Talk:Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada

Canada: Governments / Law Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Hello. We would like to update this page with additional information, all neutral and factual about IIROC, which is a nonprofit regulator with an active investor protection mandate that we feel should be reflected in more detail.

Can someone suggest the best way to proceed, collaboratively? I am from the organization and we'd like it to be richer, along the lines of FINRA or the SEC in the US. We are not suggesting removing any negative material. With the SEC I think there is a full section given over to "Criticism" which would make sense to use here, to capture the comments where a contributor has highlighted some concerns.

I'd like to post that information here and anyone so inclined could review to see that it is non promotional.

Do let me know, thanks. Davidthomasatiiroc Davidthomasatiiroc (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third party RFC required/resolved

The two of you who are engaged in a battle to alter the wording of the section titles on this article, your edits are unsigned (96.49.212.106 -- Shaw Communications Inc., Calgary and 184.151.61.218 -- Bell Canada) might want to consider implementing a third party WP:DR by requesting an {{rfc}} or by requesting that a third party offer an opinion on your conflict.

I'm looking at the rebound edits the two of you are doing and could offer a Third Opinion if either of you wish. You should know, however, that not being a signed editor, appearing without a user name and only an IP address could very well mean that failing to accept RFC or third party opinions will result in your IP address blocks being blocked from further editing. Damotclese (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone briefly summarize, in the form of a question, what this RfC is about? I see nothing to comment on here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) the contention is the use of the words false and unfounded, the use of emotive and judgimental rhetoric which violates WP:NPOV and which are not supported by the text or references. The two unsigned individuals engaged in an undo/revert cycle to eliminate and restore the emotive words of section titles. They requested RFC to get a third party opinion so that the contention can be resolved.

My opinion is that the words false and unfounded be eliminated since the various hearings and rulings sited did not find that the company's owners/operators' behavior was innocent, the sitations indicate that various hearings and rulings dropped all charges, not out of a lack of evidence of guilt or innocence, charges were dropped due to a lack of "give-a-damn" by the regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect Canadian citizens. Damotclese (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove contentious language. Looking over the diffs, I have to agree with Damotclese. It seems POV and needlessly emotive. Even worse, it's sourced to a blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the feeling that there is reason enough to have the WP:NPOV terms removed right now. Do we need for the RFC to expire? I don't think so. Let's give it another day, maybe two days and if no further comments are offered, I will volunteer to change the wording of the article back to its non-emotive versions. Thanks for your input, NinjaRobotPirate! Damotclese (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the edit wars have been taking place since 16/May/2013‎ yet the RFC is a bit short of 1 month. Still, in a couple of days I'll remove the RFC and change the working to non-emotive if nobody else has feedback to offer. Damotclese (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC has been resolved after considerable discussion and Third Party agreement. Future undos and revisions to reinstate the discussion-derived updates will be considered to be vandalism. Damotclese (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Responses

I volunteer to offer RFC responses and for Wikipedia:Third party opinions, and though I have not been randomly selected to provide an opinion, I would like to do so. I first note that the article fails WP:NPOV in that the terms applied in section titles imply that the allegations against the company's operators were false however when looking at the references sited, that is not actually true, the charges were dismissed, the truth or falseness of the allegations were never determined.

This is common for regulatory agencies: to dismiss charges for a vareity of reasons despite individuals being guilty of crimes. (Witness the Wall Street corporations and mega-multi-national conglomerates, oil companies, banking institutions et al. in the United States which get charged with crimes on rare occasion and result in dismissal in nearly every case that actually goes to hearings designed to start the criminal trial process.)

Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia which reports facts which are supported by linked references, avoiding judgement-based terms and rhetoric. The article needs to be reworked to eliminate the words "false accusations" and "unfounded accusations" and the text needs to be reworked to report the facts only using dispassionate, non-emotive wording. Damotclese (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking again to make sure the edit war has stopped. Damotclese (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP Ban:174.114.18.119

We have one of the edit warriors who continues to vandalize the page after the RFC was opened, discussed, decided, and closed. I have reversed the individual's edit which was another instance of the same dispute between the editors. I'm one of the randomly selected RFC volunteers and now it looks like we're going to have to ban the IP block if the individual continues his vandalism.

OrgName: Rogers Cable Communications Inc. OrgId: RCC-99 Address: One Mount Pleasant City: Toronto StateProv: ON PostalCode: M4Y-2Y5 Country: CA Damotclese (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of sourced information

I have undone the edit made by PAUpdates on March 28, 2016 that removed 7,945 characters of information on the page without any explanation or discussion. The information is very well sourced and in balance with the rest of the article and follows proper WP:NPOV. Aimerlamer (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]