User talk:KPKLSKid

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, KPKLSKid. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Harvey Pitt, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Conifer (talk ) 19:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Conifer. Wikipedia's guidelines permit the subject of an article to edit it, especially for living persons, where the information is derogatory and not neutral. In reversing all my edits, the article relies on negative criticism, but does not reference any factually demonstrable accomplishments. You know who I am, but I don't know who you are, and that makes this conversation difficult. But the current state of the article contains demonstrable inaccuracies, reflects almost exclusive political criticism, and does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral article about living persons. I would like to further a constructive dialogue with you, if that's possible, and revise the article's contents.KPKLSKid (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)KPKLSKid
 * Hi KPKLSKid. While you are permitted to edit articles where you have a conflict of interest, it is strongly discouraged because it becomes difficult to maintain a neutral point of view. Please provide evidence to back up your assertion that the material you have removed is "derogatory and not neutral" – as far as I can see, it is well-referenced in reliable secondary sources such as contemporary newspaper coverage. Whether the criticism was political or not is irrelevant. Additionally, primary sources like remarks by members of Congress are not sufficient replacements and must be used with caution. If there are any passages that you believe continue to violate WP:BLP, please list them on the article talk page before making further reversions. Best, Conifer (talk ) 22:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Conifer. I want to apologize for the fact that, prior to reading your last response, my bio page was updated by a colleague. Had I seen your request, I would have honored it. But, the converse also should be true--having learned that my concern is that the page is not neutral, you should not have automatically reverted to the derogatory and libelous comments currently included on my bio page. I'm happy to list the reasons for the difficulties, but first it's important that I know who you are. If you do not see the lack of neutrality in what is posted, as well as the disparity between my page and the page of others in similar positions, then you either are unfamiliar with the subject matter, or you may have your own conflicts of interest. I also believe that your comments are internally inconsistent. For example, you attack my use of remarks by members of Congress, and yet the newspapers that are cited in the article are quotes from members of Congress!! The fact that newspapers report those things doesn't make them any less remarks by members of Congress, which begs the question why is okay to reference disparaging commentary by members of Congress, but not okay to reference positive comments by members of Congress? Please let me know who you are, and we can continue a useful discussion off line. KPKLSKid (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)KPKLSKid
 * The process of making changes on Wikipedia generally goes something like this: bold, revert, discuss. You made a change to the status quo, I reverted it, and now we're discussing it. To your point about inconsistency – it's not that there's anything wrong with including comments made by members of Congress. However, these comments need to be covered in reliable, secondary sources (such as newspapers), not in primary sources (like the congressional record). They would also need to conform to the neutral point of view policy, not be self-aggrandizing.
 * I also can promise you that I have no conflicts of interest when it comes to the subject of the article, the SEC, or the business world. I came across it more or less by chance. With that in mind, if you'd like to list your remaining concerns about the article on-wiki, please do so. Conifer (talk ) 19:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The notion that you can "promise" me you have no conflicts is silly. The fact that you're unwilling to identify who you are is a potential indication that you are hiding something about yourself or your background that you believe might reveal inherent biases or prejudices. You know who I am, but you won't tell me who you are. That's an indication of troublesome issues unless you're willing to clarify things. In any event, you apparently have a far too limited notion of what is a conflict. For example, however you came to this page, are you involved in organized political activities? Particularly where you give credence to negative political views, but dismiss positive political views, that shows a biased and an uneven approach to this page. Siimilarly, the fact that you tolerate politician's statements when quoted in the NY Times, but discount the same statements when quoted in the Congressional Record is a distinction without any substantive difference.

You also fail to recognize the difference between this page and the pages of similarly-situated individuals. For example, the page on Arthur Levitt does not note the ethical violations with which he was charged during his SEC tenure regarding the placement of his staff with brokerage firms, or his failure to adhere to government travel regulations, both of which were reported frequently during his tenure. And, the page on William H. Donaldson doesn't indicate that, during his tenure, he was forced to resign because under his leadership the SEC overspent its budget and was found to have lacked adequate internal controls. The only content on the page relating to Harvey Pitt is negative. By definition, that isn't neutral. It doesn't contain any of the positives during Mr. Pitt's fifty+ yer professional career, including the positive things he accomplished during his tenure as SEC Chairman. By refusing to add any of the positives, you are deliberately creating a highly negative and misleading picture of Mr. Pitt's tenure. There have been many references that have hailed his tenure as a boon to public investors. So, even before one gets to eliminating the false rhetoric that appears on the page (even if published in the NY Times, it is still false and rhetorical--see the book Journalistic Fraud for ample details), one has to question why you are adamant about publishing demonstrable facts that demonstrate the positive aspects of Mr. Pitt's service as SEC Chairman.

You may think you have no conflicts, but your unwillingness to allow anything positive on this page reflects the contrary. There is no justification for such an unbalanced approach, and one that deviates from the treatment accorded Mr. Pitt's immediate predecessor and immediate successor. For the sake of intellectual honesty, advise us of your identity, advise us why you refuse to allow anything positive to be added to this page, and advise us why the approach of this page is singularly at odds with the two most comparable pages of individuals who served in the same position.KPKLSKid (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)KPKLSKID


 * If you would like to suggest well-referenced content about shortcomings of other SEC officials, you are welcome to do so on their talk pages as long as it complies with the biographies of living persons policy. Likewise, positive coverage of Pitt's leadership in reliable, secondary sources is suitable for the article. (If you can't distinguish between the New York Times and the Congressional Record, you must not have a firm grasp on what a secondary source is.) Finally, I'll note that you're coming close to running afoul of the three-revert rule, which continues to apply when editing while logged-out. To avoid being blocked for edit warring, I again suggest that you stop reverting other editors and instead propose your changes to the Pitt article on the talk page. Conifer (talk ) 23:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)