would either of you be interested in reviewing this request?

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Zefr (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

History request 3

Hi editors, for next request, I suggest replacing the following sentence

• Kraft sold its ice cream brands to Unilever in 1993, while retaining rights to the Breyers name for yogurt products.

With:

By 1986, Breyers was the best-selling ice cream brand in the United States. Its expansion into California was met with consumer confusion due to the similarity in name with Dreyer's, the most popular ice cream brand on the West Coast. Breyers' advertisements stressed that its name started with the letter "B" and noted differences in ingredients between the two products, including that Dreyer's used corn syrup and color additives while Breyers did not. Breyers' carton branding had drawn many imitators, leading to a redesign in the 1980s to make its cartons black with images of the product.

Unilever purchased Breyers ice cream in 1993 and merged it with Gold Bond and Good Humor ice cream to create the Good Humor-Breyers division. Kraft retained the rights to produce Breyers-branded yogurt. Unilever closed its last Breyers plant in Philadelphia in 1995. Good Humor-Breyers moved its headquarters from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to Toronto and Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, in 2007.

References

• Note: The missing links are named references (the Goff book and the AP article) already named in the live article.

Like the previous request, this expands on the information about Breyers' history (particularly in the 80s and 90s), adds additional sources, and generally makes the History section more complete. @Zefr: Would be willing to take a look at this one as well? Inkian Jason (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Zefr (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr: Thank you for reviewing! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

History request 4

Hi editors, for my next request, I suggest adding the following to the end of the History section:

Unilever closed a Breyers production facility in Framingham, Massachusetts, in 2011. A facility manufacturing Breyers-branded yogurt in North Lawrence, New York also closed that year.

In 2015, Breyers stopped using milk from cows treated with the hormone recombinant bovine somatotropin and began using vanilla from Madagascar that had been certified as sustainably sourced by the Rainforest Alliance.

Social media posts in the 2010s and early 2020s, as well as a New York Times column by Dan Barry, circulated about some Breyers products being labeled "frozen dairy dessert" rather than ice cream, leading to questions about the ingredients in the products. The labeling difference was due to butterfat content in the products. Regulations in the United States and Canada require products with less than 10 percent butterfat to be labeled as frozen dairy dessert.

References

This brings the History section up to date and consolidates several pieces of historical information (like the closing of the Framingham plant and labeling of some products as frozen dairy dessert) with appropriate and complete sourcing, making the article more complete and accurate overall. @Zefr: Would this request be of interest, too? Inkian Jason (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Inkian Jason - respectfully, these events seem relatively minor as WP:UNDUE and somewhat promotional. The Breyers website history doesn't feature these stories. Zefr (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr: I would generally agree these are minor things. I was trying to keep the text as close as possible to the current article (with updated reliable sourcing) and then add new content related to the use of hormone-free milk and vanilla sourcing, which is covered by the history page you linked (the 2015 bullet on the timeline mentions it) as well as the ingredients pledge on the Breyers website. For the specific content proposed:

Extended content

The closure of the Framingham facility is discussed in the Breyers#Ice cream section, in the sentence: For several decades over 30% of Breyers products, including most of its products sold in the Northeastern U.S., were produced in a large plant outside Boston, in Framingham, Massachusetts. As part of cost-cutting by Unilever, the plant was closed in March 2011. This sentence has a tag for being ambiguous and the reference link is dead. My suggested update fixes the dead link, removes the ambiguity, and moves the closure into History, which I believe makes more sense. I am perfectly fine with removing this from the request and would also suggest the content then be removed from the Ice cream section as well. The discussion of ice cream vs. frozen dairy dessert I have proposed similarly seeks to address the remaining content in the Ice cream section. The current Ice cream largely cites the Breyers website and a blog, contains original research not supported by the citations used, and has been tagged for ambiguity. My version replaces poorly sourced content and original research with content verified by sourcing; however, I am also perfectly fine with removing this part of the request and would suggest that if this information is undue, the Ice cream section as a whole be removed. Regarding the addition of the content on the use of hormone free milk and vanilla sourcing, I am also perfectly fine with removing that request if it is seen as promotional or undue.

Thank you for taking the time to look. I appreciate the close reading and feedback. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the Ice cream section can be deleted, and did so. Moved the Yogurt information - which is part of history - to the History section. Anything further? Zefr (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr: Thanks for doing that! I have marked the request as answered.

I have two larger requests and two smaller requests for the article.

The first smaller request involves updating the infobox to the following:

Extended content
Breyers (omitted to avoid any issues with WP:NONFREE; image is Breyers Logo.png) Product type Frozen dessert Owner Unilever Country United States Introduced 1866 (1866) Previous owners Kraft Foods Inc. Website breyers.com

I have primarily added links and removed the Good Humor-Breyers ownership as that is a subbrand of Unilever.

The second smaller request is to slightly expand the introduction based on the information in the article:

Extended content

Breyers is an American ice cream brand created in 1866 by William Breyer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. By the 1920s, the brand was producing more than 1 million gallons annually. It was sold to the National Dairy Products Corporation in 1926 and again in 1993 to Unilever, which merged it with Good Humor to form the Good Humor-Breyers division. Breyers was noted for advertising its use of natural ingredients.

My first larger request involves removing the Breyers#Confusion_with_Dreyer's section. I'm proposing this for several reasons:

Extended content

The content is already largely covered by the third paragraph of the History section, as appropriate sourcing supports The content is not appropriately sourced Icecream.com, the first source, is not an RS The sentences Henry Breyer founded Breyers in 1908 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, while William Dreyer and Joseph Edy co-founded Edy's Grand Ice Cream in 1928 in Oakland, California. The root of the confusion dates to 1953, when "Edy's Grand Ice Cream" was changed to "Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream". Seeking to eliminate the confusion this created, Dreyer's changed its brand name in the home market of Breyers from "Dreyer's Grand" back to "Edy's Grand" in 1981. are inaccurate and/or unsourced. The listed Forbes (found on LexisNexis) does not support the sentences. The entirety of Dreyer's/Breyers content from the article is in the box below T. Gary Rogers, chairman of Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, has used a different approach -- pricing. Rogers has counted on steady increases in the prices for his confections to finance expansion from his Oakland, Calif. base into 19 western and midwestern states. ("It is frightening to take this to its logical conclusion but, up until this point, a price hike has never hurt us and often sales have picked up as a result," says Rogers.) His ice cream sells at retail about 25% higher than the typical name brand sold in the supermarket. I have been unable to locate the Baltimore Business Journal article cited for the sentence Around that same time Breyers had begun an expansion toward the West Coast—the home market of Dreyer's—and by the mid-1980s was distributing ice cream throughout the western U.S. and Texas. but I believe this is also already covered by other appropriate sources in the History section Tonally, I don't think the last sentence in the section is particularly encyclopedic and is generally unnecessary as it is already covered in the History section

Finally, I suggest the creation of a new section, titled Marketing campaigns with content on campaigns covered by appropriate sources. My proposed section is below.

Extended content

In 1989, Marine Midland Bank launched the Breyers Visa credit card aimed at families with young children. The cards launched simultaneously with the Children's Miracle Network Hospitals telethon that year, as well as advertisements in newspapers, People, and TV Guide. Breyers committed US$2 for every account opened during the campaign. Bernadette Peters starred in a series of Breyers commercials in the 1990s. To coincide with a relaunch of its Cookies & Cream flavor with increased cookies in 2021, Breyers began offering "Cookie Coverage", a coupon to customers and an insurance certificate to allow claims for customers unsatisfied with the volume of cookies in their ice cream tubs. The campaign featured approval from the GEICO Gecko and was created in partnership with Edelman. The brand resumed its partnership with Peters in 2024 to market its CarbSmart lower-calorie product line. VML took over Breyers' marketing strategy the same year. References

Please let me know what you think, and thank you for all your assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I inserted the revised infobox as suggested. The Breyers script logo with the leaf (shown on breyers.com) could be used, but is not currently on Wikimedia Commons, so it would have to be uploaded and cleared for public use, if available.

I revised the lede and removed the Dreyer's section. Regarding a section on marketing campaigns, this impresses as unencyclopedic and too close to advertising, so I'll decline on that suggestion. Zefr (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help here, Zefr. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Logo, propylene glycol

@Zefr: I've uploaded the logo under fair use for the infobox. Would you be willing to add the image for me?

I was also wondering if you had any thoughts about the appropriateness of the recent content addition related to propylene glycol. The text reads like an attempt to inspire fear about a federally approved food additive. Propylene glycol has many uses beyond antifreeze and the specific concerns about its use in food have been discussed and pretty thoroughly dismissed (source 1, source 2). Also, the sources used for this I think are subpar. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer source is a reposting of an opinion piece by The Motley Fool, which is a private financial and investing advice company. The Motley Fool is not a reliable source and the main discussion about it on the reliable sources noticeboard indicates that it is at best of dubious reliability. The Zinczenko book also says propylene glycol is antifreeze, which is not accurate. Overall, this seems to be the same kind of content that was in the ice cream section you deleted as part of one of my earlier requests.

Should this also be removed? Thanks again for any help. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Zefr (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

October 2024 class action suit

Removal of this section is justified because the lawsuit is not final. There is an upcoming fairness hearing: On Nov. 21, the court will hold a fairness hearing to decide whether or not the settlement is reasonable. The court will consider any objections.

Unilever has not agreed to the claim of non-vanilla ingredients, and has made a defense that the ingredients are natural vanilla. Also, the amount of payment - if the penalty holds - is not finalized by the court. Addition to the article is warranted when the final court order is published. Zefr (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr:, as Left guide mentioned, I'm concerned the article is taking the shape of Unilever's desired presentation. This happens to be shortly following having been privately personally contacted by Unilever agent through your talk page. Graywalls (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no significance to my receiving a contact on my talk page. I have been following this article out of my own interest for most of 2024, and am taking an objective view of the content, which - by the article size - is basically a stub unlikely to change much. There is little WP:RS-supported content with due weight to dispute or add from the past decade.

Your opposition and arguments are vague. I suggest you begin your objections again in the conventional sense of an edit request in a new section: "Change x to y" and provide a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not a COI editor, so it's not as I am seeking your approval on something. Graywalls (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That would not justify removal. Your argument is not consistent with wikipedia's policies and guidelines, remember you aren't allowed to engage in promotional activity even after disclosing. What you seem to be proposing here is promotion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back just to be clear, Zefr isn't the PR agent. They're the person that was contacted with a ping and talk page message by someone from a public relations firm representing Unilever (which owns Breyers brand). The nature of past requests from the public relation firm's rep looks to me of increasing flattering contents while pruning unflattering contents and in my opinion, the contents suggested violate the idea of NPOV. Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that a promotional edit does not become non-promotional when its Zefr making/requesting the edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed references

User Graywalls has suggested the following references for consideration, as of 13 November 2024. This list was previously at the top of the talk page, causing WP:REFCLUTTER and a violation of WP:TALK layout, WP:TALKNEW.

• Ice Cream’s Identity Crisis, New York Times, August 2013. This source is nearly 12 years out of date, serving no additional purpose beyond similar sources from the same period. if Graywalls disagrees, propose a change in a conventional edit request of "change x to y" using this source.

• Youtube, which is subject to the video's producer content preferences and contains ads, WP:YT, making it non-WP:RS and unusable.

• Youtube, which is subject to the video's producer content preferences and contains ads, WP:YT, making it non-WP:RS and unusable.

• 2013-18 opinion article, out of date, serving no additional purpose beyond similar sources from the same period. if Graywalls disagrees, propose a change in a conventional edit request of "change x to y" using this source. Zefr (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you bother to look at WP:RSPYT? Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Graywalls (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to submit an edit request for YOUR approval like a COI/U. It was actually not appropriate that you were

privately

contacted by a COI/U, then implemented their change. I also disagree with the introduction of FDA.GOV source as YOU are making the decision to include this primary source, rather than the secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No one knows why you think these sources are usable. Keep it simple by proposing a change of x to y with the source to support why it's needed. Zefr (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Look, it does not go that others must seek your consent, as you're implying by requesting "change x to y" while your own edits suggest you're bound to different standards. Users who aren't COI/U are not bound to this and it's absurd you're asking others to do this. It's clearly stated in WP:RSPYT that videos from news agencies are just as acceptable as the news itself in print/web form. As it stands, the sources you newly introduced, without adhering to your own suggestion of "propose x and y" does not have consensus. Graywalls (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added sourced content to the article. if you disagree with it, the place to discuss it is in a new talk page section.

This discussion is not about why we should or should not use your proposed outdated sources, which is the purpose of this talk page section. Zefr (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this right. When others revert you, it's an "edit war" and you tag them for it, but when YOU do it, it's something else? Sequential edits counts as an edit. Your editing pattern clearly suggests you think your preferred version takes precedence. I suggest the correct thing to do is to revert to the version before you implemented the suggestion by public relations rep, which other editors in talk page was not in favor of either. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

My version is objective, and referenced to reliable sources. That's what an encyclopedia does. If other editors disagree, the article can be edited with better sources, and the place to discuss it is here. Zefr (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's rather inappropriate that you, a participant in what you claim "edit war" is going around tagging warnings. That's rather self-righteous. You're not the arbiter of what' encyclopedic or not. Read other participants' comment as well. Your preferred version don't have clear consensus. Please restore the version prior to your implementation that was made at Unilever's request. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You should read WP:CON and propose constructive edits to the article supported by reliable sources. "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."

Consensus may take time and discussion among several editors, not just you. Meanwhile, you seem heavily invested in disparaging Breyers, as the above topics illustrate. Some time away from the article may be useful, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Zefr (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I suggest reverting to this version aside from the logo and perhaps have other editors implement the change. Rather than revert again, I tagged as paid contents, because despite the slight re-wording, the highly advertise-y contents like "To produce its vanilla flavors, Breyers uses 100% sustainably-sourced vanilla beans from Madagascar in a partnership with the Rainforest Alliance." which comes from Mashed as "according to Delish, UNILEVER says..." seems to have been done essentially at the behest of Unilever Corporation's PR firm's rep. My suggestion at this point is we revert to the version prior to the most recent involvement by the Unilever PR representative, and have Unilever's request go through the edit request system and be implemented by neither myself nor Zefr. Graywalls (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

While not directly relevant to the topic under discussion here, I feel it may be useful background to be aware that the COI editor involved here (Inkian Jason) has a history of introducing poor sources to replace good sources with the justification that the poor sources were "more recent" and "stronger". For further detail see discussion here [1].

Evidently such opinions are exceptionally worrying in COI editors, especially when they are trying to install slanted versions of events at the behest of their corporate paymasters.

The user's direct approach to a non-conflicted editor, mentioned above, was part of an inappropriate pattern of behaviour. Inkian Jason's edit history indicated that they had contacted Zefr on several occasions to ask for help with edit requests, and then once Zefr had proved generally amenable the COI user raised the propylene glycol issue again which another user has previously turned down.

I make no negative comment in relation to Zefr's role in all of this - but the way in which Inkian Jason appears to have gone about locating and cultivating an amenable unconflicted editor strikes me as highly unethical. Axad12 (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The PR rep did have a reasonable concern about direct reliance on a website called adailyscoop, but I think my edit addressed it while considering concerns also raised by Rusalkii about removing potentially negative contents at the behest of a public relations firm engaged by a mega corporation. I think simply rolling back to the version prior to the most recent PR firm engagement, then putting their request back into edit request queue to be done by a random editor (other than Zefr, as the way they've already been engaged by cherry picking) would provide some fairness. Graywalls (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I frequently work from that queue but will give any such further request a wide berth. There are a relatively small number of users who work on COI edit requests, but an independent view from any one of them would be very welcome here, as you say. Axad12 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As a subsidiary point, I have noticed that employees of the larger COI wiki-editing firms will often make a COI edit request and then an hour or so later place a notice at a relevant wiki-project talk page. (The COI editor involved here can be observed to have used this practice in their edit history).

The COI edit request queue is fairly short and it is reasonable to expect requests to be dealt with within a reasonable timeframe, such approaches are thus unneccessary. The reason that COI editors canvass for assistance in the fashion outlined seems to me perfectly obvious - to avoid the scrutiny that would be expected from editors who routinely deal with COI edit requests.

I recently saw an example of this where a COI editor who worked for a cigarette company (and who had a history of dodgy COI requests) canvassed a project member in an attempt to implement a complex edit request involving, amongst other things, the removal of adverse health information. I had previously turned down the request as being highly inappropriate, only to later be confronted by an apparently non-conflicted but canvassed project member who took the opposite view.

It is also fairly common practice for COI editors to ping users who they have previously found useful in dealing with COI edit requests. While there is nothing fundamentally unethical in that practice it is very easy to see how it might be used as a canvassing technique when other editors working from the same queue had previously been found to be less amenable.

Thus, when COI editors have previously had requests on an article declined or only partly done, I agree it would be best to wait for a random user to deal rather than for the COI editor to attempt to game the system. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Axad12:, with that, would you be wiling to get the article back to the pre-dispute state, as you see fit? at this present moment, I'd rather not be the one to directly do so, but if I allow it to sit too long, I'm concerned some might see it as consensus by relative stability. The place in timeline I suggested was this which is a step before any of the recent found of public relations edit request. Graywalls (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and  Done. Axad12 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, I make no negative comment in relation to Zefr's role in all of this I really appreciate that and hope others think/do the same too.

- but the way in which Inkian Jason appears to have gone about locating and cultivating an amenable unconflicted editor strikes me as highly unethical I think it’s quite normal for people to contact another person if the one you contacted previously had declined your request. Would you be contacting the same person again and again and again, after they turned you down (again and again and again)? I don’t think contacting another person is “highly unethical” .. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The pattern of behaviour outlined above in relation to this declared COI editor is certainly highly inappropriate. It is perfectly clear that having had a COI edit request partially turned down he cultivated an amenable project member, got them to approve several edit requests and then re-introduced the previously declined issue.

I have already outlined above in considerable detail the nature of the behaviour, why it was not simply a case of contacting another person and why it was inappropriate. There are at least 2 other editors who agree with me on that score. Frankly if you cannot see the issues here then you are being exceptionally naive.

I repeat, all that has been suggested is that the declared COI editor makes his requests again, to be viewed by a random volunteer working from the COI edit request queue. Axad12 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad that you changed your wordings from “highly unethical “ to “highly inappropriate”. I’m not happy to be described as “exceptionally naive”. Again, can we focus on content but not commenting on other editors, please?

PS FYI I think Zefr already is a random volunteer, and I'm yet another.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearly he was not random, as he was repeatedly asked to deal with the COI edit requests in question by the COI editor. That is the whole point of what is being discussed here.

Evidently you were not exceptionally naive but simply had not looked into the history of what was going on here. Axad12 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Glad to know that I’m not “exceptionally naive”. Well, perhaps “naive” can also be a complement?

To be frank, I don’t have any interest in this content dispute. It’s just an ice cream brand that I’ve never tried. I’m here just because I feel the need to hide the inappropriate comments. As long as people can focus on content and not commenting on editors (who hold different views), I’m more than happy to leave the content disputes to you guys, although I still don’t think a wholesale removal of cited text is appropriate (per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:CANTFIX). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)