User talk:Renmap0o
[edit]
Hi Renmap0o. I'm only an occasional contributor to wikipedia so I've only seen your message now.
Here is the discussion before it was removed by BritishFinance - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporate_haven&oldid=855225736
During this discussion, BritishFinance explicitly rejects the OECD and EU definition of "Tax Haven" and is editing articles accordingly. I believe Wikipedia is intended to to give prominence to conventional and orthodox positions but BritishFinance has relegated these (standard) definitions to sidenotes. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the mechanisms or technical jargon of wikipedia to express this formally.
The biggest problem is that I simply do not have time to compete with someone who is prepared to make hundreds of edits a day. I have a life outside of wikipedia. So I sort of gave up. I did some analysis of Britishfinance's (non-anonymous) edits and it's just overwhelming - this year alone, there are 28 days where they have made over 200 edits per day.
It's actually interesting - if a person is prepared to work on editing wikipedia as a full-time profession, it's almost impossible to challenge them. Jimg (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
[edit]
This is in response to your last edit — [1] on WP:ANI. I'm certain the process will be time-consuming, but you will have to establish that the allegations are backed by solid evidence before you go any further and accuse Britishfinance of misconduct. Otherwise, as Britishfinance says, your allegations are essentially "fact-free" and do not bear any weight. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Nearly Headless Nick: Thanks for the response. Yes, I belatedly realised its completely the wrong approach. AGF, evidence 1st, and allegations 2nd. I didn't open it but felt pressure to defend the position once it started before having the chance to gather the evidence, which as mentioned, is very time-consuming. That was foolish and just down to inexperience. The consensus was that its not a paid account, which I agree with. I'd mainly stepped back from it anyway to build evidence of the process used, with the hopes of at least getting a fair hearing and having someone impartial look over the evidence, but that seems to be blocked. Its unrealistic to challenge the articles individually as there is a large number. I'd just wanted an impartial observer to look at what I'd gather as proof. User talk:Renmap0o 04:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will be able to go through the evidence, if you are able to produce it. In the meantime, please take time and review the important policies on Wikipedia regarding neutral point of view, no original research (incl. original synthesis), verifiability and reliable sourcing, for the purpose of your review. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Nearly Headless Nick: I put the review in My Sandbox for now. You can tell me if I’m imagining this or not first. If it was challenging every NPOV issue or undue weight it would be very long, so I just tried to summarise events 1st and then give examples of how and why the articles are unbalanced and not neutral. Trying to focus on the articles more so than the author as much as practical. You may disagree with plenty, but I have limited ability here and a busy life. I’m just hoping to show the pattern of bias that I saw initially, but couldn't communicate across effectively. Thanks for taking the time to look and being fair. @SeoR: You seemed interested and level headed too. I realised when looked through the diffs, that you had been the last person to edit (for example) the IFSC article, before it had been renovated. I just tried to provide some examples/evidence of what I saw initially. You mentioned you were Irish, so already know the merit in the controversy's. You seem to be be friendly with Britishfinace, had been helping protect the articles and also fixing some. You were also fair towards me, so seem to be fair and objective. I also saw you were involved in WP:Ireland. Its up to you, but if you want to check, that’s the examples I finally came up with in terms of evidence. It's just a rough outline in my sandbox to get a second opinion on it from experienced WP editors in the project. Renmap0o 02:58, 05 May 2019 (UTC)