Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:32, 21 March 2007

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(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 Draft talk:Abdulla Al Nuaimi Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Monica Behan Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Shmuley Boteach Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Eric Gallager Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Global Citizen Awards Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Greystar Talk:Harsco Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Jats Talk:Christian Kälin Talk:Elham Kashefi Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Lucy Komisar Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Ranker Talk:Reworld Talk:Rivulis Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Martha G. Welch Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Adam Jones (political scientist) `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Adam Jones (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm fairly sure the single purpose editor Adam63 (talk · contribs) is the subject. I don't know enough about the subject to really check it someone else might want to go through and see if its okay.--Crossmr 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on culling content. I've moved it to a disambiguation page in order to remove the academic title. --Iamunknown 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even though I directed the editor to the conflict of interest page he's continued to edit the article. Its clearly a single purpose account solely used for editing that article and the related article of gendercide, which points to a very high probability of it being the subject.--Crossmr 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the article suffers from external links overload at least as badly as the Carlos Latuff article. Adam63 removed {{COI}} {{Unreferenced}} and {{Notability}} tags a few days ago; I replaced those and added {{External links}} and {{NoMoreLinks}}. Some newish editors seem to be guided by the assumption that any external link is ipso facto a reference and more is better. — Athænara ✉ 07:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC) (I should mention that I, too, used to think that as recently as four months ago.) — Æ. ✉ 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Improved.)[reply]

As Crossmr noted, Adam63 (talk · contribs) registered to write the article about himself. The result is a hybrid of a résumé and a faculty page. {{COI}} applies but is too oblique and stresses notability rather than auto-authorship. I've tagged it {{Like-resume}} for now. — Athænara ✉ 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated section heading, article links for current name of article:

Lennie Lee `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80.41.10.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
82.45.220.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86.143.158.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Searches for the "Rich and Famous Gallery" + London + "Lennie Lee" (the article claims he founded it) yielded only wikipedia and wikipedia echoes. — Athænara ✉ 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Miah `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Andy Miah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was up for proposed deletion due to lack of sources. User:Andymiah, apparently the subject of the article, added large blocks of text detailing career accomplishments and expected future publications. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re-edited the article, removing a great deal of puffery. I have also explained to the ed. the need for 3rd party sources. DGG 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clouds Blur the Rainbow `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Clouds Blur the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by BabyDweezil, an uncritical supporter of the individuals and groups criticized in this report, which I wrote. The same user, BabyDweezil, has a long history of personal attacks and repeated POV edits that demonstrate a clear conflict of interest. Some of the material being added is simply false, and based on the marginal and frequently distorted writings by members of a political cult similar to (and at one point connected to) the Lyndon LaRouche cult. Among the other pages subject to this type of editing by BabyDweezil are Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party, Social Therapy, International Workers Party. I understand that it is appropriate that critical opinions about the report Clouds Blur the Rainbow be included on its entry page, but what is happening here is wildly POV, unbalanced, and sometimes just false. It is time to consider banning BabyDweezil from editing any pages related to this cult, just as some pro-LaRouche editors have been banned for being unbable to abide by basic Wikipedia guidelines.--Cberlet 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chip, basic Wikicourtesy would dictate that you notify me of this noticeboard posting rather than (or at least in addition to) obliquely canvassing surefire supporters of the action.

That said, I challenge Cberlet or anyone else to point to anything in the above articles that is "wildly POV, unbalanced, or false." The fact is, these often contentious articles have been collaborative efforts between editors with different viewpoints, and the results have been a relative semblance of balance. It seems, historically, that Cberlet files protests such as this one precisely at those moments when his own demonstrably minority POV on the above subjects ceases to dominate. I won't waste the space here to document the reality of his POV being decidedly a minority one (not to mention likewise demonstrably riddled with bias and unprofessional research methodology) but would be happy to if needed. Nor do the claims of someone who consistently refers to editors with a different opinion than his own minority one as "cult apologists" "totalitarians" and "Orwellian sanitizers" and worse need a response re: "personal attacks."

The irony of Cberlet's posting this cannot go uncommented upon. Chip Berlet has been for a quarter century a paid propagandist for Political Research Associates, a thoroughly partisan organization that largely devotes itself to issuing attack reports against groups that do not fit its particular view of of the world, be they on the right or in some instances, as with those above, on the left. PRA specializes in labeling and guilt by association (as evidenced above by Berlet's Larouche-baiting, based on a brief relationship Newman had with the long since noxious Larouche 30 years ago). The notion that a paid partisan like Chip Berlet should remain able to run roughshod over countless articles with which he has a true conflict of interest AND attempt to ban(!!) points of view contrary to his own is simply too absurd to comment on beyond simply stating it. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with Chip, or Dennis King or others with clear COI's from being involved, in fact I welcome their input and--them being long-time spooks and all--value the resources they have filed away. Over and out-- BabyDweezil 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BabyDweezil has been indefinitely blocked. Tearlach 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties in this dispute have COI and this matter should be handled accordingly. Yakuman 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) et alia (Maharishi Vedic Science, Maharishi Ayurveda, Maharishi Sthapatya Veda, TM-Sidhi program, John Hagelin, Natural Law Party, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, ...) - These articles are being dominated by editors with various connections to the TM organization. Nearly any attempts at NPOVing result in reversion, and critical sources are being relegated to minor articles on specific subtopics so that the main articles are free from criticism. TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the major editors, admitted on the TM talk page that he is paid ^{[citation needed]} faculty of the "Maharishi University of Management", Sparaig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a TM practitioner of over 30 years, and has previously removed information ^{[citation needed]} in the article that "interferes with the normal business practices of the TMO [Transcendental Meditation organization]", and many of the other editors seem like they may have COI problems. Of course, they are all very polite, but that doesn't mean that they aren't simply reverting critical edits with "let's discuss this on the talk page" (where they can then overwhelm us, or delay us indefinitely), or that they aren't gradually removing all critical information, making the critical information so convoluted as to be unreadable, and moving much of the criticism to minor articles on small subtopics. // Philosophus ^T 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC) I've looked around a bit more, and found that Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is or was also paid ^{[citation needed]} faculty at the Maharishi University of Management, and Roseapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another identified TM practitioner. --Philosophus ^T 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal situation both members and people with a grudge against the group would be excluded from editing this type of article. However, these seem to be the only people interested, in most cases, in an article on a religious group. Steve Dufour 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Deutsch `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

George Deutsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
biochemnick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Nick Anthis, has repeatedly inserted himself into this article, and others --

R.L. Paschal High School
The Scientific Activist (a vanity article)
William James Middle School
List of people from Fort Worth, Texas
List of Texas A&M University people

-- as a means of self-promotion (using the term "influential science blogger," among others). Similar edits have been made from

129.67.53.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
129.67.77.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

addresses traceable to Oxford, where Anthis is studying. // 208.255.229.66 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent eds. by Biochemnick to The Scientific Activist are in my opinion not vanity, tho some earlier ones there may have been. the above posting is by an anon ed from a multiple-user account, who has also been revert warring on that page, using a different anon account, 66.177.173.119 , User:DGG 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.177.173.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) apparently believes that
Cellularesque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Anthis. 66.* and Cell* have both broken 3RR. — Æ. ✉ 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article on The Scientific Activist appears legit to me. Nick Anthis's efforts to add himself as a notable alumnus to all his schools will not improve his reputation on Wikipedia. I suggest that anyone who follows this noticeboard and observes him violating the WP:3RR ought to report him, because this kind of a pattern isn't good. His activities have begun to draw complaints on his Talk page (some though not all of them justified) and he has been deleting the complaints. For someone who would apparently like to be more famous, that's unwise. He could be getting known for the wrong things. With respect to the edit war on The Scientific Activist, his opponents seem to have done some unreasonable things. So he has been fighting back against his unreasonable opponents (usually anons), breaking many of our rules and drawing blocks in the process. The submitter of this COI complaint, 208.255.229.66, has himself been blocked five times during March. The record of User:Biochemnick (Nick Anthis) is already bad enough that he could be looking at a long-term block if he continues to be so stubborn. This is too bad because someone with his background could be a useful addition to Wikipedia in the scientific areas. EdJohnston 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Retriever `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Silverlabrador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely for vandalizing Labrador Retriever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and their IP address has been range blocked for a while as well (the previous report on WP:ANI by FT2 is here).

Although they have discontinued attempting to change other people edits directly, they do still fill the talk page with claims that "anti-silver elitists" are oppressing "legitimate" silver breeders, that they have papers saying their dog's registered color is "silver," and so on. Their most recent argument is that the Labrador Retriever Club, which is the labrador parent organization for the American Kennel Club, is just a "club" even though they have continuously tried to use the AKC in their arguments. They have never provided any proof for their claims.

I probably shouldn't have continued replying to this person, though I did mention COI twice. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early today, another user,

7raptor7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to delete the info and add back the false information. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 17:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this one (probably the same user) had gotten a clue and stopped by now, but no: still active with bombastic and threatening edit summaries. — Æ. ✉ 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this qualify for a checkuser? "Silverlabrador" was blocked indefinitely, and that person has already shown their IP address changes or can be changed often- if this person is the same, would it constitute as evading a block or similar? Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would constitute exactly that: evading a block. — Æ. ✉ 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taborah `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Taborah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An article about a singer that was speedy deleted once already. Maintenance tags have been deleted twice by the author, and I'm starting to suspect that the singer may not be as notable as said author wishes to make her appear. The username of the author is Lahlahmusicand vision (talk · contribs), the same as Taborah's record label. // JuJube 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one was in bad shape: a myspace.com link (!) in the first two words (the name of the subject), http instead of wikipedia article links, and no references—zip. I cleaned up the obvious and removed the wikify tag. Notability and tone tags remain as they should. If it comes up for deletion again I'll support that in the absence of reliable sources which establish notability. — Athænara ✉ 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used [1], but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 [2], I feel I'm in over my head.

Possible coi because:

poweroid.com redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/poweroid/
poweroid.co.uk redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/
bestpricecomputers.co.uk is the same company
experienced-people.co.uk appears to be run by the same admin

I've removed links from the following articles, all added by Poweroid:

External links to bestpricecomputers:

Business performance management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Content management system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Customer Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Program management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Records manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Supply chain management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Intranet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

External links to experienced-people:

Confidentiality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) removed [3]
Non-disclosure agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Salary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Webmaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm guessing there are many more considering how long he's been editing. --Ronz 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, surprisingly. See Special:Linksearch/bestpricecomputers.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/experienced-people.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/poweroid.com and Special:Linksearch/poweroid.co.uk. MER-C 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those searches don't appear to work. I just found another bestpricecomputers link in Intranet. --Ronz 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Whoa! I'm in the middle of something but give me a few seconds and I'll comment in full. Poweroid 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first, on the user name: It's not a random word, it's a word that's clearly associated with Best Price Computers Ltd, at bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. In fact, there are thousands of pages in a Google search for that word ALL of which would lead you back to that company site. Poweroid is the only brand that company sells. And nobody can mistake that I'm associated with that company/do work for it. I intentionally use that user name here and I openly log in with that Poweroid name to edit. Have been doing it for years. I don't believe I've ever added a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk.

I have edited, proofed or otherwise worked on over 50 sites in the last few years some of which are/were owned by that company or by other companies. Those sites include pcnineoneone.com (which has plenty of links from Wikipeddia, many from before I ever joined), graphic.org etc., etc. (I'll try and compile a full list if anyone's interested). I've often taken content from a site I'm familiar with and added it to a Wikipedia article with due acknowledgement to the source - whether I ever worked on that source site or not.

I believe I made a useful contribution yesterday to Web site, with a note in the Talk page prior to attempting further improvements. I notice that Ronz has removed a reference link to the experienced-people site on the article. Whatever s/he believes about the authority of the experienced-people site Yahoo claims that there are almost 3,000 other places that link to it, so obviously there are some, like abcnews.com who link to a particular article there, who think it's worth linking to. I notice also that the content from that source site is still on Web site though the reference was removed. Just as with VoIP. VoIP happens to use an image and content from one of the source sites. I notice that the image is still in use here though the link to the site was removed.

I've edited probably thousands of articles in Wikipedia ranging from hundreds on Indian cities to articles ranging from pregnancy/medical to business management to foodstuffs/recipes, most of which I've found no reason to add links on. I admit I may not have read every single word of the rules here but if it is forbidden to ever quote from a site I've worked on in the past it will reduce my output considerably (as it would cut out a large chunk of topics I am familiar with) but I'm happy to comply. Poweroid 14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so far I've only removed the links, because they don't meet WP:SOURCE or WP:EL, and some come across as WP:SPAM. I've kept the other content, assuming it can be verified from other sources if necessary. As for the potential coi issues, I'm deferring to this noticeboard. --Ronz 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am observer and i don't understand : who is Ronz , i have look the ronz's contribution to WIKIPEDIA and (always removed) please can you say me what he has realy build? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.11.145.92 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.118.211 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with my edits, take them to the appropriate venue. This discussion concerns the conflict of interest issues with Poweroid's edits. --Ronz 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at Yahoo's Site Explorer [4] for incoming links to www.experienced-people.co.uk doesn't suggest much merit. Looks to me like one of those non-sites that provide token content, but primarily exist as vehicle for Google ads and affiliate schemes. Tearlach 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 2,700 links to that site according to your Yahoo listing. I haven't examined them all but the first page itself shows links from sites I'm familiar with, like problogger, and about.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.89.250 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. The issue here is COI. --Ronz 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poweroid seems not to have added his links normally to be avoided to articles in the past month—am I missing something? — Athænara ✉ 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the one that he admits to above. [5]. He's been completely upfront here about his actions, though. It might be useful for him to provide the list of sites that he mentions above. He's not contending that the links are inappropriate. It appears that he often edits as an ip, but not in any way that violates WP:SOCK that I can see, other than maybe to avoid a few spam warnings. Other than that, I think the situation is fine as long as he no longer continues to add such links to articles. --Ronz 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly. But, like I said, I'll put a list together for anyone here who's researching me in relation to this CoI claim. Please tell me how and where I can provide it. Poweroid 11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent — Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest (emphasis added.) Particularly in light of your defence of your contributions as a good faith editor, it is inappropriate to suggest that other editors should do the cleanup after you've spammed Wikipedia with your clients' links. — Athænara ✉ 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames issue as well: "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement." — Æ. ✉ 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. — Athænara ✉ 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result was allow: policy against company/product names as usernames had not yet been implemented when the user registered.

In re conflict of interest, links, clients: It would be helpful if someone higher up the administrative chain can answer the user in re a list of clients whose links the user has added to the encyclopedia ("Please tell me how and where I can provide it") if that is the most straightforward way to clear this up. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the RFCN include that this case is starting to smart of desperation and that WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cascadia suggests something is just not right about the RfC and that it seems you're just looking at ANY (his emphasis) way to deal with a conflict. On your own talk page Shenme has trouble believing the "problem" is at all as serious as presented.

Yes, let's find a straightforward way to clear this up. Poweroid 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, he's added links to:

poweroid-video-editing.co.uk (18 October 2004) [6]
bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk (14 August 2006) [7]

--Ronz 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages kinda like the type Shenme thought looked perfectly OK (see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_performance_management on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names page). Poweroid 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The River Company `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Appears to have been primarily created by two or three editors.

Michael.m.winters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - By his own admission is friends with band members. Have told him previously should consider whether it is appropriate to edit the article and at least declare his interest in things such as votes for deletion. But he appears to have either ignored me or didn't read my message (which unfortunately I didn't post to his talk page) Talk:Main Page/Archive 90#Notability & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The River Company (2nd nomination).

Garyleeweinrib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be primarily interested in this article. He/she may just be a fan but I doubt he/she's this guy Geddy Lee so I suspect Garyleeweinrib is not his or her real name (see below too). Also, this account first appeared during the first vote.

Anon 141.164.90.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 141.164.90.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a friend of Michael.m.winters as he or she was editing the article at the same time. Don't think this is Michael.m.winters as he appears to use a different IP [8] but it may be Garyleeweinrib, there was one instance when with several edits from 141.164 and followed by an edit from Garyleeweinrib.

I originally felt the band was not noteable, no longer so sure. But someone should advise these people to consider COI & if they still feel it is okay to edit the article, at least declare any potential COI in any voting. Probably be best if this comes from someone besides me, in case either of them read my earlier message. N.B. Michael.m.winters did mention his potential COI in the first vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The River Company

203.109.240.93 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP evidence: Unlikely. IPs resolve to a university in New Orleans. MER-C 08:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Techniques of Knowledge `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Two contributors Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made a solemn promise during initiation not to reveal these meditation techniques. They say that the article violates WP:NOT for being an instruction manual because they include descriptions of the meditiation techniques that they deem as instructions. RFC has been filed and yielded supportive reactions for inclusions of the descriptions, but Momento keeps reverting. Andries 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have not reverted that article, rather made comments in talk presenting my viewpoint in this matter. So, please be accurate, if you could. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I write that? Where are my comments inaccurate? Andries 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also forget to mention that you have edit-warred in this article consistently. Just in the last 100 edits you reverted 7 times. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you keep on making the same arguments in spite of several reactions on the RFC contradicting your support for exclusion. Andries 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? As long as I have not edited the disputed material, I can make whatever comments that could be useful to the editors that are actively editing it. I have asked at least two of the RfC respondents to attempt to edit that specific section, See: diff and diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your support for removal of well-sourced relevant material is disruptive. Andries 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that my comments in talk are disruptive, you can then file a complaint at WP:ANI. My comments are all there in the history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best webpage at the present for this dispute. Andries 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I just find it very peculiar that you believe that engaging other editors in civil discussions, and asking non-involved editors to assist in bridging a content dispute is disruptive. Very peculiar, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give an analogy. When I support removing in the entry George W. Bush the statement that he is the president of the USA and ask other contributors civilly to re-write that statement then it is still disruptive. Andries 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting ident) While Momento (talk · contribs) and Jossi (talk · contribs) may have a favourable view of the subject, both have been courteous and flexible during my experience there as a third party. Jossi invited me to try and craft a compromise version after I responded to the RFC.[9] I provided my first draft of a suggested compromise to provide a description of the techniques while addressing the WP:NOT concerns, stored in a user subpage to avoid edit warring on the article.[10] Jossi expressed his support for this version.[11] Momento also endorsed the compromise, with a small reservation.[12] I made a minor edit to address that concern.[13] I feel that Momento and Jossi have both shown a willingness to be flexible on this issue. Additionally, Memento even pointed out that while practitioners are prohibited from revealing the techniques, they are not required to stop others from doing so.[14] On a final note, Andries (talk · contribs) has been sanctioned by ArbCom for his behaviour in pushing an "anti-Guru" POV recently. (Please reference here and here.) This should be considered when reviewing complaints by Andries on relevent topics. Vassyana 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no good reason to remove sourced material because the article has never violated WP:NOT ("instruction manual") and even never came close to violating WP:NOT. Andries 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As I said in Talk:Techniques of Knowledge#Comment from outside editors, I think that User:Momento has interpreted WP:NOT far more stringently than is usual, and wanted to reject as "instructions" some text that is nowhere near as instructional as many other articles that have never caused dispute on these grounds. Tearlach 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is not designed for content disputes. These are better addressed in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it does concern here when such disputes might impinge on conflict of interest - in this case, the possibility that a religious/contractual obligation might be influencing some editors' wish to exclude some information. Personally, I don't care either way if some religious group gets naked and worships turnips - but I do care if they try to to hide that information via WP:NOT by falsely hyping the idea that a description is "instructions" on how to do so. Tearlach 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ars Technica `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Warrens (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Close relationships
Warrens (talk · contribs)
Clintology (talk · contribs)
Debuskjt (talk · contribs)
ElJefe_04 (talk · contribs)
Tsetna (talk · contribs)

have been, as part of an apparent rotating crew/mob which has in the past included others, been "protecting" this article against any critical content, however cited. I gave up trying to improve this article about a year ago, and no matter how hard myself or others tried to comply with endless demands for more sources, criticism of sources (based on criteria that cannot currently be met for even the information they currently have posted), and the ignoring and/or removal of sources surreptitiously, in order to then later remove the content as uncited.

Going back to look at the status of the article, I now note that there is a lot of fluff information (site redesigns?) that is of no real public interest, and the site has been completely reverted to a promotional piece/advertisement. Apparent attempt by other editors to flesh out and balance the article have been met with constant reversions. The editors protecting the article appear to consist of Ars Technica's writers, staff, and users. Conflicts of interest have been pointed out many times, and summarily ignored. -- 216.227.57.119 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly amazing, the amount of non-information in that article. As said above, whatever's the point of a list of the past colour schemes of a website [15]? Tearlach 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like the article should be deleted as non-notable. Its only citations are from the Internet. But what do I know about such things? :-) Steve Dufour 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it doesn't seem to come close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability (web) to me. Anyone want to do the duty Nil Einne 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I am having very bad luck with the deletion thing. :-) Steve Dufour 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{importance}}. This deletionist can't be bothered listing either. MER-C 12:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have afd'd it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ars Technica. delldot talk 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry delldot, I should have warned you. Altho I'm probably what you would call a geek I'd barely heard of ArsTechica and the article didn't appear to establish it's notability so I recommended someone AFD it. When I visited the talk page, I read some stuff like the Alexa rating which suggested to me it probably did meet web even if the article didn't establish that at all so I gave a buckup suggestion in the talk page Nil Einne 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look further at the history of the article; it does need work. I'm interested in what could be being said that you've managed to form a mob of Arsians, who usually only swarm in cases of online-humor. The writers have appologized, if she wants something more slandering others is not a good way to go about it, if that's what is being done. It's been cited in some newspaper articles. Deleting it is inappropriate at this time. htom 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I moved the comment about the IPDemocracy incident to a different section of the page because it had no business being in the leader of the article. Imo, it still has no business being in the "NewsDesk" section. Its proper place is either in a "trivia" or "criticism" section further down the page, in keeping with similar criticism points in other articles. At no time did I remove it from the page or otherwise attempt to quash this particular criticism. In any case, isn't it more than a little hypocritical for an anonymous user to assert the existence of a "rotating crew/mob" conspiracy of covert, Ars Technica staffers, whose purpose is apparently to hide criticism of the site? I would think that at the very least such a person should provide some kind of identity and actually research their subject before throwing around such accusations, otherwise this just sounds like a case of paranoia. -- Hux 10:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC) [PS Other than posting to their forums, I am in no way affiliated with Ars Technica.][reply]

This is unbelievable. Looking up the username Hux on Ars Openforum shows that he is a subscriber and has posted over 21,000 times to the forums. That would indicate just a slight conflict of interest, as he is obviously a fan of the site.--216.227.57.119 11:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I am apparently the subject of a COI notice on an article that I haven't edited in quite a while... but nobody bothered to tell me. Hmpfh. Here's the deal, folks: This anon user who opened this COI was repeatedly attempting to make edits like this, where they were trying to add criticism of the entire web site by posting to (I kid you not) comments in a blog post. Through that time period, a series of users appeared whose only purpose was to push almost precisely the same content into the article. Here, have a look at these contributation histories that are remarkably: Dave-G. Tatsuma. Gallifr3y. El jefe04. Kristi ski. There are others, too, but that should be a sufficient example of what was being dealt with 8-12 months ago. The key here is that the person... ahem, excuse me, "people" who were pushing this information into the article were not providing any published, reliable sources as is expected of all content in Wikipedia, especially critical commentary. Squabbling in Internet forums is hardly encyclopediac material, anyhow... the whole thing just smells like sour grapes from someone whose attempt at adding their opinions to the article didn't get their way. -/- Warren 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrens is apparently another subscriber, but with *only* 7700 posts in the forums. Surely no COI there. Meanwhile, he accuses me of sockpuppetting, which I am sure some Wikipedia Admin can settle once and for all. I have not edited the Ars article since sometime last summer, as I gave up. References were removed due to being sourced from a "blog", despite the fact that all other references were sourced from the same place. El_Jefe, as I remember, reverted my edits not a few times, so I don't see why I would be him, and Kristi_Ski has a username, which I never have had. Somehow, though, I am supposed to be all of these other people, because some of us felt the criticisms were sourced. Never mind the fact that different people edited criticisms in (for example, I had never heard of the IP Democracy thing till reading it here). The COI is easy to see, as far as I am concerned. 1. All of the people who removed criticisms which were sourced in the same manner as the rest of the article are very active members, or writers, or staff at Ars. 2. They spent a lot of time working together to demand more sources (i.e. when referencing forum activity, one was required to use a reference other than the forum contents themselves - try finding a book by a reputable author/publisher on the Ars Forums). 3. Research Wikipedia rules in order to use them without regard to their intent, (i.e. accuse editors of sockpuppeting and trying to force 3RR situations, in which they did not succeed) and citing Wiki rules like WP:NOR, when the entire article was technically OR to begin with (all citations come from Ars). If their intent was to improve the article, they wouldn't have spent so much time worrying about site redesigns, removing the separate criticism section (which was an early compromise which improved the readability of the article), etc. And for the record, as I posted in the AFD segment, I wasn't looking for deletion, though if these people can't be reasonable about not swarming the article to protect the reputation of the site (which is only damaged by this behavior), then I would rather it not exist, as it has no value to an Encyclopedia as it exists now.--216.227.57.119 11:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of people showing up out of nowhere, one after the other, and editing one encyclopedia article to promulgate a very precise, nearly-identical set of changes, isn't suspicious? Riiiight.

Look, we have an important goal here at Wikipedia, and that's to produce a high-quality encyclopedia. We do this through proper Wikipedia:Attribution -- this is the policy. It's NOT OPTIONAL. You (and I) do not have any choice in the matter. I honestly don't care if you're concerned that you can't cite web forums; the attribution policy is quite clear that postings on message boards are largely not acceptable.

People take interest in working on articles because they have an interest in the subject. I own every Massive Attack album and have seen them in concert; does this mean it's a conflict of interest for me to work on articles about the band, or perhaps to demand that people adding information to those articles provide sources for claims? No, of course not. I use Windows Vista and participated in the beta program so that I could learn more; does that disqualify me from writing about it? Again, no. I've been reading Ars Technica since 1999 and have participated in the forums since 2002. As above, there's no particular issue with me or others writing about it. If Robert Del Naja, Steve Ballmer or John Siracusa showed up and started editing Wikipedia articles that cast their products in a favourable light, that'd be a clear WP:COI violation, and I'd be dead set against it. But is it really a conflict of interest for someone who's well-versed in a subject to demand the kind of quality of sources that Wikipedia expects? No it's not, and that's the reality you have to face here. I'm not going to defend the quality of the Ars Technica article, because it's not nearly as good as it could be, but I'm not going to let the quality of the encyclopedia lowered by single-purpose whiners whose only purpose is to discredit a subject. -/- Warren 12:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to pick and choose what is a valid source based on the content of the information. I and others sourced information from Ars, and it was removed, citing NOR rules, and citing the rules that forums and websites aren't valid sources. Meanwhile, the entire article is about a forum/website, and all the information contained in the article was sourced in the same manner. Despite your attempt to distance yourself from the site, you obviously have a deep, protectionist connection. I began reading Ars in 1999, and it still sits on by bookmarks bar. Granted, it doesn't get as much attention as my Slashdot link (which has a criticism section cited much the same as the Ars article had). Does that make me a disgruntled ex-forum user? Also, I removed no content, even about the site redesigns, unless it was accidental. And I spent many hours locating citations for the edits of others (difficult since I was not familiar with many of the topics) only to have them removed as not being valid (i.e. forum activity could not be used to cite activity in a forum). In fact, I wasn't even aware of your presence editing the article, as I had given up and not even looked at it in something like 6 months. Only when I went back, and found how atrocious it had become, and looked at discussion, did I see you joining with some of the others in the rotation. I found it amazing that there was no conflict of interest rule at Wikipedia, so I did a little searching, and lo and behold, there was. But, according to you, Clintology can remove whatever information he likes. Single-purpose whiners? How about balanced individuals who don't mind documenting, rather than promoting.--216.227.57.119 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"when the entire article was technically OR to begin with (all citations come from Ars)." How is Ars Technica itself not a source for an article about it? It is a primary source. Your lack of understanding there seems absolutely baffling. And considering you named me by name as ""protecting" this article against any critical content, however cited," I find it pretty much a waste of my time considering anything you have to say on the issue. If you would accuse me of that you obviously haven't actually tracked the progress of the page, since there is criticism I fought to uphold and it's documented clearly in the edit history of the page and in the Talk page archives. In fact, the day before you actually made this COI entry I re-worked criticism back into the article to prevent it being shunted into a "trivia" section.

As I posted on Ars concerning this issue: "I'm sorry, but [the Ars Technica] article stagnated because it was consistently vandalized by a disgruntled ex-forum user hiding behind sock puppet/IP accounts every time someone tried to add real meat to the article. The ensuing reversion wars continuously removed legitimate edits that were never added back, included many of my own. And for someone to hide behind an anonymous IP and accuse me of causing the problem just pisses me off. Color me increasingly jaded." - Debuskjt 14:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it always comes down to the accusation of being a sock puppet/disgruntled ex-forum user. I was not the originator for many of the criticisms. I did restore some, after some demanded citations and I researched what was removed to see if it was cite-able. I guess it is easier to attack someone by the fact that they use their internet address as an identifier, rather than defend the removal of sourced information. It takes only a few minutes to register for a Wikipedia account. How does that make my edits more valid. Especially considering the length of time during which I tried to improve the article, and the amount of times I was accused of being a "masked marauder". And for the record, and to be fair to you, you did appear to be more reasonable than others protecting the article (one instance particularly springs to mind, I could dig it up if you please).--216.227.57.119 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm specifically referring to El_Jefe and the horde of single purpose accounts/IP accounts that consistently re-added the exact same content in direct violation of Wiki policy and gutted out anything that was useful about Ars's notoriety when I speak about vandalism. But since you basically accused me of being a paid meat puppet in your COI entry, I don't know how you can expect me to, in turn, view you in good faith. You can't lash out at me claiming COI and not disclose your own past association with Ars without expecting to draw some criticism. - Debuskjt 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was apparently mistaken about the source of your frustration; However, I object to your blanket accusation that the accounts trying to balance the article were "single purpose accounts". Such as TomServo3000? Dave-G? I've now read El_Jefe's discussion page. It looks like he was responding to your comments, but you and Warrens failed to refute his comments regarding the sourced material. He apparently is under the impression that Warrens is not connected with Ars ("I only make a few suggestions to them re: MS products") when in fact he is a very active user of their forums.

You also seem to have this impression that in order to have a Conflict of Interest, you must have a financial interest in the subject. If you read the COI article, you will see that this is not the case. If you claim that you have no association with Ars, then that will make you the only editor that was removing sourced criticism who can validly make that claim. In any case, I wasn't looking to start a huge argument in the COI section. Interested parties can look at the edit history, and the discussion history, and see the results for themselves. Demands for citations, then one citation per item was not enough to prove a trend, so more citations were provided. Then the citations weren't valid because they came straight from the horse's mouth. Then it was basically "Let's vote on it, and consensus rules", with a few Ars members who had way more time than I did to do the back and forth. Maybe the reason why some of those editors look like single purpose to you is that the article scares them away from editing anything else, for fear of more of the same crap. I know that I, despite having read literally thousands of articles, have not bothered since working so much on the Ars article (with the exception of spelling corrections). Anyway, I'm worn out again, so now I go back to reading, and if the article gets better editing, without the COI, great. If not, I guess I've wasted my time again. Oh, well. BTW, regarding disclosing my relation to Ars, why would I do that if I valued my forum account, etc. Not that it technically matters, as I am just a lurker, but considering the behavior here, I'd have to be retarded to "out myself".--216.227.57.119 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the afd nom. About the above, have you all considered going through the steps of dispute resolution? delldot talk 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see a clear case of Conflict of Interest here. This is not a case of an established editor whose sensible efforts were overrun by a host of COI partisans. The complaining party (the one who entered this as a COI, 216.227.57.119 (talk · contribs)) appears to be a single-purpose account who has never edited outside this noticeboard and the matching AfD. He has no user page and no Talk page. Since Conflict of Interest investigations always address the identities of the participants as being a key factor, it is fishy to complain about COI and then hide every detail of your own status or previous role in the debate. How do we know that you yourself have no COI? While the issues raised have some interest, they are more properly addressed in the article's Talk page. I suggest that this COI be closed, and that in the future we consider not taking postings from single-purpose accounts except where the COI is egregious and obvious to anyone. EdJohnston 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to enlighten you of the edits I made, the 205.231 belong to me, as do the 216.227s. I never removed any real information from the article (i.e. anything that wasn't vandalism) and really only tried to restore removed criticisms that were sourced properly or could be sourced properly. When I finished citing a block of stuff (painstaking until I used Google, rather than forum search) from Ars, I was told that one citation does not make a trend, and that more examples would be needed. So I cited more examples (again, thank you Google). Then, though they did not mention it before, and I was not an experienced editor, so I did not no, they said that forum posts/websites could not be used as a citation. That is ridiculous; what else do you cite when referencing a forum? Apparently, they found this difficult as well, since after I left, they (after having it out with another editor trying to improve the article) had to compromise by removing real information as well (since it was cited in the same fashion, apparently). I just read this today on the Talk page. So, while some punk may have earlier removed info to vandalize, these people have done it to save the Ars Technica article from having a criticism section, similar to Slashdot's.

Almost every editor who removed criticism (possibly excepting Debusjkt, though who knows) is a very active member in the Ars Community, and that most certainly falls under Close Relationships. I have used Ars Forums, and have for years, with only a few posts in technical sections. I most certainly will not disclose my forum id, as it is obvious that the Ars Community is monitoring all Ars related articles, going through great measures to protect it from anything that may be construed as negative (recently, apparently ownership was negative, and the fact that it had revenue, or used ads to make money). As for IP based editors not being able to issue a COI, would it help if I signed up for an account, edited a few other articles first, and then point out the blatantly obvious COI? Consider the argument, not the source.--216.227.57.119 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of the current article and earlier versions such as this one (which reveals deep confusion about the difference between an encyclopedia and a webspace provider) illustrates how very much worse it has been than it is. That said, the COI/N report was made here in good faith and the article does need the attention which the report attracted to it. — Athænara ✉ 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had been improved since that point, and while it still needed work at this point (my last edit?), it was at least close to the quality of the Slashdot article, IMO. Of course, I gave up trying at that point, as I was too busy with life, and had wasted too much time with it already.--216.227.57.119 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No slur was intended against the good faith of the editor who submitted this complaint. It's just not a 'well-formed COI posting' (in my opinion) if an editor who previously worked on an article comes forward to complain about specific others while not allowing his own work to be scrutinized. If their edit histories are to be studied, then his history *on the article* should be available as well. I welcome your recent clarification as to the IPs you used to edit the Ars Technica article, and think this is now a 'well-formed COI complaint', though I trust the complaint has approximately run its course, and can be closed soon. EdJohnston 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lest there be any confusion, I've been a member of Ars Technica for a very long time. htom 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user has been editing with a conflict of interest. He has added dozens of links to articles he's written elsewhere and then he's edit-warred over their removal. He's used at least four different IPs in the same range:

70.23.173.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.23.170.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.23.177.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His first edit summary indicates he's the same person as Nicholas Stix.[16] Stix is an "internet columnist" who has occasionally mentioned Wikipeia in his blogs. Except for that first edit he hasn't identified himself as Stix even while fighting over links to his : websites. Despite using variable IPs he has attacked another anon with a variable IP as the "Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster". He's promoted himself, including a long entry to a list of "notable journalists".[17] He's also engaged in serial incivility for which a block may be warranted.[18][19][20][21] For the time being I've asked him to stop adding content about or by himself. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The serial incivility extends to multiple other interactions; see Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 and the user's talk pages for numerous examples. --lquilter 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.)The anonymous editor says he is being singled out because of his continued political engagement. He also claims:

a.) His accusers misrepresent Wikipedia rules to criticize or redact his edits.

b.) His accusers misrepresent print publications as "blogs."

c.) His accusers stalk and censor him and anyone who supports him.

2.) His connections come from Verizon, so he may have dialup or another setup without static IP addresses.

3.) His accusers claim he is "self promoting," that he is apparently Nicholas Stix, a veteran freelance writer. They haven't demonstrated that his material, at least some of it, is improper.

4.) FYI, I have no ties to Stix, nor do I endorse his writing, but some of the accusations laid against him may not mesh with reality. I encourage anyone who wishes to examine this situation to look carefully. Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At what are we to look carefully? The editor has identified himself as this person. His edits are chiefly promoting links to his self-published materials and websites. It's a COI to link to one's own website, and this editor has done so dozens of times. Furthermore he's engaged in scores of reversions adding the links back. Failing to acknowledge the relationship between subject and writer is not a good faith action.

Nobody is trying to censor this or any editor. However spamming links across Wikipedia is not a useful or acceptable activity. All I've asked is that this editor stop adding content about or by himself. Is that unreasonable? I'd also ask that he be more collegial and less confrontational. Civility is a core policy of Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Readers of this board who want to study this case, and may not want to read all the diffs above, might content themselves with a quick scan of User_talk:70.23.199.239 to get the flavor of this editor's communications. This is really, really Nicholas Stix and there's no sock-puppeting issue, this is just his attitude to the world, at least to the other editors on Wikipedia. (We're not in the realm of subtle issues). See also his block log at [22]. Unfortunately this seems to be a case of WP:DE. The actions already taken by administrators were not excessive. This COI noticeboard is most effective when there is still a chance to persuade people and to remove misunderstandings. That does not appear to be the case here. The question of whether some of Stix's own articles deserve to be linked in Wikipedia is dwarfed by the behavior issues. Stix should by now be concerned about the number of administrators who have independently posted to his User talk with extremely polite language. Does anyone have another idea for how to resolve this? EdJohnston 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damone (band) `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Damone (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The greatest entertainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps replacing article content w/ copyvio material from band's MySpace page] after repeated warnings. (See Talk:Damone (band)#Conflict of interest edits.) User claims to represent the band (user page), speak for the record label (article edit history), and be a member of the band (WP email to me). Shows no awareness of or interest in WP copyright or COI policies, despite attempts to get them to review them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many things wrong with the article and with the situation. I sorted through a dozen or more templates and ended up choosing {{primarysources}}, {{copypaste}}, {{inappropriate tone}}, {{inappropriate person}}, and {{Essay-entry}} for starters. — Athænara ✉ 11:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the most important thing which allowed me to fix the problems instantly. Placed {{uw-copyright4}} on user's talk page. MER-C 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great fix. I didn't forget it. I didn't even think of it. — Æ. ✉ 12:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

88.77.84.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added it all back. — Æ. ✉ 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnborough College `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Users involved

Warnborough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.229.135.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users above (or single user as may be the case) have shown a suspiciously keen interest in making sure Warnborough College's reputation is not harmed on Wikipedia.

Warnborough's user page talks in the first person as a representative of Warnborough College, and the IP 80.229.135.241 resolves to warnb0r0.plus.com (as do IPs 80.229.135.240 through 80.229.135.243). That IP is also shown as having made constructive edits to information about Warnborough College on Warnborough's user page. Indeed, my guess is that this IP has been static since at least Nov 14, 2004 when this user began to leave strongly opinionated comments about education (and never any other subject). To my knowledge, only corporate or educational IPs remain so static.

Paging through each user's history will reveal a rich tradition of blanking unfavorable comments regarding Warnborough College and engaging in spirited debate (rightly or wrongly) involving Warnborough College's reputation. You will also find numerous warnings on the talk pages for misbehavior on the Warnborough College page.

In short, I am suggesting that the users above may either be the same person or work together at Warnborough College, creating a strong conflict of interest when editing the article on Warnborough College or any other articles on education as has already been shown. --67.188.0.96 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed User:Warnborough, admits to it on his user page.
Inconclusive on the IPs - 80.229.135.240/30 - no technical evidence found despite the suggestive RDNS. Google search turns up nothing, site is password protected. Belongs to a UK ISP. MER-C 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we request a checkuser to confirm that User:Warnborough and User:80.229.135.241 are one in the same? This may be helpful, as I can see this user earning himself an indefinite block at the rate he's going. --67.188.0.96 19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. MER-C 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued COI edits by user:Warnborough

user:Warnborough continues to make improper edits to the Warnborough College page and responds to my allegations against user:80.229.135.241 as if they were directed at him. This leaves me with little doubt that they are the same person. Regardless, user:Warnborough shows a clear conflict of interest on Warnborough College and by being a major contributor, calls the validity of the article into question. I am recommending that both user:Warnborough and user:80.229.135.241 be indefinitely blocked from editing the Warnborough College article. Also, since this person insists on altering other users' comments on the talk page, despite the "last warning" on his talk page for doing exactly that, it may be neccessary to indefinitely block them from the talk page as well.

I want to be clear that I have no particular interest in Warnborough College, but the initial changes became known to me while watching the "recent changes" page. It is unfortunate that this user who might otherwise have valuable contributions to this article cannot control himself and edit within the Wikipedia guidelines and manual of style. --67.188.0.96 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he's been blocked for one week due to refactoring other's comments on talk pages. There is more to simple COI issues as I see. At this point, I suggest going above COI notice boards and issuing a request for comment on him instead once he returns to disrupt. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 07:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Hamsacharya dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The entire article reads like a promotional booklet with outlandish Superman-type description of the subject, Sisters-of-Charity-type description of his otherwise unnotable organization, multiple links to videos located within one website (youtube.com), etc. Primary editor is a disciple of the subject and an ordained preacher of his religious organization. Please see this page and scroll down to "Hamsacharya dan." //Watchtower Sentinel 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some horrible content/sockpuppet/POV dispute here that I can't unravel. Nevertheless, the article does appear highly promotional. Tearlach 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct! In fact, if you look at it closely you will see that the only real and relevant reference in use is the subject's grandiose autobiography, all the other "references" are side-dishes having no direct relation to the meat of the article.

The Buck Rogers-style Surya Armor of Light Experience tale was supposed to be lifted from a local tabloid. Where is the evidence of the very existence of the tabloid article? Was it really titled Surya Armor of Light Experience? It was translated from Hindi, who translated it? Who would verify that the translation was correct? Is a tabloid article encyclopedic? Is a person's autobiography an ideal resource for an unbiased Wiki bio? I mean, a person can write in his autobiography that he is God, or that he met Mickey Mouse in the Alpines and he gave him a golden ticket. Can we use those in a Wikipedia biography and say, for example, that the person is God with a reference marker at the end leading to an autobiography at the bottom? Is that how we should write an encyclopedia?

The man's real name is Sidhoji Rao Shitole, who awarded him the three exalted titles Yogiraj, Gurunath and Siddhanath that he now uses in place of his real name? Aside from mythical and deceased-before-his-birth figures where did he really learn his Kriya Yoga? The whole thing is a praise and promo page without a doubt. Primary editor is a disciple and ordained preacher of the subject's org + main reference is the subject's autobiography = bad and completely biased article. If this is not conflict of interest I don't know what is. Would it be possible to strip it into a barebones completely encyclopedic version using only NPOV references as sources? This relatively unknown "guru" is presented in much more glorious light than Buddha or Jesus in their own WP pages. - Watchtower Sentinel 11:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And ten YouTube video links (which I removed a few minutes ago). — Athænara ✉ 07:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of NoToFrauds (talk · contribs) aka TroyVaughn (talk · contribs) aka Terminator III (talk · contribs) aka Hamsacharya_duh (talk · contribs) aka Senior Hamsacharya (talk · contribs) aka Juan dela Cruz (talk · contribs). It's quite clear to me and other users like Sfacets, but not to others who haven't dealt with him extensively. I'm trying to establish a checkuser Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Watchtower_Sentinel, but I'm having trouble because its been more than 30 days since the last sockpuppet, and RFCU seems to have trouble with that. --Hamsacharya dan 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of the Poisoning the well fallacy. Whatever the user history, I still think the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article needs attention on the grounds cited. Tearlach 20:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but there are not other sources on Yogiraj than the one used. We tried to get the article deleted - it failed AfD twice. I've worked through all of January with other nPOV users to make it as objective as possible and maintain its integrity. If you have any constructive comments to make, then please do so - you'll find me more than amenable. However, Watchtower Sentinel (talk · contribs), if he is the sockpuppet of those listed above, has been almost entirely a disruptive and negative influence on wikipedia by anybody's standards. Why do you think those sockpuppets have been repeatedly blocked? --Hamsacharya dan 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand L. Bush `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

I don't think there's a serious problem here, but I did want to give folks the heads up that the writer of the article, User:37Celcius, is the subject's wife. She also wrote an article about herself, Sharon Dahlonega Raiford Bush, with the username User:Sharon Dahlonega. She has said that she's able to remain objective and has agreed to source everything well, and the articles do seem to me to be factual and notable. So again, I don't see a big problem, but I just wanted to mention it here so we could get some more eyes on the articles. delldot talk 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wish all COI articles were as NPOV as these, just telling who they are, what they've done, and stopping there. — Athænara ✉ 07:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And are well sourced. I think it's safe to let this one slide. MER-C 07:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take those images out; they're not licensed properly at all. She certainly doesn't have the right to license any of them as CC-ShareAlike because she's not the creator of any of them. fethers 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No image copyright warning notices, which usually appear within minutes or hours after an image with a copyright/licensing issue is uploaded, have been posted to the uploader's page. Why not just return the images to the article and let the image oversight process do its own job? — Athænara ✉ 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cave Clan `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Cave Clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Members of the Cave Clan continue to edit this page and blank out "controversial" content -- i.e. things within the controversy section, which had sources. They have been warned numerous times, and my attempts at a neutral article have only gotten me threatened and accused of sock puppetry. I've opened a Cabal case but no one has volunteered to mediate, and another editor pointed me here. // hibou 21:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an eye-opener to compare the May 2004 stub with what it had become by the time this report was posted. — Athænara ✉ 10:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chapman `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Appears that Web design company is adding articles for clients.

Richard Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article on person born in 1620, has link to Web design firm at bottom // or
Stephanie MacLennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hypnotherapist, credits of site list Richard P Chapman Ltd // or
James Holderness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Landscape Designer, Site create by Site create by Richard p chapman // or
Exalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Disabig page added mention of air Taix company. Site create by Richard p chapman // or
Richardpchapman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Edits to above articles and some normal edits to Pet Shop Boys //SimonLyall 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Holderness - speedy, no assertion of notability.
Stephanie MacLennan - speedy, no concrete assertion of notability in all that vanity.
Richard Chapman - reverted, was not a disambiguation page.
Exalt - removed, company fails WP:CORP. We don't need an article on it. MER-C 06:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chapman responds, here. Richardpchapman 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Richardpchapman[reply]

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

Formerthings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- editor adding links to Biblical site formerthings.com. --TedFrank 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Linksearch/formerthings.com. Reverted all the spam user added. MER-C 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrad Larmand `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Jarrad Larmand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This was created and primarily edited by an account, Snatchingthepiano (Talk | Contribs), which has done nothing else on Wikipedia. There's no certainty that this is an autobiography, but it's possible.

Proposed for deletion as non-notable: no newspaper or book hits, handful of Google hits suggesting he's a non-notable student. Tearlach 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Westerfield `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

David Westerfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm here, because I don't know where else to turn to. In a nutshell this user is simply problematic and his disruption to the David Westerfield article has got to stop. He contributes to no other article. He is constantly wanting edits that favor David Westerfield and his defense. The article has over 20 references even though the case was finished 4 years ago. He's been involved in the article since March 2006. I am constantly in revert wars with him. His new argument now is that this man did not have child pornography even though a jury convicted him on it. He strongly disagrees with it and wants to push that in the article. He wants the pornography section to include "allege" or "apparently" in describing the ages of the females depicted in Westerfield's images. He is never satisfied with the article. Currently I am trying to get the article unprotected. It has been protected 4 times by 4 different administrators. Please somebody intervene and cut his ability to edit the article. For I believe it is the only way for the article to have some peace. Fighting for Justice 06:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am constantly in revert wars with him

For which you were both blocked recently. [23] Unless 196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) is David Westerfield or someone with a personal/business involvement, biased editing doesn't come under conflict of interest. Tearlach 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that he IS David Westerfield's lawyer or a knows one of them. He certainly talks like one, is able to spout out dates of testimony and who made them. He can recite the numbers of the state exhibits. He can also be a relative of Westerfields', although he denies it and I'm sure he's fully aware that he won't edit the article should he admit such a thing. He is on a crusade to vindicate this guy and is using the article as a soapbox. If it doesn't fall under conflict of interest, then what does it fall under? It's gotta fall under something. Look at his contributions it is all about David Westerfield. He is here to abuse wikipedia not help it. If he wanted to help wikipedia he would contribute to other articles. Something has to be done with him. He has monopolized the article for a full year now, and all indications show he is going continue. This is highly unfair to people who do genuinely want to contribute. Fighting for Justice 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 171: / Line 171: @@
 --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages. [[User:Poweroid|Poweroid]] 17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
+Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages kinda like the type Shenme thought looked perfectly OK (see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_performance_management on the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names]] page). [[User:Poweroid|Poweroid]] 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 == [[The River Company]]  {{coi-links|The River Company}} ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 17:32, 21 March 2007

Adam Jones (political scientist) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Lennie Lee (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Andy Miah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Clouds Blur the Rainbow (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Transcendental Meditation (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

George Deutsch (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Labrador Retriever (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Taborah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

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

The River Company (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Techniques of Knowledge (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Ars Technica (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

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

Damone (band) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Warnborough College (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]