Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:15, 8 February 2008

Rfc on "Intellectual controversy" section of Oxford Round Table

I have made a request for comment on the "Intellectual controversy" section of the Oxford Round Table article, which I notice you edited today. Would you like to participate? --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Oxford Round Table, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have conflict of interest, please see Misplaced Pages:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Pairadox (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that contributing to the CHE discussion automatically means it is impossible to edit the ORT article from a neutral point of view. I have naturally, on the talk page of the article, opposed certain edits proposed by Obscuredata, who is "working with" the ORT by his own admission, and complained when he violated the rules or edited against consensus (as noted by Coldmachine). I reverted him on several instances, but never engaged in a "revert war" with him. I have also agreed with certain of Obscuredata's edits that seemed valuable, such as adding biographical material on ORT's founder. I have scrupulously followed the verifiability rules, and refrained from placing in the article material from a source that Tony said was not sufficiently reliable. I therefore do not agree with the contention that I have a conflict of interest, but will comply with your request if you continue to rule that posting on the CHE board is automatically a COI.

May I also point out that Obscuredata had agreed with Tony's proposed edit to the "controversy" section, effectively making a complete consensus among everyone who had up to that time posted to the talk page, before the ORT bombarded the page with objections?Academic38 (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that painting people from CHE with the same brush is necessary to get the COI designation to stick. I think it's pretty clear that the "neutrals" here don't actually see us as equivalent to the ORT hacks - but it is necessary to present us as such, it wouldn't work to let us carry on editing while they are effectively barred. The appearance of Tepid1, by the way, is a godsend, in my view - ORT has really shown its hand with that one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While it doesn't automatically mean that you are incapable of being neutral, it creates doubt about your neutrality (especially from the other side). If both sides were behaving themselves then it wouldn't have come to this. But with the appearance of yet another new editor/involved party on the talk page it appears this is still escalating. Rather than try to selectively decide who does and who does not have the ability to edit neutrally, I included everybody who has come to Misplaced Pages specifically and solely to edit the ORT article. Seemed the most neutral way to go about it. :) If you present good data with sound sources on the talk page, that will find it's way in to the article. Same for the other side. And if you should happen to come to consensus (not just numbers but true agreement) then there probably wouldn't be any hue and cry with one of you making those changes.

I had noticed Obscuredata's agreement. You may want to drop Tony a note on his talk page since he's leading that portion of the discussion. Pairadox (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxford Round Table

An editor has nominated Oxford Round Table, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Coldmachine 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked this as a disruptive single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. I read the disruptive guidelines, and it was unclear to me how I meet them. It also seems from the guidelines that there are supposed to be preliminary steps before a full block. Could you clarify this, and what the appeal process is, if necessary? Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)