User talk:71.57.118.25

January 2015

Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mike Huckabee because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. This warning is a result of your last edit summary that stated: "integrating material in per request". If that request has come from the Huckabee campaign or anyone else or any other group with a conflict of interest, you need to know that such motivation and content submitted from such a motivation is against Wikipedia policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If by promotional you mean simply providing the relevant information thus far left out of the section, and actually quoting the person on the subject who the page is about. Also, I notice Conflict of Interest only forbids paid advocates and that "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." I am not paid by the Mike Huckabee campaign or I would have disclosed that information. --71.57.118.25 (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Your account is what we call a WP:SPA (please read that link) which makes it very likely that you are affiiliated in some way with the subject of the article. Would you please what connection/affiliation/relationship, if any, you have with the subject of the article and/or his office or campaign? (it is a broad question, please answer broadly, not narrowly. Narrow answers just raise suspicions instead of allaying them) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The COI page requires that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." The COI Political section furthermore states "Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, or political party, or articles about their political opponents, opposition groups, or controversial political topics, with the intent to slant or spin an article in a manner that is politically advantageous to their employer. Political candidates or their staff should not edit articles about their electoral opponents."

As I previously stated, I am not paid by the Mike Huckabee campaign, nor am I part of the campaign's staff. I do not work for the U.S. government so this has no bearing on my employment relationship. I also am not a political candidate and do not work on any political candidate's staff. I do not receive any compensation in any form, for any of my editing. My editing is done solely for my own reasons and there are no external rewards used to motivate my editing, if that's what you are asking. And no, I don't know Mike Huckabee personally either. So I don't see how the section applies to me.

You seem to be asking for all my affiliations and political interests/leanings which I'm not going to provide unless it can be shown that COI policy requires more disclosure than I've provided. The COI page only seems to be concerned with preventing paid advocacy, and clearly states "Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest."

Unless I can be shown where COI policy requires more information than employment relationship I'm concerned that providing more detail will be used to discriminate against those with certain political beliefs. My concern is that a misreading of COI Policy could be used to prevent any Democrats from editing the Democratic Party page, for example; resulting in only political opponents being allowed to edit it. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy which requires disclosing one's political affiliations apart from political employment (which again, does not pertain to me, I am not politically employed.) --71.57.118.25 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! The part of the COI guideline that you cite, is actually from the Terms of Use, which does obligate you to disclose any paid editing. Paid editing is just one form of COI editing. The COI guideline also calls for editors to disclose any affiliation they have with the subjects they edit - that is the spirit of all COI management in any organization. I was not asking for all your affiliations - just any related to the subject of the article. In case, I feel your answer is sufficient. Please do your best to edit per WP:NPOV and please beware WP:ADVOCACY for any POV (please do take some time to read both of those, especially the link on advocacy). Thanks again for answering! Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Again though, my understanding is that COI does not require disclosure of all affiliations, just those relating to personal relationships or professional employment. The full quote is "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." I have no personal relationship to Mike Huckabee, not a friend or family member. I have no professional relationship and don't work for him. So I just don't see how the COI section applies to me.

And I will strive to edit according to Wikipedia NPOV guidelines and other rules. I try to keep POV adjectives out of my writing on Wikipedia and only report in accordance with mainstream news sources. Some of the previous sections on the Mike Huckabee page were most definitely negative in tone, particularly the Clemency Controversy and Recent Controversies sections. When moving the Recent Controversies material to the Notoriety section, the section was still entirely negative, so I added some positive material to prevent the section from being too overly negative (which would violate WP:BLP and WP:CRITS.

The Notoriety section is still primarily negative in tone though, so I will keep an eye out for some positive material to add to it to balance it out, per WP:CRITS which states "For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled 'Public behavior' and include all information – positive and negative – within that section." I left in the best sourced and clearly prominent examples of criticism, but to adhere to BLP and CRITS guidelines I do think the section needs to balance out a bit more still. --71.57.118.25 (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. (courtesy notice) Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.