User talk:Clean Copy

--/Archive --/Archive2 --/Archive3 --/Archive4 --/Archive Waldorf project --/Archive5 --/Archive6

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Clean Copy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Clean Copy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest on Waldorf education and Anthroposophy

Hey HGilbert/Clean Copy, I just wanted to drop a note and say that I never really looked into the COI regulations/guidelines, but now that I do look, I am stricken with a question: why do you not declare your COI at the top of the talk page for Waldorf education and Anthroposophy? I won't go into details at the risk of outlining privileged information, but suffice it to say I know you have several published books, workshops, and other similar interests that put a substantial weight for you in the continued positive promotion of the subjects of the above articles. The ArbCom has also resolved as much in several past rulings.

I see that there's a COI notice on Waldorf education for HGilbert, your old account name. Will you voluntarily change it to reflect your name change? And perhaps put one up on Anthroposophy as well, given their intricately co-involved nature?

Do you dispute that you have a COI? Or do you just not agree with the guideline? It makes very clear that you should be putting a COI template at the top of the relevant talk pages so that other editors know about your conflicts.... It puts into perspective the nature of these articles and the way they've read since you became involved in editing them years ago...

To avoid getting into ad hominems, I want to say that I truly believe you think you're doing what is best for the articles themselves. But that this may not always align with what the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia dictate is the best move for the articles themselves. I also want to say that your behavior on the article is that of a gatekeeper. Every edit on those pages is filtered through you, as you edit them after everyone else continually and throughout time. You've systematically dulled all negative criticism about the subject and driven away any uninvolved editors who seek to create a NPOV and equal weight in the article text.

What is disconcerting most of all is that you haven't respected the COI guidelines which very clearly discourage COI editors from editing the affected articles. In fact, you have done exactly the opposite, editing the article almost exclusively and extensively for years to subtilely create a massive POV problem.

The fact that you stand to profit from positive understanding of the subject matter is a huge problem... Will you voluntarily declare COI and recuse yourself from further editing of Waldorf education?? You should put the interests of the wiki first and foremost, as any other good faith editor would have done. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 08:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came straight from FTN, (after hours of delving into this walled-garden) and you are either paying heed to the above message by Shibbolethink (who had put it way too nicely) or I will ask ArbCom to consider privileged information and issue a broad TBan in light of your agenda-driven editing and whitewashing of articles.

Choosing to edit elsewhere without replying to this message will be assumed as a denial of our request. ∯WBG^converse 13:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:I would like to emphasize that I have repeatedly invited criticism that was cited to RSs -- and you can see in the talk page and archives how my requests have generally received no responses that include such sources -- when these sources were included, the material was incorporated promptly. The only exception is material discussing individual schools, whether positive or negative: I believe that a general article about a school movement should focus on sources that discuss the movement as a whole, or larger trends, not that one school was awarded special recognition, or that that another has come under criticism as individual schools.

I indeed dispute that I have a COI: I do not stand to profit from Wikipedia articles' content on Waldorf education in any way. More particularly:

I published one book on the subject long ago. First of all, having published on a subject does not exclude one from editing articles on that subject. Second, I do not receive royalties from the book's sales. There is no possible COI here. Note that I purposely have not cited the book in the article to avoid any appearance of a COI.
My salary is not affected by interest in Waldorf any more than, say a chemical engineer's salary is affected by articles on chemical engineering. In theory, if there was more interest in chemical engineering, would all chemical engineer's salaries increase? Maybe, but doubtful. Similarly with the more than 1,000 Waldorf schools: they are not-for-profit entities, and are more likely to reduce tuition than increase salaries in response to interest. It is a purely speculative connection, and one that exists for anyone that edits articles on anything related to their work -- which is most of us, I would guess.
It is true that I give public workshops on the theme, but exclusively in the non-English speaking world. Again, there is no conceivable way that these articles would affect attendance at my workshops.

These sorts of charges have been made by extremely polemical, single-issue editors before, but to have them coming from an administrator is a shock. I am voluntarily not editing these articles at this point because I do not wish to have this kind of stigma placed on the articles themselves. Clean Copy^talk 19:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hear that you've voluntarily recused yourself, even if you don't acknowledge the COI many others (including several admins) have pointed out. I and other editors are happy to work with you via the talk page (the normal route COI editors are encouraged to use) to eliminate factual inaccuracies and continue to bring the articles to an NPOV.

But if you systematically edit the articles again in a way that disrupts NPOV or creates a biased view of the subject, I am confident that I or another editor will take it to ANI and eventually ArbCom. Thank you, I'm happy to know how much you value the unbiased nature of the Wiki. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Waldorf education. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 ∯WBG^converse 13:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ethical banking into List of ethical banks. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I have added the attribution tag to the talk page. Clean Copy^talk 21:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]