Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Asia Society Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Connections Academy Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Fundbox Talk:Globe Life Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:Gregmark Records Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation Talk:JLL (company) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:List of sequence alignment software Talk:LPL Financial Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Operation Santa Claus Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pod Point Talk:Runner's World Talk:The Student Room Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Augusta Read Thomas

Bat Creek inscription and User:HuMcCulloch

Bat Creek inscription (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

User:HuMcCulloch is self identified as one of the sources used in Bat Creek inscription. He has removed content from a published expert on hoaxes (who is citing a peer reviewed study) that runs counter to the theories that User:HuMcCulloch espouses. What is the appropriate manner to deal with User:HuMcCulloch's conflict of interest? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to fairly tell the whole story, because the info you keep adding biases the lead by endorsing the hypothesis published in 2010 as if it were now (in less than 3 years) a universal and uncontested "truth". It is not; the hypothesis published in 2010 is still a hypothesis, many disagree with it or find it seriously wanting, and it should be presented as a hypothesis, not endorsed by wikipedia just because it's your personal favorite hypothesis. HuMcC also made it clear when he "removed" it, that the information would be more suitable the body of the article, and he invited you to place it there, just not in the Lede for an obvious bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me this is a content dispute (unless we broadly construe "i think this goes/doesn't go here" as COI) but looking at the back and forth (and I remind you all of WP:3RR), the paragraph in question along with the source should be included in the article, but it's placed and phrased in a way that appears to (attempt to?) discredit the entirety of the article. Good fringe/cryptozoology/archaeological mystery/etc articles follow a pattern of a brief, neutral point/counterpoint introduction, followed by more detailed analysis of sources in the body. That's not the case here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the Edit Summary for the indicated removal, "(Too detailed for lead paragraph, duplicates 2nd para. You may add Feder's opinion in section Recent Discussion if you like.)" I had previously announced my intention on the page's Talk page, in order to solicit informal discussion of the change there. According to WP:Lead, the lead paragraph should focus on what, where, when and who, leaving proposed interpretations for later paragraphs or the body. The removed opinion is already encompassed (though only in appropriate detail) in the second paragraph of the lead, making it redundant. I've invited User:TheRedPenOfDoom (or TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, as the user prefers to be known) to insert the opinion in question as a direct quote in the appropriate section, "Recent Discussion", where this POV is discussed in greater detail. HuMcCulloch (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The "what, where, when and who," about a fringe theory/hoax is the fact that it is a fringe theory/hoax - and to not present it as such in the lead paragraph is to completely violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BEGIN. "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But that is not really why we are here. We are here to gauge whether it is appropriate for User:HuMcCulloch to remove from the lead reliable sources that present views that run counter to the views that he has published. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Mr McCulloch, from the perspective of an outside (uninvolved) observer, it would seem your conflict of interest with regard to the subject at hand has been fairly well established. The fact that you, personally, are mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article (although said opening paragraph seems to be in dispute) makes you one of the subjects of the article, even if you aren't the primary subject. Editing the article itself would be (by most editors here) strongly discouraged. If fact the conflict of interest policy makes that very clear also. Under such circumstances, editors are generally encouraged to contribute to the talk page of the article only and not the article itself. As it stands, I think any editor would be well within their rights to add the {{COI}} template to the article, citing your contributions to date. This has the potential to be professionally embarrassing, which is not an ideal outcome under any circumstances. For a similar history, you might like to have a look at the article, talk page and user talk pages associated with Roza Bal. It shouldn't take you long to see the parallels. Can I strongly suggest you limit your activity with regard to the Bat Creek inscription article to it's talk page only, before editors are prompted to take (entirely appropriate) action to deal with the conflicted editing. This would certainly not prevent you from contributing your thoughts at the talk page, making suggestions, presenting your case or discussing the subject in general or in detail. But I suspect that your continuing to edit the article itself might eventually result in your being blocked or banned from editing in this particular subject area. Stalwart111 09:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I'll just say firstly that HuMcCulloch clearly does have a COI here, and that he & I both edit Franks Casket (an important but enigmatic Anglo-Saxon piece in the British Museum) where he also has a COI as holder of & publicist for a minority (but not really fringe) view about what some scenes represent - he has web pages about it. There I think his editing has been pretty neutral - his and other minority views are represented but not given excessive prominence imo. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If simply being "a holder of & publicist for" viewpoints is a COI, that could get into a slippery slope since the same could be said for a few other participants who may have web pages about the same topics they are interested in. I'm not an expert on this board but surely we wouldn't tell editors that if they edit a wikipedia article they are interested in, they are never allowed to publish any websites off of wikipedia about the same topic? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the distinction, Til, is that most people who blog about their topic-of-interest, or start a Facebook page about it, would never be cited as a reliable source. Here, the editor in question seems to be (accepted by consensus) a reliable source for the purposes of this subject. That changes the game a bit. Stalwart111 00:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Once you start quoting yourself as a source there is a COI. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Stalwart and Johnbod. However, the only reason a COI is an issue here is that I have always been open about who I am. I'm the author of McCulloch 1988 etc., and as such am relatively informed about the subject, unlike say User:TheRedPenOfDoom, who opened this discussion and who has repeatedly conflated Sequoyah (1821) with Cyrus Thomas (1894). If my user name were say "TMCoT, aka The Masked Crusader of Truth" or some such, there would be no issue.

With only a couple exceptions all the other editors on the page are pseudonymous, so there is no way of knowing whether they have a similar "COI". If I am to be banned from editing for my involvement with the topic, I would suggest that all pseudonymous editors likewise be banned, unless they affirm (honor system?) a list of who they are not on the page's talk page, and then refrain from editing material relating to all other sources. User:TheRedPenofDoom has already voluntarily affirmed on my talk page that he or she is not Mainfort or Kwas or Feder, but such an affirmation should be on the page's talk page where all editors can find it, not on a user talk page.

Note that my name was recently first added to the lead section (not the lead paragraph per Stalwart) by User:PiCo, who entered the discussion only through the NPOV noticeboard, and that my name was already in the body of the article, along with all my articles now cited, long before I became involved. Should informed authors who edit articles (and who identify themselves) be banned from being mentioned in the article by other users? HuMcCulloch (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be banned from being mentioned, and there's nothing they can do about it if others mention them. That said, despite the propensity for "writing" common between authors and WP editors, notable authors who also edit WP are (from my perspective) fairly few and far between. But for those who fit both categories, this is a conflict we have seen a few times (per the example I gave). It doesn't really matter if you are included in the "opening paragraph" (by whatever definition) or elsewhere in the article (or arguably even in the reflist) - you become one of the subjects of the article and the COI policy strongly suggests you shouldn't edit an article about yourself. I understand your comments about you being open about who you are - had you registered with even a less-obvious username, your conflict might not have been detected by other editors. However, had you done so and then later identified (after long-term editing of the article) as Mr McCulloch, there's a good chance it would have created even more drama. There are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of editors here with hidden conflicts that we will never be able to detect - commercial, cultural, social. It is one of the ongoing criticisms of WP. But for now, it is what it is and continuing to edit with a declared conflict won't have good results. Stalwart111 00:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been pondering this, and I keep coming back to the same issue: McCulloch is using his own article as a source, and all indications are that this article doesn't have significant scholarly traction. I cannot get away from the picture of him as a perhaps better read than most amateur with an interest in the field who is pushing a position which scholars doesn't accept. Mangoe (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Til mentions other editors with websites, and I'm guessing he means me. Yes, I have a website that has a lot of fringe archaeology - [[1]] - but it's a site that hosts material or links to material that others have written. Hu's site on the other hand is a site where the content it material that he's written. Not only that, but Hu's had several articles published. He is a major contributor of published material relevant to the topic - it's not just his website that gives him a COI. I don't think that having a website with links to other websites or even hosting some articles gives me a COI. Hu on the other hand has a clear COI and I've always been unhappy about his adding his own material to the article. I still think that in such cases the editor should suggest additions of their own material on the talk page, and the same should apply to any content changes that might be contentious. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is so cut-and-dried as some editors are making it out to be. First, being "a major contributor of published material relevant to the topic" is what we call "an expert", and being an expert is not a COI. The COI guideline explicitly permits experts to edit and explicitly permits people who have published relevant books, papers, articles, etc. to cite their own work (within reason).

I think that the path forward is not to push the expert out, but for everyone to take a step back and solve your content dispute through the normal content dispute channels, such as WP:Requests for comment or the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

We ultimately want, if possible, to have both a happy community and good content. Neither of those goals are going to be achieved by kicking an expert out of this article. You can all help improve matters by being moderate in your actions and comments. So let's have a little less removal of divergent ideas and a little more effort to describe them accurately as well as a little less comment about who is doing something and a little more more attention to what is being done and how each of you can improve the article's content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As we have been around too many times, his expertise is highly questioned. He is certainly not an academic in the field. Even then I would be very suspicious of a real academic pushing his own material in a controversial subject; I would not for instance take at face value the edits of John Crossan on the state of biblical textual studies. Mangoe (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Academic" is one of the latest buzzwords that people have been throwing around like it means something it doesn't. According to wiktionary, the English definition of "academic" as a noun is: 1) a disciple of Plato, 2) anyone attached to any institute of higher learning, or otherwise engaged in scholarly pursuits. Doesn't mention anything about a membership card, street cred, or litmus test. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Til, it's disingenuous to go through this definitionalism since you know perfectly well what we mean. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that we would ever accept a standard that anyone who studies a subject to any degree becomes an authority whose expertise is to be respected. I also see that M-W gives as first definition "a member of an institution of learning" so that "an academic in the field" would be someone in (say) the history department, not just anybody. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If I know exactly what you mean, it's only from the context in which the word is being used, because it is only quite recently indeed (on wikipedia in fact) that I started seeing it used in the context of some kind of elite status or club with ill-defined membership or membership qualifications. It seems to have replaced last year's word "scholar", after the attempt to redefine that word in the same way failed. But I know that you are looking for some word to mean what you want it to mean, as imaginary as that concept is. Maybe the closest thing was Soviet Academics, where only those who said what they were approved to say had a seat at the table. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My impression actually is that Soviet science was a lot more like what you want, where if someone's wild idea caught the fancy of the right politico, it was worked on at the expense of what the rest of the scientific community thought. Look, you're just talking around the problem right now. There's no standard that's any good in which we allow someone to promote his own ideas, using himself as a reference, when we can see quite plainly that his ideas have no traction with anyone who has actual credentials. We're never going to back down from that, and we should never back down from that. If you want to build Fortipedia, by all means go off and do it; it would be amusing. But not here. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Actual credentials". There you go again, man! I'm tellin' you, that's the Soviet Plan! They're the ones that tried to set up a Central Credentialing Authority Without Which Nothing is Credentialed. It broke down, over disagreement over which cat got to be the actual Authority. There's never really been anything like that internationally, although it makes a great fairy tale for junior wikipedians. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Returning to the point, I thought that's why Jimbo had made it poignantly clear at the foundation of this project that the "actual credentials" thing would never be an issue; that the neophyte and even kids could contribute content alongside the "experts". But it seems to be becoming an issue again lately. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Til, your comparing apples and seaweed. Jimbo was talking about who could edit. But he wasn't discussing conflict of interest as it applies to editing, and more importantly he wasn't talking about whose viewpoints should appear in an article and how much those viewpoints should be represented in an article, which is what the credentials issue is about. You seem to be suggesting that someone with a background in a non-related field should be given as much weight as someone in a related field. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what his background is in, I just know what he has published on it goes into great detail from different angles, and is referenced. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

He is an economist who is referencing himself. We've been around this, over and over, and I am failing to find other people other than credulous Fortean/fringe writers who us him as an authority. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, should have been clearer. What I meant to say is, I don't give a flying you know what what his original or additional background is in, as long as he's obviously done his homework. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As User:Whatamidoing has noted, the WP:Conflict of Interest policy states, "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" (Citing yourself). The issue, then, seems to be one of relevance and extent, not one of COI, and then only when I am adding to references to my own work. If I am citing others' work, it may or may not be relevant, balanced, etc, but it is not a COI per se. As I mentioned above, it was User:PiCo, not myself, who added my name to the lead section recently. I in fact eliminated the reference PiCo added there to my 1993 BAR article, since I felt it gave that article undue attention for the lead.

The COI guidelines are primarily concerned with financial interest. If this were an article about a privately owned artifact of questioned authenticity, the owner would have a clear financial COI. However, I have no financial stake in this Smithsonian-owned artifact. In fact, the Smithsonian Mound Survey made a point of requiring landowners to relinquish any claim to artifacts the Mound Survey teams found, expressly to eliminate any financial incentive for fraud. HuMcCulloch (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"The COI guidelines are primarily concerned with financial interest." -- The fact that there is an entire section (WP:SELFCITE, the one you just quoted) based on non-financial CoIs would seem to suggest otherwise. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If users think that PiCo's addition of my name to the lead section gives me undue attention, the first two sentences of the third paragraph could be changed to, "A 1988 article in Tennessee Anthropologist compared the letters of the inscription to both Paleo-Hebrew and Cherokee and concluded that the fit as Paleo-Hebrew was substantially better than Cherokee. It also reported a radiocarbon date on associated wood fragments consistent with Gordon's dating of the script." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuMcCulloch (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC) HuMcCulloch (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Even though this complaint has not yet been resolved on this noticeboard, the complainant, User:TheRedPenOfDoom has re-reverted the edit in question. His or her revision has re-introduced two instances of plain sloppy scholarship: 2010 is given as the date of Mainfot and Kwas (2004), and Mainfort and Kwas (1993) is given as the source of a direct quote from McCarter (1993). In violation of WP:NPOV, the complainant has stated as a fact that the inscription is not Cherokee. Although this happens to be my own contention (McCulloch 1988), authorities Thomas (1894) and McKusick (1979) disagree, so that Wikipedia's voice should not take my side on this issue. The complainant's revision has also crammed far more than is appropriate into the first paragraph of the lead section, thereby duplicating several points that are already made later in the lead section.

On March 13, I outlined these problems at length on the page's Talk page, and have even proposed several comprises that would allow the complainant's POV to be heard more forcefully, if not endorsed as Wikipedia's voice, in the lead and text. No one has objected to my proposed changes, so it seems appropriate for me to now make them.

However, on March 9, I was threatened here by User:Stalwart111 with dire consequences if I ever dared to edit the Bat Creek inscription page again. As this user put it, "Can I strongly suggest you limit your activity with regard to the Bat Creek inscription article to it's talk page only, before editors are prompted to take (entirely appropriate) action to deal with the conflicted editing. This would certainly not prevent you from contributing your thoughts at the talk page, making suggestions, presenting your case or discussing the subject in general or in detail. But I suspect that your continuing to edit the article itself might eventually result in your being blocked or banned from editing in this particular subject area."

Can I ask for some sort of official resolution of the complaint by [TheRedPenOfDoom], either endorsing or rejecting the above threat by [User:Stalwart111]? Who is supposed to make such a decision? HuMcCulloch (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I would agree with Stalwart that it would be best for you to limit your edits to making suggestions on the talk page, as is quite normal when there is a clear conflict of interest, as there is here. The current version of the lede seems to summarise the article very well.Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that a Wikipedia LEAD, a section with a concise summary of the article, is quite different from a journalist lede, an uninformative but catchy "hook" to capture the reader's attention: "The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (The news-journalism jargon term lede is sometimes used, but Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic ledes serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads."

In order for the lead to be concise, its first paragraph should not duplicate the remainder of the lead, as in the complainant's version of the lead. Nor should it give wrong dates, misattribute sources, or give an incorrect publication venue for a key article, as detailed in my 3/13 comment on the article's talk page.

So if I were say to give the correct date for Mainfort and Kwas (2004)'s announcement of their discovery of an illustration that is similar to the inscription in question, what would happen? Is there/will there be a fatwa barring me from any future editing on this page? On any topic on Wikipedia? Who hands down such a decree? HuMcCulloch (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem be be patently ignoring parts of WP:LEAD, except for your desire for "consise" which you wish to use to chop out or hide information. But to remind you yet again, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence. If the article is about a fictional character or place, say so." This article is about a faux artifact and that MUST be clear from the intro sentence. Additional information about its inauthenticity should then be expanded upon in more general manner in the rest of the lead. "summariz(ing) the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. ..(With) emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. " ie. It is a fake artifact. Claims have been made that it was A and B, but the scholarly consensus is that those claims were wrong.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• I feel it's probably worth pointing out that my commentary was not a threat, nor was it intended to be. I'm not an admin and would have no capacity to block you or take any other form of action, even if I wanted to. Even if I were, having commented here would make me thoroughly WP:INVOLVED so I still wouldn't. My commentary was simply my own reflection on what I've seen happen to a number of other editors in a similar situation to yours. You can heed my friendly warning or not, my commentary carries no more weight than anyone else's. More, "you probably shouldn't touch that electric fence" than "climb that fence and I'll shoot", though I don't begrudge you for missing the nuance in that distinction. More specifically (to borrow your metaphor) - there is no fatwa, but a self-imposed religious holiday might allow you to avoid unecessary drama. If the community (WP:CONSENSUS interpreted by an admin) is sufficiently concerned about the COI, they can impose a ban. Again, see Talk:Roza Bal. Stalwart111 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was reading your comment more like "climb that fence and one of us just might hurt you real bad." This leaves it ambiguous as to whether anything is going to happen at all, who is going to do the threatened harm, and just what form it might take -- perhaps an administrator will surely cut both my hands off, or perhaps a chorus of ordinary users will just call me names. But it seems to me that a "chilling effect" was surely intended. Meanwhile, however, User:Dougweller, an administrator who has edited the page in question and is very familiar with the topic, has made a responsive suggestion over on the Bat Creek inscription talk page so I'll take him up on his offer over there. HuMcCulloch (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the admonition "Editors should follow the guidance on Conflict of Interest or they will likely suffer the consequences of not following the COI" should have a "chilling effect" on people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Let the record show that over on the WP:Bat Creek inscription page, the complainant, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, also known as TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, has now backed down on one of the original points of contention, namely whether Mainfort and Kwas (2004) was published in 2010 or 2004. HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a court room, nor is it WP:DRN - the issue here (the only issue) is a potential or actual conflict of interest and whether or not something should be done about that. Typically, nothing much is actually decided here. Rather, it's a chance for editors to raise suspected conflicts and allow those with the suspected conflict to respond. It's also designed to allow conflicted editors to declare that conflict and seek assistance from non-conflicted editors in editing particular articles. So in this instance, a conflict has been raised and that conflict has been accepted by you (openly declared in fact). The question now is whether other editors believe that conflict has skewed (or has the potential to skew) your editing. Beyond that, what you do is up to you. If there is a strong feeling among the community that it has or might, others may recommend a course of action (as I did). You can either choose to heed that advice or not. If you choose not to, you continue to edit and editors raise further concerns, it's likely that would be done at WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U. Both of those venues are frequented by admins with the capacity to block/ban/topic-ban, etc. As for my comment; you can interpret it any way you chose - I've explain how it was intended and it is entirely consistent with what other editors have been told in the past. Stalwart111 04:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Jozef van Wissem

• Jozef van Wissem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jozefvanwissem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jozefboys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.42.67.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor claimed to be the subject of the article multiple times ([2] [3] [4]). I think he has a conflict of interest, and is using Wikipedia to promote his own interest at the expense of neutrality. 123.225.67.183 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

the subject states hereby that the wikipedia article on him is poorly sourced and contains multiple errors.Jozefvanwissem (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed today that there was an edit warring in the article, and the IP editor blindly reverting everybody and giving out warnings, so I also gave them a warning. No idea whose version is correct though.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter said that he/she gave them a warning, but he/she didn't give a warning to Jozefvanwissem. It is incomprehensible to me. 124.85.188.112 (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you already warned them and Galassi.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't warn them about the edit war. It's a different thing, and we are here to discuss a COI issue. 124.85.188.112 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We are here to resolve the dispute, even if that means proving that the subject of the article is correct and you are wrong. We do not prohibit people from correcting errors in our articles about them.

The disputed changes seem a bit odd to me. They include:

• whether the music label entry in the infobox should include Sony Music Entertainment Japan;
• whether Jozef is "one half of the duo Brethren of the Free Spirit along with James Blackshaw";
• whether Jozef is collaborating with Keiji Haino, Gary Lucas and Tetuzi Akiyama; and
• whether The Joy That Never Ends involved Jim Jarmusch as a collaborator or as a guest musician.

The middle two are sourced, but it's entirely possible that they are outdated, i.e., that we should say that Jozef formerly was one half of the duo and formerly collaborated with these people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically concerning Jarmusch, I do not know what is the difference between a collaborator and a guest musician. Does [5] somehow helps? This is a reliable source from 2011?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ymblanter, but the WNYC source doesn't help. We discuss whether Jeanne Madic is featuered on the album or not.

Either way, WhatamIdoing has proved that the changes are controversial. Although Jozefvanwissem/Jozefboys/24.42.67.83 is allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, controversial edits like this should be discussed on Talk:Jozef van Wissem as per WP:COIU. 122.17.92.54 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Still, I believe that Jozef van Wissem knows whether Jeanne Madic was featured on the album. The easies for us would be if he issues a statement about it somewhere, which could include an official website or a blog.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. 123.224.107.253 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not proven that the changes are or should be controversial; I have only asked for more information about the specific points.

Also, the facts do matter, because we can and should use our WP:Editorial discretion to omit information that we are cetain is outdated or incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No one said the facts don't matter. If you want to ask for more information about the specific points, then please join the discussion at Talk:Jozef van Wissem. This is not the place. FWIW, If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit (WP:COIU). 123.224.107.253 (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Who says that this dispute resolution noticeboard is not the place to resolve this dispute? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not the dispute resolution noticeboard. 123.224.107.253 (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Then pls take it there, I am afraid we are past all other steps, and the edit warring continues.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

DRN is not the only dispute resolution noticeboard. COIN, NORN, NPOVN, and others are also dispute resolution noticeboards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that people need to back down on this issue. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see the evidence that some of these older statements are still true. Perhaps we can compromise on language that says they were true without committing to a current status on some of these issues? Meet me at the article talk page for further discussion. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The "it's verifiable" group seems to believe that just because something was true five years ago, that it will be true throughout eternity. This really shouldn't be that difficult. It was true, and it is no longer true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Turks in the United Kingdom

• Turks in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michaeledmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Michaeledmond keeps removing content on behalf of a person or company. I have already warned him. Cncmaster's slave ^{(my master)} 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm honestly a bit more concerned about the content that he's adding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

P.Sheshadri

• P. Sheshadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tutturi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bettada Jeeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Atithi (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Munnudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BERU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• P.Sheshadri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is creating and adding to articles about subjects with which they are self-identified. Subjects appear notable, but articles are sparsely sourced and contain much original research and plot descriptions, and little in the way of encyclopedic content, which gives the impression that they're promotional. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Much of the recently added content consisted of plot descriptions copied from the director's website. I've removed as much as I could find. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a clear-cut case of narrow self interest and/or promotion, and I think some articles P.Sheshadri created are unambiguous advertising or promotion. 122.26.208.37 (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

• Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Januarythe18th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Danh108 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Jan18th acts like he owns the article and reverts even reasonable edits if they don't follow his POV.
   1. Musslewhite reference adjustment
   2. DJ Reference
   3. cherry picking references, hypocrisy
2. Jan18th inserts sensationalised account of domain name dispute omitting the name of the respondent. It was an intellectual property dispute as to whether “Brahma Kumaris” was a trademark, and therefore BKWSU would also own the domain name registered by the Respondent. The BKWSU was unsuccessful.
3. Jan18th makes description of brahmakumaris.info sound promotional, "An independent resource accurately documenting the beliefs and lifestyle of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, including many of its channeled messages."
4. Jan18th reverts this edit and 7 minutes later notifies me it is a "personal attack". This is consistent with the view January 18th has a close connection with the advocacy group brahmakumaris.info and it's leader/the Respondent. His objection is that the Respondent to the domain name dispute is non notable. The fact that January 18th perceives this as a personal attack exposes the personal connection between January 18th, and the Respondent's Advocacy group i.e. a neutral statement is taken personally, because there is a conflict of interest being concealed.
5. Strange interaction between J18 and Riveros11 on main article page and talk page. There seems to be some bad blood between them here with a lot of conversation being deleted by Jan18th. It looks very similar to the dispute between the two main editors involved in the article arbitration case. Vecrumba notes that both editors should not be editing as per COI.
6. Jan18th also represented himself as a BKWSU editor when he first started editing under Jan18th, and used a writing style that appeared to have limited English language skills. In the fact pattern that is emerging, it appears this may have been a strategy to conceal his conflict of interest. The account has now evolved into labelling most other editors as BKWSU ‘adherents’ or ‘followers’, and has even corrected my use of the apostrophe, one of the hardest things to grasp in the English language. This auto-assumption about other editors and slightly aggressive style is the same as on the website brahmakumaris.info. In summary, January 18th intentionally sort to misrepresent his identity, and now that he has slowly taken over/full control of the page, has now dispensed with this subterfuge.
7. January 18th unilaterally deleted tags re conflict of interest and cherry picking without addressing the concerns.
8. January 18th has been disruptive on other pages: Meditation, Meditation(2), Licorise.
9. Another editor has complained of off-wiki attacks. The discussions in the latter hyperlink also makes direct references of a personal association between January 18th and the Advocacy group brahmakumaris.info, and at no time does January 18th ever refute the suggestion. Rather January 18th makes posts which reveal intimate knowledge of the dispute. There also appears to be some level of personal associate between these two editors.

Kind Regards, Danh108 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

From his userpage, Danh108 (talk · contribs · logs) states he is a long term adherent of the Brahma Kumaris religion, and has referred to himself as a "sevadhari" (servant). This COI notice is merely a disingenuous personal attack with the intention of repeatedly outing another editor.

Any unsubstantiated claimed and references to non-notable private individuals should be oversighted. [6], [7], [8], [9]

Danh108 is new SPA with little prior procedural experience or guidelines. Consequently, I am forced to question if, for this fully formed complaint to suddenly arise with details going back years, whether this is not just yet another in a long series of WP:TAGTEAM efforts on behalf of Brahma Kumari editors. As he makes no reference to his adherence in this complaint, it would seem the COI is on his side.

If it is a content dispute, then other avenues should have been explore before bringing this. I have previously encouraged him to gain more experience on uninvolved topics where he has no contentious vested interest.

(* Please note when I use the term cult I am using in the academic sense of the word as the movement is neither a sect nor a fuly established religion.) Thanks. --Januarythe18th (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's inappropriate to respond to January 18th's comments above prior to Wiki admin getting involved. However I note that the majority of the response above continues the strategy of making false claims about me, rather than actually addressing the concerns I have raised or giving any plausible alternative explanation. The lack of any hyperlinks/evidence is because there is no substance, just empty allegations. I am no ones servant, nor an adherent to any cult, nor do I even find many of the BKWSU beliefs that scientifically plausible. I have openly stated my circumstances on my user page before I started editing.

My profession makes reading background material/archives and filing reports like this fairly straight forward for me. I also questioned January 18th about some of the things I was reading in the history archives back on January 20th. Where I lack competency is knowing where/how to complain about problem editors, how to make hyperlinks, where to place brackets, and as January 18th points out, how to indent properly etc. It is embarrassing how long it's taken me to act on this problem and how much of my weekend was spent assembling this.

There has been substantial discussion with January 18th and I advised I felt we had reached a dead end, with all my edits being reverted within hours, including my COI tag. If anything I felt there was no choice but to get some administrative support. Probably some regard should be given to January 18th's incredible dedication in monitoring any minute change to the page, however by studying some of the history I think the real reason for that has now been exposed. It's not an identity being exposed, it's a conflict of interest.

Regards Danh108 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading January 18th's latest post on my talk page, the penny has just dropped that I think I flushed out more than I realised. This post gives me the impression of an admission not only of a massive conflict and years of deceiving Wiki, but as an admission of actual identity. I really appreciate January 18th coming clean about this. However the alleged outing was not intended, but a bi-product of the COI case. Had the situation not been concealed and people been more open, this would not have happened. I have amended references in my above explanation to "the Respondent", albeit that January 18th has himself posted the reference material that names the Respondent that was crucial in joining up some dots in my research.

Kind Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're jumping to conclusions here Danh. You're a new user. I've drawn your attention to various policies before and suggest way for you to develop your editing skills and the topic in question.

You were clearly involved in using this forum to out and discredit someone you consider to be a critic of your religion. You still are. I drew your attention to that. Policy in such matters is clear WP:OUTING. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Advice: The two of you should calm down and stop attacking each other. It's time for both of you to WP:WALK for a while. I've reviewed the article and made some adjustments and I think it's in pretty good shape right now. Certainly, other seasoned editors should take a look at it as well. But you two need to stop your WP:EDITWAR and back off this article--and back off from each other. Serving as a referee between you two will soon become tedious for any admins who become involved, and blocks may ensue. Thank you for your patience. Qworty (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Qworty. I was really hoping an editor/admin would see this and have time to look at the evidence and links above and give feedback based on that. I haven't been edit warring and have only really been active for about the last 7 days after 6 weeks without even looking at Wiki - so I don't find the comments made accurately reflect on the situation. I certainly don't agree that the article is in good shape. How can an article with such an overblown and poorly referenced "criticism" section, and a sensationalised and creative interpretation of a primary source (domain name dispute), possibly not be unduly weighted? Any attempts by me to clean these up simply get reverted.

Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

PS - for the sake of clarity, I like January 18th and find him to be a very intelligent editor. Plenty of his edits and our discussions have made me both laugh and smile. I never expected the evidence above linking January 18th to the Advocacy group brahmakumaris.info would result in him making accusations of 'outing'. I went fishing and stumbled across evidence January 18th was closely associated to the Advocacy group brahmakumaris.info because he wouldn't let me edit the page but I never knew he was the leader of that group/owner of that page. I would have thought that means he should not be editing the page at all, let alone being dedicated to making the Wiki page look just like his website.

I apologise for any shortcomings in my response regarding Qworty's advice - I also never expected someone to give advice without even looking at the issue of conflict raised, and then to tell me to start my own website if I wanted to run a promotion - that is exactly my complaint against January 18th! Bit of a let down for a new editor to get that kind of response. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Joe Terranova

Joe Terranova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Article heavily edited by subject. I have done some despamming and recommended that the subject use the talk page to discudd, advice that has so far gone unheeded.--ukexpat (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Their edits are certainly problematic as they are adding copyrighted and promotional material. I can't seem to find a single neutral version of the article since it was created by the single purpose account interglobal (talk · contribs). Looking around, I'm not even sure whether the subject is notable - I certainly can't find any articles about him in high-quality newspapers. I think we'd be best off stubbing it to the bare facts and keeping a watch on it from now on to ensure it remains neutral. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with stubbing. Good solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agonism

• Agonism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TracedInAir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user appears to have a preoccupation with getting a name check for a particular academic. Virtually every source cited is by this academic at the website http://academia.edu/ .--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The article in question actually removed any suspected "name dropping" prior to this entry, although the article retains the relevant reference, which is properly included and conforms with standard policy on Wikipedia. TracedInAir (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not any one particular article, but the entire edit history causing the problem here. It is largely a heap of spam mentioning the works of one particular academic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And all these edits have been entirely relevant to the discussions in which they take place and add to the content of the Wikipedia entry, as is the purpose of this website after all. You do not have a valid point here whatsoever. So what if I made some edits in a short period of time? I felt compelled to make a contribution and in each instance I have added context and proper citation. The bigger and more important question here is why have you taken my contributions as your own personal crusade, which suggests you have some kind of conflict of interest with "one particular academic" more than anything else. But beyond this, to suggest my entries have only mentioned "one particular academic" is disingenuous, as clearly I have included the works of more than just one academic when and where relevant in the edits I have made. TracedInAir (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have let this go if the name dropping had been restricted to two or three articles. However, there has been such a spree of mentioning the works of this academic that there is a clear probability of conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The is pretty obvious WP:BOOKSPAM - the mass addition of links to Springer's articles to the 'Further reading' section and trying to weave in references to Springer in every single article. Perhaps the most telling example is the edits to Discourse where IP 154.20.33.119 (either the same person as TracedInAir or an accomplice) added a paragraph on Foucault's analysis of dicourse, which had a little plug for Springer tagged at the end. I removed the part mentioning Springer. IP returned to restore the reference. If they are concerned with improving the page, why should it matter who is mentioned as the contemporary theorist? The fact that this is repeated across a number of pages (some of which aren't even directed relevant to the subect) suggests that the intent is to bring attention to the author. -SFK2 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simply not true on many levels. To suggest "some of which aren't even directed relevant to the subject" shows a clear ignorance of the substantive content of the concepts you are editing, perhaps if you followed the links and read the articles that are being referenced you could stand to actually learn something... which in itself is a testament to the importance of their inclusion. Also to suggest that any time a theorist's name is mentioned it is a "conflict of interest" or a "little plug" strains your credibility. It is actually called proper citation within academia, but perhaps Wikipedia marches to its own drum. Your contradiction here is so glaringly obvious it almost hurts. In the entry on Discourse for example you delete the passage "Simon Springer in particular has attempted to bring greater conceptual clarity to how neoliberalim might be understood through a Foucauldian notion of discourse" but you leave in place "Chris Weedon, one of the best known scholars working in the feminist poststructuralist tradition". The latter is much more of a plug in terms of highlighting the ostensible importance or preeminence of a scholar, while the former is merely citing the work one particular scholar has done which is of primary relevance to the discussion at hand. The clear conflict of interest here is SFK2 and ianmacm, who evidently have some sort of grude against Springer and don't want to see his work mentioned. Otherwise, why are you deleting references to his work that exist in entries like WikiLeaks that predate my own edit, which was done merely to clean up the citation? TracedInAir (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unconvincing. Editing Wikipedia articles is about more than adding links to the work of the same author over and over again. It is unsurprising that this has been flagged as WP:BOOKSPAM by several editors. Wikipedia is not a blog or vanity publisher.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that I have reported this user at WP:AN3 based on this edit[10] after this warning[11]. I hope that's OK. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these edits are problematic. Whether TracedInAir is Springer is irrelevant, but it is very unusual for a new editor to come along and only add references written by one author across such a range of articles. It is only natural that we should question why someone would do so. As for TracedInAir accusing ianmacm and SFK2 of having a COI, that is completely ludicrous and makes me more suspicious than I was before. I'm surprised no one has linked WP:REFSPAM already - it is a more relevant part of the policy than WP:BOOKSPAM. I'll try and explain things to them from our POV. SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This AfD discussion [12] sheds tremendous light on this issue. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That was created by Simon Springer (talk · contribs). There are also 24.108.200.198 (talk · contribs) and 203.173.148.108 (talk · contribs) who showed a similar editing pattern to TracedInAir (I found these here and using WP:WIKIBLAME.) I'm not sure this was all malicious, but regardless, early-career researchers shouldn't be referencing their own papers due to WP:OR. SmartSE (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

218.186.12.249 (talk · contribs) too (in April 2010). I'm working to clean up what I can. SmartSE (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

203.109.209.43 (talk · contribs) as well. I think we've cleaned everything up though now. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

And by "cleaning up" you mean targeted vandalism by going through and erasing any and every mention of Springer and his work despite the relevance and obvious contribution of this work to the themes and entries in question. How fascinating that you have such extensive knowledge of all the areas in which he works to make such sweeping judgements. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Oh but wait, he's just some "lesser academic", so who cares right? Grab the pitchforks and charge full steam ahead! This is the modern day equivalent of a bonafide witch hunt. Well done! My question though, is when do we start going through and deleting references to all those other "lesser academics" who are mentioned in various articles across Wikipedia? After all, it would seem that one has to be Michel Foucault, David Harvey or Judith Butler to be worthy of inclusion lest the "senior editors" rise up and strike down those who dare to recognize that valuable contributions are often made by newer academics and even by noobs to Wikipedia. It never ceases to amaze me just how much people get off on bullying. Hope you're satisfied now that you've cleansed this website from the terrible threat that any mention of Springer posed to the happy Wikipedia community! Better hope his career goes in the tank too, because otherwise you might be faced with the prospect of users other than myself including mention of him too and that would keep you really busy burning books, er, I mean deleting edits. TracedInAir (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. Your gross hyperbole and sarcasm does not hide the fact that you've ignored multiple warnings regarding WP:COI, WP:REFSPAM and WP:BOOKSPAM. We can explain it again if you wish. But if you insist on playing the victim, then I think we're done here. -SFK2 (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if it makes you feel better to dismiss legitimate concerns as "hyperbole" then so be it. This has so obviously turned into a crusade it actually makes my head spin. I can play the same as you too though... I suggest you and your friends read WP:VANDAL, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:EQ, WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:GAME. There, now I feel a glowing sense of puffed up self-importance too! Part of the problem here is the whole "consensus" mentality that exists on Wikipedia, so it is the ultimate in irony that this all came up in the entry on Agonism, which as a concept is all about the importance of dissensus (no such entry on Wikipedia! Go figure! lol) and the notion that all individuals are presupposed as equals and treated as legitimate claimants to public considerations. Dissensus is absolutely essential for democratic practice and functioning, where systems that rely exclusively on consensus are actually representative of the tyranny of the majority. But then again, I don't expect that you and your team know anything about agonism or any of the other topics that you have deleted Springer from, because if you actually did you wouldn't have engaged in the rampant acts of vandalism that you have committed. TracedInAir (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the deal. I'm totally uninvolved. You're wrong. You BOOKSPAMmed. Too bad. If you feel these people have violated the policies you linked, go to WP:ANI and make a report. And while you're at it, prepare for an indefinite block, because that's all that will come out of a report there. We don't operate on "democratic practice", we operate on consensus. Right now, consensus is against you. Either stop and accept it, or leave. Also, you saying these users have committed "rampant acts of vandalism" is a WP:PA and a WP:CIVIL violation. gwickwire^talk_editing 15:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... if you say I "BOOKSPAMmed" that is somehow a totally legitimate comment, but if I say someone else engaged in vandalism then that is a "personal attack"? The contradictions just get deeper and deeper. Here I am thinking both comments are opinions. I suppose the difference is that where as I've been quite willing to try and learn as I go and modify my edits to meet with website policies, the editors that have come out to greet me so warmly have made it a personal campaign to annihilate any and all references to Springer on this entire website, despite the clear relevance and appropriateness of his inclusion in most of the entries where reference to him has appeared. So yes, I see very clearly that you work not on democracy, but consensus (i.e., tyranny of the majority). What a great system! TracedInAir (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a personal attack because you know it's blatantly wrong. If you have an issue with this, go to WP:ANI. If not, or if you're too worried that you will get blocked (which you will if you go to ANI), then drop it. I said you bookspammed. You bookspammed. You called other users vandals, which they aren't. You can't do that. You haven't been willing to learn, you continue to try to make your bookspam okay, when it's not. If you don't like the system, leave. gwickwire^talk_editing 16:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Another brilliant response where you position yourself as the voice of god. "I said you bookspammed. You bookspammed. You called other users vandals, which they aren't. You can't do that." I mean honestly, do you actually hear yourself? Do you seriously not recognize the contradiction? You think it is ok to state as a matter of fact what you think I know? When did you get inside my head and become me? Good grief. TracedInAir (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I say you know that nobody vandalized but you, because I assume that you are a smart, sane individual. If you can't see that you are in the wrong here, then you shouldn't be editing. You added an author to pages it isn't even related to (or only remotely), which is the definition of "bookspamming". You apparently cannot see that. If you continue on this path I will ask for you to be blocked for obvious COI and refusal to hear when you're told you're violating policies. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I added anything that "isn't even related to (or only remotely)" the entries demonstrates your clear, profound and utter ignorance of the topics in question. Each of the edits I made inserts an article that has a clear and relevant linkage to the discussion, so the inclusion of the author is most definitely warranted. Simply because you don't recognize that connection yourself doesn't make it any less true. I assume that you are a smart, sane individual and can admit when you don't have even so much as a working knowledge of these topics, whereas in contrast, I actually do and was attempting to make meaningful contributions. Deleting these additions constitutes blanking vandalism precisely because my edits attempted to make a meaningful contribution to the entries on the basis of good faith and the deletions were made without explanation other than an assumed COI. So much for good faith! I have admitted that initially I inserted mere citations in the "further reading" sections. I didn't know any better as a noob. Other editors warned me that this was wrong, and so I went back and added paragraph descriptions of what the actual contribution was, cited additional authors to add content and description, and spent significant time and energy to demonstrate the relevance and improve the entry. In other words, I tried to make good, I really did. But to no avail, I was immediately pegged as a "bookspammer" and good faith was most certainly not extended to me. Instead, I was pounced on and persecuted, which kicked off an "edit war", which again I had no knowledge of what such a thing even was as a newcomer. This was followed by a campaign to purge any mention of Springer from this website through multiple acts of vandalism (again unexplained deletions) that for some bizarre reason is being tolerated. All the hard work I put in to adding paragraphs of text was wiped out or selectively edited to keep the other authors I cited and only delete Springer. If it looks like a witch hunt, swims like a witch hunt, and quacks like a witch hunt, well then... Also, your instance that I'm a bookspammer is insulting and ill-informed, so again I will refer you here WP:BITE and ask you to stop using this term to describe me as I interpret it as a personal attack. Thank you. TracedInAir (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Report me if you wish, but I'll refer you to WP:BOOMERANG in which you will be blocked for continued WP:IDHT after being told you bookspammed. You added the same author to multiple different articles. That's almost your only contributions that I can find. You are spamming that author in. If you were constructively adding things, you would've added multiple authors, or only one article. But no, you massively spammed this author into many many pages. It's being tolerated (the removals) because you are in the wrong. I personally have a strong belief now that you may in fact be Springer or related to (PR person, coworker, endearing fan, etc.) Springer. If not, you would've dropped this by now. The WP:CONSENSUS is against you here. Drop the stick and back away, and go back to improving the encyclopedia, all of us. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Careful now, you're engaging in what can be considered an attempt at outing WP:OUTING, which is strictly forbidden by this community. Yes I am a fan of Springer's work and a great many other geographers as well. I saw value in adding some of this insight into the articles I edited. My bad for the way I initially went about this, but again, I tried to make good but wasn't given the chance. Also, do you think it is only non-fans editing the Justin Bieber entry? Or non-Christians editing the Jesus Christ entry? Your suspicions are irrelevant. Most people edit where their interests are. I'm not going to start editing the quantum physics entry, because it is not in my interest. So I suggest you knock it off with the speculation, which seems to me to be a pretty serious violation of the rules around here. In addition, I don't have to bow or concede anything to you so quit thinking of yourself as somehow above me. You're not. Want me to shut up? Stop posting your personal attacks here W:NPA and I'll gladly drop it. I defend my actions because my only "crime" was a desire to contribute and a lack of experience with how to actually do that in a way that was acceptable to the community. You're insistence that I was acting in bad faith is what is so offensive, because I was actually acting in good faith. If you feel you need to attempt to have me banned, then go for it. What have I got to lose? Any edit I ever make from here on out will just be deleted anyway so I could really care less. TracedInAir (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that the correct expression is I couldn't really care less, what you have written above doesn't mean what you intend it to mean.[13] CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, you can defend your actions, but I'll be asking for an administrator to block you because you aren't listening and you aren't here to collaborate. By the way, no outing going on here. I just said there's a strong possibility you are related to this person, which is even more likely now that you've continued like this. If I were you, I would just drop the stick and back away, and go edit something different. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

BP

• BP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a discussion, if the drafts prepared by editor who has declared his COI and have been posted for reviewing/editing at the article's talk page, should be considered as as unpublished primary sources or not. Interpretation of WP:COI and WP:PSTS is needed. Please feel free to comment at the BP's talk page. Beagel (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This topic needs many more eyes. The more the better. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Barber

• Sir Michael Barber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 195.47.223.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP 195.47.223.5, which is registered to Pearson plc has been editing the article on their adviser Sir Michael Barber, as well as other articles relating to Pearson (and articles on a variety of unrelated topics). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Could I have a response on this one please? If just to say that my request is badly formed? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

LisaMoughans and Nexans

Hi, all, I'd like to report an issue with User:Lmoughannexans and the article Nexans. This user, presumably the Nexans employee Lisa Moughan (as a quick check of the page history shows, she also has used the accounts User:LisaMoughan and User:Lmoughan), has been adding some seriously spammy stuff to the Nexans article, and reverting others when they try to remove the cruft. I decided to take it here instead of getting involved in an edit war or anything. Admittedly, I haven't tried talk page discussion, so this report might be premature, but I don't think that will be particularly effective in this case. Nevertheless, I'll try if y'all consider it a prerequisite to a report on this board. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Spammy indeed and a copyvio to boot. I have reverted their edits today and shall keep watch. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Direct COI representatives to talk pages: disclosure and review

Hi folks,

If you've been following the controversy surrounding Arturo at BP's proposing talk page drafts at the BP article, you'll note there's a lot of discussion about COI. I originally explained that I had connected Arturo to an active editor at the article, Rangoon 11 through OTRS, but I was mixing up prior work I had done. Arturo didn't write in to OTRS and I didn't put him in contact with Rangoon, who became more controversial over 2012 editing debates.

In another situation I was asked, this time through OTRS to provide guidance to a government representative from the U.S. Government at NDAA 2012. I made a disclosure on the talk page about this originating from OTRS and had the gov representative also make a COI disclsoure on the talk page as well. After that an active talk page editor Darouet engaged with this representative and they came to some consensus about appropriate changes.

Concerns have been raised that there is some kind of "pipeline" wherein an ticket from OTRS or from other sources will direct a COI representative to the talk page where they will link up with an editor who will implement their changes by proxy.

My question is, what kinds of COI disclosures are required from us, as we provide guidance to these COI folks. Noting that I tell them to stick to the talk page, of course. But still, there are concerns that this process is somehow putting COI reps in touch with active but biased Wikipedians at the article. How do we remove that perception of impropriety?

Specifically, if you lead a COI rep to a talk page, and someone responds to their suggestions, is our role done? How do we make clear that we are not blessing the COI reps' suggestions or facilitating some biased process?

This is important to resolve, for me at least, as I frequently provide guidance to folks with COI and want to avoid the appearance of something untowards going on and want to make our review processes more robust so that inadvertent bias doesn't creep in to the article.

Best,

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi, the key point is that when dealing with article subjects via OTRS, you are dealing with sources. Journalists never allow sources to write their articles, or to suggest language for their articles. If they quote a source's words, they put it in quotation marks, or make clear in some other way who the source is. I know Wikipedia is not a news organization, but journalists follow that rule for very good reasons, and those reasons apply to us too.

So how to disclose these relationships is only part of the problem. The first issue is that they are being handled poorly. Sources should never be encouraged to write articles or parts of articles, directly or by proxy. (Note: I'm excluding from this a borderline notable BLP asking us to make clear that X. What's inappropriate here is that multinationals and governments are being treated as though they are Joe Blow with a personal problem.)

I looked at Talk:National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 after seeing Petra ask you about it, and saw a post from you saying: "I've been asked in my capacity as an WP:OTRS volunteer to address some specific readers' criticisms about this article. Over the next few days and possibly weeks I'll be working with those readers to help them express their views and to navigate our policies." [14] Later you again referred to these people as "The Readers: "I just had a nice long chat with The Readers. At this point they're not comfortable editing themselves ..." [15]

I take it from what you've written above that "The Readers" were a branch of the American government. Can you clarify what happened here? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all: Ocaasi has written on my talk page to let me know that there is a discussion here on his editing of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, also writing that he'd like to give me the opportunity to respond if I see that necessary. I'll write below what happened, as I best remember it. I first read about the NDAA 2012 legislation while it was being drafted, and was concerned about it, and surprised to see that wikipedia had no article on it. So I wrote the first draft and was heavily involved in the article for some time afterwards. The article received a lot of traffic because of the understandable controversy that emerged over the legislation, and some of that was reflected in editing of the article. At some point, Ocaasi posted on the talk pages of the article, writing that he had been contacted by someone (later User:Quirin42) who didn't want to edit directly, and had a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, Ocaasi obliquely suggested, but did not directly state that the party he was bringing to the talk pages was someone affiliated with and working for the American government. Ocaasi did make it clear that he did not necessarily endorse their views. When Quirin42 began editing, he made it clear he was working for the American government.

Ocaasi responded very politely to all inquiries and collated a very impressive list of sources, and I engaged with the editor, Quirin42, on the talk pages. At one point I was willing to make a compromise with Quirin42 that I wasn't very comfortable with, at which point Ocaasi intervened and stated that all changes would need to be rigorously backed by sources. At that point asked another editor whom I very much trust, Thucydides411, for his opinion, and he wrote that Quirin42's proposed changes obscured the effect of the legislation and contradicted most available sources. At that point, Quirin42 stopped contributing.

So, I certainly never worked for Ocaasi, and in the end I think he acted according to wikipedia's policies, by demanding that all statements be rigorously sourced and therefore verifiable. I do wish it had been a little clearer, for me and from the very beginning, that Quirin42 was working for the government. Also, though Ocaasi didn't represent Quirin42's position and explicitly stated this, as a slightly greener editor at that time this wasn't wholly clear to me, and I was embarrassed to feel obliged to change the article for Quirin42. I'm thankful to Ocaasi and Thucydides411 for preventing that, and teaching me something.

Note that I'm also posted this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ocaasi#Declaring_COI. Thanks! -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies Darouet if it wasn't absolutely clear that Quirin was from the U.S. Government. I thought that his COI declaration suggested that. Indeed it was the case. I think you did a good job of engaging with a COI editor and am glad you learned from the experience.

Slim, "The readers" was a term I used before Quirin made a COI declaration on the article talk page. He was a representative from the U.S. government. I helped him summarize some criticisms and then assisted him to discuss proposed changes with other editors. In the end, the only changes which were made would have been those that represented the views of published reliable sources with due weight, and which gained consensus on the talk page. I believe although the COI disclosure could have been more robust (something I'll work on in the future), that this still represents best practice for dealing with COI editors, as expressed in WP:COI, and also quite clearly affirmed by Jimbo this week.

Slim, I'm also waiting to see the results of the WT:COI discussion about COI representatives proposing drafts. I will defer to the consensus in that discussion for how to best handle future cases. I hear your position, but I'm not sure it represents a consensus. In fact, it appears that it might be going against what is considered best practice at the moment. COI representatives aren't ghostwriting articles, they're making suggestions which need review. I am interested in making that review process more robust and would like to continue working on that, where you input is welcome.

I have also asked for feedback from the OTRS team for how to handle these situations better. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I put in the ec note before even trying to save this - the edits are going fast and furious. Slim's links to your discussions look pretty scary, "slippery slope" comes to mind. I don't see any special reason to help put large organizations' welfare over the regular editor's welfare. Why not just help you basic individual editor instead? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Darouet, that's very helpful. Ocaasi wrote that he had put whoever contacted OTRS in touch with you. Is that correct?

The reason I'm asking, and the thing I'm concerned about, is that it seems OTRS volunteers are being persuaded to allow governments and multinationals to rewrite articles, either directly or by suggesting language. And that they may be putting those organizations in direct contact with editors who they believe will not say no. This stands to reason: if you want to help someone you are not going to introduce him to an editor who will raise objections. But in these cases, objections would be the most appropriate response.

If that didn't happen in this case, because people realized that the government's changes would have contradicted most of the sources, that's good. I'm really glad to hear that. But the approach should not have been handled that way in the first place; volunteer editors should not be put in that position. Elsewhere we've seen at least one multinational rewrite large sections of the article about itself in exactly that way. So I think we do need to pin down this issue of how to keep sources (article subjects) at arm's length, except for the usual BLP exceptions. We do want to be told "this is factually incorrect, please fix it, and here's a source." We don't want to be told: "And here are thousands of words of the language we want you to use." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)