Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::Having a COI isn't about being deceptive or malicious, it's just about how hard it is for even the most well-meaning editor to remain neutral and work only from sources, when writing about a subject that they have a connection to. A person is defined as having an ] every time that they're deciding how to write about a subject they have a connection to. Full disclosure is a great first step, and it's appreciated, but ] also advises us to "refrain from editing those articles directly". Just today I've seen you to your preferred version, and , which is a very long way from that.
:::::Having a COI isn't about being deceptive or malicious, it's just about how hard it is for even the most well-meaning editor to remain neutral and work only from sources, when writing about a subject that they have a connection to. A person is defined as having an ] every time that they're deciding how to write about a subject they have a connection to. Full disclosure is a great first step, and it's appreciated, but ] also advises us to "refrain from editing those articles directly". Just today I've seen you to your preferred version, and , which is a very long way from that.
:::::I think you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing these articles in this way. If you disagree, would it help to get some outside input at ]? --] (]) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::I think you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing these articles in this way. If you disagree, would it help to get some outside input at ]? --] (]) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::I think you are pigeon holing me as a COI without any evidence - my disclosure is of a connection, not a direct conflict. I didn't re-instate my 'preferred version' - that other editor work was dubious as you are hopefully well aware. I don't think I reverted any content you added - correct me if I'm wrong. I simply did a broader revert of that editor than the couple of bits you reverted. You may not be aware, but long ago by an admin for that page - as you can see it was just a stub of a thing at that time. Then through dialogue with that admin quite a bit of work was put in which was hard to research and get RS's on. Then the merger proposal was dropped. So naturally, when you turn up and merge it without any discussion, it's going to get reverted. Wouldn't you be the one at fault there for skipping the discussion process? Not really fair to try and use this as evidence of inappropriate editing....btw, I do appreciate your civil tone for this discussion - really appreciated! Regards] (]) 18:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Some cookies to welcome you! Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Danh108! Thank you for your contributions. I am Gtwfan52 and I have been editing Misplaced Pages for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
If you disagree with another editor's changes to an article, the best place to raise that is on the talk page of the article. (In fact, the user you a referring to has already opened a thread there.) Using multiple accounts is broadly only a problem if the edits overlap, or if the user is deliberately creating a false impression of support in a discussion - people have been known to forget their passwords and start new accounts. --McGeddon (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Can I ask whether you're familiar with Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guidelines? You say on your user page that "I do some volunteer work in the kitchen at the Brahma Kumaris (BK) retreat centre in Melbourne Australia and I enjoy/benefit a lot from their form of meditation" and explain that your main motivation for joining Misplaced Pages was to make the Brahma Kumaris article match up to your "real life experience". Improving bad articles is always appreciated, but it can be very difficult for somebody close to a subject to edit its article neutrally, and if an editor is writing based on their personal experiences rather than published sources, the article can easily drift away from WP:V. --McGeddon (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to reply in either place, I'm watching both pages. Misplaced Pages:COI#Non-controversial_edits is worth focusing on - as you say here, the Brahma Kumaris article is being edited back and forth by SPAs with different viewpoints, and you are one of those SPAs. Since this makes these edits "controversial", you should not be making them directly, as an editor with a COI, and should instead be discussing potential changes on the talk page, and relying on uninvolved editors to implement them on your behalf. (The removal reliably-sourced content is not out-and-out vandalism, so it is inappropriate for you to revert it yourself.)
Your honesty in mentioning the connection is appreciated, and the potential COIs of any other editors will be taken into account equally strongly by any uninvolved editor joining the discussion. I haven't got time to comb through the edits myself right now, but will keep the article on my watchlist. --McGeddon (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry mate, but you've really jumped the gun here and I disagree with you. While I do only have about 3 or 4 editing interests, I think your comment is bordering on offensive. If you did look at the history of this article, I've been very diligent with RS. So what you can legitimately say is there is an openly disclosed potential conflict of interest. But I hold the interests of building a high quality Misplaced Pages very close to me and am not here representing any organisation. Like you, I have my own views on life that can bias my mind. But for you to say my single purpose is to make edits representing this group goes against the evidence in the page history and is crossing the line - please be careful with your assumptions in future. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
That's WP:COI having a clear, bright line about this, not me. COI editors are welcome to diligently add reliable references to an article they have a connection to, but they should not add content without going through the talk page first, however strong its references.
And apologies, I assumed your "ongoing skirmishes between WP:SPA editors" comment was referring to yourself. Of the 289 edits you've made to Misplaced Pages articles since joining last September, 263 have been to Brahma Kumaris related articles. --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi McGeddon, apology accepted. I think you have still missed the main point. The admins I have interacted with earlier about this page didn't feel the need to add the tag you have, probably because having some "real life" contact with the subject matter of an article doesn't mean that I automatically have an interest that over rides my interest in Misplaced Pages. It's a possibility that people could perceive one, so in the interests of openness I have declared that from the beginning. If you went back to the actual date when I joined (January not September) the edit ratio is probably even "worse". However I don't accept the label of being a COI editor, nor the strictures that you think apply as a result of this. As earlier stated, if you have any evidence that I'm editing in a biased way, then please do raise it with me or re-instate the tags. But baseless assumptions are not good faith, and tend to make me regret being so open as the information is getting misused. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Having a COI isn't about being deceptive or malicious, it's just about how hard it is for even the most well-meaning editor to remain neutral and work only from sources, when writing about a subject that they have a connection to. A person is defined as having an actual conflict of interest every time that they're deciding how to write about a subject they have a connection to. Full disclosure is a great first step, and it's appreciated, but WP:COISELF also advises us to "refrain from editing those articles directly". Just today I've seen you revert my own and another editor's work on an article to your preferred version, and undo my merge of a Brahma Kumaris article, which is a very long way from that.
I think you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing these articles in this way. If you disagree, would it help to get some outside input at WP:COIN? --McGeddon (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you are pigeon holing me as a COI without any evidence - my disclosure is of a connection, not a direct conflict. I didn't re-instate my 'preferred version' - that other editor work was dubious as you are hopefully well aware. I don't think I reverted any content you added - correct me if I'm wrong. I simply did a broader revert of that editor than the couple of bits you reverted. You may not be aware, but a merger had been proposed long ago by an admin for that page - as you can see it was just a stub of a thing at that time. Then through dialogue with that admin quite a bit of work was put in which was hard to research and get RS's on. Then the merger proposal was dropped. So naturally, when you turn up and merge it without any discussion, it's going to get reverted. Wouldn't you be the one at fault there for skipping the discussion process? Not really fair to try and use this as evidence of inappropriate editing....btw, I do appreciate your civil tone for this discussion - really appreciated! RegardsDanh108 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
