Talk:Stewart Stevenson

The Subject as Contributor

I think there a number of questions which it is perfectly legitimate to ask when the subject is a significant contributor.

1. Have any contributions from others been materially amended or deleted by the subject as contributor (SAC) so as to diverge from proper neutrality?

I suggest an examination of the update record easily disposes of that option.

2. Have any of the contributions by SAC been selective and hence have the potential to diverge from neutrality?

More difficult to assess but examining contributions made should suggest that other people have had their efforts properly reflected in SAC contribution and indeed this SAC can be seen to have made similar additions to other Subject's entries that mirror a least one here.

3. Are SAC contributions coming from reliable and verifiable sources and enabling assessment, through further reference to such sources, as to whether material omissions which compromise neutrality been made?

The foot-noting is extensive and draws upon very well established bodies such as the Scottish Parliament, BBC and the Scotsman newspaper.

4. Does the substantive article benefit from contributions from SAC?

Little doubt that no one knows the subject better than his or her self. Therefore insights are available that might otherwise be denied the reader and which widen the areas over which a critical (in the neutral, academic sense) eye can be cast to assess whether balance and neutrality are maintained.

Summary.

I think examination justifies removal of the warning to the reader that could be seen by some to impugne the integrity of the Subject as Contributor. A rapid conclusion should be reached please!

ZSSTEVENS (aka Stewart Stevenson) who is the subject as contributor (SAC). 2009-04-19, 1545 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsstevens (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • 2nd April 2018***

I note that after 9 years of non contention an editor has added an unwelcome tag to the page relating to me. My personal identity as a contributor is in the public domain and all contributions are verifiable. The objector hides behind a pseudonym and has previously been banned because of his Conflict of Interest (COI) contributions. As I know nothing of the editor in question I can make no adverse comment about his actions save that he does not disclose sufficient information to show that he is de-conflicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsstevens (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Connected contributor

34% of this article has been written by the subject in question. Andy's removal of the tag in question appears pointy. Does someone need to review the article in question with respect to balance, IMO yes. User:Drchriswilliams your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

As you well know, [[Template::COI|the template's documentation]] says: if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. No such discussion exists, so I have removed the template, in accordance with the guidance for its use. I also note that the article subject is a BLP. And if you're going to discuss me on talk pages, please have the courtesy to ping me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

COI tag note

I've added a conflict of interest tag to this article. Per the disclosures above, the article has been edited extensively by a conflicted editor and is likely to violate several content policies, in the form of inappropriate links, missing negative content, overemphasis on "positives", non-neutral language (all of which are violations of the WP:NPOV content policy), and is likely to have unsourced or poorly sourced content, in violation of the WP:VERIFY content policy. It is likely that the content promotes the subject of the article, in violation of the WP:PROMO policy. Independent editors need to carefully review the article, including checking for reliable sources with negative information that has been omitted, and correct it, and then may remove the tag. If you do so, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I note that your above comments are very non-specific. It is indeed very clear that the article has been edited by a conflicted editor - the individual has been quite open about that. You have suggested that it is "likely" to violate several content policies etc, use non-neutral language, is "likely" to have poorly sourced content and it is "likely" that the content promotes the subject of the article. However, you have not provided a single example. In fairness, in the circumstances, my first guess would be that you are probably right, given the nature of conflicts of interest.

I have "carefully reviewed the article" and I can see no such issues, with the possible and rather trivial example of the remarks about the shortcomings of the Univ. Challenge House of Commons team in 2003. I don't know much about the individual's career, but the language seems to me to be neutral and the article refers to the brouhaha that led to his resignation as a minister. I have also had a look at the sources. They are mostly BBC or official parliamentary or government sites with the odd national newspaper or Who's Who thrown in. I haven't clicked on every link to check the veracity, but then this isn't an FA candidate. In short, as someone with a general interest in Scottish affairs the article says pretty much what I'd expect it to say. No doubt it could be improved and perhaps some misdemeanour or other has been overlooked but I think it is up to you to provide some evidence of that. I'm going to remove the tag. Please don't add it again unless you can offer something more tangible in the way of concerns.

@Zsstevens: As my remarks above suggest I don't have an issue with the article as it stands but I urge you to read WP:COI carefully nonetheless. In particular please note that this suggests that "you may propose changes on talk pages by using the {{request edit}} template". If you do so I hope that there will be a courteous and timely response. Ben MacDui 19:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)