Latest comment: 7 years ago45 comments5 people in discussion
After reading through the talk page archives, and page statistics, I am concerned that a large number of non-minor edits have been made by at least one editor with an (as yet) undisclosed (on their userpage) connection to the subject. By connection, I mean they are actively employed in the unconventional oil and gas [UOG] industry, by a company who is actively involved in the extraction of onshore UOG using massive hydraulic fracturing.
It is not possible to mention this editor by name WP:OUTING as, to the best of my knowledge, they have not publicly disclosed their identity or potential WP:COI on their own user/talk pages WP:COIDEC or at the COI Noticeboard or on this talk page.
I would like to remind all editors of this page that:
The COI guideline advises:
"If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection."
and If their Wikipedia edits are seen
"to advance your client's or employer's interests, then you stand in a conflict of interest and should not edit affected articles directly, with or without disclosure."
The reasons for declaring COI on user_page, user_talk, and articles' talk pages are twofold. Lack of transparency leads to loss of confidence and trust in the information viewed by Wikipedians and casual browsers for any of the subject_pages, especially where an COI editor's contributions go beyond correcting typos.
Very importantly, please also note, that:
Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgement about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.[4] COI is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge."
If any editors who are experienced in these matters would please contribute to the discussion, I would be very grateful. It will take some time to sift through past contributions & other articles within this topic, so in the meantime I will tag a COI notice to this subject page and a Connected contributor tag to this talk page. As the COI has not been declared, I am leaving the usernames blank until such time as they follow policy.
(Please also read Advice for editors with COI)
Thank you.
Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thankyou for the comments, Luther. The subject of Hydraulic Fracturing is full of difficulties, due to the unreliability of so much of what one reads. There are sometimes difficulties as with the Chemtrust issue.
In terms of COI, I have none. 27 years ago I worked in the industry, and as my profile describes, I became my company's most senior technical graduate engineer. That gives me an insight into how wells work. After many years of teaching Physics I am now retired. I began to ask questions to many who were in opposition, and found that there were many misunderstandings in science, and in regulation. I started to look through the regulatory processes and found them to be thorough, yet many say there are there are none. The original page that I found lacked information, and also had much unsourced or unreliable links and information. Over a period of months I researched different aspects of the technology and learned much. I quizzed the regulators, and included their information. I contacted one operator and UKOOG to clarify points I did not understand. I read reliable publications from bodies such as the Royal Academy of Engineering, ReFine, CIWEM, the British Geological Survey and many Government publications. I also was in contact with some researchers who also provided expert assistance. With regard to the Chemtrust issue, it is interesting that the experts in the area of UK public health, namely 'Public Health England',have few issues with fracking, describing it as a well established and easily regulated industry that presents 'low risks' to the public, ie. its safe.
My sole motivation has been to provide an authoritative and balanced presentation of the science of hydraulic fracturing. In the fracking debate, that is sorely needed. Too often the claims made by opposition groups have no basis in fact, when looked at by specialists.
There have been attempts at vandalism and there are several who jump in to correct or revert changes. There has also been robust debate in the archived talk, which you are welcome to look at.
I did not realise that being a single issue editor was an issue. I would only edit on matters I understand!
Thank you for your response. There aren't necessarily any issues with being a single-purpose account WP:SPA as long as Wikipedia:Advocacy doesn't get in the way. There are many positives to being an WP:SPA (in-depth knowledge, career-linked expertise), and one only needs to ensure neutrality WP:NPOV and be mindful of WP:ADVOCACY, however passionate you feel about the subject, to avoid the negatives.
In order to provide balance, this means striving for "high-quality, neutral verifiable articles", and graciously hearing from all sides (reports, criticisms, responses, more reports - I'm sure you're aware of how it all works!). So, and probably ChemTrust is as good an example as any: ChemTrust issued a report; UKOOG took issue with ChemTrust's report, and published its criticisms; ChemTrust then published its response to UKOOG criticisms.
As an interested party, I want to hear what all reliable sources have to say (see WP:VER. It would be unbalanced to say there are issues only with ChemTrust's report. ChemtTrust, as I understand it, are not an anti-fracking group. They are a charity with reputable scientists & researchers and and their sole concern is the effect that certain chemicals/emissions have upon biological health of humans and animals. UKOOG are an industry group who represent all onshore oil and gas industries at all levels. As far as I'm aware, both groups seek to have their concerns heard at all levels from policy makers through to the public. (See WP:WEIGHT)
With regards to the government agency, Public Health England (PHE), you're not the only person to have found their responses interesting'. I'm not sure if you are aware of the various criticisms of PHE since its creation; briefly listed in the British Medical Journal:
"PHE has been embroiled in a series of controversies about the quality and credibility of advice it has issued on topics including fracking, NHS health checks, and the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme, raising concerns about both its competence and its supposed independence".
With that in mind, you will, I hope, excuse me if I avoiding concluding that the phrase 'low risk' is the same as 'safe', or viewing PHE as a sole authority on matters of public health.
I agree that quality sources are imperative. The best approach laid out in WP:VER:
When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.
Reading through your comments again Luther, you appear to have made an assumption that I have a COI. That appears a little presumptuous of you.
Perhaps I could make it 100% clear. I have no interest, financial or otherwise, where I would benefit from the writing I have done. With my background, I find myself in a position where I can contribute to informed debate, to cut through some of the nonsense. I am pro fact, rather than pro industry' Ken W Kennywpara (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello kennywapara. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I'd like to clarify that I'm making no assumptions that you have undeclared WP:COI or WP:FCOI. Your assumption that I have made an assumption that you have a COI, when this was clearly not the case in the note I left regarding your lack of WP:Civility, tendentious editing and WP:SPA on your talk page. It's best to WP:AGF in these matters. Care in the areas of neutrality and advocacy policies ought to help avoid situations like the one in 'Chemtrust removal'. In the heated discussion between you and User:Mwarhurst1 above, a concern with WP:COI developed after your WP:TE removed a link and the ensuing discussion on this talk page was far from civil. To reiterate, IF, as I said in my note to you on your talk page, you have any concerns about conflict of interest, then is best to discuss them here on the talk page first. There are clear policies regarding WP:COI and WP:FCOI which I've outlined above, and all editors who have a COI must declare as per WP:COIDEC. If this situation cannot be resolved here on the talk page, there will definitely be a need to involve the community in it's resolution. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
In the fracking debate, that is sorely needed. Too often the claims made by opposition groups have no basis in fact, when looked at by specialists.
This isn't a fracking debate. It's an encyclopaedic page on Hydraulic Fracturing in the United Kingdom. It's also not a place for factionalism, however controversial this topic is in the public arena. Please re-read WP:ADVOCACY:
Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Cooperate with other editors to neutrally summarize notable topics using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to minority views.
We should of course stick to well sourced statements. We are not part of the debate, but the article (and its sources) will be used in the debate. I have been accused of COI on a number of occasions when contributing to various HF articles, based on the fact that I work in the hydrocarbon exploration industry (although I have never been involved with HF) - being knowledgeable doesn't make someone biased (it might do, but to show that you need evidence). Leaping in with accusations of COI is not particularly helpful, instead I suggest concrete proposals for improving the article. Mikenorton (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mike, articulating a concern about the accusations of advocacy and conflict of interest within the discussion Chemtrust removal of this talk page and reminding editors of good practices, isn't "leaping in with accusations of COI'. Whilst an editor is supposed to declare such things; most don't bother. I agree that being knowledgeable doesn't necessarily make someone biased, and that too is mentioned above:
Very importantly, please also note, that:
Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgement about that person's state of mind or integrity. A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.[4] COI is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge."
I meant of course that I suggest that you come up with concrete proposals, as you seem to think that the article, as it is, has a problem. Mikenorton (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mikenorton,
I noticed you removed the COI notice without discussion first. I've undone your removal. Please would you discuss your reasoning for removing the notice. I have now discovered that the editor has declared a COI (once, perhaps twice, one openly, one possible cryptic), but not with WP:COIDEC on their user page, or on this talk page, or on the other pages which they have extensively edited. I believe it is important to give some time for this editor to decide how they will approach their COI in a more transparent manner.
IF they do not voluntarily declare COI/FCOI in the manner of WP:COIDEC:
If you become involved in an article where you have a general COI (including a financial COI) that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia, place the {{connected contributor}} template at the top of affected talk pages. Fill it in as follows, and save:
Example
For a COI editor's talk-page declaration, see: Talk:Steve Jobs.
{{Connected contributor|User1=Your username |U1-declared=yes| |U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}
THEN I will ask for help from the community for the best way to approach them, after this initial appeal to their good nature to follow wikipedia policy, since it may have been an oversight on their part. WP:AGF.
I read the documentation for the template that you used and that states "Use the template when dealing with an editor who has an actual conflict of interest, not merely a potential conflict of interest". You have not demonstrated that any of the contributors have an actual COI, so the template is inappropriate. It is insufficient for you to just say that they have a COI, whoever they are. Looking at WP:COIN I noticed this: "1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}," - you're acting as if such a consensus already exists. Mikenorton (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mikenorton, Thanks for your response. This editor has declared a COI, but not on this talk page, and not on their user page. I use the term 'potential' in order not to be absolutist about this, and I began the discussion here, hoping for constructive input from other editors of this page. I'm not acting as if any consensus exists. The COI was made by an editor, and they haven't followed WP:COIDEC. If no consensus can be reached on this page, then we can take it to WP:COIN, which I see as a last resort. It seemed best to discuss openly here first, then if no consensus can be attained progress to WP:COIN. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I also am confused by the COI notice. In the above writing LutherBlissetts you have stated "I am concerned that a large number of non-minor edits have been made by at least one editor with an (as yet) undisclosed (on their userpage) connection to the subject. By connection, I mean they are actively employed in the unconventional oil and gas [UOG] industry, by a company who is actively involved in the extraction of onshore UOG using massive hydraulic fracturing."
I stated that I have no such COI, and you then replied with "I'd like to clarify that I'm making no assumptions that you have undeclared WP:COI or WP:FCOI. Your assumption that I have made an assumption that you have a COI, when this was clearly not the case in the note I left regarding your lack of WP:Civility, tendentious editing and WP:SPA on your talk page."
In spite my reply, and the comments by Mikenorton you still wish to continue with a COI tag on the page. That I find confusing. This seems to suggest that you still beleive that there is some form of COI.
You have also stated "I have now discovered that the editor has declared a COI (once, perhaps twice, one openly, one possible cryptic), but not with WP:COIDEC on their user page, or on this talk page, or on the other pages which they have extensively edited. I believe it is important to give some time for this editor to decide how they will approach their COI in a more transparent manner." I assume you mean me? I do not understand this. It again seems to infer that I am rewarded in some way for the attempts I make to produce a balanced and engineering based comment on fracking. What about the assumption of good faith. If I have misunderstood this then could you please explain.
As for the issues of PHE as reported by the BMJ, I was unaware of that criticism. PHE are a statutory consultee in all drilling planning applications, and it is difficult to see how their role can be underestimated as the arbiter of public health. If there is any substantive criticism of their role regarding this then I would welcome reliably evidenced editing. I do know that there has been criticism from some BMJ members of fracking, however, there still remains the problem of finding a negative health impact from the technology. Much of this the BMJ opinion based on the Medact report, which reported on hundreds of peer reviewed papers that raised alarm. I am unaware of any lawsuit based on poisoning in the US due to fracking. Indeed recent studies show that health has improved as the usage of coal for generation of electricity has been reduced, and replaced with clean burning gas. See http://www.health.pa.gov/My%20Health/Diseases%20and%20Conditions/A-D/Asthma/Documents/2015%20PENNSYLVANIA%20ASTHMA%20FOCUS%20REPORT%202009-2013%20INPATIENT%20%20HOSPITALIZATIONS%20WITH%20ASTHMA%20AS%20THE%20PRIMARY%20DISCHARGE%20DIAGNOSIS.pdf
As for the use of the word 'low risk' it is used synonymously as 'safe' by engineers when they want to be cautious. It is 'low risk' that I will be hit by a plane while typing this. It is not 'zero risk' as the surviving residents of Lockerbie would testify. Mitigation of risk is a basic engineering process. Along with Mike Norton I am confused as to why this page is perceived to have a problem, and also as to what 'needs to be done' Kennywpara (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
In that case I am completely confused, as the main contributor has been me, as the history shows. Mikenorton has mainly reverted vandalism, or links to antifrack literature, which does meet the standard expected in an encyclopedia. He has beaten me to it generally! He has also added internal Wiki links and corrected me a couple of times on basic items of grammar or spelling. Its difficult to see how that makes him a 'major contributor'. Looking back over the past year I do not think he has written anything substantial, but his contribution in policing the site has been very helpful. A such it seems logically unsustainable to have the site with its 'warning' attached. Kennywpara (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Kennywpara. Thank you for your response. I never mentioned "main contributor". I mention someone who declared a WP:COI, but hasn't attached the {{connected contributor}} to this (or any of the pages/talk pages) which they edit r indeed, followed good practices for WP:COI/WP:FCOI. I hope that is clearer to you now. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I have become more concerned as I now see that LutherBlissetts uses twitter, and retweets under that name a lot of material pertaining to fracking. A quick look at this shows that it is precisely the type of material that should not appear on a reputable publication such as Wikipedia about fracking in the UK. This includes comments about US frack water waste disposal. (Covered under licence by the responsible body, the Environment Agency) and other practices not proposed in the UK. The material retweeted is poorly sourced, and as such it would appear that rather than acting as a neutral observer, I suspect that the motive is to undermine what has been a stable and rarely challenged scientific resource. As such I feel that further editorial input is needed. I propose to revert the citation in 24 hours as I suspect this is a subtle form of vandalism. So far I have seen no attempt to propose improvements, no indication of what the issue is in terms of NPOV, and no rationale or evidence about the motives of the supposed 'major contributor' with a COI. Please supply the evidence and proposals for improvement. Kennywpara (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Kennywpara. If you have a problem with my edits to this page, please discuss them in a civilised manner. I have not made any real or subtle vandalisms on wikipedia. I have no idea which citation you are proposing to revert in 24 hours. I have no motive or desire to undermine wikipedia articles. I also don't believe it's appropriate to postulate about the motives of a person who doesn't declare their COI/FCOI openly on wikipedia - COI does not infer bias. WP:COINOTBIAS - it is about relationships. If you'd like to begin contribute to a discussion about how this article can be improved, then, as I already said to Mikenorton who also suggested I begin such a discussion, then please begin one. I will gladly contribute to it. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear ALL, I will begin a discussion on how this article can be improved next week, no later than Tuesday 30 August 2016. Please do not remove the COI notice until after the article has been cleaned up with input from all editors and we're all happy with the outcome. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
On reflection, and reading about how and when a COI tag should be removed, I fail to see why it needs 24hrs. LutherBlissetts has failed to provide a rational for the tag, for the reasons above. To quote the Wiki page on this If the maintenance template is not fully supported. Some neutrality tags, such as Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (POV), require the tagging editor to initiate a dialogue (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed.Kennywpara (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Kennywpara. Thank you for your comment. I have provided a rationale for the tag, and I have initiated an initial dialogue on the article talk page. This discussion is not dormant. The template may not yet be removed. I have not tagged the user, because they watch this page, and are aware of the dialogue. I am assuming good faith that this editor will declare WP:COIDEC. I would rather not initiate a WP:COIN. I am reinserting the tag. Please do not remove it until this article has been cleaned up as per the COI notice. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
LutherBlissetts Twitter name is @(((LutherBlissett))) Please could editors check this ( I have a screenshot of many recent tweets if need be.) These indicate someone with a POV about fracking, in that they are against it. Many discredited studies are referred to. This POV means he is not a suitable person to be passing comments about the engineering and technical aspects as he does not appear to have looked at the authoritative expert opinion from the Royal Academy of Engineering, the BGS, PHE and other expert bodies. There is no indication that he has any technical expertise, necessary to critique this. Kennywpara (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Kennywpara. There is no WP:OWN of this page and I ask that you please contribute to THIS discussion in a civil manner. If you hadn't removed a link to a report that another editor who had declared their COI on their talk page, using derogatory comments, accusations, and uncivil behaviour, then I wouldn't have examined the all contributions to this page and discovered that an editor of this page and numerous other pages related to hydraulic fracturing had declared a COI but not on this or any of the pages they edited where they have a COI. This is why I placed a COI tag on this page. I do not have an undeclared COI for this page or any page on hydraulic fracturing; I'm not an advocate, or an WP:SPA, and I strive to have a NPOV when editing wikipedia. I hope you will cease uncivil behaviour towards myself and other editors on this article, and I hope other editors will get involved and help to tidy up this article. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Luther Blissetts To summarise, there is a 'major contributor' with a non disclosed COI, but it is not me. It is not Mikenorton either, as he has declared his interests. I have been the main content writer of this page over the last 2 years, and looking through the edits from others,they have been largely editing date formats, spelling errors, and minor discussion issues. You have reported 'a large number of non-minor edits' from someone, yet I cannot find anyone who fits that description. You say you are not able to say who this person is, and they have to declare it themselves. On the basis of that you (a single editor) assume the right to tag this page (I used the word citation) to imply it may be industry sponsored. If I question your logic, you imply I am not being polite. Writing directly is not impolite. Asking for justification is not a matter of politeness. It is a matter of evidence. So far I have not seen any, and would respectfully ask you to provide it. Kennywpara (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Kennywpara, The application of a COI tag to an article has nothing to do with any inference that an article. to quote you, "may be industry sponsored".
I explained clearly from the outset that COI/FCOI is about relationships. Yes, I absolutely believe it is best this user declares COI themselves. I am not going to WP:OUT them because there is a link between their username and their real name. I am not going to initiate a WP:COIN because the article talk page is the best place to discuss. I'm sorry to say that you have been rather impolite. UPDATE: Since you removed the COI tag again, the COI editor has declared their COI to you. Their declaration is still not in accordance with WP:COIDEC, but it is their second declaration for a second article under the same umbrella topic. They have made it clear to you that they do not wish to become involved in this discussion because of their COI. The tag ought not to have been removed by you based on your disagreement with its presence. Your WP:TE removal of a summary of the earthquake/wellbore deformation in the lead as 'scaremongering' is not WP:NPOV, and goes beyond any positives that WP:SPA can bring, straying into the realm of gatekeeping/ownership and activism. You have years of activism and campaigning on this topic. What kind of fuss are you going to make when I cite your activism, using a reliable source, on the article's page? Is all hell going to break loose? Are you going to accused me of being an anti-fracking devil incarnate? I honestly believe your WP:SPA has strayed into WP:ADVOCACY which is a kind of WP:COI. I believe its affecting other editors' ability to contribute to this article (I'm not talking about blatent vandalism). You don't like the Chemtrust paper? Then add the UKOOG response, etc. The final mention of both in the article is NPOV, but your heated comments on the talk page came across as WP:SOAP.
I hope in future this article will be easier to edit, but it's possible that that your external-to-wikipedia advocacy is not conducive to making the clean up of this article an easy task. This was once a simpler article to read, but no longer. It needs a lot of editing to tidy up the referencing and give it some concrete structure. If you want to comment on any edit of mine, please use the section created for that purpose, rather than leaving it in an unrelated section. On that note, because the editor has declared as COI for this article, I am going back to editing the article, and placing a COI editnotice tag on this talk page. I am re-inserting the COI 'connected contributor' tag into the article until all the issues in the article have been gone through and addressed using the 'improve article' section in the talk page. This is not an overnight process, or a three day process. It will take some time, and hopefully other experienced non-involved editors will contribute. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You may have noticed in the seismic section that I have fully documented a potentially negative minor risk of fracking, namely, induced seimicity. There are also other references, written by me, about a suspect well design in Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Well_leak_concerns, and also the conflicts of interest section Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Conflicts_of_interest. This was submitted by someone in an inappropriate place, so I placed it in a section by itself. Someone not compliant with WP:NPOV could easily have deleted it, but I felt that would be wrong. I also documented the serious damage, earthquakes, property damage and evasion by gas producers in the Groningen field. Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Subsidence It terms of my 'activism' I only campaign for truth. I see daily, accurate science being ignored or misunderstood by some in the activist community. I have challenged many publications and all have withdrawn their claims. I am simply someone with a keyboard, yet Breast Cancer UK, RAFF, Frack Free Somerset, and others all withdrew their claims. What does that say about their science? They were unable to sustain their claims. It is something that Jimmy Wales would applaud. False science or hysterical claims must not appear in this wiki page. As someone with a technical background, experience with well maintainance and repair at a senior level, and who is financially completely independent, I am in a good place to contribute. I also have the time. I do not back fracking, I back accurate science that allows people to learn about what fracking involves so they can make an informed opinion. That is 100% compliant with the Wiki ideals. As such I am happy for a review of some of the links, (I know some have expired) but this page has seen little challenge, except for the occasional comment on syntax and citation style. I would strongly challenge any attempt to fill this with poorly sourced, unscientific activist material, There is a reason that almost every competent scientific body find little to concern them . Kennywpara (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned about the way that Kennywpara is attacking Luther Blissetts on the basis of his holding an alleged partisan point of view. Kennywpara is publicly and widely recognised as a vocal advocate for fracking, who therefore clearly has a POV about fracking, in that they are for it. Kennywpara is, however, by his own admission "not an expert" (see [edited by Fyldeman (talk) - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC) to remove link following suggestion of WP:OUTING ) and there is no indication that he has any technical expertise necessary to critique other editors. Indeed his attempt to have a commentator on fracking (with whom he disagreed) sanctioned by the IET has this week been dismissed unreservedly. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that "If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest". Kennywpara is clearly involved in a campaign to promote fracking as his admission of multiple applications to the Advertising Standards Authority, his complaint to the IET and frequent comments on newspaper articles and social media (esp Twitter and Facebook) all attest. It is clear therefore that he himself is editing in conflict with Wikipedia's published guidelines unless this interest is clearly declared. WP:COIRefracktion (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
COI tag (again)
The documentation for the COI template added to this article states "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement". You haven't demonstrated that that is the case for this article - please do so or remove the template. Mikenorton (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and have asked LutherBlissetts to justify this tag. He has failed to do so. I will revert it. I am concerned that this user is not following Wiki protocols on getting concensus for his edits. I am also concerned about his minor edit of the lead, and would appreciate your comments Mikenorton So far he has had none. I am looking into this as to how to proceed. Please DO NOT REVERT THIS LutherBlissettsKennywpara (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
A template should not be removed if any of the following applies:
When the issue has not yet been resolved;
When there is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue;
When you do not understand the issues raised by the template;
When you simply disagree with the template (seek consensus first);
You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest.
As for my minor edit of the lead, which you removed twice, citing 'scaremongering', that is probably better discussed in the subsection for 'Lead' in the article improvement section. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
COI declared
The editor has now declared they have a COI, and has expressed their desire to stay away from this article and its talk page. They have in the past been responsible for a majority of non-minor edits, which I have not yet had a chance to completely check through. This same editor has declared a COI for another article in the same umbrella topic Hydraulic Fracturing and appears to be exercising a similar restraint over their involvement. I have not checked through all their edits for that page either. Since this editor chose a name which links them to the world outside wikipedia, they must not be outed (please see WP:OUT). Please respect this wikipedia policy.
I have placed a COI tag which explains the process for editing this article after a declared COI. Please DO NOT remove this tag. ) 16:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Could you please make a link to or provide diffs of the COI declaration about this article? If I read the declaration at the User:Kennywpara page, I don't see any COI in regard to hydraulic fracturing in general or in the UK in particular. Also in this statement the editor in question says that they don't have any COI. If you think that there is a COI-issue which could be not resolved at this talk page, it could be listed at the relevant notice board. Beagel (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Beagel. This isn't about Kennywpara. The editor has used a name which could identify them in the real world. It is forbidden (strongly forbidden) to WP:OUT, even during WP:COI. The editor has declared a COI, but not in accordance with WP:COIDEC. At this point, after a clear declaration re. this article, I am not going to force the issue further. We're in the process of a big tidy up of the article, which ought to pick up any NPOV that may have inherently (because invariably, as mentioned in WP:COI, having a COI does affect NPOV) affected this article. Hope that clarifies the issue. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@LutherBlissetts: If you make COI claims, you have to indicate clearly who you are taking about. If that person uses their their real name as a wiki usernamename, it is not outing to mention their username. You have to use also {{Connected contributor}} at the top part of the page (with all necessary details, please see the template's documentation. And if the COI declaration was made in Wikipedia (article's talk page, user page, notice board page), this declaration should be also linked in the template. If you are not going mention the username of this editor, you better to strike through all your posting under this section. My apologies to Kennywpara but this thread makes an impression that you are talking about Kennywpara. Beagel (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Beagle: Thank you for telling me it's not outing to mention their username. I thought it might be. I will reinsert (for the nth time) the connected contributor template. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I also am very confused, now I understand who is being discussed Luther Blissetts (talkBeagel (talk. I looked through the history of contributions on this page and see that these are all syntax of dates (one of my VERY weak points) and other minor editing issues. As such, I am not aware of any contentious edits made by this person. It would appear that the person in question has taken an interest in this page, BUT used their awareness of COI to avoid any issues, by not making significant contributions. That means I see no reason at all for the COI tag. It should not reappear. Kennywpara (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Kennywpara. I'm sorry you are still confused, however it is clearly stated in the various links that I have given to you that being confused is not a reason to remove the COI template/notice. We're not talking about you or this editors relationship to you. We're talking about their COI/FCOI relationship to the subject of this article. You have mischaracterised this editor's contributions. They were editing articles on this article and creating articles in its umbrella topic long before you joined wikipedia. Whilst it's important to assume good faith, and whilst COI doesn't infer NPOV, this editor has stated that their COI means they can't be involved in this page any longer. They are an invaluable contributor on a variety of other topics, but for them to continue editing here (a page created by a sockpuppet) without going through the proper procedure is detrimental. I'm sorry Kennywpara, but you cannot speak for this user. They have made significant contributions to this and other articles where they have COI that go way beyond syntax and fixing links.
I haven't replaced the COI connected contributor for the article itself - yet. I am open to suggestions for an alternative for the article page.
Please DO NOT remove the COI notice at the top of this talk page. This provides the correct procedure to follow for declared COI editors who wish to contribute to this article. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no issue with the tag on the talk page. It probably should be there anyway. I cannot see any major issues with the supposed COI editor. Looking back way further a lot of that stuff has been subsequently removed or was purely factual anyway. They have not made any major changes that I have seen for at least 2 years. Kennywpara (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Kennywpara, COI is not supposed when it's been declared. Yes; a focus on editing patterns is key. That said, we have a whole topic in which to discuss and implement revisions to the article. Focusing on the article as it stands today, I'm looking at suitable cleanup tags for the main article page and leaning towards the 'requires attention' tag which invites editors to read this talk page first before editing the article. It's a 'catch-all' description. Luther Blissetts (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
As there is clarity about the COI editor, the {{connected contributor}} tags is added and there is no more suspected COI-editors, I propose to remove "Individuals with a conflict of interest" warning tag. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Beagel:, We don't remove a COI connected contributor 'tag' or the COI editnotice just because a COI has been declared and you believe there are no more suspected COI-editors. These are permanent notices. It is wikipedia policy to include both the COI connected contributor tag and the edit notice on the associated talk page. We can't propose to remove them for reasons of 'clarity' (that would defeat their purpose - if they weren't there, there wouldn't be clarity any longer). Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
This discussion has been opened to improve the article on all levels, from WP:NPOV to ensuring it's an easier read to someone without technical knowledge of hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom and all the issues involved.
I aim to start off with some simple things first. I think a subheading for each task and a committment to actioning the proposed solution seems a good way forwards. Any suggestions can then be raised within that subsection. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Where are there issues of WP:NPOV? If there are any please feel free to edit them with appropriate reliable scientific evidence. HF in the UK and its regulation is a technical subject. Kennywpara (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Kennywpara. I will feel free to edit with reliably source verifiable scientific evidence. I don't have a problem with technical subjects, having two science degrees under my belt. This might be a technical subject, but that doesn't mean it can't made more accessible to a non-technical person. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I propose to make all subsections under this section separate sections. In that case it would be easier to close discussion and archive it if the issue is resolved. Beagel (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Kennywpara. The provision of factual information is not scaremongering. That earthquake was mentioned in the lead/lede. I simply provided the reasons why exploratory HVHF hydraulic fracturing ceased. The wellbore was deformed by the seismic events from 31 March 2011 to 1 April 2011. I see no reason why this ought not to be mentioned. It is a matter of fact. Of course the well casing is perforated. How else would fracturing fluid have entered the shale from the borehole. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Luther Blissetts I see that you reverted the edit that I made. I have changed it back. Please justify why you need to change what should be a BRIEF description of the process, with a couple of newspaper articles as evidence. The edit I made gave a govt link to the results of the extensive research that was done on the issue. It explained the modifications made to regulation, and had further links to the research institutions involved for further research. Reverting the edit seems to indicate a desire to use this website to present a WP:POV. Please explain why '50 events' is relevant. The 2 detectable seismic events were on the limit of human detection. The 50 need specialised equipment to even detect them. If you look at the info graphic, you will see that events of less than 1.5 are not classed as 'earthquakes'. Kennywpara (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Kennywpara I cited the reports from the news regarding the Preese Hall seismic events with acceptable secondary sources. In those sources 50 tremors are mentioned. They are called tremors to distinguish them from earthquakes. This is of interest, else it would not have been classed as newsworthy. The statement already existed within the lead/lede, but was unsourced. I added citation and expanded that statement to provide verifiable facts. Please do not remove this information for a third time. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@LutherBlissetts:. Your reversion changed back all fixing of references, fixing of headings, dead link templates etc, all together more than 50 edits. I believe this was not intensional; however, this is not acceptable. Therefore I reverted your reversion (and not because of the text about seismic events). However, as I already said, also by my understanding, this text should be discussed in details in the specific section and the lead should just summarize it per WP:LEAD by using summary style. Beagel (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Beagel:. Thank you for pointing out the damage to the article caused by my reversion. It was unintentional and I thank you for assuming good faith and I am sorry for creating unecessary work for you. I do understand that the text should be discussed in detail in the specific section with a summary in the lede/lead as per WP:LEAD. I think that work on improving the lede/lead ought to come at the end of our article tidy-up process as it seems clear from a read of the entire article and its revision history that new information has been inserted since the lead/lede was written, some which will be notable enough to be included as per WP:LEAD. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that a seismic event and an earthquake are not synonyms. I also agree that the lead should summarize the the article and details should be provided in the body text in specific sections. Beagel (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Beagel:, My original edit to the lead/lede provided "citations & rewording" and asked "for citations and clarity for an unamed[sic], undated and uncited report"[[1], as per WP:LEADCITE, for an existing statement on notable seismic events in the UK relating to onshore exploratory high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the UK "Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The solution to Kennywpara's removal is, as you have pointed out, to ensure that:
*1) the notable seismic events, and;
*2) the well casing deformation caused by the related coseismic slip;
as summarised in the lead, are discussed in detail in the subsection on (anthropogenic/induced) seismic events relating to hydraulic fracturing in the UK. I hope you will all forgive me for assuming that such two such notable-to-topic occurrences (seismic events & the well casing deformation caused by the related coseismic slip) were already discussed in detail in the articles subsections at the time of my edit to the lead. I am therefore re-inserting the edit manually into the lead/lede, and will ensure that this particular summary is detailed in the relevant subsection. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Kennywpara:, With regards to the now twice reverted (by you) edit to the lead: the mention of two notable minor earthquakes was already mentioned in the lead, but no citation was given; I maintenance tagged for CN first; I then reworded without losing meaning and added another notable summary of the wellbore defamation; Both these were already discussed in more depth in the body of the article: wellbore deformation is discussed in History and partially discussed The 'Fracking Debate'/Preese Hall #1.
A compromise edit would be to remove the mention of '50 tremors', but to revert the entire edit, twice, label it as scaremongering, use the talk page to actively insult me, is WP:TE and a whole host of other unpleasantaries is completely unecessary. I hope this comment is taken by you as a constructive compromise. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Luther Blissetts (talk The subject of earthquakes is always emotive, as we usually see them representing death and destruction. That is why I used the word 'scaremongering'. '50 tremors' sounds scary. The fact that no one can even feel them is lost. I do not consider that to be an insult to point that out, and is certainly not WP:TE I agree the newspaper reports exist, and I was happy with a citation. As such I added 2 of the most authoritative sources possible, yet now these have been removed. I would like to see them replaced.Kennywpara (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Kennywpara. Thank you for your response. Your first edit, (1) removed the text and links that I had provided for previously unsourced statement, and improved the wording and gave a link for another unsourced statement. [2]. You deemed my edit 'unhelpful text'. My reversion took care not to remove the rewording/information that you had added. [3] I noticed the two other maintenance tags had been removed without being fulfilled, so I put the tags back.[4]. Beagel then removed your addition of the link to the report[5] in the next edit [6] You then reverted (2) my edit, which had not removed your edit (but which had been altered by Beagel) [7] saying "Reverting inappropriate edit by Luther Blissetts. Please see talk page". On the talk page, you removed the edit a second time, citing inappropriate scaremongering as your reason: "I removed the edit about the 'earthquakes', the casing deformation and the link to the 50 'seismic events' as this is the type of scaremongering that is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, especially in the introduction." I then accidentally mass reverted the whole lot (oops) thinking that it would only undo your 2nd rv, which I've apologised for (sorry again, Beagel for the extra work for you). I then reinserted the edits which you had twice removed [8].
I would be happy that the mention of 50 tremors goes in the body in seismicity tho I think it is irrelevant. As you may have seen, I have followed WP:NPOV in reporting all of the earthquakes that have been of a magnitude that could be detected by humans, including the ban in place in British Colombia, due to excessive seismicity. Personally I would guess that is due to the particular geology there, but have made no comment. HF fracking has been done in massive areas of the US with no seismicity at all. Kennywpara (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It was mentioned in the news, online, in print, and on TV. I admit, I didn't even consider that 50 tremors might be thought of as irrelevant. I considered the event notable enough to be in the lead, as did whoever mentioned it in the lead in the first place. According to WP:LEAD, not all readers read past the lead. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Luther Blissetts ([[User talk:LutherBlissetts|talk] According to WP:LEAD, not all readers read past the lead. And that is the exact reason why a very minor issue of vibrations that needs a seismometer to detect them, should not be in the lead, as its not of any significance. I barely think its worth a mention anywhere. There was seismicity, and the max value was M 2.3. a minor event, tho one that needed serious investigation, and caused no significant problems. In fact thats pretty well what I wrote originally, concisely, and to the point, without drama. Kennywpara (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, It is precisely because not all readers read past the lead that a summary of the pertinent issues to the subject are included there. The tremors were the reason why a halt to operations occurred, why several reviews & reports were commissioned: by industry & government regulators with experts involved in reviewing the reviews, and why numerous news articles were written.Activists will routinely cite UNDUE WEIGHT to remove views as too minority, not specialist enough. Only the activists' views will be sufficiently weighty. I've seen from your edit elsewhere on this talk page that, in your opinion, the news sources are 'wild' (they are WP:RS). I also noticed that you've removed the information on wellbore deformation from the lead for a third time. I've since noticed you've removed an entire section on the Preese Hall wellbore from section "The 'Fracking' Debate", claiming it is discussed in Seismicity/Preese Hall (it is not). Whether that information belongs in that section is a matter for discussion. The outcome of your edits is that you have now removed all mention of wellbore deformation, from both the lead and the article. This is not WP:NPOV editing. It is WP:BADPOV. I am restoring the lead and reinserting the the removed section. Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Luther Blissetts You have not sought concensus for this edit. In the edit history, Mikenorton has stated 'remove the 50 tremors - it was the two larger events that caused the well to be suspended - also this information is not in the body of the article and certainly doesn't belong in the lead'. The is a breach of many Wiki protocols. WP:NPOVLISTEN Are you trying WP:DAPE You added superfluous information to the lead. Seismicity was already mentioned. Was my edit trying to conceal something? No. Has it been questioned before? No Is it relevant? By all means put this in the PH 1 place but not in the lead. You need to seek concensus and you have NONE. I will have to consider reporting this as deliberately disruptive editing. Kennywpara (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara. We already talked about removing the '50 tremors' in this section above. There is no mention of '50 tremors' in the lead. The larger of the two minor earthquakes caused wellbore deformation. There is partial discussion about the wellbore deformation (poor cementation) in the section The Fracking Debate/Preese Hall #1, which you also removed, and which I have reinstated. I now notice, that before you removed that section, you moved the lead summary for wellbore deformation to The Fracking Debate/Presse Hall #1. And then you deleted that section, so that the effect was to remove all mention of wellbore deformation from the article. Feel free to report my actions. I am happy for you to do so. I am going to expand on the wellbore deformation caused by the second of the tremors, as discussed by reputable sources including scientific and notable news articles, in the Seismicity section. Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Shennings: made a comment in the LEDE in parentheses which deserves some discussion/factcheck as the reason they gave for this edit was that the statement was not supported in the link (diffs):
It recognises that it can be an economic boost but there is a need to not repeat the pollution incidents that have occurred in the US.[1](This is not a conclusion or statement from the cited commission report and there is no listing in the report of U.S. pollution incidents from shale development. The report does list the currently unavoidable pollution from shale development, such as air emissions from machinery, and the currently unavoidable risks such as fluid spillage. It should not be implied that pollution or the risk of pollution can be avoided for any industrial activity, regardless of the level of regulation or study).
@Kennywpara: undid Shennings' edit (diffs), but perhaps it might better to ascertain whether this would have been better included as a note for verification/clarification needed and examined for WP:ORWP:SYNTH and WP:POV? As a new editor, Shennings may not have been aware of the option to add a maintenance note or discuss on the talk page. Luther Blissetts (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Maintenance tag
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello @Kennywpara:, Please stop removing the {{requires attention}} tag. This article still requires a lot of attention to bring it up to scratch, and inviting other editors to participate is the norm on wikipedia. It's not a badge of shame, or a statement about yours or other editors' efforts. Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Citations
Many citations are still not fully cited. I am working my way through this, as is Beagel. If anyone else would like to pick a section and improve the citations, and check the text is verified by the citation as per WP:CITE, please join in. This will take some time.
Non UK info in the article
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Beagel: I've noticed that you're also questioning and removing non-UK info from the article. I think this is a great idea, and will improve its readability considerably. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Blanket removal is a bad idea, it needs judgement. Luther Blissetts@Beagel:@Mikenorton:. There are many US reports that are not applicable in the UK due to regulatory differences. Environmental protections, chemical usage and the like. However, the US has been used by many reviews, for example with regard to well leakage. The UK land experience is limited, with not that many wells drilled recently. The US has a load of recently drilled wells however, so they provide a useful database. I have stated above that if any info is removed, a link should be provided to that info. Kennywpara (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Removal of information
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Kennywpara, I notice that have asked editors that "if any info is removed, a link should be provided to that info". Can I ask that you also fulfil your own request. I notice that you are removing UK specific information (e.g. frac fluid "ingredients"), but don't appear to be fuliflling your own request. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Luther Blissetts (talk Thats probably because the info is covered elsewhere. There is also some duplication and irrelevant info and that I have removed. I thought one of the things you were concerned about were those type of things. Please review the Environmental Impact and Groundwater sections. I think they are more readable and relevant now. Kennywpara (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Environmental impact/Water
Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Kennywpara, I notice that you've removed the <--Summarise--> tag which I had placed to remind myself, during an editing batch, that the opening paragraphs for Water required rewriting as per Summary style:Rationale. It seems that instead of summarising you have re-organised Water and now there is no general summary at all. I do not do the following to offend you, but I am going to retain all the citations that you have added, but roll-back the article to exclude the new section you have made and return the general water statements back to the summary for future rewriting. The opening statements just needed rewriting in prose style to summarise the entire contents of Water. I'm sorry if there has been any misunderstanding.Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC) I've now removed that new section and returned all the information to the Water summary section without altering any other changes made. At some point, a succinct rewrite of the summary for Environmental impact/Water will be required. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never seen an edit (e.g. moving the RAE statement to 'top billing' as per your revision[10]) to give it "prominence of placement" before! WP:UNDUE Moving it so that the (Water summary) section reads in date order is fine. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Luther Blissetts I am sorry but I disagree with some of the above. I knew there was something wrong with the structure, thought about what unsettled me about it and so changed it to a logical state. When talking about groundwater contamination there are 2 completely separate issues. These are often confused, and thats why I thought it important to separate the items, as they have little in common.
1. Contamination from the HF process, ie cracks penetrating aquifers. The RAE report states that this has never happened. That is still the case after millions of stages in the US. I put all the reports pertaining to that in the section appropriately titled. The 'top billing' for the RAE report is because it is the most reliable and authoritative source. It also made the recommendations that have informed the regulatory bodies, and the infrastructure act.
2. Contamination due to other factors. That includes poorly cemented wells, leading to methane leakage leading to water effects, also spills on the ground, etc for which the EA and HSE have done a load of work. They are factors affecting any well that is drilled, including water wells.
Confusion between the two separate hazards is common, and my edit correctly tried to separate out the separate mechanisms, in an easy to understand fully referenced section.
You have now reverted that and I do not understand why. You put a citation notice asking that this be written in an encyclopedic fashion, and I did that, using easy to understand quotes on the key points, and reliable references. I didnt remove the tag as I was happy to wait for concensus. Now it is a big confusing mess again. Kennywpara (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, I don't think there is a guideline for creating a new subsection based on 'a logical state' by removing a section's summary. I've just explained to you that there is no such thing as 'top billing'. Perhaps WP:BETTER and WP:MOS might be a useful read for you? I didn't put a citation notice asking for rewrite in encyclopaedic fashion (that was @Beagel: in the subsection Groundwater contamination. I placed an invisible edit note to remind (mainly for my benefit so I don't forget in between edit sessions) to summarise the subsection Water of section Environmental impact. I don't really find it useful for matters of style to get bogged down in content discussions, so I won't commment on your content comments above, except to say that whatever the content, it still needs summarising in prose-style as per WP:MOS to achieve WP:BETTER. As for this 'common confusion', other editors have already spoken to you about what this article is, and what it isn't, and having to repeat this over and over to you is perhaps less useful than asking if you would be so good as to read back through the archives of this talk page and the advice that other editors have given you over the last two years. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Apologies Luther Blissetts I incorrectly thought it was your citation notice. There have been so many. I am familiar with the MOS and putting information in a logical order under logical headings is basic. The most important or relevant sources should reasonably come top. This page should allow people to become informed about aspects of HF in the UK context. It is remarkably difficult to find proper information about HF. That is why I spend time editing. Please explain why the separation of two separate points is unacceptable. Is it WP:ADVOCACY? Not that I can see. You have moved a lot of material around and I agree the structure is more logical. I have agreed with many of your edits and also realised that some parts written by me were under inappropriate headings, or had extraneous information, or duplicated info or dead links. I have removed many of my own edits. What I did was an extension of that, and is similar to what you have been doing. Two separate items that now have been jumbled together need two separate headings. I am familiar with the history. Some have been critical, and others have complimented me on sorting out what was a very poorly informed page a couple of years ago. I would like to continue to make this page NPOV, using science, and properly informed research and comment. Kennywpara (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara, I'm sure it's lovely to have received compliments for your additions to this article, but the truth, and you've said as much 'out there', you are an activist (an anti- anti-fracking activist, I think) of some years now (five, I think I read), and you have been quoted in the newspaper as such. For years now you have made FOIs, write letters, and actively comment on social media, where you absolutely express your POV which does creep into your editing and possibly your attitude towards other very experienced wikipedia editors. Some of the info you have included in this article 'to inform the public' is probably better in a personal blog, which then you could promote as such during the course of your activism, instead of linking to this article in your often very heated arguments as a social media commentator, where you have claimed to be the main editor, repeatedly.
Take a look at where the article needs to be heading in my example edit for Regulation below. None of the information currently in Regulation will disappear - it will be shunted to context-appropriate place, although I continue to wonder why all the comparisons of US to UK are required (surely you ought to do this on your personal blog?), and wonder if an entirely new article might be better suited to that, or at the very least, one section where the differences are neatly summarised which might later become an entirely new article. Luther Blissetts (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain your motive for spending so much time Luther Blissetts particularly as some of your changes seem to express a WP:POV? I do not have a blog, I have never done an FOI request. It is odd that you seem to know about me. Is that because you are yourself an activist? Previous posting seems to indicate that you have a POV that fracking is risky. If people wish to find out about HF in the UK this is the place they should start. That means reliable info that is science, history and regulation based, with appropriate links. My 'activism' as you describe it is confined to getting incorrect information removed, or posting reliable information links, as I have already described. Comparison with US and UK seems a very sensible chapter. It was noted in the RAE report for instance, and many are not aware of the differences in law or the regulatory framework in the UK. There are many experts (I am not one BTW, tho I know people who are) who are industry based who could and should post here, having declared any COI. They would have an insight into what is permitted, and what is not, Please review my comments on your proposed edits to Regulation. Whilst some information could be moved, the tone of that edit is clearly expressing a POV that HF is risky, and unregulated. That is incorrect, and as such should not be in an encyclopedia.Kennywpara (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kennywpara:, I know about you because, during an attempt to hold a civil discussion bout WP:COI, which I began following the accusations of COI raised by both parties in the Chemtrust removal thread, you, clearly an WP:SPA editor, after mentioning your own name, mentioned my @twitter account (in violation of wikipedia policy) and accused me of being an anti-fracking activist (I am not). At that point, and there's nothing odd about it, based on the information you had given here, I looked you up, realised I'd had one encounter with you on Disqus around a month previously while I had been looking more deeply into the issues surrounding hydraulic fracturing in the UK (a holiday indulgence for someone who normally researches the far-right in US/UK/EU). A glance at my little used Disqus account reveals comments on a variety of topics. For you, your Disqus is entirely about hydraulic fracturing/shale gas (fracking). My research on the far-right has been used by journalists for The Spectator, The Times, The Telegraph (to name but a few). Your activism has been mentioned by The Independent, you have written a letter to support Third Energy's proposal at Kirby Misperton site, you have sent letters to various bodies (e.g. BMJ) and you have FOI'd industry bodies and regulatory bodies and attempted to user these pers. comms as source material despite WP:OR. I should also mention that you are being filmed in a public debate on the "pro-frack" side debating an ex-industry "anti-frack" activist who has conspiracy theory tendencies. It's a reasonable to say that you actively pursue anti-fracking activists across social media and from a cursory glance, appear to have extensively commented on across various news articles, websites and blogs on this topic over a number of years. It is therefore fair to say that you are an activist. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
My proposed alterations to Regulation section do not express a POV. They are a (work in progress) rewrite which includes all the original information pertinent to HF regulation and the edits do not lead a reader to conclude that HF is risky or unregulated. The statements are well sourced and at at any point the reader can delve deeper into the source material to find out more information. I think the material on RS/RAE criticism of well examiner independence or lack thereof belongs in the shale gas in the United Kingdom article, not here. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Luther Blissetts you still have not explained why you have reverted the edit where two different pollution paths were separated out. The first, due to the HF process, and the second due to other pollution pathways. Its logical to classify them differently. Why is that so controversial? I am concerned that this is an example of WP:POV. To explain, if there was a surface spill of diesel, onto the chemical proof wellpad, would that be attributed to 'fracking', or should it be classified as a surface spill? If however, an HF job lead to frack fluid being forced into an aquifer, that would be a different matter. To classify the surface diesel leak as 'due to fracking' would be misleading. It would appear that putting these two together could confuse someone trying to find out if this was a problem. The RAE have noted for example that the frack process has never caused pollution, whereas there have been surface leaks, poorly sealed surface casings and other spills that have occurred. Unless I see a clear logic for doing that I will revert the edit in a couple of days. Kennywpara (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Kennywpara:, I have explained fully, but it seems you don't accept the reasoning. Beagle had originally asked (in accordance with policy) for a cleanup to summarise that section's overviewin an encyclopaedic manner, and what you delivered was not encyclopaedic summary. I am currently in the process of rewriting in encyclopaedic summary style. If the pathway is not via HF,then why is it in this article? Why not move it to the Shale gas in the United Kingdom article instead where there is more scope for discussing the entire process of extracting shale gas. I presume you introduced that material in the first place. Again, it's not the purpose of wikipedia to disabuse 'the public' of any confusion. If you want to provide that service, please get yourself a blog for your activism. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
A warning about certain sources
Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
@LutherBlissetts: Could you please explain why you put that notice on the talk page? As far as I can find from the article's history, that specific source was not used in this article. At the same time, if you want to list all sources which have copied from the Wikipedia, it would be quite hopeless exercise as there are hundreds that type of pages. If there is no specific reason to warning about this specific source, I would recommend to remove this tag. Beagel (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Certainly @Beagel: The warning is specifically to prevent a source, which took its information from wikipedia, being used in the future as a reference for this specific article. The warning is used throughout wikipedia and placed only on talk pages. There is always a specific reason to place such a warning, which provides links to the source which took its information from wikipedia.
To summarise: the warning remains as a permanent fixture to the talk page (as it does on other talk pages),to prevent future use of the named source being used in this article as a source. Luther Blissetts (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, as I said there are hundreds of websites copying information from Wikipedia, inluding this article. We are not giving warnings about them unless the certain website is used by some editor. So far, by my understanding this source was not used in this article (or was it?). Therefore, using this warning at the moment seems overkill. Warning tags are useful and, if necessary, they should be used, but overuse of them may have discouraging effect to edit this article which is not in interests of Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
'The warning remains' rather than 'the warning should remain'Luther Blissetts?@Beagel: This rather sounds like you have decided that this is going to happen, and you are the sole arbiter of the process. Is that compliant with a collegiate approach that I suggested? Is there seriously a problem with someone who copied a couple of sentences that probably dont exist on the page anymore anyway? The editor in question has made no serious contribution for years, except for correcting spelling, and reverting a couple of vandalism attacks I think. Any suspect material has been vetted by myself and others over the years. I can see no reason for continuing with these tags. They are common on badly maintained sites where someone has written something and then never maintained or referenced it. That is not the case here. Do you want to present this site as a 'dodgy industry written sock puppet' page? That to me is what all of the warnings represent.
Are you 'taking ownership' of this site? After the above massive dispute about a slightly distorted casing that is now buried in cement, where you insisted that your opinion rode above the writing of the original writer (me) can you see why it might be difficult to WP:AGF? I have already stated that I am pleased that you have not started to rip this well referenced page apart, and the restructuring you have done is largely positive. You are clearly well experienced as an editor, so I should not have to explain this to you. These tags are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. This page is not compromised by the undeclared COI. If you find something that is inappropriate, please highlight that for discussion, and alternative sources could be found.Kennywpara (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
1) Hello @Kennywpara: and @Beagel:, The citogenesis prevention notice is used to prevent any future editor, who might be looking for a more recent reference for this article's intro (for example, than Mader 1989 etc), from using the named 2015 book source, since it is a verbatim plagiarism from the two first paragraphs as they stand today, on this wikipedia article. Citogenesis warning notices appear on some of wikipedia's finest articles, and so I cannot agree with the characterisation of their appearance as '"common on badly maintained sites where someone has written something and then never maintained or referenced it"'. If I, as an editor, happen upon another article where citogenesis prevention is required, rest assured I will add a prevention template to its talk page. The prevention notice is not about people (someone) or about the quality of an article. The only people-related 'thing' I can think of where citogenesis is concerned is that perhaps it could be construed as a backhanded compliment to the original wikipedia editor who was plagiarised verbatim, and of course, to wikipedia itself. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Still two questions: why this source and not any other which has copied its information from Wikipedia; and, is there a real risk that this source would be used? Beagel (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Beagel:, My apologies. I thought that the actual warning explained clearly enough. To answer your questions:
Q.Why this source? A: This source (2015) takes its information on hydraulic fracturing in the UK from this article - plagiarised verbatim from the article's lead (c.2013).
Q. Is there a real risk that this source would be used? A: Since there is a citogenesis prevention notice on the article talk page, warning not to use that source, No, because any editor can now see that there is a citogenesis were that source to be added to the lead. Hope this helps. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Why this source and not all other sources doing the same thing?
Did anybody used this source or was there an actual and immediate risk that this source will be used before you put this tag? Beagel (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Beagel:, Yes , somebody did use that source. Even after this discussion about the citogenesis notice, Kennywpara altered the lede text, then added the citogenesis' source! It's since been removed by you and me (I think). Luther Blissetts (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
2) Hello @Kennywpara: I have made no attempt to WP:OWN this article and have every intention of welcoming all editors' improvements to this article. Looking back through the talk page archives it is apparent that I am not the first editor whom you have ascribed motive to (e.g. 2014; Beagel). To repeat, WP:COI is about relationships not WP:COINOTBIAS bias. I hope this helps. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
To clear the air here, I presume that Luther Blissetts is referring to me as the editor with an undeclared conflict of interest, which I recently mentioned on Kennywpara’s talk page, as the reason that I had not joined the recent spirited talk page discussion. The idea of officially declaring a COI had not occurred to me, because I have no direct financial interest in Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, and neither do my wife, cousins, or bartender. I do consulting work for some small US oil companies (too small to have Wikipedia articles), but I am not paid for wiki editing, and I don’t think any of my oil industry acquaintances even know that I edit Wikipedia. So mine is a more nonspecific and generalized conflict, which I try to deal with by sticking to issues of fact in oil-related articles, and avoid pushing my POV in oil-article editing conflicts.
By my count, I have started 22 oil-related articles (please see the list on my home page), including Shale gas (back in 2007) and Shale gas in the United Kingdom (split off in 2013). I also contribute to a number of other oil articles. Luther Blissetts has suggested that he may go through my edits (a more tedious task I can’t imagine). But now that the US is a net exporter of LNG, and the UK still a net LNG importer, my slight financial interest would be to do all I can to discourage gas production in the UK – how’s that for a conflict of interest?
Have I done wrong in not formally declaring myself a "connected contributor" in every oil-related article, and confining myself to edit requests? If such is the case, I need to know. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Plazak:, Connected contributor is normally declared on the user's page as per WP:COIDEC. COI is not about bias WP:COINOTBIAS: "COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI". WP:COI"is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity". For every-day "QC" editing, I'm sure there's no need for you or any other COI editor to submit an edit via the edit notice. At least, that's what I understood from reading through the related COI pages. Perhaps a thorough read-through of those pages might be useful. I hope this helps. Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
What I understand from the Plazak's statement here, he actually does not have a COI as the definition of COI is used in practice in Wikipedia. After reading that statement I think that the {{connected contributor}} tag is unjustified. However, we should consider that statement as positive example to declare not only factual COI but COI in very broad term about the subject (and not about the certain article) which is not the common practice. Beagel (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I am sincerely sorry that I wasted so much of everyone's time on this issue. Had I known that my careless use of the phrase "conflict of interest" would set off alarms, I would have rephrased it. All I meant to do was to keep a certain distance from an edit dispute in which it is difficult for me to maintain an NPOV. Plazak (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello @Plazak:Luther Blissetts@Beagel:@Mikenorton:I have changed the wording of the first sentence, and they are now my words, but the meaning is the same. I have removed the Mader reference as the info can be found in section 1.8 of of the RAE engineering report. I have removed the immediate attention tag, as it would now appear to be unnecessary. Kennywpara (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Maintenance tags: When, by whom, and citation needed
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
As I work my way through this article focusing on 'this' (see above), if I come across any sentences that require a citation, or provision of clarity as to whom and when the statement was made, I will tag them. The aim is to aid myself and other editors to add the required information at a later date. These can be removed once the provisions have been made. To add these notes, just type: {{citation needed}} and {{when}}. The citation tag can also be abbreviated to 'cn' instead of writing out 'citation needed'. If it's not clear who is saying what, then just replace 'when' with 'whom' or 'by whom', using the same coding. If you forget to date these (sometimes I forget), a handy bot will be along shortly after your maintenance tag to tidy them up. Thank you Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Luther Blissetts (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Kennywpara, I notice you removed a [citation needed] tag for a statement which requires a source. I've restored the tag. It is standard practice in an article that has been worked intensively to post a [citation needed] tag as a courtesy to editors rather than remove the statement. Please don't remove the tags without providing a source. If you can't see a reason for the tag, please talk about it here in the relevant section or help to find the supporting source and add it, after which the tag may then be removed. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
