Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:ThanksForLettingAllUsernamesBeTaken and MikeOS

Obvious COI as noted on the user's userpage. User has taken extreme ownership in reaction to the article possibly being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MikeOS. MuZemike (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

Reporting this to BLPN and COIN.

An article about a state senator is the subject of an extended edit war by two IPs. One is pushing a very favorible POV version of the page, another is pushing a fairly negative POV version. From the edit comments it appears quite possible that the IPs are the subject himself, and one of his political opponents. Short semi protections have done little to stop the warring, so I've semi-ed it for a month this time. But I suspect that'll not be much of a long term solution either. Could really use additional eyes on this, and maybe someone skilled in coming up with some sort of NPOV middle ground version. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Luisa Fortes da Cunha

Do you think it should go to AfD? Themfromspace (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

John Kennedy O'Connor

There are a large number of articles (50 plus) where the main content (i.e. not as a footnote) of those articles includes the phrase "Author and historian John Kennedy O'Connor notes in The Eurovision Song Contest — The Official History that...." A full list of these pages can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=John+Kennedy+O%27Connor&go=Go

My view is that the articles are being used to promote the book and the author. I would be interested in hearing views from others and have no problem being told that my view is wrong.

In a nutshell: Is this approach acceptable within Wikipedia?

David T Tokyo (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Observation: user JKMMOC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote a John Kennedy O'Connor article which was deleted in March 2008 (deletion log). Various anons, including 70.137.156.133 and 68.164.34.49, have added the phrases described above to quite a few articles.
If the book is a genuinely reliable source, it may be used as a reference and cited inline as such, otherwise not. I've no clue myself about what the reliable sources for Eurovision-related matters are. — Athaenara ✉ 09:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Athaenara - much appreciated. I wasn't aware of the full background - it's clear that others have headed down this path before. To answer your question, the book is a source for Eurovision-related matters. I wouldn't like to comment on its reliability but have no reason to doubt it.
My issue, as you know, is that if it is constantly being cited by the Author (and JKMMOC is a pretty strong clue that is his hand that is behind this), then self-promotion, advertising and COI all enter the equation, undermining the integrity of those articles. I fully appreciate that there is information in this book that could be useful. However, in the end it just feels like a bunch of articles have been hijacked for someone's self-interest. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dave Albo

  • Dave Albo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Davealbo has made 15 edits to this article over 3.5 months. He refers to it as "my site entry," and reverts any modifications that are critical of him as "vandalism," sometimes replacing the whole article with the content of his campaign webpage. He's been warned by several users over several months that his modifications violate COI standards. I've been trying to clean up the entry, but I fear I'm making it worse with the ping-pong edits. (I have my own COI: I'm a Democrat, and Del. Albo is a Republican. FWIW.) I don't think that I should continue to work with Del. Albo on this problem, since clearly I'm not doing a very good job. WaldoJ (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:BILLmesitrell.jpg / User:Lumal

Per Admin suggestion I am re-posting this here. I found Image:BILLmesitrell.jpg and tagged the image {{di-no source}} as it is a collage of images. But the image is sort of like a wallpaper and has a website URL on it that takes you too Money Well Spent, which appears to be a marketing business. It is not a website about the subject of the image, but this is where it gets more interesting. The site is very hard to navigate but I stumbled upon this page which contains the statement "WORLDWIDE "BRAND NAME" PROMOTIONS". This same page also contains a link that says: "Our WIKIpedia edits contributions" which, when clicked, takes a person to Special:Contributions/Lumal, who is the uploader of the image. This seems to imply that working on Wikiepedia articles is a service they offer and leads me to believe that the image is a somewhat disguised advertisement. FYI the image is used in the Bill Meistrell article. And for the hell of it I dug a bit more and came across one of his clients - Bill Meistrell. If you take a look at this website you will find links to Body Glove, Bill Meistrell and a link that did go to an article on Dive N' Surf but now seems to be a part of the Redondo Beach article. A photo in this article shows Dive N' Surf and contains with a link to the Dive-n-Surf website, which is another client, and Image:DIVEnSURFlogo.jpg also has the moneywellspent.com watermark. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User Lumal's primary activities on Wikipedia promote his websites lumal.com and moneywellspent.com, his clients, and the services he offers on those websites. He seems not to see a clear distinction between a free encyclopedia and a free webhosting service. His user page duplicates content from lumal.com and promotes it.
From http://www.lumal.com/fees.html:
I or we manage websites as publicity startiing [sic] @ $700 per year
We generate content as bait for publicity starting @ $250
We organize a variety of systems to maximize exposure 4 our customers. EA priced separately and as groups starting @ $100 EA
We rank phrases & keywords in the largest search monsters roaming the universe starting @ $1500
The username violates Username policy#Company/group names policy. For starters, I'll post* on Usernames for administrator attention. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)   (done)*
checkY Blocked. The Helpful One 23:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that was appropriate (I posted {{Uw-spamublock}} notices in Lumal's userspace).
Content added to the enclopedia from the Lumal account still needs attention and perhaps removal as Soundvisions1 posted above, e.g. promotional articles, images with embedded promotional website urls / watermarks, etc. Some should be speedied, some XfDed. — Athaenara ✉ 02:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Rather than post long lists here, I posted {{Li}} and {{La}} links, for images and articles which may need further attention, on Lumal's user talk page. The images with eye-grabbing embedded moneywellspent spamlinks* should be a deletion priority. — Athaenara ✉ 08:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba neglected article due to driving away COI editors

Can somebody please improve this article. After all the perceived COI editors (incl. me) were driven away, the article suffers from major neglect. I am posting this here because I think that contributors who are concerned with COI should also take responsibility for the consequences of banning perceived COI editors. Thanks in advance. Andries (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ShockerHelp

This user has made no edits except in an Article Shocker Toys which is part of their user name and only in articles that have to do with the company Shocker Toys. They point to forum posts that have been spammed around the internet by a user with the net name Domu which appears to be the same person. They have contributed nothing to Wiki except edit wars and many reverts with multiple edits. I think that an article cannot be fair is a person acting under false pretenses.--JMST (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment This has been discussed already here, and at a long drama-filled AfD. Themfromspace (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Purdue Pharma

Purdue Pharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is the target of an ongoing POV campaign by an aggrieved mother, Marianne Skolek, who holds the company responsible for her daughter's 2002 death. Third party coverage of her efforts is here. After two bloggers began reporting/implying that the company was reverting her edits, I attempted to set the record straight here. As you can see, Ms. Skolek more or less stated her intention to continue inserting POV into the article regardless of Wikipedia policy. It could use more people watching it. Dppowell (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I requested the page to be protected temporarily. Themfromspace (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: if the incident is notable (is it?), then a separate article about the lawsuit may be appropriate. Of course, WP:NPOV needs to be followed there as well. But adding this one incident to the company's page probably violates WP:UNDUE. For comparison purposes, we have do have a FAC article on Burger King legal issues... Pcap ping 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The Oxycontin issue is notable. It should ideally be covered at one place--at the present thee is partial coverage at the drug company that patented it and at the particle on the product. Either is OK, but it should not include detailed discussion of individual cases. such material is not encyclopedic. The present version of this material seem quite reasonable. But there is also at present a paragraph in the article about another product of theirs, one that does not quite seem to have the same degree of notability and recognition, and would appear not suitable for inclusion. It deals with a single human asserted case that could not be confirmed by investigation. The single lab study dealing with possibly related matters also appears remarkably minor in context of more serious concerns. I have removed them as undue weight. DGG (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote it before you removed it, so at least it wasn't misleading, but I also found quite WP:UNDUE (and tagged it off-topic myself). I also posted a heads up message to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Purdue_Pharma. Let's keep the discussion on the article's talk page: it's easier to find there. Pcap ping 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fulcrum Gallery etc

Sorry to bring this back here: see previous WP:COIN#Terry Fugate-Wilcox.

Fvlcrvm has self-identified as Valerie Shakespeare, wife of Terry Fugate-Wilcox and founder of the Fulcrum Gallery. Previous WP:COIN discussions were settled seemingly amicably (because of her direct knowledge she was given unusual leeway in directly editing these articles). However, just having read the articles prior to an attempt at cleanup, I'm not sure it's working: she's main editor on all three to an extent that's well outside WP:COI's "avoid, or exercise great caution", and I'm not comfortable with the general relationship to Wikipedia (writing one's own Wikipedia articles, then using them as external sources elsewhere - see About us).

Another new element is what looks like considerable promotion-via-citation (as well as use as a major source) of an unpublished memoir It's the Artist's Life for me!. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not write either the article on Fugate-Wilcox or the article on Actual Art. I did write the article on Fulcrum, because the gallery was of some significance, in it's day, has been closed for nearly 7 years, and was referred to in several other articles in Wikipedia about artists, (that I had nothing to do with writing, either) but with no further information or reference. The new info I added to Fulcrum, was about how the name came to be, which I found in an old article, from the early '90's. Since there was so much confusion about the name, early on, I thought it would be good to include. The other thing I add, (which only I CAN add), is photos, because only I hold the rights to same. I think photos are extremely important in articles, especially about art. Not only do they make the articles interesting but make abstract descriptions of difficult imagery, easy to understand.
I have been extremely diligent about using only factual material from verifiable sources, avoiding opinions & generally trying to follow wiki guidelines.
As for referencing Wikipedia, as a way to learn more about Tery, as an artist; or to learn more about me, as a person who once ran a gallery in SoHo, I did not know that was prohibited. I thought refering people to Wikipedia was a good thing. I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia, & refer people to it constantly, not just for art, but for information on a wide range of subjects.Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I did not write either the article on Fugate-Wilcox or the article on Actual Art.
Errm, you created the Actual Art here and have been its main editor, and wrote the bulk of the content for the TFW article since this Jan 2008 edit. It's not sufficient that sources be verifiable - it needs to be seen that they're being put together in a neutral manner. It's not you personally I don't trust; it's that I don't trust the dynamic of anyone, especially anyone in an essentially promotional line of work, playing such a major role in collation of material about themselves. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we actually have some testicles about this? There's an increasing tendency here to let artists who won't take the hint just go ahead and edit their own articles. Does WP:COI apply or not? It seems to me completely unacceptable that Fvlcrvm is continuing, even after COI warnings, is still majorly editing articles about her gallery and husband. If there's no censure about this, we might as well scrap COI guidelines. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Got those pages on my watchlist. I'll do my best to prevent COIcreep from taking over. Themfromspace (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the gallery has been closed for nearly 7 years. It is an article of historical context. The newest edit I made that caused this new COI issue was how the name "Fvlcrvm" came to be, which I found in an article, someone sent me. Since there was so much confusion about the name, initially, I thought it would be a good quote to add.

As for Fugate-Wilcox, I have mostly added images, which only I own the copyright on, so only I can add. I believe they make the article much clearer & more interesting. I have been very diligent about avoiding any promotional or positive opinion material. If I need to ask other people to add material, that they bring to my attention, I will do so.Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever changed all the references on the San Andreas Project to it's website, created an inaccuracy. The quotes & info do not come from the website. They come from verifiable, published articles in reliable publications. To change all of those sources to one website, is to belittle the historical context of a major, conceptual work of art.Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the Google Book reference back. I was going to try to do it but really appreciate you doing that for me. Please do not delete the edits I made today. There was no COI involved... only specifying the references where requested or adding a citation where the tag said "Citation needed". The COI guidelines say to use common sense. That should apply to deletions as well. I do appreciate your help.Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Ellis School

The Ellis School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Possible conflict of interest by User:Theellisschool. Diffs: 1, 2. Willking1979 (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked indefinitely. Cheers! ~SunDragon34 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

R.L. Crow Publications

Resolved
 – Per deletion of the articles. See the comment by Delicious carbuncle. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

→ see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Gainer

Articles:

Editors:

The WHOIS for R.L. Crow Publication's website lists "Bill Gainer" as registrant. User:Wsgainer created the article Bill Gainer and the article After Hours Poetry about a poetry genre that appears to apply to Gainer's poetry. Bill Gainer was quickly tagged as both COI and an autobiography, but the tags were removed by the article creator. After I replaced the tags, they were repeatedly removed by User:24.10.8.50 and User:Editor395. One comment in the edit summary was "This article was created by the editors at R.L. Crow Publications and is not an autobiogrphy". Another was "We believe the issue of confilt of interest has been resolved. One of our writers personal information was mistakenly used to create an account here. Our editors have corrected the error. Thank you". The conflict of interest is clear. All accounts involved appear to be single purpose accounts promoting Bill Gainer and/or R.L. Crow publications. So far, the involved editors have resisted attempts to get them involved in the discussion on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add Yossarian Universal News Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Sinatra, Sinatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to that list as part of the Gainer/Fericano set... Richard Hock (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Editor395 has posted a message here [1]. I don't know if it should be copied here, but I wanted those looking into the situation to be aware of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've started the AfD process. Without the self-published sources, these articles clearly lack reliable/verifiable notability. Rklawton (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The main articles have been deleted following AfD. I'll keep an eye open for recreations, but I think this discussion can be closed now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

COI on articles related to Threshold (online game)

I'm reporting a COI on these three articles, specifically from 64.253.96.96 and likely from Cambios. The IP resolves to the subject's web server (see "Primordiax" in Frogdice). The user is very likely to be related, judging from its edits. The IP has recently:

Just recently, EdJohnston stepped in and protected or semi'd the pages to try and trigger discussion. While I'm confident that I have no personal agenda, the IP will never see it that way. Thus I would feel more comfortable with outside assistance here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"promotion efforts"

Please review, discuss, and take action as necessary. Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the article is most probably on a notable topic; the behavior of these editors (and the username of at least one of them) creates the problem. We see uncivil and unfounded language ("censorship" "socialist" and "Holocaust" [should Mike Godwin be notified?]) slung around, along with explicit threats to "seed" the article in inappropriate places around Wikipedia in order to fight our evil censorship. We've got WP:OWN problems, lack of AGF, and an arrogance that reeks of paranoia and/or a serious case of The Truth. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

William S. Gaither

William S. Gaither (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - possible COI by Gaitherws311 (talk · contribs) ([2], [3]) has been warned about possible COI and ignored the warning. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 03:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Office of Administration COI

164.156.65.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This anon-IP has a history of editing articles pertaining to Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. The IP traces to "Commonwealth of PA - OA," which is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Office of Administration, which, as the website proves, falls under the Governor's Office.

Until today, this IP's edits were harmless. However, this IP has just blanked without explanation a cited paragraph that was critical of the Governor. Of course, I restored the paragraph and added an additional cite then warned the IP about WP:COI and blanking.

I think it's a huge problem to have governmental entities editing entries about their bosses, so I submit this to the noticeboard for further action. Thank you.

HoboJones (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • HoboJones is affiliated with the Pennsylvania House Republican Caucus and has coordinated with User:PAHouseGOP, going as far as leaving messages on their talk page informing them about Wikipedia image policy. For this user to see an anonymous IP as a COI, but not a registered user with a name and edit history reflecting a clear conflict is incredible. BrooklynBarber (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Like this, for example. And given HoboJones' propensity for handling pages for PA House GOP members and for creating new biographies of the same, one must wonder about the connection there. BrooklynBarber (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And though HoboJones is deeply troubled over governmental entities editing entries about their bosses, he doesn't seem to mind it when it comes from within his own caucus. BrooklynBarber (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

GLOBE Program

User:GLOBEHQ has significantly edited the article for GLOBE_Program over the last several days. When the article and user's talk page was tagged for the COI the user left a message at the article's talk page and identified herself as the Communications Coordinator of the GLOBE Program saying that the edits were done in a neutral point of view. To me they appear to have turned the article into an advertisement. I need another editor to look this one over and see if reverting is the best option or if the article should be built upon from its current state. Themfromspace (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Photofm

  • Photofm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • The user has used Wikipedia twice, and those visits were for creating their user page, uploading images, and inserting them into articles. It is important to note that all but two of these images were designed as photo business cards containing information on how to contact them. The user is a photographer and their business is named "Photofm". When I looked at their user page the first thing that gained my attention was the line "To buy some prints, goto PhotoFM on DeviantArt". While the user has only logged in twice over an almost two year period there is no certainty the user will not come back to upload more marketing. (See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Photofm) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Amoffat and The Sovereign Liberties

Obvious COI as noted by the link to the pamphlet at http://amoffat.com/sl-analog.pdf. User does not seem to understand the basic Wikipedia guidelines that we have, editing with a conflict of interest being one of them, as noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sovereign Liberties. MuZemike (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible record label account

User:PYOENT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems to be used to promote one of its rappers signed to the label. The rapper is Shade Sheist and that article has a link to youtube.com/pyoinc, apparently the label's official Youtube channel. I noticed this user has added Sheist's name to articles of other rappers possibly for promotion. Sheist does meet WP:MUSIC though, see allmusic.com. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Probable conflict of interest

An droichead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An Droichead (talk · contribs) creating the article, claiming that it is "a charitable organization." They put the hangon tag on their user talk page instead of the article itself. Willking1979 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam advertising

209.164.246.60 with contributions here [4] ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This should be reported at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael S. Greco

James O'Connor

User:Orion2004's edits to date have been primarily to create a vaguely-cited article with apparent Original Research about his grandfather (who is notable; that's not at issue), and to add information to an existing article about an upcoming card game (of dubious notability) for which he will be the publisher. He "protects" both the bio article and the blurb about his card game from other editors with a proprietary tenacity. e.g. Attempts to discuss COI have been ignored or met with hostility. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if I'm allowed to post here, but I've been reading the relevant edit histories. Very interesting, would you mind letting me know if this goes to RFC or anything like that please, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Artsandopinion

Resuming a campaign of links to own website (see edit history), and to own writing on other sites.[5] Warned repeatedly (see user talk page). Virtually no edits not relating to self-promotion.

Seems impervious to policy. For example, this argument, after several links and repeated talk page explanations of WP:SPAM, presents a challenge to good faith assumption. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How do I update content of the wiki entry for my organization?

I see that the wiki entry for my organization is a very terse one. How do I update its content without creating COI issues? I have put in the content in the sub-page User:Siddhachalam/Draft_SubPage for review and upon approval, moving to the main page. However as has rightly been pointed out, the content is nearly similar to the current website.

Please advise.

Webmaster at Siddhachalam dot org

Siddhachalam (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Severe conflict of interest

Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gepa (talk · contribs) freely admits he is the PR representative of the article subject. Please note that this article has been subject to a variety of sockpuppets in the past (all now blocked) including socks connected to the company Zeumic which hosts Edelsten's personal website. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional information, Mr Edelsten on his own website is totally against Wikipedia http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/Wikipedia-Discredited-Wikipeedonya/ in fact his website also claims that he will launch a campaign against Wikipedia to the Australian Government. http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/Appeal-to-the-Australian-Government/ It is clear to me that a paid representative of Edelsten (User:Gepa) only has one agenda and it's not in the spirit of Wikipedia Michellecrisp (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

If I have peer-reviewed a publication, do I have a conflict of interest with it? Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A self-published source that has been peer-reviewed is usually allowed (see WP:SPS). As long as its use in the article is not self-promotional it should be no problem. Some don't like to see "excessive citations" from SPS'es, even when notable, though that's obviously fairly subjective and hard to quantify. Peer-reviewed and being used by yourself as (I assume) an expert in the subject is not COI in my opinion. ArakunemTalk 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm asking for the situation where I am the reviewer of someone else's publication. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Supervision

If I have supervised a project, do I have a conflict of interest with it? Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, you just have to be very careful when editing an article and keep to WP:NPOV. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
What project? Guido knows COI guidelines perfectly well. There's a deal of Wikidrama going on relating to this user, and I think this is very likely to be a disingenuous enquiry. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Korn/Ferry

  • Korn/Ferry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I rolled back a couple of edits on this article by Kornferry (talk · contribs) that were blatantly promotional; after I wandered off to do other things, an IP, 65.125.188.130, jumped in and did a bunch more blatantly promotional edits. Surprise, surprise: the IP resolves to Korn/Ferry. I'm going to roll the edits back again, then have to do other stuff again. Someone want to look over this article and keep an eye on it, please? I've left a COI notice on the registered user's talk page, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:WikiHealthAuthority

WikiHealthAuthority (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edits only to an article about a health authority. Probable conflict of interest. Also reported at WP:UAA but recommended I bring it here. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikibratupdates

Seems to be a SPA interested in adding details on "Brat Culture". Created article Donna Musil, added large content to Military brat (U.S. subculture) refering to Donna Musil and her work, created Brats Without Borders, Inc. and on its talk page admitted that they were in fact Donna Musil diff, director of this company. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:USTL Lille

  • {{uw-username}} posted on usertalk solicited a reply to the effect that the editor was not affiliated with the university and would use a new account from now on (diff). Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to self - finish edit before saving. Therefore, will close this report - no action required. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

user:24.0.178.190

Linkspam. [6]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not COI. Take it to WP:WPSPAM. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

user:DrSturm

DrSturm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DrSturm contends that this subsection should be included in the Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone article. The only sources for the subsection are forum posts on a website (fansite?) of which DrSturm is a member, example here. User has stated I'll be banned from editing Wikipedia before I give this up on the article's talk page, made personal remarks and insults and edit warred.Mr T (Based) (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not really COI. You're not talking about an NPOV problem with the content. "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics." Try WP:WQA for personal remarks or WP:AN3 for edit warring. If he's clear about refusing to cooperate towards consensus, you can take it to WP:AN/I. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hm? You didn't notify the user. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

R&R Partners

  • R&R Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • KDR81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User KDR81 continually edits the R&R Partners article to post material critical of the organization. We have reason to believe KDR81 is an employee of the organization who has been critical of R&R and our client the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. The edits and information is very one sided. We believe KRD81 also operates as a sockpuppet or as a meatpuppet under the alias LVAustrian. I have attempted to correct only to be locked in an edit war. There are items posted to our page that are factually incorrect in regards to the controversy. What is our recourse in regards to this Wikipedia conflict of interest?Adexpertinlv (talk)
Sounds like there's two conflicts of interest here. Remember, you should use extreme caution when editing an article about a company you're affiliated with as well. I tagged the article as having a conflict of interest and you two should try working out your differences on the article's talk page. Themfromspace (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand and respect the sensitivity of having a company edit an article. Thanks again.Adexpertinlv (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

  • Susanna Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- User Micah Vita (contribs) appears to be the son of the article's subject as he added links to a YouTube account [7] of the same name in which he identifies himself as her son. He has added a great deal of unsourced personal info to the article. I left him a warning on his talk page, but he did not respond or stop editing the page.Copana2002 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitly a conflict of interest. I reverted the article back to the 4 December before the COI became a runaway problem. The edits done were NPOV and uncited which aren't allowed per the WP:BLP, so nothing valuable has been lost. Themfromspace (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rich Gunning

User:69.123.97.189 and Long Island Rail Road

Arts Foundation of New Zealand

--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sunsetavw

  • Sunsetavw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is only contributing to articles related to Aviation Week and the Ares Blog (run by Aviation Week). They have continually removed maintenance templates and, for example, merge suggestions without discussion. The user name "...AVW" suggests a link to AViation Week and a possibility of a conflict of interest. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 12:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Nicholasethier and Excel Corruption

User admits to having a direct conflict of interest by stating he works for Microsoft here. User does not readily understand the basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies in regards to the article he has created. MuZemike (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hubert Harrison

The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.Perjef (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Offenbach has apparently misleadingly altered the Offenbach comment of 03.28 25 December 2008. That original offering ”outed” me, complained that I contributed too much to the Hubert Harrison page (I note Offenbach has never made a contribution to the factual content of the page), and was part of an effort to censor the Harrison page on generalities because Offenbach “agreed” that he or she did not like how the page “feels.” I think if Offenbach has a new comment to add it should be entered (and timed and dated) as a new comment. I think it is important that in Wikipedia comments, as in Wikipedia pages, we pay attention to factual accuracy. I repeat my previous comment— “The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.” I don’t think the Hubert Harrison article should be censored based on Offenbach’s “outing,” feelings, or misleadingly altered comment above. Perjef (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hubert_Harrison" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjef (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


My response to Perjef is on Talk:Hubert_Harrison. No need to repeat everything here. Offenbach (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


Offenbach claims to have “altered” the initial Offenbach outing comment “after familiarizing myself with WP:OUTING so as to avoid any inappropriate dissemination of personal information.” I think this indicates one of the major problems with what has gone on. Offenbach should not have been so quick to “out,” so quick to “censor,” and so quick to “alter.” I think if more thinking would have been done in the first place many problems could have been avoided.

I think Offenbach improperly outed and improperly censored and I think that which was altered should have been reverted, or returned to a former state (no censoring and no outing), with a properly dated and timed comment indicating what was done.

If Offenbach would have proceeded with more caution Offenbach might have read in WP:COI that “When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline.”

What should have been done? I think that Offenbach should have started with an assumption of good faith on my part. I think that Offenbach’s behavior does not suggest an assumption of good faith. I think that Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists”; that “Editing in an area in which . . . one has . . . expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest” and, most importantly, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor.” I think if Offenbach would have proceeded in this way it would have been in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Offenbach acknowledges that “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Let me repeat that, “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Nevertheless, Offenbach jumped to a censoring tactic without any discussion with the author. I don’t think this was the correct way to proceed.

Offenbach offers as an explanation for the quick jump to censoring that the “self-citation in the article . . . seems excessive.” “Seems excessive”--that is a pretty illusory standard for imposing censorship. Is Offenbach familiar with the literature in the field? If so, why not enter some citations that Offenbach thinks are necessary ? (In fact, Offenbach was quick to censor an article to which Offenbach never contributed). I am familiar with the literature in the field and I think the works cited stand. Again, Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists” and should not have moved to censoring without discussion.

Regarding the talks about Harrison -- they are one of the principal means that people currently have to learn more about Harrison--many talks are in free public libraries (often in very poor communities). It is my assumption that many people go to Wikipedia when they want to find out about somebody or something and that they also use it to find out where they can get more information on the subject. Citing talks at free public libraries etc. is not (to use Offenbach’s original words) “a pretty clear” conflict of interest. I would like to see more such citations about other listings of talks by others on Harrison. I think that Offenbach is way off base on this.

The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate and makes a contribution It cites sources where people can get more information on Harrison. If Offenbach has more to add, good. But don’t censor the article for listing what is out there.

I think that Offenbach should remove the censor template. I think that the outing and the censoring are not in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Then, pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia.” I also think that Offenbach should realize that “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.”

My suggestion--Offenbach should remove the censor template that Offenbach imposed on the page and if Offenbach wants to discuss the page we can--and we can use existing Wikipedia channels if necessary.

Again, I think that the censor template should be removed --in the best interests of Wikipedia. Perjef (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article, and I agree with Offenbach that there's a problem of excessive self-linking (as well as peacock wording and, despite the copious footnotes, very little specific sourcing).
The linkspamming - decidedly non-minor self-links added under the guise of minor edits - is also of interest. See [8],[9],[10],[11],[12]
The short answer - and it help if Perjef could keep discussion considerably terser per Talk guidelines - is that where there appears to be a conflict of interest, Perjef should follow WP:COI guidelines and let uninvolved editors make the call about inclusion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


At 21:58 27 December 2008 Gordonofcartoon placed a COI template on a Hubert Harrison page that was COI template-free. (Another editor had taken down the Offenbach COI template asking the very legitimate question--"on what basis is this a COI?") Gordonofcartoon placed a new COI template on the Harrison page without any discussion with me despite citing me in a statement Gordonofcartoon made. As I previously quoted from Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest-“The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor . . . Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or a ban.” I do not think that Gordonofcartoons’s placing of a COI template on the Harrison article is in the best interest of Wikipedia, especially since Gordoncartoon did not cite one specific on the Harrison page when taking this action.Perjef (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thus far, when one cuts through all the words of the COI template-placers, the only specific about Harrison page content that has been objected to was Offenbach’s concern about a reference to talks on Harrison. I responded that talks “are one of the principal means that people currently have to learn more about Harrison--many talks are in free public libraries (often in very poor communities). It is my assumption that many people go to Wikipedia when they want to find out about somebody or something and that they also use it to find out where they can get more information on the subject. Citing talks at free public libraries etc. is not (to use Offenbach’s original words) 'a pretty clear' conflict of interest.” Perjef (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. No-one is obliged to discuss every edit with you (you might remember WP:OWN). It's also fine to add a template to alert others to an issue, even if you haven't edited a page yourself.
Frankly these Wikilayering essays, and general hostility to others' perception of the subject, look to me strong evidence that there is a problem of neutrality with this article. This is the reason COI has been raised: not to harass you.
PS Please don't duplicate every post here and on the Talk page; and also please indent your posts properly (this applies to Offenbach too). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Gordonofcartoons’ statement that “No one is obliged to discuss every edit with you” is a straw man argument. It is not what I said. I did not argue that every edit has to be discussed with me. Why Gordonofcartoon insists on carrying on discussion in this way I will leave for others to consider.
I have, however, pointed out that Offenbach and Gordonofcartoon threw up COI templates that mentioned me without following Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest, which states—“The first approach should be direct discussion with the editor . . . Using COI allegations to harass the editor or gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.“
Gordonofcartoon has twice made adhominem comments and twice tried to move discussion from the content of the Harrison page. Gordonofcartoon's most recent comment above tries to marshall “strong evidence” for “the reason the COI has been raised” not in the content of the Harrison page, but in Gordonofcartoon’s subjective characterization of other matters. I think that Gordonofcartoon should stop the adhominem comments and focus on the content of the Harrison page.
As I publish this entry now, I see that is what is finally being done. It should have been done in the first place. It is what I have tried to do and what I have encouraged others to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjef (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest, which states—"The first approach should be direct discussion with the editor . . .
You omitted what immediately follows: "Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN...", and this is commonly how conflict of interest problems are first raised.
focus on the content of the Harrison page ... As I publish this entry now, I see that is what is finally being done
That's what we all want, I hope. But it would help a lot if you took a less snarky attitude to others' perception of the situation - whether subjective or not. You're being defensive of the article. It's understandable. We know you're an authority on the topic. But Wikipedia has its own house style - of emphasis, citation format, relationship of authors to articles - that exists to steer articles toward neutrality in the difficult situation of open authorship. Recognising that, and not treating it as censorship/harassment, will make things go more smooothly. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not read the Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest guidelines as you do—and I think this particular matter might have been cleared up if you had attmpted to specifically cite what you thought applied. What you claimed "immediately follows" does not immediately follow.
The opening paragraph in “How to handle conflicts of interest” describes two measures that may be taken -- reporting on the noticeboard and using the user warning template. It then discusses “Dealing with suspected conflicted editors” and states unequivocally “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor. If this measure fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP: COIN . . .” It then states “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, . . . “
To me this clearly means what it says—when "dealing with suspected conflicted editors" “The first approach should be direct discussion with the editor.” I think this is a correct interpretation, I think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia.
To make this more clear—I read it as follows—when you "suspect" there is a conflict of interest “the first approach” should be to discuss it with the editor. Then, if persuasion fails, consider whether to go to dispute resolution or initiate discussion at WP-COIN. I find nothing in this that supports jumping to a COI Template first, before discussion, as was done in both COI Template instances regarding the Harrison page and I find something in it that does say the “first approach” should be discussion.
I actually think Wikipedia would run much better if the “first approach” were followed. What do you think?Perjef (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I believe that the Hubert Harrison article is somewhat too laudatory and promotional about the subject, and has more links to the work of Jeffrey Perry than are strictly necessary. (It is not surprising that an author would be enthusiastic about the subject of his own work, but If an article reads like an entry in a publisher's catalog, it isn't neutral enough to suit Wikipedia). The article also uses some web sites as references for matters of fact that probably don't qualify as WP:Reliable sources under our policy. Since User:Gordonofcartoon is very experienced with Wikipedia COI issues, and has no reason to assess this article more severely than any other, I hope that User:Perjef is willling to work cooperatively with him to see how the article could be improved. A good place to begin having this discussion is at Talk:Hubert Harrison. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Questions. I appreciate the tone of the EdJohnston comment — and I have a few questions?
In my last post on this page I offered my understanding (based on Wikipedia Guidelines as I understand them) for how suspect COI should be handled. Do you have an opinion on what I have said, on my opinion of how things should be done—in the best interest of Wikipedia? This is a straight-forward question?
Second, my assumption is that we all want to make Wikipedia as good as we can and we all want the Hubert Harrison page to be as good as it can be. (I note that I have consistently urged others to contribute to it and my comments have consistently been in a respectful tone.) That said, when you say the article “is somewhat too laudatory and promotional about the subject” and “has more links to the work of . . . than are strictly necessary” can you see how those concepts are a little hard to get a handle on? How many links “are strictly necessary?” Are there guidelines? What is too laudatory? Is it “too laudatory” to say that Hubert Harrison was an outstanding orator? He was. Personally, I would like to see a lot more concrete suggestions regarding the Harrison page and I would like to see more specifics if people are going to make such statements in Wikipedia discussions? What do you think? Do you think what I am saying is reasonable? Do you think this is in Wikipedia’s best interest? I do?Perjef (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. You should be working on the article Talk page with more experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure that the article meets all our guidelines. Gordon already added the banner about 'insufficient inline citations' which in my opinion is justified. See Talk:Hubert Harrison#Citation. I hope you'll work at responding more briefly in our discussions, since people have short attention spans here. Don't appeal to the best interest of Wikipedia, just make actual fixes to the article in response to suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jim Butler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User is a practicing acupuncturist. He is currently too active in editing these articles and dominating talk page discussions in an attempt to minimize the mainstream understanding of acupuncture including the fact that there are criticisms of acupuncture for its pseudoscientific aspects and its lack of evidence basis. Indeed, uniquely among many editors on pseudoscience pages, we can be sure that Jim Butler stands to benefit monetarily (at his acupuncture practice) for preventing Wikipedia from reporting on the criticisms of acupuncture and related health items.

Currently, one of the pages he is editing List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts has been tagged by me to point out his specific conflict of interest (though there are others on that page as well). His current tactic seems politically tuned to making sure the criticism of acupuncture as a pseudoscience gets as marginalized as possible: in this case he argues for a separation of sources which is the subject of an ongoing RfC about his promotion of original research.

I'll also point out one of his most recent edits to acupuncture is obviously removing unfavorable opinions about acupuncture and spinning others into more positive opinions. The general consensus (as said by Edzard Ernst, for example) is that there is evidence that acupuncture may help with nausea, but that treatment for any and all other ailments is not based on evidence. Furthermore, the reliance on qi and associated meridians are generally considered pseudoscience, though Jim Butler is carefully guarding the article on acupuncture to prevent exposition of these points.

In short, this user should probably not be editing Wikipedia in these areas in the way he is doing.

ScienceApologist (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an acupuncturist. I also have a science background, which gives me a unique perspective that has benefited some of our alt-med articles. And I wear my Wikipedia hat first when I edit, which is what makes me "merely" an expert editor, instead of one with COI. My edits and talk page conduct are good, as the respected admin and incoming Arbitrator User:Vassyana observed when dealing with another tendentious editor of skeptical bent. In fact, the vast majority of editors (including some really skeptical ones) with whom I collaborate have no objections to my editing, and some have left quite positive feedback (see my talk page, e.g. here and here). Off-wiki, of course, it doesn't matter whether I say I believe in invisible pink unicorns as long as I edit neutrally.
Now, chronic problem editor ScienceApologist is going after me because I've gone and disagreed with him on an RfC, here. I disagree with SA over sources that suffice to show scientific consensus, and the demarcation problem, and SA's "bulldozer" approach that eschews nuance (and which is on full display in this little attack-fest here). In fact, SA has made his mission clear: "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned."
The idea that I could make money from WP, even if I wanted to, is laughable. I practice acupuncture only part-time, edit very sporadically, and spend most of my time caring for my son, who has multiple disabilities. WP has lots of editors who edit in their professional areas. The vast majority, like me, understand WP policy and don't go trolling for clients. What we're seeing here is what happens when a garden-variety editor gets in the way of a chronic problem editor's crusade. No doubt, SA's approach and mine are quite different. Remember, to have COI, you have to have tendentious editing; now look which one of us repeatedly gets blocked:
As for the edit to which SA objects above, I explained it in careful detail on the talk page. ScienceApologist could have, at any time, challenged my comments at the talk page. But this has never been about content; it's about SA playing out WP:GAME and WP:KETTLE. (Additionally, SA provides no evidence of my blocking anything, and distorts Ernst on evidence; for a summary, just head on over to acupuncture; skim the lead and then see this section.) thanks, Jim Butler (t) 12:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This complaint is mistaken. An editor's vocation does not create a COI. COI is when an editor writes about themselves or their own organization, not their own field of work. Whether this matter may involve Wikipedia:Advocacy, a violation of WP:NPOV, is another matter. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adam Aaron Wapniak

Article created and totally edited by a user whose original User name was User:Awapniak (They've now asked for a name change and it has been granted). I put a COI tag on the page and left a uw-coi notice on their Talk page, they removed the coi tag and I put it back and suggested that's not the right thing to do. They claim their edits are informational and not promotional. I don't disagree with the notability, just with the article being an autobiography. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

COI? Late December 2008

The contribution history [13] of user: Ojuelos seems to promote subjects that may be related to the new editor. Or maybe I'm wrong. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is hard to tell but both David A. Longanecker and WICHE are clearly copyright violations and I have nominated them for speedy deletion. ww2censor (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Sax

Resolved
 – Fritzvonturin got banned as an WP:NPOV violating SPA. DarwinPeacock (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

I'm trying to get the conflict of interest guidelines rewritten to be clearer in terms of what is allowable from people with conflicts of interest. At the moment they seem to allow most edits, but there are also several parts saying COI editing is strongly discouraged. It is not clear whether COI editing is generally unacceptable or only when it results in bad edits. This means the guidelines are not very helpful in terms of guiding people with COIs, which is surely their purpose. I have written a proposed revision of the guidelines, but because of my own conflict of interest I really don't want to make any kind of change without consensus. Please comment at User talk:Helenalex/coirewrite or on the conflict of interest guidelines talkpage. --Helenalex (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Realgems.org - help!

Resolved
 – No support for allowing links to realgems.org in WP articles. EdJohnston (talk)

Thanks to Wiki admin Vsmith I found this page to cry for help!

In short, simple words / facts:

My URL realgems.org is blocked since Dec 20th because I've placed too many links to my own website (about gems and their minerals): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/realgems.org

O.K. that's spam but I didn't know that such link additions to an interesting website are regarded as spam. I added links since July 2008 - without problems. Then, on Dec 20th I realized that all links (including those which were added by others, to me unknown people) were deleted.

I offered my personal input as Wiki editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vsmith) and to delete my own links. No chance :-((

100 dealers, collectors and institutions regard my site as valuable and support me in my project to show gems and their minerals photos and infos. That seems to be unique in this variety / richness.

Others added a lot of links to mineral pages ("projects") but were not regarded as spammers.

According to VSmith I shall show my constant support for Wikipedia (acting like an editor etc.) and then he would think about something like whitelisting or so. To my humble opinion Wikipedia is no company (in which employees can be pressed to increase their input) but an international, free encyclopedia, serving the world with informations. These infos shall not only include bare facts (e.g. about minerals) but also photos etc. which are obviously of interest for a lot of people: Since the Wiki blockade I have about 50% less visitors. That shows clearly the international interest in my website. Therefore I still hope that major Wiki admins will have a close look (e.g. on my extra pages about moldavite or amber) on my work.

Many thanks for heaving read this last effort to release my site from your "prison". Redberyl (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

link additions to an interesting website are regarded as spam.
They're not. The spamming is when there's an edit pattern of adding multiple links to the same website; and if it's your site, COI guidelines are that you don't make the call for inclusion (and actively working to get inclusion http://www.realgems.org/info.html is definitely COI).
The main issue over inclusion is - even if the quantity is below spam level and someone else adds the links - whether it's up to Wikipedia standards as an external link (see WP:LINKS "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?")
Looking at http://www.realgems.org, I'd say it's considerably less useful/informative (a personal site, with limited facilities and of no general reputation) than mineralogy links already in use, specifically mindat.org.
To take a specific example where a link was removed: Quartz. Your site has one page - http://www.realgems.org/list_of_gemstones/quartz.html with a basic unreferenced description and a few dozen pictures. What can this really add to Mindat.org? (which has an extensive locality search, name search, and a main Quartz page with equally extensive physical and mineralogical data, fully referenced to books and academic papers, and 4500 photos of quartz). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


Re "interesting website": Before blacklisting I had a daily average of more than 200 visitors. Re my "info" page and "COI": I have to explain my visitors why my URL isn't listed anymore and that they cannot add links too.

Re "Wikipedia standards as an external link": My site is regarded as useful, tasteful etc. by a lot of people worldwide. How can you state that my site is "... of no general reputation"? Don't try to push me into a debate about scientific standards and don't compare my site with Mindat or other scientific sites. I never wanted (and cannot) to create such great sources for mineralogists like Mindat! Why should I copy facts from e.g. Mindat? For what? For another of all these scientific sites? Nonsense. My intention was and is to collect photos showing the various gemstone colors and types. That's not for scientists, logic. It's e.g. for someone who would like buying a tourmaline because his wife wishes one. At first he might have a look on Wiki, then finding my link, then finding my site, then being astonished that there exist other colors too than the usual green. Then making his wife happy. Same with sapphire e.g.

"Your site has one page - http://www.realgems.org/list_of_gemstones/quartz.html with a basic unreferenced description and a few dozen pictures. What can this really add to Mindat.org?" - I don't want adding something to Mindat! Mindat is for experts, my site is for gem lovers. That should be obvious, also for you.

Did you know btw that Jolyon Ralph, the Mindat chief, thinks positive about my project and supports me since months? He and me too never spent one thought about rivaly or a competition or such crap. I even agreed with Mindat to include my site when I'm out of this world one day. So I still think that my site has a right to exist somewhere on Wikipedia.

For whom do you think shall Wiki serve? Only for experts or also for normal people. Experts know Mindat and don't need Wiki for mineral search.

So please, admins, find a kosher way how my URL can be included. Thanks for reading, and happy 2009! Redberyl (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You've given no adequate response to the comments by User:Gordonofcartoon. Your site does not compare favorably with Mindat.org; end of discussion. We do not have to link to everybody who wants a link. You have your business objectives, which are different from the goals of Wikipedia. I trust you do not complain to http://www.nytimes.com that they don't link to you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry but your level of discussion and solving probs is't mine. Bye. Redberyl (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User: Spookymarinara

Copyvio is an issue that can be dealt with on its own terms, but I can't see any evidence for a direct connection between editor and subject. Could be just No 1 Fan of The 88. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian Yoga

There is a concern that this article was created to promote a particular advocate of this area of study. I put the article to AfD, but I think the subject is notable so I've moved to withdraw. If other editors could keep an eye on the article and maybe help clean it up and add broader sourcing I would be much obliged. Another editor has warned the article's creator about COI. I welcome any suggestions if there's a better way to handle this. Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding details:
I think given the general SPA nature and the self-created image uploads of Yogi Babacar Khane, an association at COI level looks likely (especially as "IIY" are the initials of his Institut International de Yoga and "IIY-HID" is part of one of its postal addresses).
The articles look very non-neutral, with little idea of WP:RS. User:Ronz asked for sources. HID-IIY: "The independent and reliable sources are the Ancient-Egyptian sources: you have just to look and see the representations of yoga postures in some Egyptian temples, graves and museums". FX: rolls eyes. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Babacar Khane has no need to be promoted by Wikipedia. He is wellknown throughout the world in the field of yoga. What I would put in evidence is only a new way to explain some aspects of the Egyptian civilization, not a yoga master in particular. But no matter if you decide to delete this article. The subject is very large for an Encyclopedic article.HID-IIY (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Two in a row?

I saw a DYK nom that looked potentially promotional and this is the contribution history of the new user: [[14]]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be in the process of being addressed in various ways by various editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Sarkis by User:Sarkis26

I've opened an AfD on Stephanie Sarkis by User:Sarkis26. Though the article is well-written, cites some sources, and asserts notability, the name of the creating user makes me suspicious that this is an auto-biographical entry. I feel the purpose of the entry is to publicize her books, which is a clear violation of WP:COI. Liberal Classic (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lee Hasdell, User:ClaudioProductions

(I initially made a long description of the entire issue at WP:ANI (currently still there), but I'll just bring the COI-part here.

ClaudioProductions has written most of if not all of the Lee Hasdell article and has reverted all my attemps to clean up the article (problems are mainly related to WP:V/WP:RS and WP:NPOV), and basically taking ownership off it. Recently, while discussing the issues he told me:

Him being my father, I take this page very personally. I understand where your coming from but because I know a lot about him and his career its not like an average fan etc lol. So it bothers me when the page gets changed away from my liking. (diff)

I don't think an user with a conflict of interest who's main method of "taking care" of the article is blindly reverting other user's edits without explanation should be allowed to do so. --aktsu (t / c) 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion - User talk:ClaudioProductions#Undoing edits - even ignoring the COI, it's a major case of WP:OWN, and he needs a cluebat about the WP:NOR policy too. It's not acceptable to include, long-term, unsourced material from personal knowledge, pending the finding of references. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed all unverifiable claims. Let's see what happens next. Any assistance on the page is welcome :) --aktsu (t / c) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Not looking good: he's still reverting with extensive OR material even after explanation of WP:NOR and WP:V. Similar issues at Tupac Shakur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna and Alexander Fiske-Harrison

The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is about a play by Alexander Fiske-Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - nominated for speedy delete but may be notable enough to survive if someone else takes the tag off. I'm reporting it here because the creator of both articles is Fiskeharrison (talk · contribs), clearly a COI. dougweller (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WardXmodem (talk · contribs)

Resolved
 – The reflist has been tidied. There does not seem to be anything more to do. EdJohnston (talk)

CBBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Apparantley edited by Ward Christensen himself. Is this a COI? OlEnglish (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are thinking of WardXmodem, he only touched the CBBS article once, back in July. The article looks pretty neutral. I suggest that we may not need to open a COI thread for such a benign case. Someone should take out the 'I, Ward Christensen..' comment from the Reference section. And if there really was an article in the Chicago Tribune in February, 2003, I hope the reference can be found. Google did find another article by Julian Sanchez, who credits Christensen as co-inventor of the BBS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

user:GTTP2009 and Grand Trunk Terminal Project (Portland, Maine)

Resolved
 – Article has been deleted. See the AfD discussion for ideas for a possible future article. EdJohnston (talk)

Here's some recent contrib. history [15]. The article seems rather promotional as well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the contrib.history says 'created our page', referring to the user page. I note that Portlandrailauth (talk · contribs) created the GTTP article. dougweller (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
These editors may need gentle counseling. {{uw-coi}} was created for this purpose. I'd only consider sanctions if they persisted in violating WP:COI and WP:NPOV after they had been told about them. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd already done that for GTTP2009, the only active editor. I agree. dougweller (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I went looking for sources and couldn't find any. The proposal for the project ins't anticipated for months. I've nominated the article for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Trunk Terminal Project (Portland, Maine). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cityofsinnersandsaints

Cityofsinnersandsaints (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created, and continuously removed CSD notices from, a number of articles related to his/her company and software. Apart from the obvious conflict of interest, the user has ignored multiple warnings (including final warnings). The relevant articles are:

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony Murtagh

Tony Murtagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This afternoon there was an edit on Tony Murtagh which removed links critical of the subject and replaced them with positive links. The edits came from 91.143.70.161 which turns out to be a PR agency, PHA Media. This makes me suspicious that Murtagh is one of their clients. There haven't been any other edits from that IP address, but the agency do have a fixed range, 91.143.70.160 - 91.143.70.167. Hopefully this will be their own foray into this sort of behaviour, but it would be remiss of me not to flag it somewhere. --Blowdart | talk 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

User:EuroHostels

I reported them to [[Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention|UAA], who banned the account. I also spam tagged the user page which was deleted. --Blowdart | talk 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe Renzetti

Joe Renzetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article was written by Joseph Renzetti (talk · contribs), who appears to be a marginally notable Wikipedian. Probably about half of the article is unverifiable. I thought the correct approach would be to tag the article as an autobiography, and did so back in August. However, Renzetti has insisted on removing the tag from the article, and I want to avoid edit warring. I also do not like to see Wikipedia used for self-promotion. What is the best way to resolve this? Can I treat the removal of legitimate tags as obvious vandalism? Should I pursue deletion? Try to fact-check and neutralize the article? Wronkiew (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea what to do about the tag removal issue, but I did find a cite for the Academy Award and added it to the article. (It was definitely not easy to find an independent reliable source for this.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp

Arthur Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is in the midst of an edit-war initiated by Arthur Kemp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also been editing Clive Derby-Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which also mentions him. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hayatdurrani

Have you talked directly to him about the issues in detail? This text he added [17] seems to reflect some genuine confusion on his part. "I am sorry to say this but really its confusing me from many months and I am spending my valuable time without archiving the goals of Wikipedia or our Organization, please make it convenient for all the people, because it is free encyclopedia and it must be for the help of people, please help me with Many thanks thanks" This text was removed from Hayatullah Khan Durrani without editorial explanation and a brief warnings to him "not to vandalize". [18]
From [19], he apparently does not understand how to fill out the paperwork to upload an image. (Hardly surprising, considering how complicated it is.) Piano non troppo (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Hirschfeld

Advertorial and promotional content still being added [20]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Todor Todorov

Not sure if this is autobiographical, family member, or what; but User:Simontodorov seems determined to keep this article up. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:DickLyon

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User Dick Lyon admits to being a personal friend of Lynn Conway in many places, here is a link to one such admission. Lynn Connway started an investigation into the story behind the publication of the book The Man Who Would Be Queen. The book dealt with the topics of various forms of male feminity, homosexuality, and transsexuality. In the book Bailey applied a hypothesis due to Ray Blanchard that categorizes transsexuals as either autogynephilic or homosexual. Conways investigation eventually lead to her filing complaints that the author of the book J. Michael Bailey, had sex with a research subject, and practiced clinical psychology without a license. In the face of all this Dick Lyon as Connway's personal friend writes "I agree with you that Conway did not accuse a book of having sex; she also didn't accuse Bailey." Which in light of all of the above is clearly patent nonsense. DickLyon's personal friendship with Lynn Conway has IMO caused him such a conflict of interest that he cannot neutrally edit this or any related article, or participate on the talk pages in a productive manner. Hfarmer (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He is still at it removing content praphrased from a reliable source and claiming that it is not well sourced, or he cannot see where it is in the source. The diff of what he removed The source given for what he removed. when what he is talking about is paraphrased from the personal website of the person the BLP is about.(For a BLP a persons own publications are a reliable source of biographical facts.) He had recused himself from editing the actual article, now he has crossed the line into editing it again. Please help.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Still at it"? This complaint is based on the single revert that I did on Lynn Conway after Hfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) exceeded my tolerance for snipy little BLP violations, and on my talk comments pointing out HFarmer's biased and inaccurate editing of this and related controversial articles. Conway is not the person who accused Bailey of having sex with his research subject; it would be correct to say that she witnessed a complaint. As H says, I have always admitted that Lynn Conway is a long-time personal friend; she was my boss back in the 1970s. My frienship with her motivates my defense of her article against BLP violations, but I do not otherwise have any COI problem; others are invited to check up on this. The persons with much stronger connections to the controversies, both the academics sexologists like User:James Cantor, friends of Bailey like User:Hfarmer, transsexuals like User:Hfarmer and User:Jokestress, alies of Cantor and Bailey like User:ProudAGP and User:WhatamIdoing, are the real COI problems. Dicklyon (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Hfarmer has also admitted to being friends with both Bailey and the lady who accused him of having sex with her when she was his research subject (I can search for the diff on request, or if she denies it). So if being friends is a COI, it's the WP:POT. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Woah! I never said "friends" I said I met them. I met Bailey over 8 years ago and have seen him around a couple of times since then. I may have met the woman Dick alluded to before, but, I only recently met her and had a conversation with her at a function a couple of month's back. They are both adversaries in all of this. I suppose you could call us acquaintances at most. This has not effected my editing one iota. For example I have never tried to add any "good" information to J. Michael Bailey, Nor have I sought to remove "bad" information. What is there now is a fairly accurate representation of the charges made against him and many other things. You on the other hand seek to smear those you don't like and make saints out of those you like. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I misinterpreted; here he appears to be your only humanoid "friend". As to your accusations, baseless. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

See the expanded notice below.
— James Cantor (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Gdavid001

Appeasr to have done two edits so far, one a blatant advertisement for SD Chess.net the other an unsourced, peacock termed edit to John Fanning [21]. Smells liek COI + advert. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike Godwin editing Wikipedia with a COI

Resolved
 – Editors have ventilated the issue thoroughly, one of them suggesting that the Foundation should have a role account. Since no other concrete steps were proposed, the issue seems to be resolved. EdJohnston (talk)

It would seem that this IP address 76.102.192.98 is none other than the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney, Mike Godwin. Is he not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines about self-interested editing on autobiographical articles and themes? -- He called me with jack high (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only is he familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, but he knows how to distinguish guidelines from policies. You'd think he was a lawyer or something. MikeGodwin (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
And you know this how? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're seeing an admission that the IP and the named editor are the same. That answers the question from Riding Hood. For the first question, Mike Godwin does seem to be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. Is there anything more to do here? Were there any edits that anyone feels are inappropriate? EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be better if editors who are editing articles about themselves, or references to themselves in other articles, would log in so as to avoid the impression that they are avoiding scrutiny. The guideline calls for conflicted editors to declare their conflicts and preferably to limit themselves to making suggestion on talk pages. Guidelines are meant to be followed unless there's a good reason to ignore them. Wikimedia employees should set a good example in that regard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, this edit removes from Wikipedia a "failed initiative" that Godwin apparently headed up. I didn't think Wikipedia was about biography subjects anonymously "sprucing up" articles so that their failures aren't mentioned, but rather, presenting the sum of human knowledge with a neutral point of view. And this edit appears to be a nice resume-building piece of puffery that nobody else saw fit to add to Wikipedia, but Mike Godwin did. Also, this edit removed what appears to be the wiki link to the Arabic Wikipedia version of the Mike Godwin article. I don't know the motive for that, but it didn't aid the Wikipedia projects, to be sure. Finally, this edit added a link to a commercial website, SuperLawyers.com, which is "a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement". One might argue that this is again more an act of PR puffery than encyclopedic enrichment for the average reader of Wikipedia. So, what are the next steps? We clearly have a Wikimedia staff member, if not abusing, then at least testing the limits of abuse of our project, thanks to the wiki-lawyering that "guidelines" need not apply to him. It's disturbing at least, if not offensive. -- He called me with jack high (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, but which failed initiative are you asserting that Godwin headed up? MikeGodwin (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Among all the diffs presented by you, which came with so much rhetorics, I can see one tiny little point that isn't obviously perfectly legitimate: Removal of the arabic interwiki link with no explanation. Rather than create a single purpose account for attacking Mike Godwin it would have been appropriate to assume good faith about this detail and ask him about this, worded nicely, and using your normal account. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I created this account over a week ago, so that I would have a "single purpose" a week later to "attack" Mike Godwin. He's such a vulnerable man, the attack was just so irresistible for this here single purpose account. You think you have the upper hand here by bandying about your aspersions, but in reality, the world is watching, and here's what they're saying:
  • I guess the concept that those in positions of authority are held to a higher standard or should avoid the appearance of impropriety is completely alien to culture of Wikipedia.
  • At Wikipedia, the rule is that those in a position of authority are eligible by virtue of their position to insist that they cannot be held to any standards, as the fact that they hold positions of authority is proof that they are responsible not to abuse them.
So, thank you, Hans Adler, for playing your role so perfectly. -- He called me with jack high (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Assuming these were Mike it probably would have been ideal if he had just edited from his account for maximum transparency. The only content that has been removed is content that doesn't seem to be sourced. Moreoever, I cannot fine sourcing for the removed material. So there doesn't seem to be any issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I hear your point, and I disagree with the assertions that there was anything sinister in Mike Godwin's editing. And it is true that it was unsorced and hence subject to summary removal from the current version. (Of course, if oversighted, that would be *bad*).
However, the whole purpose of having a COI policy guideline is to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing, to ensure people can trust the information in wikipedia. With out the trust of our readers we are fucked.
Our officers and staff should be held to a higher standard because of their visibility and notability has a disproportionate effect on that trust, that social contract, if you will.
The shenanigans that our officers find themselves in, however trivial or private, while comical to (most of) us, have indeed had serious consequences for the growth of the project, creating uncertainty and fear in potential donors, for example. All the bad press the COI stuff by Jimbo created, and it really did affect the support for Wikipedia. Some of us had almost cinched corporate gifts and had the funding people convinced and the it all went to hell "cause this Jimbo fellah is a joke, doesn't even follow his own rules". And not to mention the actual contents, of denying Larry etc, that really unbuilt trust. It took years to fix that, and Mike Goodwin and Jimbo Wales both know it. This is no longer a volunteer run, 250k a year one employee operation. This is a six million dollar a year multinational conglomerate. Our officers should step up to the seriousness of the crap mountain they are running - just like our logo is not a crappy ball with hand picked provocative text anymore, our officers shouldn't be going around pulling WP:IAR at will. Its about common sense and rationality, not rules...
I think we should setup a special process of COI-handling were even for trivial edits officers and staff of Wikimedia Foundation, volunteer or paid, would have to request changes to articles they have a COI instead of doing it themselves. It could be an open discussion, where the requests are picked much in the same way as an AfD or MedCab. It actually would be quite fun, and would have the added benefit that editors would feel "close" to the wiki celebrities. I would totally lurk to see the wikids fighting over the honors. Just a thought. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
POST OF BANNED USER REMOVED -- Jehochman Talk 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope, simple personal views, I do not want to be associated with your crowd. :D --Cerejota (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on his talk page reminding him to log into his account whenever he edits articles about himself in en.Wikipedia [22]. That should take care of this for now. Cla68 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Since I believe in the value of anonymous edits, I often neglect to bother to log in to add or edit something. In addition, there's the risk that a logged-in edit by me will be interpreted as an OFFICE action, which I mostly try to avoid. Rather than attacking me for purported COI violations, it seems more logical to focus on whether the edits, considered in themselves, are good ones or bad ones. If the edit adds value to the article, then there shouldn't be a problem. If it detracts from the article, then it should be reverted. Once you remember to stick to these principles, a lot of the needless political thrash of Wikipedian editing goes away.MikeGodwin (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I should add that, contra to what is said above, I don't recall ever editing any entry in Arabic Wikipedia. Since I don't read or speak Arabic, it would be hard for me to make such an edit with any competence at all. MikeGodwin (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, but didn't Godwin wikilawyer over at the start of the thread? Took me a while to realize, but LOL!
That said, we all agree with the sentiments expressed here, but in the same way there wouldn't be any shit if we didn't have assholes, it is not really a good argument. I am sad to say that WP:COI is a practical matter on par with the WP:BLP or WP:NLT, and cannot be bunched together with all the drama crap we have to deal with. And while I agree we have to go and make articles better, it is part of our responsibility to defend community consensus - we hate COI, and it is in the extremes where principles are tested: if we let this one slip, some journo is going to COI on purpose and raise a shitstorm over "preferential" treatment of our officers. It has happened before, as we all know. Once bitten, twice shy... I would think enlightened self-interest would make that point clear.
As to the confussion with office, perhaps a role account used only for Counsel actions? If its done for PR, why not Legal? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just happened to read through this thread and would like to point out one misunderstanding. Godwin says "I don't recall ever editing any entry in Arabic Wikipedia." It doesn't matter whether or not he has done that, as no one has suggested that he's done that. The accusation is "removed what appears to be the wiki link to the Arabic Wikipedia" and "Removal of the arabic interwiki link with no explanation..." The claim is obviously related to an edit of English Wikipedia, not of Arabic Wikipedia. - Hordaland (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jo Self

I just entered an edit war with this user about the COI tag being placed in this article. The user claimed in an earlier edit that he was the subject of the article, but when I recently readded the COI tag, he claimed that he was not the subject. Just now he claimed that he Ralph, whoever that is. I need some persuasion to convince the user that he is editing with a conflict of interest and the tag should remain on the article until it gets cleaned up more. Themfromspace (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor is now edit warring to remove the tags again. I have reinstated and posted to the talk page, but have received no response. Dayewalker (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't look too bad, but we can't let this editor keep reverting the proper tags. I left a note, asking him to join this discussion, and warning him he can be blocked for WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't look too bad
It didn't until what appear to be sock edits. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
On January 2 User:Joselfartist uploaded a picture which she said was of her own studio. ("My artist's studio in my home in Brixton, London. Taken by me in 2007 on my mobile phone"). I think the creator of the article, Joselfartist, has to be the same as the subject. Otherwise her claim of having rights to the pictures is not correct. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As I said at EdJohnston's page, typographical similarities suggest the two other accounts above are the same person.
An early declaration of COI would have cleared up a lot; looking back at a very early draft, I find a deal of detailed biographical material (now no longer available online) was mistakenly removed as suspected copyvio [23] because FLJSART didn't do the straightforward thing and demonstrate the right to use the material. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Update 00:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC): now yet another account claiming to be Jo Self, reverting sourced material. See Jomarylee (talk · contribs). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted her. Normally, I'm very sympathetic to the subjects of articles and their requests. However, this parade of socks and people claiming to be the subject are wearing very thin. If any of them are actually the subject, they need to prove so to the foundation. Otherwise, unsourced material will be deleted as per BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, they're now tag-teaming on the article. It does need clearing up, and it's not encouraging that the statement of the latest on COI is "I challenge again the concept of 'conflict of interest'.This is Jo Self". [24] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone want to file a WP:Suspected sock puppets report? The abuse has continued in spite of several warnings. If we went forward with a report, we could probably issue a one-month block of several accounts, leaving just one account free to edit. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Decipher (novel)

Author of book has admitted editing the page for his book, and told me to "leave his page alone". [26]. The author (IP 76.89.226.240) has added another bullet point supporting the "predictions" made by his novel. It doesn't seem appropriate that the author is defending the concepts in a work of fiction, and I don't agree that the references support the novel's assumptions in any profound way. Thoughts? Piano non troppo (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

He also appears to have been fairly active on his own biography and an article on one of his other books. (both logged in and as other IPs) --Onorem♠Dil 21:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely about the "predictions" section, and have removed them on grounds of WP:NOR and WP:SOAP. There's a shedload of SPA activity around these articles. I've collated the relevant details above. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I took a glance at the articles in question and as of now there doesn't seem to be any gross violations in promotion. I suspect if the pages are watched thoroughly enough the problem editor will back down. Just remove any and all uncited statements that are used to promote the subjects and keep them out until they get proper citations. Themfromspace (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Right. Gordonofcartoon removed the section I had issues with. I was interested that you'd removed "popular bestselling" from Gene (novel), because you couldn't find a source to back that up. The pages do need to be watched, I'd agree. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've further snipped the critical reaction sections. I've checked some of the quotes with NewsBank against the original articles, and found major cherry-picking of good bits from rather lukewarm reviews: see Talk:Decipher (novel) and Talk:Gene (novel). (I know this is a content issue, but it is an example of non-NPOV editing making COI a problem here). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You were right in spades, Gordonofcartoon!
I wonder how balanced even articles with both positive and negative reviews are. I had an experience some time ago with a Wiki editor who added a hostile review quote -- simply because he disliked the book. (This was an editor who should have known better.) The book was well-received by critics and the public, but this editor managed to find a scathing off-hand comment by someone famous (not a book reviewer). The editor stuck by it -- creatively interpreted a couple of editing guidelines.
Anyhow, I digress. I read one of the reviews of Gene (novel), and it seemed to say pretty much what the article represented (so it wasn't like the ones that you tracked down). This isn't the place to discuss *our* literary opinions, but I would invite you to draw your own conclusions about the merit of "Decipher" from this Google Books extract [27]. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
FX: Gordonofcartoon shifted in his chair, like his ass spoke his mind for him. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh, heh. I thought you might see that. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd like to point out the flattering edits that User:Cyclades just made to the Decipher (novel) talk page. Themfromspace (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll also just point out that I've blocked Cyclades for a week for a repeat occurrence of personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell (journalist) - should be an easy one to clear up

We're having trouble with this article with an editor ((83.67.217.135 (talk))) who seems to want to break WP:OR in order to break WP:NPOV. The issue is thus: Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman". The FairPlay campaign encouraged a boycott of games buying in the UK during the first full week of December. The campaign website claims that there was a "big sales blip during the campaign week which saw Game, Europe's biggest videogame retailer, lose a massive 80% of its share value overnight in response to disappointing sales". It also claims "When the campaign was over, sales shot up again, just as we said they would". [28] Taking these claims at face value, they are all either false or unverifiable. Sales blip: Game's sales figures for the weeks surrounding the boycott are not available. 80% of share value lost overnight: verifiably false using historical share price information. And sales shooting up again: again, no sales figures are available.

It is true, however, that GAME did issue a profit warning on 17th December 2002. News articles ([29] [30]) blame this on a price war with Argos and Dixons. The share price did drop on this profit warning, which came on 17th December (just over a week after the end of the boycott). In order to get close to the "80% overnight" claim, we have to interpret "80%" as "70%", and "overnight" as "15 days". Now, obviously, if we include this information and link it to the boycott, it would be synthesis (WP:OR). What 83.67.217.135 wants to do is to include all this information in the section about the boycott, but not to explicitly link it to the boycott, which he considers not to be a breach of WP:OR. The other editors concerned in the debate all think that to mention one after the other like this implies a link. 83.67.217.135 thinks that this will allow the reader to determine for themselves the "notability" of the campaign. To read this debate, simply scroll to the bottom of the talk page for article in question.

It seems to me that the only reason to include information on a share price relating a claim made on a website for a campaign that the subject of the article is not particularly closely linked with, is to push the POV that the boycott was a success.

As can be seen from the history of the article, 83.67.217.135 considers himself the "owner" of the article, reverting others' changes whenever he disagrees with them, sometimes with an edit summary such as "what the fuck is wrong with you?". From the talk page you can see that he will not listen to other editors, considering himself to be the ultimate authority on what changes are allowed to be made. He has had to be warned about civility on several occasions (indeed, he has recently called me a liar, ignoring me when I show that what I have said is true).

Frustratingly, this debate would probably not be occurring if 83.67.217.135 would declare the WP:COI that he seems to have. He refuses to confirm his identity, or rule anything out. He has almost certainly used at least one sockpuppet on the talk page. With deference to WP:OUTING, examining his contributions reveal that he is almost entirely concerned with mentions of the name 'Stuart Campbell' on wikipedia. His writing style and way of treating people is recognisable from other websites. Yet this article cannot currently be changed without his say-so, as he will just revert the change.

All we really need is a few more than the 3 or 4 editors we currently have to come along and chat for a few minutes. Maybe you will all agree with him, but at least the debate will be resolved. Please do help - it could all be resolved so easily and quickly! Thank you. Jumble Jumble (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This complaint has nothing to do with CoI, and is in fact clearly about an edit war. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there editors standing by, wanting to improve the article, who are prevented from doing so by the IP? If you can make a case for that, it might justify temporary semi-protection. The single event from 2002 that may not be correctly cited is one thing, but I'd like to know if there are broader changes to the article you would recommend. The IP is not required to identify himself, but if he has engaged in a pattern of promotional editing, the usual COI sanctions will apply to him anyway. This editor's personal attacks on others are unlikely to win him much sympathy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself of course, but there are quite a few changes and improvements that can be made to the article (although I think that the heavy debate behind the scenes has already made it quite robust) and I would be interested in making them - but as it stands, this user will revert any change he does not agree with. This has gradually worn away at the number of editors willing to invest their time in it - and indeed I have now confined myself to the talk page, as any edits I make to the main article (including the addition of the COI tag!) just get reverted. We have in the past had a lot of interested editors (certainly, a lot appeared to ask for the article to be kept when it was under the AfD) who would hopefully return when this bottleneck eases. Jumble Jumble (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to reword to more neutral stance, add disclaimers, and remove - where necessary - the worst unsourced statements of the promotional style content in the article, but been repeatedly reverted, when trying where possible to compromise, by the editor in question, for what it's worth. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, does anyone object to six months of semi-protection? I will leave a notice at the article Talk that this has been proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I requested full protection for the page several days ago, which was not granted on the grounds that recent events were simply an edit war representing nothing other than difference of opinion (a fair assessment in my view). Semi-protection seems unlikely to have any effect other than to allow Jumble Jumble to one-sidedly return to making the specific POV edits that he has repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought consensus for (often on spurious grounds not unlike this inappropriate use of CoI procedure for a non-CoI matter). He has a long history of negative attacks on this page, including blanking it, unsuccessful AfDs, unsuccessful attempts to delete whole sections, and unilateral deletions reverted by numerous other editors as well as myself. A pseudonym is no less anonymous and no more trustworthy than an IP address. I therefore request either full protection for the current version of the page, or no action. Semi-protection is in effect taking sides, and will not resolve the issue. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
For my part, to attempt to allay any fears of vandalism or POV editing, if the semi-protection goes ahead then I will make sure to discuss all nontrivial edits on the talk page and gain agreement before putting them in the article. I would expect MysteryReporterX to suddenly become a lot more active, though. Is full protection just "no edits"? Because as it stands, the article is fully reverted to all of 83.67.217.135's preferences (due to no-one else being able to make an edit stick). Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather the page was fully protected with a version that's least disputed [31], I think there are some very misleading statements in the article, without proper citations, but at least this version has disclaimers. But a semi-protection would be better than nothing, I just hope more action is taken along with that to prevent the CoI/disruptive editor from signing up and/or creating various sockpuppet accounts and continuing their present behavior. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at this article lately and yes the IP seems to claim ownership over it, especially with the implementation of several "proposals" on the article's talk page. While a conflict of interest may be suspect, I think it'll be hard to prove in this case. Maybe this should be posted on another board to get the article the attention it deserves. Themfromspace (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I claim no ownership whatsoever. I've been editing the page since March 2006 and have had no issues with many scores of edits made to it by various people. There are two (possibly one - I suspect sockpuppetry between Jumble Jumble and an IP editor, whose arguments and writing styles are near-identical) editors pursuing dubious agendas here (Jumble Jumble's Wiki history consists almost exclusively of edits to this entry and might equally be accused of 'ownership'), and making entirely false claims on the talk page and in edit summaries. I have defended the entry against their vandalism in a couple of very specific areas. I'm not aware of that breaching any Wiki rules. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I assume I'm the IP editor being referred to here, I'd appreciate it if an admin could run a check just to clarify for everyone involved that I'm not a sockpuppet. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello 83.67. If your position is that *you* don't have a COI, allow us to take that under advisement. I'd be more interested in hearing why you just decided today to restore the entire paragraph about a change in the GAME stock price which you attribute to the FairPlay boycott. This claim has been challenged above as being badly sourced. Perhaps you can respond to the arguments that Jumble Jumble offered at the top of this section. To the extent that you try to magnify the role and importance of Stuart Campbell, you seem to be doing promotional editing. As stated above, 'Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman"'. I notice that there was a poll on the article talk page in which there were three Opposes and one Support to including the mention of GAME's stock price. (You were the only Support vote). Yet you restored this paragraph against Talk page consensus. That does not seem like good-faith editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I restored the section because as far as I can see it obeys Wiki guidelines and *no valid case has been made for its removal*. It is clearly not "badly sourced" - the sources are the BBC and Yahoo Finance. It is not "promotional" as it makes no assertions about the issue in question, merely reports the facts. I do not regard the Talk page "consensus" as valid for reasons noted above - discounting what as far as I'm concerned is clear POV vandalism, the vote was 1:1, in a sample far too small to be significant in any case. That's just my opinion, of course. But I don't believe vandalism should be allowed to stand just because the vandal is persistent. Jumble Jumble has never made a constructive edit to the entry, and has a long history of trying to remove it either entirely or piece by piece, showing no interest in any other page of Wiki. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have made many "constructive" edits to the entry. Someone else might be able to respond to your assertion that we must provide a valid case for removal of contentious content and not the other way around. You're arguing ad hominem almost exclusively. As I have said many times now, I am abiding by the outcome of the AfD. Removing contentious information that is agreed by several editors to be in breach of several Wikipedia guidelines and/or policies is constructive (with the exception of my earlier blanking of the page, which was due to a misunderstanding on my part of the wording of WP:BLP and for which I apologise). Finally, why do you constantly bring up the fact that my edit history is largely concerned with this entry? The main difference between our edit histories is that while Stuart Campbell (journalist) is the article with which I am currently primarily concerned, he is the person with which you are. Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The text of the entry is not contentious. It is notable, relevant and fully, reliably sourced. Your *interpretation* of it is contentious, but your interpretation is not based on anything actually present in the text. Until it can be demonstrated that it contravenes Wiki rules, there are no valid grounds for removing it, and you have consistently failed to do that. Repeatedly asserting it is not the same as demonstrating it. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify: in this instance, I'm using 'contentious' to mean 'subject to much disagreement'. I've detailed how I think it breaks the rules in the original post in this thread. Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, you haven't. You've detailed why you think the GAME share price fall was caused by issues other than FairPlay. But the entry doesn't claim that FairPlay caused the drop. It notes that FairPlay claimed a link - a claim which in itself is notable and sourced - and includes the details of what they were claiming a link with. There is no implication other than the one you've imagined, and the fact that you yourself present the content of the article as evidence DISPROVING FairPlay's claim seems to demonstrate that beyond any reasonable dispute. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact it's there in the article at all is in iteself an implication, if there was no connection between FairPlay and the share price drop then why would this otherwise irrelevant information be in the article at all? Let alone right next to details of a boycott that would have the potential to damage to company. Clearly this is an attempt to subvert WP:OR by failing to explicitly state any link whilst implying that there is one by the mention of it alone. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, not this cobblers again. "The fact it's there in the article at all is in iteself an implication" is nonsensical. FairPlay made a specific, dramatic and contentious claim, and the accurate information (which contradicts that claim to at least some extent) is included as reference. Once more - that this specific information has been used as evidence AGAINST FairPlay's claim clearly shows that its presence is neutral.83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to continue your content dispute arguments. Take it to the article's talk page...and stop edit warring while the discussion takes place. Yes, that means someone is going to have to temporarily be dissatisfied with allowing the wrong version to remain. --Onorem♠Dil 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I have repeatedly requested that edits be discussed rather than edit-warred, but the two editors arguing here persist in editing, while also making untrue edit summaries. I also noted that this was an edit war rather than a genuine CoI issue, to no avail. I will make no further comment on this page. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You're in favour of discussion rather that edit-warring, provided it's your preferred version that's the current one. Note you were the last editor to revert, and edits from the other side of the argument have softened to try and find a middle ground by adding disclaimers rather than removal, but you've just reverted those too. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Whatever it is you've requested, you've nonetheless continued to edit-war. Don't try to push the blame around. Both sides here appear to be editing with blatant POVs to push. Neither seems unwilling to stop warring while discussion takes place. --Onorem♠Dil 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I accept that. But the page had been stable for a considerable time before the sudden appearance of undiscussed edits noted by demonstrably, unarguably untrue summaries, and I've been reverting it to the previous stable version while discussion of those edits was ongoing. I'm in no way absolving myself of involvement in an edit war, I'm equally guilty and I openly described it as such. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't going to mention, but I have actually left the article as it is after the other user's last reverts. And I don't have a POV to push, I just want to clean the obvious bias out of the article (in line with what other editors have been trying to do), I'm not adding any POV assertions. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey! I'm not edit warring! I made a couple of minor edits today (adding the COI tag which has been removed again by the IP in question), and before that my last edit was on 29th October. I've been discussing things on the edit page. In the end, any edit not by the IP will turn into an edit war, as he will revert it.Jumble Jumble (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't true. I removed the COI tag earlier this evening by accident, for a matter of seconds, and immediately reinstated it. It is still present. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I've removed it from the above statement. Jumble Jumble (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm another anonymous IP, so my opinion might be disregarded by some here, but I have been casually on-off editing since 2005 or so, I only get involved to this extent when an I get a notice I've been reverted or such, and feel it was unjust and get dragged into debates like this. Just getting that out in the open. Anyway, I can only support the comments being made against the other anonymous IP editor, who blatantly has some sort of particular issue with this article, at least two editors (Jumble Jumble and Dreaded Walrus) that opposed them have been driven off trying to improve the article due the constant reverts and - on occasion - abuse from the editor in question to devote their efforts elsewhere. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Your history shows you as arriving on Wiki three weeks ago, and being concerned almost solely with this entry. It's my suspicion, based on edit pattern and wording, that you are in fact Jumble Jumble and therefore in breach of sockpuppetry rules. You are *certainly* in breach of the rules about edit summaries, having made flagrantly untrue claims in edit summaries on this entry. You persistently, for example, claimed "consensus" for the removal of the "historian" label, despite everyone on the talk page having at that point been in agreement that the term should stay. I note that you are still editing that passage even after talk-page discussion showed no consensus or majority for removal or alteration, exactly the thing you're accusing me of doing. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I have a dynamic IP, it changes every once in a while. I welcome any admin to clarify for you that I'm not a sockpuppet of Jumble Jumble. The historian label was widely regarded as inappropriate prior to various editors losing interest in the article, and in Dreaded Walrus' case, leaving due to your persistant disruptions. The current consensus is a 50/50 split between removing the label and keeping it. With this in mind I added a [dubious – discuss] template to the statement being discussed until the a consensus was reached one way or the other. I feel this was the appropriate course of action at this time. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
And the untrue edit summaries? 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've explained why stating that the consensus to remove the historian label was not incorrect. There was very strong consensus to remove it previously, currently there is a 50/50 split. At the time of the edit, JumbleJumble and yourself were the only other active editors and Jumble had ceded to you to let it remain, that is not a strong consensus that it should be kept. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
At the time of your change, the only people who'd been discussing it within a couple of months were MartinHogbin and Jumble Jumble. They agreed (13 November 2008) wit the previous argument that the term should stay. That is 100% consensus, with NOBODY remaining who disputed the term. You, however, claimed that there was "consensus" for removal. By any definition whatsoever, that is absolutely untrue - in fact the precise opposite of the truth - and a serious breach of Wiki rules. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to request an IP check, to get this part of the debate out of the way as quickly as possible. Does anyone know how to properly request it? Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any need for an IP check. These checks are not granted to prove innocence because they are not conclusive for that purpose anyway. From the testimony of various editors, it's a self-evident case for semi-protection, in my view. There is enough bad faith on display here to prove the case. An editor who is a party of one and has no supporters on the Talk page needs to argue extra-loud if he is going to win. I think that's what he is trying to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about conflict of interest, but single-purpose accounts are an issue. There are currently four main editors involved in this article.
  1. User:Jumble Jumble, whose editing is primarily but not solely restricted to this article.
  2. User:MysteryReporterX, who has only ever edited this article, apart from one edit to Sensible Golf, which is a related topic so would still fall under SPA.
  3. User:83.67.217.135, whose editing is primarily but not solely restricted to this article (85% of edits are to this article, its talk page, or the old AfD). The only other articles edited by the same IP (which does not appear to be dynamic) are primarily British games industry-related, or articles related to Campbell. These edits added mention of Campbell, while these edits added a link to Campbell's site, which was later reinstated by the same editor, these edits were to a mention of Campbell, and finally these edits, which removed an unreferenced statement.
  4. User:88.108.243.214, whose editing has almost entirely been (excluding first three edits) to this article. This editor could be on a dynamic IP, which are common in this country (indeed, I am on a dynamic IP myself). Dreaded Walrus t c 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. In addition to these four editors, User:Martin Hogbin has edited the page, and is not an SPA.
  6. It should also be noted that I used to edit the article myself, but took it off my watchlist in late 2007 after getting frustrated with it taking time away from other WP activities, and receiving an email from Stuart Campbell himself that was filled with ad hominem attacks on myself, Wikipedia administrators, and Wikipedia itself. The email was in response to one I sent to Campbell, which I pasted here.
Anyway, my point is... with four SPAs and one regular account editing the article and the talk page, very little progress is going to be made, especially when the outcome of a straw poll is seemingly currently being ignored by 83. If more editors could go to the discussion page and get involved, then I'm sure it would be welcomed by all editors involved in the article. I won't be getting involved with the article myself, due to not having as much time to dedicate to Wikipedia, and due to the aforementioned email (copies available to admins if requested via email.) Dreaded Walrus t c 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't really want to be an SPA. As you say, the debate on here is taking away the time I might be spending on other parts of the encyclopaedia. I've actually got a ton of stuff on my watchlist that I want to get to. This is the first time that several external people have got involved for ages, which is a great thing. Whatever the resolution is, at least there'll be one. I think it's probably fairly common that once people get into a debate, their contributions to other articles begin to dry up. The other issue is that when I'm making non-contentious changes that don't get disputed, I often don't realise that I'm not signed in. I've been better about that recently though. Jumble Jumble (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I'm Stuart Campbell. This is all fun, isn't it?
For the record, some time around September 2007 I sent a deletion request to Wikipedia asking that my entire entry be removed from the site. (For verification purposes, the name of the administrator who replied on September 4th, rejecting this request, ended in -man. I hope that's sufficiently vague to avoid an Outing offence - I've avoided specifying a gender.)
I made the request because as far as I'm concerned the article is primarily used as a vehicle for attacking me, sometimes in very crude ways and sometimes in slightly more sophisticated ones, as seems to be the case currently. (It took a quite //extraordinary// amount of time and effort to get myself distinguished from the rapist and murderer Stuart Campbell, for example, with people re-inserting links to his entry from references to me several times even after the difference had been pointed out.) I've divided opinion along fairly extreme lines in my career, and some people have obvious agendas in portraying me in unfavourable light. It seems to be a coinflip whether a visit to the page on any given day will display a fairly harmless version or one of the many maliciously-vandalised ones.
I've just spent an incredibly dispiriting evening looking over the most recent events, and it has done nothing to alter my wish that the entire entry be permanently removed. I reiterate that wish here for the record. Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures seem to be as biased, hypocritical and generally unsatisfactory as they've always been, and it would save a lot of trouble all round if the entry simply disappeared altogether. It'd certainly make ME happier, but who the hell cares what I think? I'm just the poor bastard it's about, after all.Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What wonderful timing you have. How did you find out about this debacle over your article? Please realise that first of all we can't be sure that you are indeed Stuart Campbell just because of your username. There are ways to out yourself if you need to, but they involve going further than having a similiar screenname. Second of all, please look over and be familiar with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. So far you haven't done anything wrong, but it is generally looked down upon for editors in a conflict of interest to make substantial changes to pages related to them. It is excellent that you have restricted your postings to talk pages. If there is anything unsourced on your page that is blatantly libelous feel free to remove it. From looking over the article, it appears that it would fail a deletion request, but you can always try. Editors might show you some sympathy since you claim to be the article's subject, but I wouldn't bet on it. Themfromspace (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've given several pieces of information above for identification purposes (fact of deletion request, date of request, date of reply, identity of admin replying), none of which are publicly available. Nevertheless, I expect no sympathy or reason, because in my experience Wikipedia is staffed by arrogant jobsworths drunk on the power they wield over the encyclopaedia's hapless subjects. The page may not have anything libellous on it today, but it will tomorrow, or next week, or next month. I don't plan to spend my life monitoring it, and I have no faith in the impartiality/competence of Wiki's admins to perform that task either. I'm posting only to make it known that I want this page removed, and that if it remains in existence it does so against my wishes. Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to echo the comment about timing. And I have to say, I find it just an astonishing coincidence that Stuart Campbell seems to have 83.67.217.135's habit of sometimes referring to Wikipedia just as "Wiki", while no other editors involved in this debate do. Seriously, search a few talk pages. In fact I can't find anyone doing it anywhere! (Oh wait, I found one: MysteryReporterX.) Fancy that! Jumble Jumble (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So is this the outcome? A few of us complain about an editor, and it's frozen for 4 days at his preferred version? What happens next? We still haven't actually got a resolution on any of the issues causing the edit war. Is there nobody new willing to voice an opinion on it? This is my last attempt at getting some kind of larger opinion on the subject matter, and if it fails then I'll have learnt a new fact about Wikipedia: that the current version of any given article is the preferred version of the most persistent editor. Jumble Jumble (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ANOTHER "last attempt"? How many is that now? Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is that editors should discuss contentious edits on the talk page rather than edit-warring, and *if you do not achieve consensus by the power of your argument then you don't make changes*. Ideally, you would also learn that you shouldn't misuse Wiki procedures, ie endlessly repeating CoI allegations when what you actually have is an edit war. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, like I say, I haven't actually edited the page since 29 October, so accusations of edit warring are a bit silly really. Even when we do achieve consensus, you personally don't "consider it valid", and won't let the changes go through. What I am hoping for is some more opinion on the dispute over the content itself, rather than the people involved. Don't you think this just seems like a way to postpone the problem? Jumble Jumble (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say you'd edited, I said there was an edit war, which is plainly the case. Rather than deal with that issue in the correct manner you posted an inappropriate CoI (again), having been making that same allegation for months now without success. (I note with interest that you haven't responded to the subject apparently appearing and requesting deletion of the entire entry, not favourable edits.) The problem is people making spurious assertions which are not supported by the text of the entry. The only way that will change is if people start debating what's actually written, rather than what they've "interpreted" it to "imply". I hope that's what happens, but what I expect is that people will continue making statements rather than arguments, or arguing about how they see historical events rather than the content of a Wiki entry. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is a terrible way to resolve this. You have a situation where a single editor is constantly reverting, POV-pushing, and attacking other members, several of whom have listed their grievances in this discussion, and the solution so far seems to be to lock the article with disruptive editor's POV and poorly sourced revisions included. This isn't a case of two different opinion, it's a case of one editor inserting information as part of a CoI that simply shouldn't be included, according to Wikipedia guidelines - as well as the consensus of the majority of other editors. No-one else involved is trying to push some opposing point of view in the article, but simply trying to keep this editors obvious bias out of the page. I hope an admin has the patience to read over this discussion, the talk page, and the edit history and kindly revert to the version of the page with the said material removed, which would be the most consensus supported, as well as the more neutral version (due to lack of debated statements, and only containing the the information that those from both sides consider to be acceptable and well-sourced). --88.108.243.214 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Moan, moan, moan. Are you still alleging CoI now that the subject has requested deletion? 83.67.217.135 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Dude. We know that was you. You blew it, OK? We know. It's actually getting slightly weird now. To insist otherwise now isn't just insulting to our intelligence, but to yours too. Because it isn't just that we know, but that you do too. You don't have to confirm it or admit it, but for goodness' sake don't deny it any more - it'll just be ridiculous. Jumble Jumble (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
For how much longer is this editor going to be allowed to make these unsupported allegations, having already been publicly warned by another editor (Marasmusine, 25 Sep 08) for doing so, under WP:CIVIL? 83.67.217.135 (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Apparently forever. So everyone has to obey Wiki's rules except this one SPA editor? 83.67.217.135 (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
How about placing a checkuser request? Jayen466 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I offer courtesy deletion nominations upon request from article subjects under certain conditions, and this appears to satisfy most parameters. Mr. Campbell, what I request is a confirmable means of determining that you are in fact the subject of this biography. If you have not already done so, please register an email address at the my preferences section of your drop down menu at the upper right portion of your browser screen. When you do that you can click on my username to my user page, then click the email this user selection that will appear at the left column of that page. Once you contact me in a verifiable manner we can discuss how to proceed. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And the tumbleweeds roll by... Jumble Jumble (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Jesus. As I mentioned before, I have better things to do with my life than hit Refresh on this page every 30 seconds, seemingly unlike you. I have emailed Durova, but won't hold my breath. Stuart Campbell (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice about avoiding COI edits

Resolved
 – Advice given, no further issues. EdJohnston (talk)

Good afternoon, everyone! I'm employed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as a Web expert, writer, and editor, and much of my work involves the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Web site. EERE has asked me to help update the EERE page on Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you all how I can do this without stepping on any toes.

Here's my plan:

  • I'll get an account. (I know all the username requirements--No role accounts, no promotional names.)
  • When I have changes to propose, I'm not going to post them myself. I'm going to put them on the talk page. I'm not sure there's enough activity on the page (or on the talk page) for that to go anywhere, though--Is there a working group I can work with? Or someone who (while I understand you're all volunteers) I could run suggestions by, to make sure everything meets Wiki's standards? Or can I, like the COIN instructions say, propose changes on this board?
  • Is it all right to use the EERE Web site as a reference?
  • I would assume that updating objective, outdated content that's already on the page is uncontroversial. This would include the program names and budget information. Is that true?
  • I've already made EERE aware that they don't own the EERE Wikipedia page content, that the vetted information they send me may not get on the page, and that the information that does will be edited over time.

I'll make sure everything that I suggest on the talk pages is added is neutral and well-cited. I would appreciate any other advice, though. I'll be checking this thread, but you can also can contact me through EERE--I'm the Webmaster of the EERE Communication Standards site, and you can email me there. 192.174.37.50 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is possible for you to do your job without running afoul of Wikipedia's policies, though you'll need to be very careful. In general, keep three things in mind. First, it should not be possible to tell from your article contributions that you are an employee of EERE. Second, you should advertise your affiliation, on your user page and when you are working with other editors. Third, you should place your efforts only where EERE's and Wikipedia's interests coincide. Familiarize yourself with the policies at WP:COI, if you haven't already. It has some good tips for making effective contributions. If there is little interest from other editors in developing the EERE article, you can also post messages to Talk:United States Department of Energy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government. You might also try the Wikipedia:Reward board, where you can offer to work on an article unrelated to the US government, in exchange for others' work on your article. About referencing EERE's web site, it certainly can be used as a reliable source, though independent sources are preferred. See European Parliament for an example of an article that references official sources. Hope this helps. Wronkiew (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thank you very much for your help. This is a very useful list of references. I've read the COI guidelines before, as well as the recommendations for people editing with a COI, so I'll stick to those as closely as possible. Thank you! 192.174.37.50 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Government Office for Science

Resolved
 – Fritzpoll has unblocked Munch922 and allowed him to resume normal editing. Those who still have concerns may put Government Office for Science on their watch list. EdJohnston (talk)


Government Office for Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I recently reviewed Government Office for Science as part of the new page patrol, and tagged it as conflict of interest because I suspected that the user was an employee of the government department. He was wondering why I tagged the article, and I asked him if he is an employee of the department, because if he was, that would be COI. He did not answer this question, but he says that there is nothing wrong with him editing it. I am not sure how to reply to him now. I am including the conversation below.

Hi Christopher Kraus, Thank you for your advice on the neutrality of the Government Office for Science entry. I have removed some of the phrases that could be construed as opinion rather than fact and which could lead to a conflict of interest. I would be very grateful if you could have another look and for any further advuce that you could offer to ensure that the article complies with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Government office for Science (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, My main reason for the COI tag is because from your username it sounded like you were an employee or something. If you are, It would probably be against Wikipedia's COI rules to be a major contributor to your own article.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've checked out the COI rules and I don't think that I am going against them. In light of what I read I have made a few more changes. I would really appreciate it if you could have another look over and either advise me on areas that concern you or take down the flags. Thanks Government office for Science (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this resolves the COI situation. There are some oddities about this. Why the content fork at User:Government office for Science? And I notice that the first draft of that page [32] is ripped direct from some non-public Go-Science publication (suggesting some kind of insider connection) which formed the basis of the first draft of Government office for Science. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Update: Government office for Science (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely as a role account. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I could see this as a COI exception - non-contentious edits where he asked for another editor to tell him of any areas of concern in an article which appears to be related to the British Government. As for a governmental agency using its own PR for "first draft" - I consider that, if anything. to be a sign of good faith in trying to make a real article. Collect (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I updated the header of this report. It seems that Munch922 is the new account name, but he was unblocked only to change username, according to User_talk:Munch922. Next step is not clear. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
User is now fully cleared to edit, has been warned about COI. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

DJJONE5NY on Family Foundation School

DJJONE5NY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also 24.164.167.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I am posting this notice on the prior advice of User:Scarian [33]. This editor has perpetuated edits that focus almost exclusively on Congressional testimony which is critical of the Family Foundation School and push a negative POV. He has done so by pulling quotes from said testimony that, in the opinion of neutral editors:

  • give undue emphasis to the testimony, likely violate WP:BLP, and are tantamount to gossip [34];
  • are "not well balanced" [35]

This editor:

  • possesses intimate knowledge of the school's staff makeup [36];
  • claims to have attended the school and school functions [37]
  • claims to have suffered abuse at the school, allegedly at the hands of staff [38];
  • claims himself to be both the author and presenter of the Congressional testimony [39][40] which if true, means he is a prominent member of CAFETY and criticizes the school as a matter of policy [41];
  • has recently engaged in personal attacks against editor User:Wikiwag [42]

This together, demonstrates that this editor has a serious CoI problem on this article, and I request that appropriate action be taken to correct the situation. Respectfully submitted: - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 14:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a pot calling a kettle black here...CoreEpic (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Then I heartily invite you to provide similar evidence that supports the claim. Good luck. :-) - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
...and I'll be addressing the personal attack separately. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Adamkey

Adamkey made a resport at BLPN regarding the Joel Osteen article. On review at BLPN, Gwen Gale noted that Adamkey's 04:21, 11 January 2009 edit raised WP:Soapbox, WP:COI, WP:UNDO and WP:BLP issues. Adamkey made a similar post in the Lakewood Church article.[43]. It does appear that Adamkey is trying to use the Wikipedia article to promote evangelist and author Adam Key's book, which is critical about Osteen. Adamkey's user page also states "I'm Adam Key, the former law student at Pat Robertson's Regent University now suing after I was expelled for being critical of Robertson." Since there seems to be reason to keep an eye on this, I am posting here. -- Suntag ☼ 15:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthonyjamesstudio

Tolerably obvious COI here, but it does appear that James is notable. Is any action required beyond watching for cleanup tag removal and the like?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Blue Monday (date)

Left the users a more detailed message than the templates. One is blocked for 3RR so we'll see how it goes when that expires... ArakunemTalk 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the promotional edits were coming from IPs and brand-new accounts, so I have semi-protected the article for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Dicklyon, user:Jokestress, and user:James Cantor at The Man Who Would Be Queen

There is a group of editors with an on-going COI problem on a set of related pages (Lynn Conway, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and others as listed below). This problem is long-standing, wide-ranging, and embarrassing to WP. Wikipedia has even been metioned in The New York Times with regard to this on-going conflict. I urge any admin reading this to consider helping solve it once and for all.

All three involved editors (one of whom is me) acknowledge real-life relationships with some aspect of the content of these pages, and all have been challenged regarding COI several times by people with opposing perspectives. I believe that all three editors (including me) should be limited in their editing of the pages, which are listed below.

The three editors are:

  • user:Dicklyon Dicklyon acknowledges that he is a personal friend and a former employee of Lynn Conway. He has been blocked three times for edit warring on this and on other pages. He is under a topic ban for still other topics (see here). He entered into a mediated agreement with user:James Cantor not to edit the controversy sections of the problematic articles (see here), but he recently declared unilaterally that he was withdrawing from that agreement (see here) because it suited him in his dispute with yet another editor on the same topic (user:Hfarmer, see here). This suggests, at least to me, that there is little point to entering into voluntary agreements with him again.
  • user:Jokestress Jokestress acknowledges that she is Andrea James, a self-described transsexual activist whose widely reported activities include submitting formal real-world complaints about the people described on the WP pages she edits and writing to their employers urging that they be fired. Her involvement in the controversies described on the WP pages has even made it into The New York Times. All of these real-world activities are contained on her personal website, www.tsroadmap.com. She is currently left to her own devices in deciding whether and how to edit the articles that document her own actions in the real world. user:Dicklyon has previously opined that neither user:Jokestress nor user:James Cantor should be editing the pages.
  • user:James Cantor James Cantor acknowledges that he is a professional colleague of Ray Blanchard, a researcher whose work is widely cited (including being contested) on the set of WP pages. I entered into a mediated agreement with user:Dicklyon not to edit the controversy sections of the problematic articles; however, with Dicklyon’s withdrawal from that agreement, a new solution is needed to avoid a return to the prior state of edit warring. Previous WP accounts used by user:James Cantor are listed on his user page; they are user:WriteMakesRight and user:MarionTheLibrarian, which he used before acknowledging his real-world identity.

Any positive information I neglected to point out about Dicklyon and Jokestress and any negative information I neglected to point out about myself, I’m sure will quickly be added here by other editors.

My proposed solution for ending these long-standing wars once and for all is for all three of us to enter into the agreement that was used successfully by user:Dicklyon and user:James Cantor until Dicklyon’s withdrawal, and to let the pages be edited only by the remaining editors. I recommend, however, that the agreement be binding this time, so as not to be ended when one of the editors becomes so moved.

The text of the agreement I propose is the same as the one previously used, except for the removal of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy which has since merged into Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory.

No direct editing of controversy in:

No direct editing of:

— James Cantor (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When I proposed re-instating that truce, you turned your back on the idea here; so now it's "double or nothing", to silence two of us while your minions keep attacking our friends? I don't think so.
The NYT mention long predates your or my involvement, so why bring that up?
I welcome the scrutiny of a COI investigation. How about a link to some of the previous ones, like yours here when you were hiding as MarionTheLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?
You also failed to mention the hateful new article you created yesterday in this space, Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, totally to prop up your colleague Blanchard in his bashing of the trans women (one of whom is indeed a long-time friend and colleague of mine -- I confess it as I always have). Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I came here to suggest that everyone involved in this had COI that made it impossible for them to fairly work on this topic, and i see that JC has anticipated me. This topic is so closely involved with individual sexual identity and concept of one's personality that it is really unreasonable to expect objectivity. I don;t want to go into who has been the least objective in the prior editing, or the multiple details of why the editing here has been consistently unsatisfactory. I think a topic ban as suggested makes a great deal of sense, and I think the community can do it without needing arb com. There has to be a solution for this, and i can see no lesser one as suitable. There is no need to investigate or state who the various editors are, and why exactly that should cause COI-- though it is more or less common knowledge-- the COI is obvious from the edits. At this point, I'd extend the topic ban to not just editing, but talk pages, based on the degree of virulence that has been expressed on such pages. The cooperative manner of editing of Wikipedia does not work for people this much involved in the topics. I account this no blame to them--it is simply an unreasonable expectation for humans. DGG (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I would welcome a topic ban if it extended to User:WhatamIdoing, User:ProudAGP, and User:Hfarmer, who are all acting as if they are Cantor's army; I have no idea who WhatamIdoing is or why her editing is so biased and so aligned with Cantor. ProudAGP wears the "AGP" (autogynephelia) handle proclaiming her bias; and Hfarmer is an outspoken trans woman who seems to be mostly an attention seeker and doesn't understand verifiability; she's the reason I had to abandon the previous truce with Cantor. As for Jokestress, she has an open COI and has pretty much avoided do any editting that would be questionable; I agree that she should not be editting these pages, and she does not, so I'm not sure what Cantor is trying to say other than that she's one of his enemies. As to my own edits, I'd like to have someone point out what edits are seen as improper or motivated by COI before discussing remedies. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's much more restrictive than what I had in mind, but if it is enforcible, then I can participate in an agreement like that.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm being drawn into a conflict between User:Dicklyon and User:James Cantor and their past agreements on editing (which did not involve me). I agree with DickLyon's view that James Cantor is trying to exploit that conflict to restrict my editing as well. Glancing over my last 1000 article edits ([44][45]), I see no conflict of interest. My few edits to the articles named above have been largely housekeeping: to add citations, tag them, or remove vandalism. I have been taking great pains to write on topics about which I am a subject-matter expert in a strictly NPOV manner, per policy. James Cantor (and his earlier personae) and now-banned editors have complained in the past about my edits (Examples: [46][47]). No wrongdoing was found and no action was taken in any of those cases. As far as enjoining editors from participating in talk page discussions, I believe that should only happen if there’s a policy violation. I believe extensive talk page discussions are a fact of life on Wikipedia’s controversial articles and are a healthy part of the process. I have seen discussions about a single word go on for months (such as how to use "plumber" on Talk:Joe the Plumber as an example). Editors participating in those discussions, however lengthy, are not violating policy. If users are violating policy, then that’s a different story. I just haven’t seen that on these talk pages. Jokestress (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The basic definition of "conflict of interest" here is when one puts self-interest over WP's interests. If you cannot let a page be worked on only by editors who lack any perceivable COI, then you have a COI. I entered into willingly and I stuck to unerringly my agreement with Dicklyon, I've stayed within that agreement even now that I don't have to, and I am asking that I become restricted still more. How about you two put some edits where your mouths are? If you can't stomach what you think these pages will look like without your "help," then you have no business editing them. Where are your Wikipedian values now?
— James Cantor (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On Jan. 9 you created Feminine essence theory of transsexuality; yet you dare to lecture us this way? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is my personal opinion of this.
Jokestress at the end of the day has the best interest and improvement of Wikipedia at heart. All of her edits deep down are motivated by what she thinks will make Wikipedia a better resource. She is a true blue wikipedian and 95% of the time our disagreements were based around WP Policies and what could and could not be included. When we had a RfC or consulted a notice board and whatnot. If uninvolved editors disagreed she would abide by their consensus. She did cross a personal line once but I have written enough about that already. The problem with her is what she thinks will improve wikipedia is informed by a long running real life dispute with the people who's BLP's she is editing, and over the topics she is editing. That she is so entrenched at one extreme on this issue that a neutral edit looks biased to her. i.e. simply quoting or paraphrasing some figure in a RS or taking two RS's which use very slightly different wording and gathering that information under a common heading. When she does dispute things though she does generally stick with WP policy and procedure. We have never really had an editwar that I recall which is remarkable because of how adversarial we can become.
James_Cantor could have been called a single purpose account when he first came as Marion. However since then he has become atruly responsible wikipedian. As evidenced by his free admission of his own COI in this case. A COI which Jokestress's has effected his editing. Like jokestress when he has a problem with something he relies on WP policy and procedure to fix it if it is decided it needs fixing. He has edited many articles that relate to his area of expertise, juding by comments left on his talk page. Articles unrelated to this matter. We should take no action that would totally turn off a bonified "expert" from wikipedia. Wikipedia is too good at chasing away such people.
Myself. Here is my interest in this matter. I am a transsexual woman in Chicago, I grew up here. I have incidental and very intermittent contact with people involved in this matter to one degree or the other. I may encounter , by happenstance, and chat with one or two people a year who are involved. For example back 8-9 years ago I finally decided to seek out a gender specialist who would not charge me $$$ just to talk to him. My general therapist pointed me in the general direction of Bailey, who I did meet a few times. Furthermore through the years going to various TS/TG social functions I have met people who were involved in this. I know the lay of the land back in the period of the writing of the queen and subsequently. I think that this allows me to see through the BS POV pushed by both sides who at times tend to paint whoever their favorites in a positive light. While I know there are no Angels here in Chicago. Let me make this perfectly clear all my dealings will all of the people I have encountered over th years who have been involved with this have been cordial and I could say that they are at least friendly acquaintances. I like all of them as real people they are not simply as either side has been caricatured online. However I do believe my edits are neutral for that reason. I will let others decide if this is a COI. I can say of myself what I have said of JC and AJ because I was on one side or the other in those RfC's. I too have wikipedia's best interest at heart.
Dicklyon, can and has been uncivil in interactions that deal with this matter as standard procedure. His standard procedure is conflict and edit war, and insult, and confrontation. As compared to the rest of the people involved here... well not to offend anyone but he is likely the most traditionally masculine of us all, that could be part of the chasm I see between the conduct of myself, AJ, and JC, and Dicks. However that is not an excuse for how he has behaved which is well documented. In these matters he does not act with the interest of wikipedia at heart, and actively ignores and disparages policy and procedure.
So I endorse DGG's suggestion. Though I wonder how long Dick Lyon would actually abide by it. In fact I would suggest based not just on this but how he has behaved in other areas Dicklyon be the only one barred from talk pages and such as well as editing. He seems incapeable of simply having a debate without needing to hurl insults.
I would submit to such a agreement if it is determined that I actually have COI basically for being a somewhat socially active transwoman from Chicagoland. I have confidence that AJ and JC would abide by it. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I can admit to being sometimes rude, especially to you, Hfarmer, but what are these well-documented behaviors you refer to? My one revert of your big BLP-violating addition to Lynn Conway is what you mean? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I should modify what I said above. Some people with even great involvement in an issue can be objective, at least up to a point. It must be harder to be objective if one thinks one's psychological foundation the only one possible, and all others to be in either error or downright bad faith. But anyone with involvement is liable to have their objectivity challenged, and it is very difficult to maintain that argument that one alone is fair-minded, and everyone else prejudiced. I thus congratulate those who, though convinced of their ability to deal with this properly, are willing to step aside. In a matter where everyone is convinced that they and only they are right, how can outsiders judge? DGG (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, and that's why it has been so hard to get any unbiased editors to join in. I was attracted to the mess less than a year ago when User:MarionTheLibrarian (now User:James Cantor showed up and started attacking the biography of my friend Lynn Conway. I tried to help, but being her friend and taking her side makes me biased. I do my best to respect policy, and fight BLP violation, but I can't deny my bias, and I can't get help fending off the attackers. So, life's tough, but we try. As to the substance of the sexologists' and trans women's theories about the basis of transsexuality, I take no position; I just hate to Cantor and friends using wikipedia they way they do to try to advance their agenda. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou DGG I will take that as a compliment, either you read what I said about AJ and JC and agree, or you count me as a greatly invovled person willing to step aside if other involved persons will. Either way that is one of the only nice things I have ever heard that could be in reference to me in all my time on WP. :__)
Dick it's not an attack to put something into someones BLP which they publish on their own website. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Hfarmer: I share your skepticism regarding whether Dicklyon will be able to control himself. His behavior here and his history of blocks and bans on other topics suggests not (at least, to me), which is why I believe that this policy will work only if it is compulsory and enforced.
  • I thank DGG for his congratulations.
  • Jokestress has yet to make any statement that she would participate willingly in any agreement of the sorts being discussed here. It is my opinion that Wikipedia and these pages are best served when someone with as deep a COI as hers (some would argue, 'as deep as any of ours') is not permitted to edit these pages. It is also my opinion that any collection of neutral WP editors—including ArbCom—would agree, declare 'enough is enough', and compel Jokestress (and the rest of us) into a restriction like the ones we’re talking about. (For all I know, if implemented by an outside group, Dicklyon’s difficult block/ban history may even earn him more a wide ranging restriction than the one proposed here.) At the moment, Jokestress has an opportunity to volunteer to participate and to demonstrate that she takes WP principles seriously, rather than as mere rhetoric useful when painting herself in a positive light for an audience of other editors. It’s time for her to reveal her true colors.
  • Dicklyon’s request that everyone he doesn’t like must also participate in the ban mistakes the issue: This is the Conflict-of-Interest page, on which we remove people with a COI that the WP community believes could interfere with their edits. It is not a Conflict-With-Dick page on which we remove everyone whose edits are not to his liking. That he cannot break out of his thinking about “sides,” or cabals, or conspiracies long enough to actually follow the rules is part of the problem.
  • I am quite proud of Hfarmer’s volunteering the nature of interactions she has had with people described on these pages and volunteering to participate in the ban for the betterment of WP. Although I personally do not believe that those interactions are big enough to merit a ban, that judgment is best left to otherwise uninvolved editors. The rest of us will be said to be opining out of whatever seems to be in the best interest of our “side.”

The question here is very simple: Jokestress and Dicklyon: Which is more important to you, the principles of WP or your personal involvement on these pages?
— James Cantor (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

James, you need more practice on your false dichotomies. Have you stopped beating your partner yet? As for my history of blocks, I invite close inspection of those. I have never had any trouble controlling myself, but I have inadvertantly tripped over WP:3RR a few times; twice with a guy subseqeuntly permanently banned for his behavior, and once with you; it was a mistake, but not a big deal sign of uncontrollable hormones or something. What's most important to me is that wikipedia find a way to deal with problems like you, so that we can get back to making an encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

arb

So what is to become of all of this? should we refer all of the matters to the Arb Com for settling once and for all? I would say yes. Let us exercise the nuclear option if voluntary means of dispute resolution cannot get results. We have tried every other process WP has for settling disputes. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've started and participated in various dispute resolution procedures in the past, including content RfC, user conduct RfC, COI notices, mediation, etc., and basically haven't found that any of these get taken very seriously or lead to effective action; sometimes mediation is useful, though the only thing it did for me and James was an uneasy truce, treating the edit warring symptom instead of the underlying disease. But we have to at least try some, to demonstrate to ArbCom that all avenues have been attempted before they'll accept a case. So let's get to work. I'll happily participate in any dispute resolution next step that someone wants to propose. I'll put all my cards on the table; I just seek two things: 1. for James Cantor not to edit articles in which he has a conflict of interest, which is basically all he has done as a wikipedia editor, since his sole purpose seems to be to clean up the image of the academic sexologists; 2. for other editors taking his side not to add BLP-violating junk about people involved in real-world controversies; there's no reason for such controversies in the real world to become wars on wikipedia, if we just stick to fair representation of sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hfarmer: I’m not sure exactly sure which suggestion is which when you refer to (1) going to ArbCom, (2) voluntary means, (3) going nuclear. The idea in my head (but I’m quite open to suggestion) is to send to ArbCom my synopsis and suggestion, much like I did in opening this COI/N notice, but to add the other suggestions that have been made thus far:
  • All three COI-folks get enforcibly banned from the main pages (my initial suggestion)
  • All three COI-folks get banned from the talk pages as well as the main pages (DGG’s suggestion)
  • All three COI-folks get banned from the main pages, but only Dicklyon gets banned from the talk pages (Hfarmer’s suggestion)
  • Do nothing and keep the status quo (I don't mean to put words in Jokestress' mouth, but this one is a necessary implication of what she said)
  • James Cantor and anyone who agrees with him have to be reigned in, whereas Dicklyon and Jokestress may be left to their own devices (Dicklyon’s suggestion)
Given that, ArbCom can do whatever they want, including ignoring all these suggestions and instead restricting individual editors on a case-by-case basis.
DGG: Below are the various noticeboards on which the family of problems have been discussed. Does this seem sufficient in your opinion for going to ArbCom, or do they typically need more evidence of more prior attempts to find solutions?
— James Cantor (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
James, good start! Come of your links, like the COI on your old identity MarionTheLibrarian are broken, and others will be eventually, so probably you need to look for a more permanent way to link them. Also maybe include some of the germane RS/N discussions? Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"3 going nuclear." LOL. The Arb Com is the nuclear option....Because when you take a dispute or complaint there it is almost certain some of the fallout will hit you. As you pointed out they could impose all kinds of sanctions on us all, ban us all and expunge this whole subject from wikipedia in perpetuity. :-\ Who would want that?
To the list I would ask Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Homosexual transsexual in re "Term Vs. Phenomena". The conflcit between me and jokestress weather that article is just about a term used only at one clinic in Canada, or is it about a phenomena that has been reported in many different context (cultural, historical, psychological, and even legal).--Hfarmer (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to offer to join a voluntary moratorium on editing these pages, if and only if jokestress is part of the agreement.ProudAGP (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not a producer living in Hollywood, but I can't help but imagine that it's the people who are willing to self-sacrifice who would be assigned to wear the white hats. Exactly who should be restrcited from what seems more and more (to me) to be best left to ArbCom.
  • If Dicklyon posts additional links here, I will add them to the list above. (From my understanding of ArbCom rules, the purpose of the above list is to demonstrate that we have already tried the regular means of resolving the problem, not to be the final set of all evidence.)
  • Unless someone feels that Jokestress (or anyone else) needs more time to respond to this conversation here at COI/N, I will proceed with the ArbCom filing. (DGG: I would also be very open to any comment from you regarding whether I am moving too quickly on this.) I will include as parties everyone I sent this COI/N notice to (except for user:Skoojal, who has been indefinitely blocked). Please let me know if you believe there is someone else I overlooked who should also be a made a party.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

However Jokestress has contributed to other pages since this discussion has been going on. However from her perspective this does not really involve her it is purely a conflict that is between you and DickLyon. Brought about by the breakdown of your agreement with him. All because I and others wanted to add something to do with the nature of her involvement in the Bailey scandal. Somehow putting information in her BLP that was on her own website, using practically the same wording as on her website, was to him percieved as an attack.
I will inform her that there is talk of this going to the Arb Com. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I realize that that is what Jokestress said, and I have every confidence that she will use that argument with ArbCom. However, the side effect of that attitude is, of course, that the disputes and disruptions over the trans pages will continue, which is not in WP's best interests.
  • I have updated the list of links. Everyone will have the chance to add to them as we go on.
  • I have learned that there is a 500-word limit on the initial submission to ArbCom, not leaving me enough space to include all the suggested restrictions. I did have room, however, to indicate that this latest discussion at COI/N has additional suggestions. The full description and discussion of why each is or is not the appropriate move will be, I'll guess, the bulk of the ArbCom discussion.

— James Cantor (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you filed the case already? Can you link us to it? Or if not could we see what you wrote exactly? Regarding AJ I just thought it polite to give her notice that this was being discussed is all. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I've composed a draft off-line, but I haven't finished proofing it. Assuming no dramatic developments, I expect to be able to post it tonight. I'll link everyone to it as soon as I do. (In fact, I believe that that's a requirement.)
Hfarmer: I have met few people as genuinely polite as you.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
James, you probably recall that I've objected in the past, several times, to the way you frame and summarize the issues in these controversies. If you're serious about a productive ArbCom case, may I recommend that we jointly invite a less biased person to propose the case? I'd be willing to invite User:DGG, for example, who has been somewhat involved but has not taken sides; maybe he'll decline or offer someone else who can help. Or maybe starting with mediation would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
We have not exhausted all options for dispute resolution. I suggest you start with Mediation if you believe that is necessary (informal, then formal), and any Mediation should include User:WhatamIdoing, whom I consider a key editor in this dispute. Your request for Arbitration will likely be rejected unless you attempt formal mediation first. I have mentioned in the past that you seem to treat Wikipedia as something you can "win." Your adversarial tone above and attempts to goad me into a response with insults have no place on Wikipedia, as I have told you many times in the past. Jokestress (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have scanned the prior requests for arbitration and do not see any obvious pattern regarding which cases ArbCom accepts and which cases include formal mediation among their prior attempts at resolution. The only pattern apparent to me was for evidence of sincere prior efforts at resolution. Of course, if ArbCom rejects the case because formal mediation is not included among the numerous posts on ANI, COIN, RSN, etc., then mediation can still be used. No one other than Jokestress has said (thus far) that we are going to ArbCom prematurely, and, in my opinion, Jokestress' suggestion will only delay the inevitable.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration is the option of last resort. If you are not willing to resolve this via informal and/or formal Mediation first, I will note that in any ensuing Arbitration. I again request that we include User:WhatamIdoing in the dispute resolution process and recommend we start with Mediation to determine the involved parties willing to participate and scope of the dispute. Jokestress (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed sure you will note it. Whether you are sticking to the rules or stalling is, of course, for ArbCom to decide. Even Dicklyon provided corrections to the list of links for the ArbCom request rather than say that it should not be submitted. So, unless anyone has any other suggestions, I will proceed.
— James Cantor (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my absence to this point. I'd actually started a response after User:DGG's initial comments, had to leave before I was finished, and then got caught up in a notability push with WP:WikiProject Medicine and some task force development there, and completely forgot about this. Here are my thoughts:
  • I have no conflict of interest here. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only regular editor at these articles that doesn't have any possible conflict of interest: I know none of the people -- actually, as far as I know, I don't even know anyone who knows any of the people involved. I'm as boringly straight and cis-gendered as apparently possible, and I really don't care about whether Blanchard's ideas are True™ or not. (I am actually skeptical of any current idea being the ultimate explanation.)
  • I do have a personal POV:
    • I believe that the primary reason that this group of articles matters to the larger world (that is, to any non-tg/non-sexologist person and therefore why it meets the general notability guideline) is the scandalous attack on J. Michael Bailey for having published the "wrong" ideas in a popular-science type of book. The notability for his book comes from the tension between political activism and academic freedom. A remarkable number of our reliable sources are concerned in the real world about the chilling effects on free speech that some egregiously inappropriate "political comments", such as posting the names and photographs of researchers' children with nasty comments about them, can have, and I personally share their views. (As Andrea James (User:Jokestress) did just that to Bailey's children, there's never going to be any love between us.)
    • I furthermore believe that when Wikipedia presents articles on a scientific idea that is widely accepted by the relevant experts in the field -- and this one is accepted by nearly all the relevant experts in the field -- that due weight requires us to present the expert view as the dominant opinion, even if all the non-experts hate it. So we present Human evolution (primarily) according to reliable scientific sources instead of according to what a person with a PhD in theology says, and we should present Autogynephilia (primarily) according to the reliable scientific sources instead of according to what trans activists say. This doubtless explains why the activist "side" complains that I consistently support the "scientific" side.
  • I understand DGG's impulse to suggest an article-and-talk-page ban several users, but I don't recommend it in any case except possibly Dicklyon and User:DarlieB. I think that talk page access is still appropriate. Specifically, I'd like to say that I think both James Cantor and Jokestress can, and do, contribute constructively through article talk pages, and I oppose any effort to prohibit their involvement that way. Both of them have conflicts of interest, and push for their POV on the talk page, but they don't abuse their COIs. (I ignore Dicklyon's complaints about James Cantor's very earliest edits: every editor was a newbie once upon a time.) About the two possible cases for a permaban:
    • Dick has been somewhat helpful in the past, but his ability to contribute constructively seems (IMO) to have deteriorated dramatically in the last month or two, and most of his interactions now come across as personal attacks (e.g., "What a jerk!"). Every action seems to have been personalized, and he doesn't seem to defaultly interpret any edit by the "wrong" editors as innocent changes. I think he's lost the ability to assume good faith (as a result, no doubt, of what he receives as strong provocation). Six months or a year to cool off might not be a bad idea.
    • However, I consider User:DarlieB to be a better example of an editor who seems unable to separate personal issues from Wikipedia editing. DarlieB (who self-identifies as a transwoman) disputes anything sourced to a feature article in The New York Times or the peer-reviewed journal article at PMID 18431641, apparently on the grounds that anything that doesn't support the right POV clearly 'didn't do enough investigation'. I believe that every edit made by this user has been reverted in the end, but the editor's approach is just astonishing. See, for example, the repeated wholesale deletion of all sourced information about everything our multiple sources say about the impact on academic freedom with the edit summary, "This factless opinion by an amateur investigator has nothing to do with the book." If I were going to permaban any user, it would be this one: I don't think that DarlieB is capable of understanding the POV problem. (By the way, that unjustifiable and repeatedly disputed deletion still stands in the article: I didn't want to revert DarlieB's deletion for the second or third time in a row, and no one else has bothered with it despite my requests on the talk page. I suspect that it's a casualty of this lengthy conversation, and, in at least one case, probably a desire to never do anything to help the "wrong" side.)
  • I might add Homosexual transsexual to the list of endlessly disputed articles, and Feminine essence theory of transsexuality (a new and well-sourced article, instantly listed at AfD by Dicklyon) will probably need to be on that list.
But fundamentally, the problem with topic banning all the people with COIs is that no one is willing to step into the gap. If we had three or four more COI-free editors, I might feel different about general topic bans. At the moment, the "ban 'em all" proposal is basically "let's have nobody edit these articles, and perhaps some day a different set of editors will have fewer conflicts." That's not really what's best for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
although this has moved elsewhere by now, let me clarify my earlier suggestion: I was not proposing to ban in the usual sense, of imply any special faults to any specific people. My intention was to find a solution that would get away from that, much more in the sense of a step to prevent the recurrence of conflict by removing some of the propensity for it, not for punishing--just as we block both parties in an edit war. And I continue to think the fairest way for this is for those editors who have done their editing in the field correctly despite whatever degree of COI, of whatever degree of involvement that may have developed even without initial COI, to accept that this is the most effective way of going forward--that nobody should consider themselves either blamed or vindicated. DGG (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:74.170.17.64

I noticed an odd change in an article about Calea zacatechichi in way that completely changed the meaning of the section using only one word (not) to misinform the reader. Curious as to when and how the article got changed I checked its history, found his edit, I went through his history of edits and he is blatantly advertising or being misleading toward products he sells. In fact a bot removed links to his personal website which I suspect sells these products. If someone could investigate this and take the appropriate action I'd appreciate it. Opensourcefuture (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing. He has been adding original research and probably-incorrect information to plant articles, with no sources, for almost a year. In my opinion, all his edits should be reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind I hadn't seen that he had been blocked after making additional changed to articles. Opensourcefuture (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Chckmtechmp138

Resolved
 – Not a conflict of interest. EdJohnston (talk)
Don't think this is the place (where's the conflict of interest?). Maybe WP:AN/WP:ANI, or just go ahead and AFD them all in one fell swoop if you believe they're non-notable? --aktsu (t / c) 19:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed; plus I don't see any issues even outside COI. Disused railway stations are generally viewed as notable, and while I think Chckmtechmp138 needs guidance on formatting, I can't see any reason to view these as problematic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cupsogue Pictures and related articles

He does need to be set straight about "buying favors from Wiki". However, is it quite right to have Cupsogue Pictures tagged for notability? It is in the IMDb. They've distributed two movies so far, have produced five, and seem to have a production schedule for three others. [48]. On the other hand, references don't seem to be Grahampitt's strength, and some of the external links to Cupsogue are outside WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Anybody can get any film they put together added to IMDB. That's no proof of notability. Considering this person's edits here, he probably is the one who got them added to IMDB as well. We need multiple instances of non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources attesting to the fact that this isn't just some guys shooting their own films. And based upon the COI activity all of those articles the publicist created should be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
IMDb...ouch. I assumed that because it is so commonly used, it's considered a solid Wiki reference. But I see from the IMDb FAQ this isn't necessarily so [49] and [50]. I read the IMDb Wiki discussion [51] and am now thoroughly puzzled how to treat IMDb external links. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd never heard of them before I saw them linked from the ambigram article, but I've never heard of most of the things on Wikipedia. They look like a relatively small independent film company, but notable enough for Wikipedia. Sean Bean and Bob Hoskins were in one of their movies. Don't remove a reasonable article because somebody who works for the company doesn't understand Wikipedia very well. I would leave them. RoyLeban (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no evidence that those two actors were in one of their movies... the COI account listed the now head of this independent company as a producer of a film those two actors were in, but he did that, not the person who created that article. That film has multiple producers listed here (before the COI edit) and on the IMDB page, but IMDB does not list him as a producer (or didn't when I checked, people can edit those page themselves, as pointed out above). The film in question was by a different company entirely. Bottom line here is that we need RELIABLE sources, and we know that the ONLY sources for any of this has been the publicist and claims made on their own website. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The future of the Cupsogue Pictures article is being considered at AfD. The CEO of Cupsogue Pictures is Gene Fallaize. He used to have a free-standing article but this is now a redirect to Cupsogue Pictures. Grahampitt also created Daniel Anscombe and Jamie Rae. The former article has been PRODded, and the latter might be considered for that also. Is there anything more to do? EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I thought I'd put my point across here as there appears to be more than one person that understands that although I may not know a lot about Wikipedia, that our company is still eligible for a page on Wikipedia. I'll be honest and say that all of my edits are in regards to my work, but I don't use Wikipedia outside of work, and had never even heard of it, but it is a small part of my job to ensure everything written is as correct as possible. Regarding the IMDb, I would take up this discussion with them directly, as contrary to your belief, not 'Anybody' can get a title on IMDb. I encourage you to submit one if you believe this, which will be rejected, as every title is checked and verified against industry records. Regarding Our CEO Gene Fallaize, he has, and always has been on the IMDb listing and credits for 'Outlaw' with Sean Bean and Bob Hoskins. All of his films are produced in association with 'Cupsogue Pictures'. In regards to the notability of the company, one of you above is correct that we have a full slate listed on IMDb, that were all announced at the trades last year. DVD's of our two most recent pictures will be released on Amazon.com in the coming weeks, our latest in-production starring Tobin Bell and Robert Carradine will be released worldwide in October, and we have secured lots of well-known screen talent for our other upcoming pictures. I know that it will be difficult for you to understand the film industry being outsiders (especially 'DreamGuy'), but it works different to any other industry with news that is kept inside the industry, so to try and share and prove this with you can be difficult. For example, Cupsogue Pictures is one of the most notable production companies in the western filmmaking industry due to it's unique mission statement, but trying to prove discussions within industry walls to you can be difficult, time consuming, and to be blunt, a bit of a waste of time trying to, all for an article that anyone can edit, and only occasionally gets contested by wikipedia editors - usually one that has a certain gripe against a user. I hold my hands up and say I'm not a wiki-genius, but I have no reason to edit other articles as I don't use wikipedia personally. I feel is is unfair to delete a users pages just because they don't use wikipedia all the time. Over the years we have had to verify our existence to multiple companies and organisations, including the IMDb, but the most controversial and uneasy to deal with so far has unfortunately been wikipedia, which we consider to be of least importance. Nothing against you or wikipedia, but this is rather too much hassle for an editable page on a website. As I've said previously, if you delete the Cupsogue Pictures page, then that is fine, but it will surely be restarted by someone else in the coming months, probably by fans of our released and upcoming pictures. Thank you for your time, and I hope you treat all users equally in the future, to prevent Wikipedia only being open to those within your regular 'accepted' editors group. Best Regards, Graham Pitt Grahampitt (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Amy Fisher

Article Amy Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AKA the "Long Island Lolita" is being edited by User Amy Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by removing her "mugshot" and replacing same with a "glamour photo" of herself,thereby attempting to provide a more positive representation of herself. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree there are COI issues, but I wonder if both images (glamor shot added by Fisher and mug shot) both could be included, as long as someone besides Fisher adds the glamor shot? If that's the case, then the only remaining issue would be which one goes in the infobox. Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The mugshot image is probably going to be deleted from Commons, as it's not a work of the US Government but rather that of the State of New York, so it's not "public domain". If we want an image, we may need to use the glamor shot (provided it's released under the proper license). --Versageek 03:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No comment on the editing but as far as I'm aware we encourage everyone, even the people themselves to contribute free photos. If there were other valid photos, then a discussion may be appropriate on which ones to use but since there aren't I don't see any COI issues. Ignoring the copyright issues, the use of mug shots particularly in BLPs is fairly controversial Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentals Of Stack Gas Dispersion

Resolved
 – No-one has objected to closing the COI discussion. EdJohnston (talk)

This article was mainly written by the author of the book Mbeychok. I have concerns about self-promotion and representation bias. Notability could also be an issue, but that is a minor concern compared to the other two. I won't get involved because I previously ran in Mbeychok and I don't feel like being the target of personal attacks yet again. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think notability is a problem: Google Scholar covers that nicely. I'm going to trim it down a bit and tag it for expansion and expert attention.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The scholar search appears to show that it's been cited once. There are not independent reliable sources about it, as far as I can see. I've tagged it for notability and coi. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Eh? I see 4 or 5 citations just on that first page, never mind the other 7...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The revisions from SoV makes the article acceptably neutral IMO. Notability might still be a concern, but whatever. There's bigger fish to fry than this, and this one might not even warrant the frying.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
This article looks OK to me. It could be made slightly more neutral, but it is already short and matter-of-fact. I'd suggest that we close the COI discussion, while still encouraging those who've worked on it so far to make it better if they can. The top item in this Google Scholar search shows that there are 63 other works that have cited the book. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiskeharrison

Resolved
 – The article Alexander Fiske-Harrison was kept at AfD; both articles seem to be improved; revert this closure if you see anything more that needs doing. EdJohnston (talk)

User in question is the subject of the biography article and the author/lead of the play. The first attempt at creating a biography was speedily deleted. He's also admitted on my talk page to asking someone else to create the play article for him after the first attempt was deleted for notability. He doesn't appear to see that cutting and pasting (what I feel) is marketing bumpf and using wikipedia as a photo host for his play's publicity photos are a problem. He's had COI warnings and has recreated his biography. I'm still not sure that a play with a small run in a tiny theatre is that notable (although my AFD failed - but then do we list everything reviewed for the Edinburgh fringe? - meh, off topic) Blowdart | talk 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Found little to no coverage of the subject so AFD'd the article. Listing is here. --aktsu (t / c) 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
An entry for a play most certain does not have to have photographs, those would be for a production rather than the play itself. Where do you get the idea that photographs are required in a wikipedia article? --Blowdart | talk 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually I'm not objecting to the play at all, it passed AFD. I am objecting to you using wikipedia as a marketing vehicle, but even that is not at question here. What is at question is your obvious COI issues and your creation of an autobiography. --Blowdart | talk 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting how you flagged a COI contribution of Fh's on The Pendulum page, then, rather than waiting for a discussion, merely removed the material at your own discretion.--Bigjimedge (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed that's how it works. WP:BOLD. When something is obvious to an editor they can edit or add or remove. I have to say I find it interesting that you're chipping in again, after having admitted you know the author and you both colluding on creating articles about him and his work. Be aware that [[WP:MEAT|meat puppets] are frowned upon, Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. --Blowdart | talk 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
So it is lucky I am neither related, a friend or a community member, but instead someone who met a person on a single occasion (as I have met, for example, David Frost or Margaret Thatcher - should I avoid commenting on them as well?). --Bigjimedge (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bola tangkas

Resolved
 – Article survived an AfD, still tagged for notability, some editors were blocked, does not seem to be anything more to do here. EdJohnston (talk)

Various accounts are trying to advertise an online version of this gambling game. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I took it to WP:RPP. If that doesn't work I'll keep an eye on the page and what links to it. Themfromspace (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Username has been indef blocked and the IP blocked for a month. Themfromspace (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I added to the header (above) the accounts that I found from a Whatlinkshere search on Bola tangkas. I note that the article was kept at AfD, and the problem is with the spamming more than the article itself. Still, if the article doesn't acquire references, it may not survive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nyoman Rudana/Museum Rudana

These articles;

have been primarily edited by

who edit nothing else, save linking these. A lot of the images uploaded should be reviewed with a critical eye. There are also some anons in the page histories doing about the same thing. The articles are notable enough, but really need culling of fawning promotion. And it seems quite likely the above users are in fact the same user. I've left talk page messages for them all; Noniq21 was active just an hour ago while the others are older. The same thing is happening on the id:wp versions of these articles, too; same user names, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Interest from an officer of Massey Energy in reworking the Massey Energy page

Resolved
 – Advice has been given, and there were no further comments here. EdJohnston (talk)

Please direct your attention to Talk:Massey Energy. Is the reworking of a page on a controversial coal mining interest kosher at WP? Can someone with expertise in WP's COI rules please respond there? Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment at Talk:Massey Energy by User:Jorfer seems correct. Massey should start their work on the Talk page and let other editors review the material that they propose to add. 04:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

University of Otago

IRL Abe Gray is/was spokesperson for Otago NORML.[52] There's been repeated attempts (diff, diff, diff) to put a promotional plug for Norml in the University of Otago article, the user contribs tie together very well, and show WP:SPA. XLerate (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the talk pages will show that XLerate has a strong aversion to unbiased, factual, referenced sentences about cannabis law reform at Otago University being included in a synopsis of the tradition of student protest at the University. Using claims of COI to influence the outcome of a content dispute is discouraged.139.80.33.95 (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kerrydouglas

Could someone take a look at what Kerrydouglas (talk · contribs) has been up to? This editor has been inserting a book into the further reading sections of a wide range of articles, perhaps inappropriately. Skomorokh 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know it's COI or not, but it's inappropriate to make an article on a book and then spam it across many articles. I reverted all those, and proposed the book article for deletion, as it has no evidence of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sensory Sweep Studios

More blanking of articles by employees of Sensory Sweep. There are currently editors that have the required citations raised by the last legit edit, but we're holding off until we can make changes without being immediately blanked.76.216.203.127 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicolai Shmatko

Can editors more experienced than I make sure that this article is maintained in an appropriate way? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the issue is that Rerter 2 (talk · contribs) has self-identified [53] as the author of the English bio [54] on the official Nicolai Shmatko website, and is showing signs of WP:OWN. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well put. I've been trying to help a bit and the editor in question has been reponsive on the article's talk page and has been cooperative, so I'm inclined to call this resolved and keep an eye out. In fact the editor has requested input on improvements. I asked for sources and a load were provided (Is there a Ukranian translator in the house?). So I'm okay generally with the article. I do wonder about the photo size and the way it's captioned in the photo itself? It seems promotional. Other than that I can live with the article as I'm a softee when editors are responsive, helpful and cooperative. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ian Gomm

Resolved
 – at least being handled, content removed, page protected and user warned by User:Redvers pablo ::  ... hablo ... 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User keeps adding word-for-word biography from Ian Gomm's website. Responded to its removal by replacing the biography, stating "I own the rights to iangomm.com so dont remove it again!!" I think that this is either a copyright violation, or a conflict of interest, or both, but I am unsure as to how to proceed. pablo ::  ... hablo ... 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:His1ojd and "Polite architecture" and a particular author's book

Here is the contribution history [55]. Basically, in looking into the Polite architecture article (which I've put to an AfD) I found the terminology and the same book inserted in the Vernacular architecture article and the Polite redirect that is now a disambig. I guess if the terminology is well established an argument could be made for some of the additions... ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Others have suggested this term has some kind of significance in British architecture. So maybe I'm way off base. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Off-base, I'd say. As I and others have said at the AFD, it's a real term in architecture, and the Brunskill book is a significant source (i.e. Brunskill coined the distinction, and is much-quoted in the context). Apart from the article needing expansion using more than a single source, I think nothing to see here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sensory Sweep Studios

Both of these users appear to work for Sensory Sweep and are scrubbing all mention of the company's current lawsuit from the Sensory Sweep Studios wiki entry on a minute by minute basis. While an original post wasn't very objective, many of the follow ups have been inline with the wiki standards, and properly cited. This should be a pretty obvious COI.76.216.203.127 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an obvious edit war going on here, and I've warned a couple of participants. However: the lawsuit which has been linked to in the past mentions the firm's founder but (at least in the title) not Sensory Sweep; so I think there may be BLP-type issues involved. (That doesn't justify NPOV violations and vandalism by blanking.)--Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just had to block another of these meatpuppets or sockpuppets, User:Poopski1998, who said, There are several of us that will keep deleting anything that goes up about the fooptube lawsuit on the Sensory Sweep page. Sensory Sweep is currently working with their attorneys to get this page taken down to once and for all get rid of this childish immaturity. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good block for NLT. I've commented over on the talk page regarding the section that's generating the blankings. ArakunemTalk 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Advertising?

Here [56]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, unquestionably. User listing his own book, which itself is comprised of his own personal experiences (by admission). In the absence of any substantive peer-review of the book, it is just self-promotional at this point. Edits have been reverted out by several others, with explanations given in edit summaries and on his talk page. Watching to see if he persists, but he's not re-added them in 2 days. ArakunemTalk 17:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Added user and article links to the header (above) and notified Jurgenz of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

International Sport Combat Federation

Resolved
 – It seems that the message got through. Aktsu's latest versions have not been reverted. EdJohnston (talk)

The IP is/was the president of ISCF/IKF, Steve Fossum (diff). --aktsu (t / c) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for disruptive editing (continuously inserting copyrighted material). Time will show if he'll be back. Didn't look like he grasped what he was doing wrong. --aktsu (t / c) 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking over his edits, it seems he didn't understand the COI and Copyright issues, and may have taken the impersonal tone of the template warnings the wrong way. I've left a rather detailed (but more personal) note on the IP's talk page explaining where he ran into problems and why, and how to edit so as to stay within policy and guidelines. ArakunemTalk 17:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaand, he's back. I reverted his insertion of the text and pointed him to his talk page in case he missed Arakunem's very helpful explanation. --aktsu (t / c) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 75.32.76.181 again, since he re-inserted the same copyvio text on 26 January, ignoring the helpful warnings left on his Talk by Arakunem. Somehow the comments that the IP left at User talk:Aktsu got deleted, and somebody might have considered responding to him there. Maybe IPs don't read their own Talk pages? EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:GothicChessInventor at the Ed Trice article

Resolved
 – No edits by Gothic since the block expired. Make a new request if problems recur. EdJohnston (talk)

Over the last couple of weeks, GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) (who is Ed Trice, by his own admission) has been making several non-trivial edits to the Ed Trice article (e.g. [57],[58],[59]), as well as constant badgering for what should and shouldn't be included in the article (see recent sections of Talk:Ed Trice). This has culminated in the latest set of wholesale reversions ([60],[61],[62]) under the guise of "correcting errors".

He has been warned about the COI policy countless times before (e.g. [63], [64], [65]) and has been reported at the COI noticeboard before. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If Oli_Filth was correct, I would agree with him. The items he is removing are relevant, and have been a part of the article for years. In fact, I reverted the article to a prior version OF HIS OWN, yet he objects to this. He has yet to explain why
1. My Gothic Chess rating, with hundreds of games (more than 300) is not relevant, yet my "chess rating" with hardly 100 games played over a 20 year spread, is relevant.
2. I have cited many references, including hardback textbooks my artificial intelligence research appears in, yet he tries to say it is not "notable". I helped solve the game of checkers, and the man who is given full credit for this even said so in a paper he published AND his website, yet HE feels that he can revise history and claim I was not involved in the project
3. He has repeatedly cited "Wikipedia Bylaws" at the end of a clause that he typed, and the two are not related. He acts like an attorney with no real knowledge of the law. In short, he is playing the "Oli said so" game, and more than one person has reverted some of his edits. You are a biased editor spending way too much time on an article that needs little to no revision.
4. I have only edited a few small words here and there that are TECHNICAL in nature, have a specific meaning in the domain of artificial intelligence. Otherwise, I merely reverted to a prior version that was correct in all manners of speaking. GothicChessInventor (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Both users should avoid going over 3RR. COI-affected editors should try to find consensus to support their edits. A large change like this one does not sound like "a few small words here and there that are TECHNICAL in nature." If Gothic believes his edits are 'correcting errors' please give an example of an error. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
EdJohnston Oli's been widdling at that article like it's cheese, mostly taking away stuff that belongs. In my opinion Oli acts like it's only his article. He's undone stuff I've added and still ain't given a reason why. I agree that it was fine before all of Oli's redoing and it looks better, reads better, and is better the way it was.
Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This really isn't the place to discuss article content. And you haven't "added stuff" to the article, only reverted other people's changes... Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 16:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me second Oli Filth's concerns. Ed Trice has no business editing his own biography except for WP:BLP related issues. Also, it is very suspicious that an editor with all of 30 edits is the only person supporting Trice here. Just to clarify (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked User:ChessHistorian for 3RR on he article. It seems entirely likely that CH is a sock (or a real-world friend?); probably O as well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And again: [66]. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28&oldid=1088686131"