I don't see any problem with Roger's position.
In the one case you cited below, Roger has trespassed a DYK rule, was
shouted at for violating the rule rather than his own conflict of interest,
and retracted his own review.
Paid editing and editing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden by
Wikipedia. All GLAM, education, and "Wikipedia town" outreach depend
precisely on such premise. It only becomes a problem if such editors push
their agenda in ways which violate Wikipedia policies, and such problems
should be dealt according to the rule violation and independently of the
conflict of interest.
It is an unacceptable personal attack to use Roger's conflict of interest
alone to bar his DYK reviews to other Gibraltar-related articles which he
hasn't contributed significantly to or nominated. It follows that it is
wrong to call for him to "give assurances that all such conflicted editing
will cease immediately".
On 16 September 2012 20:02, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It has come to my attention that Roger Bamkin has been
articles on Gibraltar:
and nominating and reviewing them at DYK:
Since Roger is, I understand, being paid by the Government of
Gibraltar to work on GibraltapediA, I think this constitutes paid
editing. That is not strictly against Wikipedia policy (although it is
certainly frowned upon) but I'm pretty sure it is against WMUK policy
for board members or staff to edit Wikipedia in relation to chapter
activities. Since GibraltapediA is being supported by the WMUK office
(as approved in the 8 September 2012 board meeting), I think it
qualifies as a chapter activity for this purpose.
I invite Roger to make a statement on this list explaining his
relationship with the Government of Gibraltar and how it relates to
his Wikipedia editing, and to give assurances that all such conflicted
editing will cease immediately.
Wikimedia UK mailing list