This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points

We all have other things to do. I am trying to shine some light on an obscured situation as it concerns me. The ethics of what we do is important. I don't begrudge you refusing to answer further, but you've not really addressed any of the critical issues.

So to be clear; this training is for people involved in the project - i.e. outreach to train potential editors. If so, that seems a clear conflict of interest when editing related Wikipedia articles (i.e. you are being paid by people with a vested interest in those articles).

This isn't a credible argument unless you think I'm hypnotising them.

What isn't credible here? Gibraltar are paying you to provide commercial services in relation to Wikipedia - it seems to follow, fairly logically, that articles related to Gibraltar present at least a strong potential for COI.

If this situation is the case, are you implying that the rest of the "Gibraltarpedia" project is organised via... a gratis offering from you and others? By the ministry of tourism? or?? Surely the project is predicated on the QRpedia plaques and training sessions!

I'm not implying anything and i find your question confusing.

I apologise.

Your comments so far appear to separate your commercial arrangement from the wider Gibraltarpedia project. I'm trying to establish what, outside of your commercial offerings, the project consists of and who is organising this.

Obviously it relies heavily on your paid services, though.

I am interested in why you ignored standard advice for those with COI's to interact on the talk page?

I think that if you look at the pages for QRpedia, Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia then you will see that I do use the talk page to interact with those pages. Despite some significant errors. So we agree that I'm not ignoring them.

Yes, I saw that. Which is why I think your other issues are more a good faith oversight, rather than anything else.

Also this does not address the most pressing concern; which centres around how Gibraltar approached you, what you told/promised them and so forth. I am sure you can see there is a distinct difference between talking to them as a Wikimedia UK director or as a Wikipedian. Indeed; if you've used your role as a WMUK director in any reference to this project that is an ethical breach (the media are reporting you as such, but whether that is inaccuracy on their part, or quoted from your PR materials I do not know).

I was approached as the person "who did Monmouthpedia" by Gibraltar's Director of Heritage. This wasn't correct obviously but was the original approach to me. You are correct in assuming the press frequently make mistakes about job titles. Its bad enough explaining that I don't work for a company called Wikipedia. It isn't necessary to spread confusion - it makes itself.

Thank you. I take it this means you didn't proffer Wikimedia UK's support as part of that agreement (as Andreas has highlighted r.e. the Geovation bid)? Or indeed promote the project to Wikimedia UK.

1. That's right it hadn't happened 2. Yes M'pedia hadn't completed - still hasnt. 3. Fallacy? Sorry your argument is deeply flawed.

How is it flawed? We elected you based on the existing situation; which is that an independent project, with later WMUK support, resulted in you receiving consultancy payment. Am I incorrect in that summary (which is what we were told at the time)?

Not the best situation (slight unethical), but it's only a small sum and I don't begrudge you being paid for the time.

However; the situation has now moved on significantly, and you appear to be launching a commercial venture to provide consultancy services around Wikipedia. You did not indicate this goal at the time of the AGM and new ethical issues emerge in relation to your board role.

4. Lack of demarcation - I agree. I frequently end up doing WMUK work in my own time. How do you and Tom D avoid it? Sorry rhetorical question as I don't expect a reply.

Pish. You volunteered for a prominent and public role in a fairly cash-rich charity. You can't claim a lack of time when scrutiny is levelled.

I despise evasiveness of this sort.

# No - I have referred ethical dilemmas to the board. I have offered my resignation twice and it has not been accepted. You will see that this email arrives from my private email. I do not use my wikimedia UK email. This is probably unnecessary but it makes sure people know that they are talking to me and not me as a wikimedia UK director.

Thank you, this makes me much happier :) And a lot could have been saved simply by stating this clearly from the outset.

# Ethics of the community ? My ethics are aligned with the Wikimedia mission. I am pleased by the credit I have received for my work from people who I respect.

As I mentioned; I think you hold a conflicted position when editing articles about Gibraltar, so it would be best to comply with community practices and operate full transparency/disclosure on-wiki. But that is more a matter for discussion on-wiki.

Thanks for your time! I charge mine at ~Ł100/hour, so I hope you appreciate that taking 10 minutes to look into these situations, and write these emails, are not insignificant matters to me, and hope that stresses how deeply I care about our ethics.

Tom