Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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:Aaj Tak Talk:Alameda Belt Line Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive) Talk:Scott Bessent Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader) Talk:Cinq Music Group Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:CoStar Group Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary Talk:Stephan DuCharme Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Darnell Edge Talk:Empire (magazine) Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Globe Life Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hannover Re Talk:Harsco Talk:List of Harvard University people Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Kennedy Center Honors Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Leviton Talk:List of compositions for flute Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Moody's Analytics Talk:Moody's Corporation Talk:Moody's Ratings Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:One Energy Talk:Oneok Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Talk:Ornge Talk:Pallywood Talk:V Pappas Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Research Corporation Talk:Reworld Talk:Rivulis Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Scopolamine Talk:Simprints Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:Roger Steare Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:UK Biobank Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Vista Equity Partners Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Martha G. Welch Talk:Wingtech Talk:Xsolla Talk:Zions Bancorporation Talk:Zyn

promotion of website

Peter M. Sacks - User:Bluehole (Allan Cordle, as he notes on his userpage) is repeatedly reverting to a "preferred version" of articles that prominently features mentions of his website, foetry.com. While I think mention of his work is relevant, the fact that he is the owner of the site means that he has a conflict of interest and is predisposed to ignore problems of undue weight, especially as it relates to WP:BLP. Stawiki (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The website linked is no longer actively updated; it's merely linked because it holds the history of Sacks' atrocious (IMO) behavior. The section about Sacks is very significant (speaking of conflicts of interest) because Sacks' book was selected by his wife in a fee-based contest. The two names appeared in articles on the covers of both the LA Times and the Chronicle of Higher Ed. I left Sacks' statement refuting the charges, which shows my willingness to be as neutral on wiki as possible. I do resent that Stawiki is charging *me* with changing his content, when, as history shows, he made the first move in bad faith. Bluehole (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Recruitment ads for spam article writers

Resolved

 – Creating WP articles for pay is frowned upon. Companies who want to find out how to safely contribute to articles about themselves can seek advice here. Lacking an active controversy, we might as well close this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the procedure for dealing with companies posting classified ads seeking Wikipedia spam article writers for hire? (I'm reluctant to post the link here because they don't need more publicity, but will so so if people think it would be appropriate. The ad doesn't name the company, anyway.)--Pharos (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's publicity but its the sort corporations tend to avoid. Post it anyway. Even though the company is not explicitly identifiable, there might be clues. Also, the ad might name the spammerservice provider, so when they show up we can banhammer them on sight. MER-C 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've waffled enough. Here's the spam writer recruitment ad on Craigslist.--Pharos (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure all the editors here would like you to apply for this assignment. You can be the first undercover WP editor! (Only slightly undercover of course). Send them a pointer to this thread to prove you are legitimate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

SarathanRecords

Resolved

 – Two Loons for Tea was deleted via PROD. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User

• SarathanRecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article

• Two Loons for Tea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be someone working for, lets, see, Sarathan Records. Creates articles on bands in label, edits music pages to promote said bands. -Carados (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, there is also an article about the label entitled Sarathan Records, not to be confused with the editor with a similar name (but lacking the space), but this particular editor has not touched the article about the record label. Both Two loons for tea and Sarathan Records appear to lack reliable sources. I wonder if the COI-affected editor could give us any help finding sources. EdJohnston (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Added WP:PROD to the Two Loons for Tea article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are three other articles on artists published by the Sarathan Records label, but this editor has not worked on them. This suggests no COI in their creation. May as well close this. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Octoshape

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

I request uninvolved review of a series of edits I made to Octoshape recently. The edits removed or corrected unsourced (and untrue!) negative claims about our product.

I know that the recommended procedure is to describe the desired edits on the talk page and then wait for somebody else to do them, but I decided that it would be clearer to do than to describe, in light of the number of small changes as well as the low level of activity on the talk page. The edits may readily be undone in case I overstepped. I will, of course, be happy to discuss each change on the talk page if my edit summaries are not found convincing.

I don't think any of the individual edits are problematic; in each particular case our outside aims appear to be well in line with the interest of the encyclopedia. However, my selection of what to correct is inherently biased: If I were (hypothetically) to come across similarly unsourced positive claims about our product, I would not act to remove them. Therefore it might be desirable for somebody uninvolved to look over the current state of the article critically.

(This was first posted at Talk:Octoshape. I repeat it here due to the risk that it would go unnoticed on the not very active talk page). Octoshape (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll help. I will post my comments on the article talk page there. CraigWyllie (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Octoshape for bringing the issue here. The article on Octoshape appears to have no reliable sources. It shouldn't remain that way long-term. Besides that, I noticed three problems:

• Reverts don't have references: The items that have been added and reverted above should depend on more than just a few editors' opinions, and certainly shouldn't depend on assurances from the developer that they are not a problem.

• Terms of Service issues: You would expect that some published article could be found on whether P2P programs can get in trouble for violating Terms of Service, even if the article doesn't specifically mention Octoshape. A quick search comes up with this link noting that Verizon has banned P2P usage on EVDO. (Though the particular site I found is not a reliable source).

• Performance claim lacking all references. One of the current sentences in the article looks quite promotional and is completely uncited: This is the trick behind octoshape, because it makes the grid 100% stable with no interruptions in the sound or video when peers logoff. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. For the record (not that I think you meant to imply otherwise): To the best of my knowledge, the creator of the article is not affiliated with our company, nor have anybody at the company ever edited the article except for the four edits logged under this username. We know that some of our end users are very enthusiastic about our technology; we have been assuming that the peacocky language in the article was inserted by one of them.

To avoid splitting the discussion, I suggest that we move to the excellent (but lonely) talk page for problems with the article that are not directly related to COI. I will post a response to your points there shortly. Octoshape (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix up the Octoshape article to sound more neutral. Since my last edit was on 15 January, and there have been no further comments either here or at Talk:Octoshape since my last edit, I assume this item can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II

• Frjohnwhiteford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Some concerns of a possible conflict of interest in editing this article has been raised. Talk:Patriarch_Alexius_II#Conflict_of_interest.3F. Need some assessment by the wider community if this is the case. Martintg (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly it is a conflict of interest for me, as a Russian Orthodox Priest, to edit an article that relates to the Russian Orthodox Church. If we are going to make this a universal law, I think we shall ensure that no one who knows what they are talking about is able to edit an article in wikipedia. This is a ridiculous claim, and amounts to harassment on the part of Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in my opinion. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Frjohnwhiteford has assumed bad faith here in believing this is some kind of harrassment. It was not I who initially raised the issue of COI, I was merely seeking a wider community view and clarification here. The community may well assess there is no COI, which would benefit Frjohnwhiteford in the long run. Martintg (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no obligation to assume good faith when there is clear evidence of bad faith, and I would invite the objective reader to take a look at the the talk page, and read the comments of both of the aforementioned users. There is a notice on this board which cautions against posting complaints that do not apply to the COI policy, and it is quite clear that this is one of those instances. I am being accused of having a conflict of interest as a result of defending a line in the article that existed long before I touched that article, which identifies Patriarch Alexei, who is in fact the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, as the spiritual leader of the Russian Orthodox... despite the fact that I have added two reliable sources (articles from the New York Times) in which he was referred to as such, and have pointed out that this terminology is used throughout wikipedia in comparable circumstances. The counter argument was that since Patriarch Alexei is a bad man, he cannot be termed a spiritual leader. Now who is the one who is guilty of violating the NPOV policy here? I would argue that it is not I. Even if I were on Patriarch Alexei's payroll, I do not believe that the COI policy would apply here... but since I am not, and have never been, and am only connected to him by virtue of the fact that I am a clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for this charge. See Talk:Patriarch Alexius II. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know what "evidence of bad faith" you are referring to here. I have not been involved in the discussion of whether or not Alexei is a "spiritual leader". I have expressed no opinion on the matter. As you know, Saul of Tarsus was a determined persecutor of the early followers of Jesus, before he was converted and became one of the most notable Christian missionaries as St. Paul the Apostle. What is at issue is to what degree Alexei, in his capacity as KGB collaborator, contributed to the suppression of the Orthodox faith during the Soviet period, and whether there is a COI in members of the clergy such as yourself attempting to down play this aspect of his history in the article. Martintg (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly were participating in the discussion here, and you were not taking the position of neutral observer with no opinions on the dispute. It is not "down playing" something to endeavor to present the other side of an issue, and to make sure that those who made the accusations, and what the evidence actually cited supports are clarified. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My participation has been minor, only 5 edits compared with over 60 edits between yourself and Biophys [1], not in regard to whether he is a spiritual leader but rather the role of the KGB. I do agree with you that evidence should be cited to support any claim, particularly your claim that evidence linking Alexei with the KGB could have somehow been fabricated by the Estonian government[2]. Martintg (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is something really dramatic. I have only stated my concern about a possible WP:COI problem at the article talk page [3] for two reasons. First, user Frjohnwhiteford repeatedly inseted references to his personal web site [4] into the article. The http address "...prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford" coincide with name of the user (also see this: [5]). This reference/link is still in the article (reference number 13 in Alexius II). Second, he started edit warring in the article about an official head of an organization where he is officially employed (as he admitted himself). I tried to explain to him that it does not really matter what kind of an organization it is, apparently without success. So, it might be helpful if someone univolved in the religious or Russian matters would make a judgement.Biophys (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Biophys seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "employee". An employee is one who is paid to do something by an employer. I have a secular employer, and it is not a Russian or ecclesiastical entity. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A personal website does not meet the criteria for a "reliable source." At the very least, that reference needs to be removed. Frjohnwhiteford's insistence in using it could indeed be a conflict of interest, aside from any other issues raised. Pairadox (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That page is not something I authored, it contains a translation into English of a reliable source. However, I have run across the same quote in a book, and so would be happy to include the quote and the reference to that book in that particular case. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One possible solution is to make use of a Convenience link. Mind you, I make no endorsement of such, but it is one way to provide an online reference for material sourced from books. Pairadox (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since, when I attempted to bring up the following issues on what I thought was a more appropriate board, I was told to combine it into this discussion, here are some additional issues I have:

Biophys has persistently reverted sourced statements in the article Patriarch Alexius II, he has circumvented coming to a consensus on the talk page by making unilateral edits, and has engaged in personal attacks and harassment. The most recent example of such reverts can be seen here. Please also see the talk page for that article Talk:Patriarch Alexius II. For example, he has a problem with referring to Patriarch Alexei as either the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is a recognized fact by every autocephalous Orthodox Church, by the Russian government, and by religious groups and organizations the world over, or as the spiritual leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, despite the fact that he is such by definition, and about 1,549 other wiki articles use this term, and apply it to people in analogous circumstances, such as Pope Benedict. He has turned the article into a polemic screed which violates the NPOV and BLP policies of Wikipedia... how many different quotes do we need in an article of some Russian partisan, making the assertion that Patriarch Alexei is a KGB agent? Such assertions add nothing to the article, because they contain nothing substantive. I have made no attempts to remove any specific and sourced accusation against Patriarch Alexei. Biophys has repeated obfuscated the specifics of the accusations, made sweeping generalizations that are unsupported by the sources, has engaged in tendentious and unconstructive editing. Some outside help is needed here to facilitate constructive and collaborative editing. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to add more sourced material to biography of Alexius II. His biography is very short. As long as you follow WP:NPOV and other WP policies and find consensus with all other users, no one would complain, even if you have a conflict of interest. But in the case of serious disagreements and a possible conflict of interest, it is best to leave the article to others.Biophys (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not need your permission. Thus far, no one has jumped up to agree with your claim that my being a Russian Orthodox priest constitutes a conflict of interest. You have not stated what your interest is here... though you clearly have one. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Frjohnwhiteford is a priest of Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the church most of its history having quite bitter relations with the Russian Orthodox Church headed by Alexius. There were even murders of ROCOR priests triyng to establish parishes in Russia. In 2007 both churches established a weak ecumenical union of ROCOR, still ROCOR is completely autonomous in all the practical sense and in fact very suspicious to ROC's influence. I think taking all this in account it is ridiculous to allege that Frjohnwhiteford has a conflict of interests. On the other hand the article is indeed in violation of the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV guidelines as 70% of it is devoted to various negative rumors. Wikipedia is not a compromat leaking site, the issue should be fixed Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course everyone is welcome to add more positive information in the article. I have made a few minor changes recently including better sourcing. As about ROCOR independence this is highly debatable, since it is now officially a part of the Church led by Alexius.Biophys (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You did more than make a few minor changes. You repeatedly reverted sourced and pertinent material, among other things. There is also no basis for your assertion that there is a conflict of interest here, based on the wikipedia policy here -- end of story. Even if I were in Priest in Moscow, there would not be (as the policy currently stands), but as it is, I am priest in Texas, and the only support I get from Patriarch Alexei, or my own diocesan bishop for that matter, is entirely of a spiritual nature. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done a COI analysis and posted my opinion/analysis on the article discussion page in the COI segment.

Although there may be a perceived COI, I see no obvious COI and no clear evidence of bias in the resulting edits. Frjohnwhiteford's contributions look generally neutral and positive, he has not engaged in un-necessary deletion of disputed content, merely rewrites and softening of the language. I also think the COI allegation may have been an attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute, which is explicitly frowned upon in the COI Guidelines.

I have advised the parties to review the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons guidelines, try and follow overall Wikipedia guidelines, and co-operate more, if possible.

CraigWyllie (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to CraigWyllie. Thank you for reviewing this! Could you elaborate please what do you mean by saying "I also think the COI allegation may have been an attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute"? It was not me who brought this issue at the WP:COI noticeboard, and I did not ask for it. Second question. Do I understand correctly that you have less than 150 edits in wikipedia? This is not to question your report, but experience does matter. I am not qualified to judge about COI, but I agree that we do not have a serious problem here, at least not yet.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC) With regard to experience... I hope you have noticed this message at another noticeboard: [6]. Did you?Biophys (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The current state of the article Patriarch Alexius II doesn't look bad. I clicked through a whole lot of edits from the last two or three days and found myself cheering for both sides since it appeared that the article was converging on a better version in spite of the struggles, or even as a result of them. Mere membership in a religious organization, especially a large one, is not usually considered a COI, unless there is evidence of strong partisanship in the actual editing, which I did not see in the work of Frjohnwhiteford. Occasionally I found myself wondering what Biophys was up to, but I'm not familiar enough with the article to know whether every edit was legit. If there are remaining issues, I suggest the editors try to handle them using article RfCs. I'd recommend that Frjohn did not try to insert links to his own Prodigy web site or to http://orthodoxwiki.org. If those sites contain any relevant info from reliable sources, pull that information out and reference it directly. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest under Examples:Close relationships says:

"Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." (my bolding)

I think it is obvious Frjohnwhiteford has a "personal commitment" to the head of his church. While I make no comment on the content of his edits in general (though the last one by him removed fair comment which was sourced) I think it is obvious he has a COI due to his position and relationship with Alexei. Malick78 (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am totally committed to the head of my Church... Jesus Christ. Patriarch Alexei is the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church... the first among equals among the bishops of the Russian Church... the one who presides over local councils of the Russian Church. He is also the spiritual leader of the Russian Church, being the spokesmen for the Church. If you read more carefully the WP:COI policy, you will see that having a personal commitment to a subject does not constitute a conflict of interest:

"The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject."

Patriarch Alexei is not my chewing buddy. We don't go out for beers together. I do not know him personally. Therefore I am not "too close" to him. By your logic, no American could edit an article on the President of the United States. No Democrat could edit an article on Bill Clinton. No Catholic could edit an article on the Pope. No homosexual could edit an article on homosexuality. No hunter could edit an article on hunting. That is nonsense. Furthermore, Wikipedia would come to a screeching halt were it enforced universally. Biophys is a Russian who has evident hostility towards the Russian Orthodox Church... is he a Russian Baptist, a militant Atheist...? I don't know, but he does not have a neutral view of this subject, and uninvolved editors have commented that between the two of us, my edits have been fair more neutral. The only difference here is that I am upfront about where I am coming from.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please reread "an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." Does an expert have a personal commitment to the temperatures that are rising? No, just a commitment to science and the subject in general. Your response missed the point entirely. Any thoughts by independent editors? Malick78 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please reread it yourself. The contrast is between someone who has a direct and close personal connection with the subject, as opposed to someone who does not, but has a personal commitment to the subject. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) A distinction needs to be made between a conflict of interest and a deeply held POV. If Frjohn were editing articles about his own flock there would be a clear COI. In this case it's less clear and we should assume good faith. However, I echo EdJohnston's recommendation that he not link to unreliable sources and caution him to be aware that his commitment to the head of his church can easily lead him into POV edits in articles on religious topics. Pairadox (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles Taze Russell

• Charles Taze Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related
• Pastorrussell (talk · contribs)

There may be no problem - I admit I don't know the topic well enough - but there seems to be considerable risk of COI. A major contributor to the article describes himself as "the webmaster of Pastor-Russell.com, the official Charles Taze Russell website". Could someone take a look at the article history? 86.148.154.23 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There may be no problem

I think there is. The article itself currently looks reasonably even-handed (for instance, not glossing over controversies). However, the above user is making a lot of uncited reversions with no explanation or unhelpful summaries like improper edit, and a couple of years back was the subject of a user RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell) for WP:OWN problems. Things look a lot quieter now, but JW vs Bible Students is very a partisan situation, and being official webmaster for one camp looks far too close a relationship to the subject for comfort. I've added a COI tag. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Pastorrussell just removed the COI tag as misunderstanding. I've asked for explanation here. Gordonofcartoon 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC) (sorry - working from crappy filtered account that won't let me log in). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.221.34 (talk)

Comment. The editor whose actions are being questioned is *not* in reality someone named Pastor Russell; he just operates a website about Charles Taze Russell who was a pastor. We need a proposal for what to do in this case. It could be COI if you argue:

• That the article's citing of the pastor-russell.com web site is the violation, or
• That this editor's affiliation with the Bible Students is leading to partisan editing in defence of that group's position, and against the neutrality of the article. (I think Gordon is arguing this above, but it needs details in my view).

The article appears carefully written, and it relies to a degree on online copies of scanned documents about 19th-century events that are hosted on the pastor-russell.com website. Someone who has patience could go through the history looking for any reverts of valid criticism. The article is fairly neutral in tone and heavily documented, though perhaps based to an excessive degree on documents hosted at the pastor-russell.com site. Does anyone have the patience to study the article history? As Gordonofcartoon points out, there was an WP:RFC/U on this editor back in 2005, claiming violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, that must not have led to any official action. You could still read it for background, since it mentions this article. I notice that this editor has frequently reverted the work of other editors over at Bible Student movement, and I don't see him participating on the talk page there. Bible Student movement is a weaker article than Charles Taze Russell, and contains more unsourced material. It might be a better target of reform.

The most questionable recent edit by User:Pastorrussell is probably this one, where he accused another editor of vandalism for changing the picture on an article. A discussion with this editor is desirable. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern for neutrality. This was brought up when the article was being about two years ago, and the issues were dealt with in an appropriate manner which satisfied all concerned. I added the "Criticisms" section in order to make the article as unbiased as possible, and have attempted to make sure there is no bias of any kind. Others who have attempted to remove "Criticisms" section, or to add inappropriate material has been undone by me. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Patton Boggs LLP

Resolved

 – Blocked, indefinitely. MER-C 02:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PB webmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I'm concerned that PB webmaster (standing for Patton Boggs) is editing the article, making significant changes (diff) without reference. Please could somebody take a look. — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The account has been blocked for having an inappropriate user name and I've made a first pass at cleaning up the article and making it less of a PR piece. Pairadox (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolfram PR people promoting products, abusing process, ganging up on others

1. I point you to the discussion at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, titled "Deego & mathematical software".

2. There are a large number of wolfram-research-related pages, being controlled by such "internet consultants for wolfram". These pages suffer from advert and notability problems, not to mention COI.

3. These consultants don't disclose their identities, and resort to ad-hominem and uncivil attacks on anyone daring to even add a Notability tag.

4. You will see many other problems with wolfram-related pages, see the discussion above. These include a large number of notability, advert and COI problems.

I don't have time to "fight" this battle with this determined group. I can only point it out here, and hope the admins will do something about it. I am signing off. Deego (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my bullets above, and the the 18 bullets on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. I will repeat the 19th bullet here, and make another observation:

23. User:Pleasantville http://www.kathryncramer.com/about.html - "She is an Internet Consultant (read: promotional writer) for Wolfram Research, Inc. in the Scientific Information Group. She lives in Pleasantville, New York." It is sad that PR people from companies make it to wikipedia and spoil the whole process, while even refusing to disclose their identities.

24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Cramer - this is a page on User:Pleasantville, edited by herself! This suffers from notability. User:Pleasantville never identifies herself on her homepage. This page again mentions that this user is a consultant for mathworks.

25. Wikipedia articles also exist on her husband, her father, etc. (Yes, the claim to fame is, as you would guess, that they have publications.)

I hope some admin sees this and removes this blatant exercise in COI by wolfram's PR associates, both for themselves and for Wolfram.Deego (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

26. Here is just one example of COI on her own page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathryn_Cramer&diff=103478188&oldid=103390946 There are many others. Also, a lot of contributions on that page come from IP addresses. Deego (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

27. Also note that others who joined that discussion and supported Kramer use nicknames and don't have any identifiable information on their homepages that would reveal their commercial interests. I believe wikipedia should remain free of commercial PR. Deego (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

28. Here is another example of this gang of people, closely professionally associated, engaging in mutual backscratching -

User:Pleasantville used to work for Eastgate Systems. Now, the chief scientist of that company, User:MarkBernstein has removed the notability tag from an article on John H. Little. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_N._Little. Note that John H. Little is another Wolfram-related associate - that is how I arrived his page. Deego (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• When I saw (today's) notice at the math proj page (which Pleasantville posted) I (just minutes ago) attempted to open dialogue at Pleasantville's talk. I seem already too late. I haven't poked around with timestamps, but it wouldn't surprise me if this arguement has been going on for well before the notice, which P would have taken as a late (if not last) resort. Also I'm sure I've missed some context from various article talk pages. However, I hope that we can squeeze out a bit more time for dialogue. I'm not what I'd call "neutral" on the matter, but I have some sympathies with both sides (and at least no, I don't have a COI; I program in C, not 4GL). So anyway I'd like to try. I advocate everyone waiting a day, please, so Deego and Pleasantville can reply to me. Pete St.John (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Deego: Okay, so you start off with a valid complaint; the Wolfram stuff seems, on initial inspection, very reasonable. Your complaint is reasonable, that is. Certainly there is a commercial COI there if your excerpts are accurate.

However, you take that ball and run with, apparently right off a cliff. User:Pleasantville's edits to her own page, and those of her father and her husband, may be inadvisable from a COI point of view but they are not, IMO, a violation of policy. The edits are generally innocuous, and often vandalism-reversions. Please, don't turn a perfectly reasonable COI concern into a witch-hunt. SamBC(talk) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

29. Unlike the assertion above, user:Pleasantville's edits are not merely vandalism-reversions. (credit for finding this: As pointed out by User:Loisel when I followed the link), she created her own page, and singlehandedly made many revisions. The one and only editor of her page was herself for a long time -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathryn_Cramer&oldid=103262928 -- this was entirely her own doing, no other editor involved. Deego (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

30. Someone questioned my credentials "I don't know about User:Deego". They are irrelevant, but any way, my name is Deepak Goel. I don't have any relationship with wolfram or mathworks. In fact, I was until recently confusing the two, as you can see from my comments. I am a believer in open source, community spirit, and have contributed to the same since 1998. I have contributed to wikipedia for about 4 years. See my edits. I believe in Free(-as-in-freedom) content. I voted to keep wiktionary FDL. It bothers me when I see blatant PR on wikipedia and abuse of wikipedia, be it done (I mean: in principle, don't sue me) by mathworks or wolfram or anything else. And, last of all, I don't, ever have or ever will create a page on myself on wikipedia merely because I have been a Link Foundation Fellow, for example, unlike some people. (John Little is apparently notable because of IEEE fellowship.) Deego (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.linkenergy.org, a Link Foundation Fellow is a scholarship "for students working toward a Ph.D." at three US institutions. An IEEE Fellow, on the other hand, is an award bestowed by this (huge) professional organization upon "a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Deego, please reply to my remarks at her talk. You expect us to take the time to read your complaints; please read (at least some) of the responses. It's not the same stuff you've heard already. I'm Pleasantville's friend but I'm not her advocate. Pete St.John (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pete St, John, I haven't made any further flagging of advert or any edits since I realized this is going to end up in an edit war with commercially motivated people. I am not a fan of edit wars, and even if I were, I have no energy to pursue them. I respectfully disagree with your comments which simply miss the most important point that wolfram-related articles seem to read like PR. Anyhow, since edit-warring has ensued, I have ceased any more edits, and resorted to a discussion here. Deego (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I hadn't meant to miss the point about "PR"; I agreed that that tone is more favorable than if I had written it (which is not the same as branding it mere PR, but is less than exculpating it). My other points had to do with improving the article without having to edit-war, e.g. by making one change at a time. The articles do not need to be perfect: they can't be. They can certainly be improved. Pete St.John (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The tone of the articles in question does not seem inappropriate. This is, after all, highly specialized software for higher mathematics, and mathematicians are bound to express a measure of enthusiasm for their field. The question of Cramer's page has already been hashed out and reached a satisfactory consensus. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

31. Another article related to this group of people is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastgate_Systems. I t reads like PR. I have ceased any further edits after being ganged up upon by this group, but I urge other people or admins to take note and take actions appropriate for db-spam, advert and/or notability. Deego (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

32. Further PR articles related to Eastgate Systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinderbox_%28application_software%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_David_Bolter and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Joyce; and the many other links created on the Eastgate page for its minor products, novels, etc., such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchwork_Girl_%28hypertext%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deego (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I concur. I am a mathematician, and I find sentences like Mathsoft Engineering and Education, Inc., the company that sells those popular products was is just one division of what used to be MathSoft. to be both inappropriate and ungrammatical. Popular is peacockery; these articles should be cleaned up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur on the MathSoft page, and have proposed simple revisions to repair it. Of course, this does not relate to Wolfram MarkBernstein (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment.

• User:Pleasantville does not make a secret of her real-life identity as Kathryn Cramer, and if you check per blog she does state she is an internet consultant for Wolfram Research. The only possible further step she could take (on-Wiki) to clarify things would be to mention her Wolfram connection on her user page at User:Pleasantville.

• It has been pointed out elsewhere that Pleasantville has observed the COI rules regarding the Kathryn Cramer page, which is about her. There is even a template on Talk:Kathryn Cramer to note that Cramer edits Wikipedia as User:Pleasantville.

• Deego's complaint that certain Wolfram-related articles read like advertising, or have a promotional tone, is part of the normal give-and-take about improvement of articles. It sounds that Deego does not wish to start editing those articles for fear of being criticized, and that he thinks he might get into edit wars with Wolfram-connected editors. It certainly shouldn't be a problem for him to start making suggestions on the various article Talk pages of what might be changed.

• About Eastgate Systems and related articles. Deego could present diffs here if he believes he has been ganged-up-on by Wolfram-connected editors. I notice that Eastgate Systems survived an AfD in August, 2007 and there have been cleanup tags there at various times. I didn't research who was adding or removing the tags. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deego has not yet responded, so I went ahead and looked at some recent tags that he added to articles that seem Wolfram-related. He questioned the notability of a number of them, and this of course deserves discussion: Equation Editor, John N. Little, The Geometry Center, MathType, Theodore Gray.

I actually don't perceive notability problems with these particular articles. Equation Editor is an ancient and unlovable program that was available on Microsoft, and I'm sure some people remember it who ever had to add formulas to a Word document. Since one editor claims, without proof, that it has four million users (and that seems believable), in my view it is notable enought for an article. Please comment if you feel that these notability tags were given short shrift, or that they need to be kept on those articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Having previously announced that I consult for Wolfram on the Project Mathematics talk page, I'm not sure how much more public I could be short of posting my resume or list of current contracts. (I have current contracts with Wolfram Research, Tesseracts Publishing, and HarperCollins, and partake of perks funded via my husband's Tor Books expense account; our household also receives substantial income via L.W. Currey, an antiquarian bookseller; I have some connection to most everyone in the science fiction field.) For the record, I am not and never have been a PR writer or a publicist. I am by profession a science fiction editor who developed a sideline as an Internet researcher. What I do for WRI is Internet research (mostly for the data libraries on Mathematica 6), advise on matters related to the Wolfram blog, some permissions work, and advise on matters related to Internet subcultures such as this one.

My post to the Project Mathematics talk page was in accordance with instructions given by Durova in a YouTube video on how corporations should raise issues of concern. Though Durova's star has sunk a bit since the filming of the video, it seems to me to be sound advise.

My general perception is that Deego, a novice Wikipedia editor, has over-reacted to my criticism of his edits. As Pete St. John has pointed out to me, there may be a problem with the tone of my criticisms of Deego's edits, and for that I apologize. My last remaining grandparent had died that morning, and I was having one last look at my general Internet rounds before signing off the Internet to go travel to Texas for her funeral. It was perhaps not the brightest decision to choose that moment to express indignation to what I felt to be a large batch of frivolous edits.

While calling Deego's edits "frivolous" does not rise to my usual levels of tact, I think someone reviewing his edits for the 48 hours previous to my conflict with him might draw similar conclusions. For example, the article Eliezer Yudkowsky was easily sourcable, not only through media mentions, but also through multiple mentions in commercially published books. Instead of checking for sources, Deego slapped on a notability tag. That is the kind of situation I was complaining about. I hope that despite my unusual brusqueness, that Deego is able to take my comments to heart and edit with more care in the future. --Pleasantville (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pleasantville, have you seen the Business' FAQ? Your best chance of interacting with the community in a positive way is to make a declaration of your business activities on your user page (see mine), in a non-promotional way, and then to refrain from editing articles about you business or its clients. One set of concerns is what the rules allow. Another is what sort of editing is socially acceptable. This is a situation where you may not want to push the envelope. I hope this helps. Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't previously seen the FAQ, but having read it, I can say that I was previously familiar with all the information in it. Rather than posting to my user page, I made sure all the relevant information was in my Wikipedia entry and that there was a link from my User page to my entry. As someone very widely socially and professionally connected, there is no way to map out all of the possible situations in which someone might perceive a conflict. The field in which I have had my primary career is very tightly connected. --Pleasantville (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Minor point: unless Deego knows something I don't there is no connection between Wolfram and John Little except that Little has worked for one of Wolfram's competitors.) --Pleasantville (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Dahlia, User:Lmharnisch

• Black Dahlia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lmharnisch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user, who apparently writes for the LA Daily Times, or at least writes the Daily Mirror column,[7] has a webpage on which he discusses his efforts to write a book about the Black Dahlia case.[8] I had previously brought up the question of CoI in relationship to his postings of links to Daily Mirror columns in articles. My concern with his involvement with the Black Dahlia article pertains to his removal of information which he regards as erroneous (not to mention the less than courteous way he has done so), and also specifically, his comments on the work of other authors, as noted in the reversion he made on January 11.diff 24 of his 64 edits on Wikipedia have been on the Black Dahlia page itself, and a Google search[9] (which he suggests an editor use in order to contact him on his user page) reveals a pattern of some controversial critical writing about this subject. My feeling on this is that if he is actively engaged in writing about this subject professionally, and authoring a book, is that he should recuse himself from any editing whatsoever on this subject. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this is relatively minor in comparison to some of the posts on the board, but it is an issue I'd like an answer to from someone well-versed in this issue. No one responded to my earlier question regarding this editor's additions of links of his column to film actor articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Filippella

Resolved

 – Article was deleted. MER-C 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Contribution history of one of the Keep voters, Trueart (talk · contribs) belays that he is the subject of the article. Most other active edits in both the article and the AfD are from anon IPs with similar times, editing patterns, and syntax. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Langbar International, Barry Townsley, Serious Fraud Office (UK), Alternative Investment Market

• Nigelpwsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Nigelpwsmith user is a private shareholder activist, coordinator of the Langbar Action Group and secretary to the Representative Action. Google search results - [10] Please can you review WP:COI compliance. He has made a COI statement on the Talk:Langbar International page (he created most of the article content), but not on any of the other articles he's edited - Barry Townsley [11], Serious Fraud Office (UK) [12], Alternative Investment Market [13] or his user and talk pages. I'm unsure of the exact COI requirements. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Barlev blatant advertising

• Investigative auditing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article, created by user:Barlev appears to have a high degree of COI --Pearrari (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Barlev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user page is clearly being used for advertising a company. --Pearrari (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lino Carbosiero

• Lino Carbosiero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article, created by user:JackCornuto appears to have COI issues. The user says he is Carbosiero's cousin. I'm a little on the fence about this one, but it seems like the article needs to be completely re-written and seems more like an advertisement than a genuine article. I'm not 100% sure that it meets notability criteria, but I guess it could. Does anyone agree? Editortothemasses (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparing entries at Hairdresser#List of famous hairdressers, he seems to have comparable notabilty to many there. But the COI is clear, and we don't need the whole damn CV. The picture Image:LINO.jpg needs copyright clarification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Abacast article edited by an Abacast IP

I was a little surprised to see that we have a long article on Abacast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a web browser plug-in that's used to distribute streaming media. It appears that much of the content has come from 74.92.169.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as Jvosburgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both with virtually no editing outside the Abacast article. I'm not sure about the latter (registered) editor, but checking the conveniently-linked Whois report (which I like to do) shows that the IP address is assigned (by Comcast) to none other then Abacast[14].

I'm not sure if the article should be deleted (as it has 4 times), as their plug-in is used by the web sites of actual broadcast TV and radio stations[15] and its possible that some people wondering about the plug-in will come here looking for info. Jason McHuff (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Abacast article mentions Octoshape, curiously also on the the noticeboard at this very moment. If Octoshape is notable, as it appears to be, and Abacast is truly a competitor to Octoshape, then chances are that both articles should be kept. (The Octoshape people, over at Talk:Octoshape, have coyly declined to identify their competitors). Abacast is the newcomer that might still require more sourcing, in my view. If people can find no sources at all for Abacast it probably should be nominated for deletion. User:Jmchuff mentioned some companies that use Abacast, but they don't appear to be well-known. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Avenaim

Jerry Avenaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has made significant edits to the Jerry Avenaim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also has uploaded some of "his" pics. I put that in quotes b/c I'm suspicious if this is even the actual person. Please note their recent editing behaviour as to why. Thanks for your consideration of this matter. -Ebyabe (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You could ask him to prove who he is by sending an email from an address that's listed on one of his personal websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Information Research

Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a former board member of this organization, seems to be grinding some sort of ax here via some recent edits, including adding an article he got published as a reliable source. It's a clear COI issue. I dunno mentioning it here matters or anything. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

West park healthcare centre

West park healthcare centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the article was created by User:WestparkPR and the only substantial edits are by the same user; the article has a promotional tone. KurtRaschke (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GATEWAY - The MU* Community

• GATEWAY - The MU* Community - This article is not only showing a severe conflict of interest, but lacks distinct notability and POV issues. Largely this stems from the author of the article reverting any information that shows his claims are contrary, possibly due to personal involvement. Citations on the page are all directly from related sources (Electric soup is the web forum for Gateway), save for one from a Podcast that is simply an interview of the two people who run the very service the article is about. My citations were not much better given they are self-published, but they are logged information from a third party. I am not disputing the validity of my citations, I am disputing the fact that my citations, if incorrect, are just as at fault as the originals on the article page, and wish for community discussion on the topic of revision or simple deletion due to lack of notability and unbiased citations. Rubydanger (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This user has failed to prove anything. She is making slanderous comments instead. GreenJoe (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how revealing the self-promotional nature and conflict of interest in this article is slander. More the point, all of the citations found by yourself and other editors are invalid. I don't know why you are so passionate about this you refuse to let anyone touch your article. Rubydanger (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not my article. I'm just asking you to back up your claims. You haven't provided any proof, and the onus to provide proof is on you. GreenJoe (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Southern New England School of Law

• SNESL - Anon. IP User:72.248.108.178 removed a large section of material from this article [16]. However, a WHOIS of that IP [17] shows it to be owned/controlled by the Southern New England School of Law. As I feel the information is sourced, relevant, and fairly presented, I'd like some guidance of how to deal with the removal of information about an organization by a person affiliated with or acting for that organization. MBisanz ^talk 08:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph that the IP removed is referenced to court documents, which are primary sources. Is it possible that better sources might be found? This is the kind of legal issue that may well have caught the attention of newspapers, since the travails of the SNESL were not a secret. (The final sentence about the statute of limitations doesn't belong unless it can be cited; otherwise it's merely our speculation). Complete removal of the Rodi paragraph doesn't appear justified. The award of 2/3 of the costs, and the remand to the lower court, do represent a partial victory for Rodi. The court case is full of ironies, since the SNESL graduate Rodi served as his own lawyer when he maybe should have hired someone, but I realize that Wikipedia doesn't do irony. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A.B. found some good news sources. Since the content is only deleted, I'll wait till I have time, incorproate the news cites, and restore a fully sourced version. Would finding the law that says there is a statute of limitations be OR in this case? MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to find a secondary source, commenting on the statute of limitations in the specific case. The Appeals Court found a lot of loopholes in the SNESL's original claim that the statute of limitations had run. Incidentally, this article could use some mention of the proposal that SNESL be merged with the University of Massachusetts. Lack of ABA accreditation was one of the issues. The merger was proposed back in 2004 but apparently was not approved by the legislature. My searches of the Boston Globe found nothing about it, and a a UMass web site only comments on the proposal, not what happened to it. Some of the blogs claim that the percentage of those SNESL graduates who take the bar exam and pass in Connecticut and Massachusetts is less than those of other schools. There might be a way to document the passage rates. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizarrly, the school you mention has its own article University of Massachusetts School of Law I'd say a merge is in order. MBisanz ^talk 06:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Travisthurston

Travisthurston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a student at a school of naturopathy which is an alternative medicine certification program. In short, he will be employed in the future to practice alternative medicine. While we welcome his expertise and contributions that are reliably sourced and conform to neutrality, he has been resisting this by wholesale reverting a number of edits I made removing references to homeopathy that show up in unrelated articles (such as articles on botanical species and chemicals). I have posted a warning to his page, but I am also mentioning it here so that other users can back me up on this issue. In short, I believe that going around Wikipedia inserting uncited, non-neutral, and unduly weighted links and references to alternative medicine is definitely a conflict of interest in light of the fact that this person will soon be trying to make money in this controversial profession. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

yawn: thanks for the rant :) I think it's fair to say that you're coming into this with a clear agenda and in my opinion your accusations are laughable. We apparently have differing opinions on how WP should operate. While I offer a level of expertise to a subject field that may or may not be controversial, (depending on the reader) it is unclear to me what you offer. Admins will look at our editing history and determine what needs to be done about your 3RR edits and various POV charades... Either way, it's pretty obvious what's happening here. Thanks for the fun and games! --travisthurston+ 02:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is here because of a COI complaint. Are you asserting that your adding mentions of homeopathy to various articles is completely unrelated to your involvement in the homeopathy business? How does your expertise persuade you that the Thuja article needs to mention homeopathy? Can you reference a standard botanical reference work that considers the connection with homeopathy to be of top importance, for anyone learning about Thuja? EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I might be tempted to write about fluid dynamics in the water article, but that wouldn't make much sense because people interested in reading about water in an encyclopedia most likely aren't going there to learn about fluid dynamics. I'm open-minded about alternative medicine in some forms, and I've even been accused of being anti-scientific-consensus around here (though, without merit). But, homeopathy isn't a mainstream interest that people want to read about in the onion article, or in hair of the dog, and the like. Seriously, should every substance listed in a gigantic general encyclopedia have 50 lines devoted to homeopathy, or even modern medicine for that matter? No, of course not. On the other hand, I'm not sure why there couldn't be *dedicated* articles devoted to various alternative treatments. However, by WP:WEIGHT, the corresponding controversy with regard to mainstream science WILL BE in the article as well - so prepare yourself. Tparameter (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cooliris

User

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

Article

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

As becomes blatantly obvious upon a cursory examination of this pages "sources", austinshoemaker, the primary author of this article, is a founder and CTO of Cooliris, a clear example of WP:COI.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric4200 (talk • contribs)

He also hasn't edited for almost a year. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but the article is up for AfD, and I thought it was worth mentioning the COI fact here. Eric4200 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Larry Mullins

• Larry Mullins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rentrabar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Larry Mullins article was created by Larry Mullins and has been edited by Rentrabar (his company is called The RentraBar Group). He is obviously attempting to use this article to advertise himself as seen in this message and the fact that the article was created a day after he posted his resume on a job board. I tagged the article and did some clean up to it. It still needs a lot of work and I’m not sure if he meets WP:BIO. He won an Emmy (probably a regional emmy) and was National Correspondent/Producer for NBC News for a year. BlueAzure (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Enverite at G&D's

User:Enverite appears to be the subject of his/her recent edits at G&D's. He/She is replacing information on the subject of the article with biographical details about Davis Roberts, and is ignoring requests to discuss the issue, preferring to engage in edit-war-like tactics. To avoid hitting 3RR I've ceased to revert his/her edits. Stannered (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

British Airways flight 38

It looks like a BA employee has edited this article, removing a portion in which a passenger was critical of BA after the accident, and added in a more pro-BA piece without a reference. I've tried finding out who it was, but without success. Could someone experienced in these matters take a look please? Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The two things you mentioned were done by two different editors. MER-C 13:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

QlikTech

User

• Anthony Deighton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article

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

The article was largely written by Anthony Deighton, who is QlikTech's Vice President of Marketing.

Thelema

Users

• Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thiebes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stealthepiscopalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article

• Thelema

Background A single organization, Ordo Templi Orientis, has for some time tried to redefine and be the sole definer of Aleister Crowley's religion Thelema, which he documentably borrowed from Francois Rabelais. This organization wishes to downplay or eliminate Crowley's literary and philosophical appropriation by emphasizing Crowley's story that he "channeled" the phrase "Do what thou wilt" and the word "Thelema" when they documentably appear in Rabelais. Multiple independent sources note this and are cited and quoted in the article notes.

Current situation The three users mentioned are most likely members of the organization seeking to rewrite the history of Thelema. User:Thiebes discloses this on his user page. User:Stealthepiscopalian is most certainly a member based on his edits to this article and others. User:Dan may be a member but has neither disclosed nor denied this. He is attempting to rewrite the article eliminating the documented historical background from the lead section. He is being supported by the other two. While he claims to be willing to discuss, he only speaks in generalities and makes demonstrably false statements. When pressed to respond to details about what is actually in sources, he instead tries to get the page protected [18] and when that fails, opens a user conduct RfC against an IP address [19]. Note that the RfC is almost immediately signed by User:Thiebes without any on-Wiki notification. Clearly the users were in prior contact about the issue, compounding the COI with meatpuppetry. 85.178.69.150 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)