Jump to content

Talk:MNP LLP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Conflict of interest

I tagged this article as having WP:COI problems because user:Trippingmedal is a WP:SPA and the article has major problems. The company may be notable; I cannot tell. Blue Rasberry 07:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubled checked the information and there doesnt seem to be any issue with the work. It is legitimate and all the work is citated. Further it seems that this is a notable company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.232.249.1 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MNP LLP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MNP and Osborne

https://www.theorca.ca/commentary/rob-shaw-viral-tiktok-video-sparks-investigation-into-bcs-clean-energy-grants-8573139

https://www.theorca.ca/provincial-politics/rob-shaw-bcs-opposition-parties-demand-probe-into-alleged-government-grant-kickbacks-8557329

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/04/09/cleanbc-mnp-ndp-allegations/

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/08/28/cleanbc-review-no-conflict-mnp/

https://www.thenorthernview.com/news/bc-auditor-general-exonerates-accounting-firm-in-grant-program-7508198

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-clean-energy-grant-mnp-1.7167549

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cleanbc-mnp-grant-controversy-what-you-need-to-know-1.7170043

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/1.7170162

https://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/bc-government-orders-investigation-into-carbon-tax-grant-process-7340031

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/government-orders-investigation-into-cleanbc-grant-program-after-kickback-allegations

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024EMLI0060-001393

https://kamloops.me/2024/08/28/ministers-statement-on-the-office-of-the-auditor-generals-review-of-mnps-administration-of-cleanbc-grant-program/

https://cheknews.ca/b-c-tasks-auditor-general-comptroller-general-with-cleanbc-grant-review-after-questions-arise-1198492/

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2063444/mnp-cleanbc-subvention-enquete

https://www.merrittherald.com/no-conflict-in-handling-of-b-c-zero-emission-grants-says-auditor-general/

https://cfjctoday.com/2024/04/11/sound-off-ndp-flip-flop-on-carbon-tax-kickback-investigation/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-consulting-company-mnp-shouldnt-be-in-charge-of-cleanbc-grant-program/

Discussion

@Kazuha1029: and @Acebulf: please continue this discussion here instead of on a user talk page. This makes the history of the article easier to follow for others. Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Acebulf I have replied you directly on my talk page, I have also reminded you to re-engage the conversation. I hope we can come to a consensus here. If I do not receive your reply, I would assume you have agreed with my point of view and I will revert your edit since it would appear you were the only editor that was against it. Thank you. Kazuha1029 (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Kazuha1029:! I agree with @Acebulf: that wiping the controversy from the page would not be appropriate. I have added some sources above that may or may not be useful. Polygnotus (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Polygnotus, have you read my arguments that I initially laid out in my talk page? Glad to hear your thoughts and whether you have any objections to my point of view. Kazuha1029 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think we should let the sources decide what is and isn't relevant to report on. And, if you look at them critically, almost every story about 90% of companies on Wikipedia is very boring. The claim that most of these are very likely posted by competitor firms, former or current disgruntled employees, or candidates that did not get a job at the company. is very likely false (and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence). KPMG and PwC and Deloitte are not squeaky clean holier-than-thou examples of perfection. For claims that I am unable to confirm or deny (e.g. It was simply the case where Edison Motors was not happy that they didn't get the grant and reported the company out of dissatisfaction.) I would need a reliable source, but it sounds like OR/your opinion. Should we interpret the userboxes on your userpage as a COI declaration? Polygnotus (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazuha1029: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two statements you mentioned in green are my experience as I was laying out my thought process. I never said those were facts. You are right there's no evidence. But just like how you say it's very likely false, it can also very likely be true. I have personally witnessed former big 4 employees vandalize wikipedia articles or find any source they can find to position the firm they worked at in a negative light. To me, I much rather get rid of claims that have no basis. Your attack and doubt on COI is unprofessional, unwarranted, and unacceptable, to which I hope you will provide an apology if you please. I have been nothing but courteous towards you and never doubted your position to include this on the page. Just because someone is a CPA does not make them unilaterally support a CPA firm. Secondly, yes, none of these accounting firms are clean. Trust me, I know and I totally support having real controversies (such as KPMG tax scandal or Enron to have its full section). But like I mentioned, these accounting or law firms face allegations all the time. Just because someone reports a firm, does not make it a "controversy". Otherwise, we'd have hundreds of entries just on one accounting firm alone. Let's not forget, in this case there's simply no wrongdoing, and that's after a thorough investigation by the government of BC. I fail to see why there needs to be a section that tells nothing to the readers. Thanks. Kazuha1029 (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered the question. According to the userboxes on your userpage you are a Chartered Professional Accountant and a citizen of Canada. MNP LLP is a Canadian accountancy firm. And you appear to claim to have insider knowledge. Edison Motors was not happy that they didn't get the grant and reported the company out of dissatisfaction. I didn't see that claim in any of the news articles. It is weird to act so offended. Either you know what you are talking about, which could possibly be considered a COI on Wikipedia, or you don't. If you don't, it is weird to make such confident statements about something you are not involved in and have no knowledge of. Which are the real controversies surrounding MNP LLP, in your view? The article currently lists only one, and as you say there must be more. Polygnotus (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of assumptions you are making about me. I have no insider info but just reading the lines from the various articles and why this report was even brought forward. A simple example for you: "You failed an exam and the other student gets 100%, so you report that student for cheating". You don't need any insider knowledge to make that statement. You can feel free to see the talk page at Talk:PwC (it was a long one), I made the exact same point as I was making now back in Aug 2023. My viewpoint has always been consistent that these controversies sections have gotten out of control. In that same PwC talk page, you can see that others have pointed out the "undue weight" of the controversy section. Just so you know, PwC is not a Canadian firm so your assumption that me being Canadian is COI issue is not true. I also want to point out, when the section got added on MNP page, I did not revert the edit and instead helped to build it to a neutral and well-cited paragraph. If I had COI issue, I would have done the blanking right at the start. I only blanked because to my view, there's simply nothing there to warrant a section.
Again, I did not doubt your position in the matter and never said you were an insider and were very courteous towards you. You calling me "weird to act" is no better than I assuming Edison's motive. My two statements were not facts. But can I expect an apology from you for making similar assumptions about my COI? Afterwards, let's re-engage the conversation and the civility. Kazuha1029 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, what you are saying is that the answer to my question was "no". Thank you. You calling me "weird to act" that did not happen. But can I expect an apology from you for making similar assumptions I didn't make assumptions. I asked a question. I rarely ask questions I already know the answer to. Polygnotus (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for your understanding. Would you say we have an agreement now to revert to my previous edit? Kazuha1029 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Polygnotus (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the section again and I realize the current version was the version I approved of so I am okay with it. I added the investigation results and closing the loop now. In the future, please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Thanks.Kazuha1029 (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazuha1029: Casting aspersions without diffs is frowned upon here. Retract your accusations or supply WP:DIFFs. Who personally attacked you? In which edit? Note that false allegations could be considered a form of personal attack. Polygnotus (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit there is a quote that contains a sentence that is not part of the quote in the source (specifically the "false and misleading" part). Also, the source does not support only decided to re-engage the investigation upon Edison Motors' allegation as far as I can see. I have reverted it. I was surprised to notice that it didn't mention that the original allegations came from Official Opposition, BC United.[1] I also reverted the other edit that appeared to be copyvio (and non-neutral). Polygnotus (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imo the article should have two things: a mention of the controversy, and a mention that the investigation didn't lead to anything.
At no point are Wikipedia editors supposed to adjudicate facts. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 02:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. And that was precisely the edit I made regarding the investigation result, and it was reverted without proper reason. I am under the impression the editor seems to feel offended throughout the whole discussion so I want to disengage as per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I do like how the section is much more concise and neutral now, so I do think we end up in a good place. Kazuha1029 (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At no point does WP:DR recommend posting false accusations and then refusing to provide diffs upon request, while continuing to talk about, but not to, the victim of those false allegations. Polygnotus (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your provocation. And self-revert. Thanks.Kazuha1029 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs or retract your accusation. Thanks. Polygnotus (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it already, you statement on "being weird" is offensive to me. You can claim that it's not, but it was to me. Furthermore, your doubt on my COI was not warranted, but you stopped after I provided evidence on PwC so I can let that go. You should too. Kazuha1029 (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazuha1029: I did not say that you were weird. I correctly pointed out that it is weird to act offended when asked if you have a COI when you are a Canadian CPA that makes claims that imply deep insider knowledge on a talkpage about a Canadian accountancy firm. And it is also weird to make such confident statements (like the ones I quoted) about something you are not involved in and have no knowledge of. You then later admitted that I never said those were facts. You are right there's no evidence.. I am not a mindreader and anyone in my position would think that you perhaps are very familiar with the situation (which in theory could be a COI). People on the internet do not know when you are spitballing or saying something you 100% know to be true. You know that I did not use any personal attacks against you. Yet you falsely accused me of that. Please retract that. I take personal attacks, and false accusations of personal attacks, very seriously and you should too. Which is why you should retract your false allegation. Or post diffs of me personally attacking you, which you cannot, because no such diffs exist. Polygnotus (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus I have explained to you that being Canadian CPA does not suggest you have deep insider knowledge of a firm. There are more than 210,000 CPA members in Canada, do you think they all work at MNP? Like I mentioned, your statement on COI was not warranted. I disclose that I was CPA only because I occasionally edit accounting related articles such as IAS 23. And I have also explained subsequently that I was reading between the lines and had no insider info. My viewpoint has always been consistent that these controversial sections are getting out of hand. Your recent edits were quite good so I appreciate your work. That being said, I have also requested that you apologize for calling me weird, but you did not provide such. You might have thought it was a harmless comment, but to me it was deeply hurtful and I felt unsafe. I tried to disengage but you further requested I engage which I did out of courtesy. If you take personal attacks seriously I would ask you to please either apologize or retract that statement, then I would retract mine. Then we can all be friends. The article is now at a position where everyone is happy, there's no need for further hostility and getting riled up. Hope you agree. Kazuha1029 (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazuha1029: We may have very differing definitions of the word "weird" because to me that word is completely inoffensive. It just means "unusual/out of the ordinary/not what I would expect". You felt unsafe because I called behaviour (and not you as a person) weird? That is also weird behaviour (meaning not what I would expect). I have no interest in harming you and I do not live on your continent so it is unclear to me why you would feel unsafe. Unless it is because of a moose. I have never seen one irl but I've seen videos and those beasts are very big and scary. For the record: I am not a moose.
A quick beginner course on what is a personal attack: "User Example is an asshole/nazi/retard" are examples of personal attacks. Note that User Example does not actually exist and the account was created to act as an example.
Disagreeing with User Example's point of view is not a personal attack. Saying that particular behaviour that User Example might exhibit (or will in the future) is weird is not a personal attack.
In order for something to be a personal attack it has to be aimed at the person (not their behaviour or opinions), and be an attack. Criticizing behaviour and opinions is fair game, and it kinda has to be in such a diverse community. We are just going to have to accept that others may think we behave in weird ways because cultural traditions differ across the world. In some cultures wearing shoes indoors is weird, in others it is not. Thanks for explaining your POV.
"Personal attack" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and me expressing my opinion about behaviour is not a personal attack. Lets move on, but please read WP:PA because calling things personal attacks that are not could cause unnecessary trouble.
Polygnotus (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your POV. And perhaps it is different in other culture or country. But best not to use that word on anyone, whether behavior or directly. You never know who you're dealing with and what the person is going through. I know people who have disabilities or different sexual orientation being called weird is truly the most offensive word that can be applied. Your opinion about others should not let others feel hurt. And I felt deeply hurt by your comment. Wikipedia stressed that we should focus on content, not the contributors, so you calling people weird is definitely out of context. Contrary to your statement, Wikipedia provides some examples but not an exhaustive list of personal attacks. If you want me to retract my statement, please apologize and we can reconcile. Otherwise, I will now disengage from this conversation. Kazuha1029 (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazuha1029: One of the things I am most proud of is how weird I am. I know "normal" people and I do not like (some of) them. You make it seem like I said such a horrible thing, but I bet that if you let 100 random editors read the conversation none would see my words as offensive in any way. It was not my intention to offend anyone (in that case I would use words far far more likely to achieve that effect). I understand the need for (and am generally in favor of) trigger warnings and all that but I doubt that demanding an apology in order to retract a false accusation is fair. Especially when you appear to be using a nonstandard definition of the word "weird" and the term "personal attack". Luckily I think we already reconciled. We can agree to disagree. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like we unfortunately cannot reach a consensus on this matter. Your statement that you think 100 random editors would support your interpretation and thereby justifying a personal attack is precisely why these types of cyber bullying tends to happen. "Oh I said something and it's the others fault for feeling that way, it's not my fault". Sometimes all it takes is one you deem "harmless" comment to push someone over the edge. I stand by my statement that you conducted personal attack because it was hurtful. Agree to disagree. Kazuha1029 (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazuha1029: Insinuations like Sometimes all it takes is one you deem "harmless" comment to push someone over the edge. and saying stuff like these types of cyber bullying make me quickly lose respect for you. Please don't abuse the suffering of others to try to make a point in a stupid discussion online. Don't trivialize such matters. That is truly disgusting behaviour. Polygnotus (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only part that makes people lose respect is your repeatedly personal attacks such as calling people weird and disgusting (your words not mine), as well as not being able to tell personal attacks' impact on others and your refusal to apologize, then having the audacity to call others making false accusations. Have a great day.Kazuha1029 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Law of holes. Polygnotus (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:MNP_LLP&oldid=1247821314"