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 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

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.

Octoshape

Resolved

 – Article has been rewritten to ensure neutrality. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Thanks for your response. On his User page, User:Gordonofcartoon (who I was counting on for further research) has indicated he won't be able to follow up on this issue. Since only Gordon and I, besides the original IP and Pastorrussell, have commented here, I think it is reasonable to close this, without prejudice to reopening if anyone has time to investigate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reopening this for discussion as I still think this article needs some revision and input to be COI free. I don't know how much time I will have to research the issues but I will do my best.Shaneroosky (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article content, I can see some evidence of COI editing. It must be remembered that (according to their own WP articles) the Jehovah's Witnesses have 17 million adherents, while "there are still thousands of Bible Students worldwide". The fact that the Bible student navbox is listed above the JW navbox in Russell's article, and that Bible students are mentioned before JWs in the description of groups he founded, are clear violations of WP:Undue weight. Also, "best known as Pastor Russell" in the first sentence needs to be sourced; if, as I suspect, only non-JW Bible Students call him that (it is, if course, the username and website name of the editor in question here), it should not be in the Intro.

Here is the current version of the page, to which I am referring. I am now going to fix the issues I just described. If Gordonofcartoon or Shareroosky want to identify specific issues that I can helpfully comment on, please let me know on my talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think there is a problem here. Here is User:Pastorrussell's response to my changes (and others too, mine are only in the lead paragraph). He insists on downplaying Jehovah's Witnesses, who make up 99.9% of Russell's present-day followers (however imperfectly they may follow him), and insists on the appellation "Pastor Russell", which strikes me as very non-encyclopedic. Note also that the user's website is the first listed at Charles Taze Russell#External links, and is identified as the "official CT Russell website". Declared official by whom? On his website, the user says one of his motivations is to "separate [Russell] from Jehovah's Witnesses," raising WP:SOAP concerns. The user's motivations are clearly to attract people to his website as well as to his small sect, which (in words that he added and I removed at the Bible Student movement page) has "had increased visibility and influence in recent years due to the formation and growth of the world wide web."

It seems to me that User:Pastorrussell should be counseled to cease placing undue weight on his minority viewpoint and to cease promoting his website and his sect. If he cannot comply, then he should be enjoined from editing on topics related to C.T. Russell. I will leave a message on his talk page requesting his comment. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The name "Pastor Russell" is the most frequent name used for this man, and you can find that in nearly any encyclopedia. This isn't my preference, it is a matter of historical fact. The reference to the "increased visibility" et.al. was simply a poor wording on my part, and should clearly have been removed. The "Official site" is under the direction of Bible Students and his remaining family members. There is no attempt to downplay the Jehovah's Witnesses at all. The issue is one of balance. Both groups should be mentioned as they spring from the same movement. No one group should be marked out. I take offense to the direct matter-of-fact statements made as to my motives. How can you know my motives without asking me? Obviously there is some confusion as to the historical facts regarding Russell, Bible Students, and the JWs. The reference from the website that you quoted is not related to the article in any way, and has no impact upon the way the article is written. I have worked tirelessly with others over the past two years to make the article as neutral and unbiased as possible in every conceivable way, but have often been attacked by those who support JWs and wish to make the article more pro JW which is in violation of wikipedia policies. We need to have balance. Of course, nobody is perfect, but it really isn't fair to characterize me in such a negative light when you are making assumptions based on statements taken out of context. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need balance, but that does not mean giving all views equal weight; per WP:NPOV, it means views should be described with a weight "in proportion to the prominence of each". JWs (which, btw, I do not support in any way) are by far Russell's most prominent followers and should be most prominently mentioned. Some of the problems can be helped by inline citations, which currently are very sparse in this article. Claims such as that he is generally known as "Pastor Russell" by more than just certain of his followers, or that the majority of his followers left the Watchtower Society in the schism, need to be sourced. I looked at this JW source (hosted on your website, actually), which calls him "Brother Russell" and claims that the majority of his adherents remained faithful to the WTS. At External Links, I would list your website after Watchtower.org, and would not describe it as "official". In general, Wikipedia's job is to reflect the body of primary and secondary sources that we draw on, not to correct its errors.

I am willing to assume good faith on your part, and I hope to see better. I hope that you have carefully read WP:COI, because you clearly have a major potential conflict and need to be careful to keep your edits encyclopedic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the CTR entry is about the man and his life, history, theology, etc... and neither about JWs nor Bible Students. This means that nothing in the entry should seem to support either group, but simply mention the minimal yet pertinent historical facts of these two groups in relation to him. Unfortunately, it appears that much of the controversy here comes from an innocent ignorance of the history. JWs are NOT his followers, and that seems to be the major misunderstanding here. The Bible Student movement emerged as a result of Russell's ministry. When he died the majority (nearly three-quarters - documented in dozens of places) left the organization that he founded and formed several fellowships, all of whom remain in close contact and are called Bible Students. They still follow the teachings espoused by Russell, study his books, and hold to his views. The JWs on the other hand were the minority and were not founded by Russell, but by Rutherford his successor, in the year 1931, nearly fifteen years after Russell's death. Their theological viewpoints are significantly and radically different from Russell's, and they neither study nor encourage reading of his writings. All that they do is claim him as their founder which is not strictly correct as he didn't found their movement he simply founded the legal corporation they currently control. Anyhow, the CTR entry shouldn't have anything to do with JWs or Bible Students in terms of the historical information, but simply be restricted to the details of his life, while any details regarding the two mentioned groups be limited in scope in this article with the greater details kept within their own primary entries. Incidentally, the navbox on Bible Students and the one on JWs were both added by someone else, and I had nothing to do with either the creation or placement. The "official website" is through those who still study his writings and of those who are his remaining family, and is thus entirely official. JWs have NOTHING to do with the man, don't study his material, in fact going so far as to call his writings "old light" and their members are strongly discouraged from reading his works. Bible Students were in the majority, but now are the minority. JWs were the minority but now are the majority, and very rarely refer to themselves as Bible Students in order to not be confused with the other group. So, such info should be balanced, unbiased, but most importantly limited insofar as THIS article is concerned. Because of these misunderstandings my attempts to keep the article balanced and as unbiased as possible have been misconstrued and are being interpreted in completely the opposite way, which is unfortunate and very stressful. Pastorrussell (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again I'll say that citing sources will go a long way towards fixing a lot of the problems around here. Don't just tell me that a certain claim is "documented in dozens of places," cite one or two of those sources when that statement is made in the article! I'll also note that third-party sources (i.e., with no vested interest in either JWs or BSs) will be ten times more valuable in convincing people of your claims. As for your opinion that Russell is not properly a founder of the JWs, I don't actually care whether you're right or wrong, because Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. What is relevant here is that this opinion of yours is hardly a consensus (which means it should not be stated as unqualified fact), and I don't know that it's even a majority view (if it's not, then it shouldn't be most prominently mentioned). Again, impartial third-party sources will be by far the most valuable here. Finally, I still have a problem with "official." C.T. Russell is not still around to give his endorsement, and there are multiple conflicting groups that claim his legacy. You need to qualify that claim about your website.

I'm not going to say more about the details here, basically because I have a passing interest in the topic but not enough to dig deeply into it. I think at this point you're aware of your potential conflicts, and I trust you'll be careful. If, in the future, I can be useful as a mediator, I'd be glad to help. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The way I worded my last comment was simply a brief outline for you so you could see what the matter is about. I am currently working on an exhaustive list of third-party references for the said entry. My hope is to have them all finished in about a week or two. As for the official website there are only two groups that are "conflicting" -JWs and Bible Students. Again, exhaustive references from all appropriate sources is being compiled. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hokay, I'm back. Sorry about the absence. I agree with much of what has been said: specifically the need for third-party citation (I don't really trust sources from the minutes of a church to be sufficiently objective about its own history). Also Pastorrussell should avoid edits - unless trivially obvious - that simply assert without proof that a change is wrong. (Note also that you can't defame or libel [1] [2] someone who has been dead since 1916).

That said, I'm still uneasy about what relationship the operator of its "official website" has to the subject. If it's promotional and/or protective toward the subject, there's a conflict of interest. This "official" status still hasn't been satisfactorily explained, and discussion is ongoing at Talk:Charles Taze Russell#"Official" Website. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Abacast article edited by an Abacast IP

Resolved

 – Article was deleted (no-one contested the prod). EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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[3].

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[4] 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)

The Abacast article has no sources at all, let alone reliable sources. I have proposed it for deletion. Anyone who has the time is welcome to add sources. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Not sure how I missed it, but User:Jvosburgh has said that he's with Abacast [5] (this leaves few non-Abacast-connected editors of the article) --Jason McHuff (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

LACMTA Expo Line

• Damienwg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fixexpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dnwh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Group FixExpo [6], created and headed by Damien Goodmon, is currently in a legal battle with the Expo Construction Authority [7], trying to stop the construction of the line (see, e.g., one of his latest legal filings [8], among the numerous).

It is highly unethical for FixExpo to make edits on the LACMTA Expo Line article, given its direct legal interest and lawsuit against the Expo Construction Authority, who is constructing the light-rail line.

Therefore, please do not allow edits by these two users (FixExpo and Damienwg) on the LACMTA_Expo_Line article.

Cheviotla (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is some inappropriate editing taking place at LACMTA Expo Line. I hope that User:Damienwg will make an appearance here to discuss the situation. The article's Talk page has a lot of recent discussion of the Conflict of Interest, but due to a scrambled time order, it is hard to follow the Talk page. I am surprised that we have such a large article on this topic. It seems to use lots of primary sources, which can lead to a confusing situation when there are conflicts going on. I hope that someone who has time can review the Talk page (and perhaps fix the time order of the postings) and can bring us more advice here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The COI issues should be discussed here rather than on the article talk page which has too many personal comments already. Overall, the article appears to be a battelground among activists on both sides of the issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not a "both sides" issue. Unlike the editors who are members of Light Rail for Cheviot and Friends 4 Expo, I'm interested in accuracy in the article. There is none in the article - simple advocacy. Just look at what Cheviotla who is a member of both organizations (but claims isn't) did to the neutrality tag. They arbitrarily removed it (which was placed by someone else) even though there was no consensus on the issue being resolved. The tag should be re-added, the article needs to be completely rewritten and until the issues are resolved the neutrality tag should remain. Further, Cheviotla should be issued a warning to not remove the tag and banned if they try to again. (Damienwg (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

—

Administrators:

Evidently the new editor on the LACMTA Expo Line article, Dnwh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is the same user as Damienwg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was the same user as Fixexpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that was blocked. Therefore, it has the same conflict-of-interest problem. I think the associated IP address should be permanently blocked to prevent this person (Damien Goodmon) from making edits on this page under different user names on behalf of his legal protests [9] with the California Public Utilities commision. Cheviotla (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If User:Dnwh and User:Damienwg are actually the same person, that is troubling, because there's no obvious need for Damien to use multiple accounts here. Dnwh's very first Wikipedia edit was to add a POV tag to this article. There is no reason why Damienwg can't continue to participate on the Talk page, so I don't see the case for blocking Damienwg. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Selma Blair

Resolved

 – Article edited to include only reliable sources. Pairadox (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Wishlab has been repeatedly blanking sections of the article, claiming to be Ms. Blair's representative. In particular, xe keeps removing a report that Blair was seen checking into rehab. I've already left a note on xer talk page about WP:COI and WP:3RR, but it's moving towards edit-warring. Can someone help straighten this out? shoy 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to the page, checked the source for the rehab report, and the source is actually comically bad: the actual link is a gossip site (unafiliated with Us Weekly) which is supposed to reference Us Weekly (somewhere) as reporting about the rehab. But the site on it's front page criticizes Us Weekly for fraudulent pregnancy rumors (!). That is, the source for the source, denies the reliability of the source. So there is just no way to call that chain of references reliable. So I deleted the item and requested on the discussion page that a citable reference be supplied if someone wants it back. Frankly I have to wonder about Shoy, but if there is no more edit warring I'm happy to forget this. Pete St.John (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Single-purpose vandalism. My deletion of the unsourced item got reverted by Kaya80, a single purpose account (see contribs). Can an admin look at this or should I post an AN/I? Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The edits by User:Wishlab are close to a COI violation, and User:Kaya80 has been repeatedly putting in that defamatory item about drug rehab that has no adequate source. Thanks to User:PeterStJohn and User:Pairadox for dealing with the inappropriate material. The version of the Selma Blair article as of this exact moment looks OK to me. If Kaya80 persists trying to insert the rehab thing, then a listing at WP:ANI seems appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The rehab information is fine to include but with better sourcing. Look here. Major media attention. Lawrence § t/e 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking closer at the search results Lawrence Cohen has provided, most aren't about Blair in rehab at all. The single mention that appears in a reliable source only mentions her in passing in an article about Lindsey Lohan. But I've now included it and am marking this thread as resolved since it's no longer about a COI. Pairadox (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a COI, but it's horrible editting. I didn't find even the passing mention of Selma Blair in the gossip article about Lindsey Lohan. That's totally not a reputable source and I reverted it. Pete St.John (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you didn't look hard enough. "The Promises facility has had some famous patients of late, with both Britney Spears and actress Selma Blair undergoing treatment at the luxurious complex." About the 13th paragraph down. Pairadox (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User Shadow600 posting mentions of Esther Lederberg everywhere

• Seymour Benzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shadow600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been relentless in adding material about Esther Lederberg (1922-2006) to articles (about 50 edits so far). Though Lederberg appears notable enough to have her own article, mentions of her are being added in places that aren't justified, in my view. In this edit User:Shadow600 added mention of Esther Lederberg as a 'good friend' of Seymour Benzer, expressing the opinion that Lederberg should have won the Nobel Prize.

In nearly all cases, the newly-added Lederberg material is cited only to a personal self-published site, http://www.estherlederberg.com, which expresses grievance about the lack of sufficient appreciation for Lederberg's work. This editor can't be Lederberg herself, who is no longer alive, but could be a relative. The web page is copyrighted by someone named Matthew Simon. A New York Times obituary for Lederberg indicates that Matthew Simon was her husband. I'm leaving a message for User:Shadow600 asking him to join this discussion. All the new material that is not referenced to a reliable source may have to go. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston raises a number of interesting points. I'll respond to them in order.

(1) "Mentions of her are being added in places that aren't justified, in my view."

The Esther Lederberg Memorial Web Site contains scans of literally hundreds of photos of friends and professional colleagues of Esther Lederberg. In the process of creating the section of her Wikipedia article that lists just a handful of her colleagues, I checked to see if each one had a Wikipedia article of their own. Where applicable, I linked each name to their Wikipedia page.

I saw my action more like a 'cross-referencing' ('posting' a note about them on Esther's page, and then a corresponding note about Esther on their page), than an intrusion. To me, it was just good information architecture.

(2) "In this edit, Shadow600 added mention of Esther Lederberg as a 'good friend' of Seymour Benzer, expressing the opinion that Lederberg should have won the Nobel prize."

What I actually wrote, regarding the Nobel Prize, is that "Esther also did not receive the Nobel Prize, though many people thought she should have received it."

(3) "In nearly all cases, the newly-added Lederberg material is cited only to a personal self-published site, http://www.estherlederberg.com, which expresses grievance about the lack of sufficient appreciation for Lederberg's work."

This particular "personal self-published site" is the most authoritative, complete web site about Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg, on the internet.

Esther Lederberg died only 14 months ago (11/11/2006). This web site is being constructed in parallel with the archive of her extensive work. Neither is yet complete. Thus -- at least for the time being -- the web site serves not only as a memorial to Esther Lederberg, but as an inventory and map of the actual information (papers, photographs, letters, awards) that may be found in the archive.

It is claimed on Esther Lederberg's memorial web site that every item represented on the site is either an analog to a real, physical item in Esther Lederberg's archive, or a representation of a printed paper already in the public domain.

There is no other web site that provides the detailed information found in Esther Lederberg's archive. Thus, this 'personal self-published site' is the most complete site currently in existence.

If there are any questions about the veracity of any of the materials on www.estherlederberg.com, I recommend you contact the webmaster for that site, Matthew Simon. You should be prepared to show evidence for your charges. (Wikipedia should not invite a publicly-documented charge of censorship.)

(4) "The web page is copyrighted by someone named Matthew Simon. A New York Times obituary for Lederberg indicates that Matthew Simon was her husband. I'm leaving a message for User:Shadow600 asking him to join this discussion."

I would prefer to maintain my privacy, if you don't mind. But I can assure you that I am NOT Matthew Simon. I am not a relative of his or Esther's. In fact, I'm not even a "him".

(5) "All the new material that is not referenced to a reliable source may have to go."

I agree. Any new material that is not referenced to a reliable source SHOULD be excised. However, I can't think of a more reliable source of information about Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg than her own archive. Can you?

Shadow600 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow600 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with that website? Pairadox (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not affiliated with that web site (http://www.estherlederberg.com). Shadow600 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have examined the article and--here--have evaluated to some extent based on my own academic knowledge of the subject. the article exemplifies represents some of the difficulty with COI--whether from a friend, colleague , or relative. This is supposed to be an article about her, not a tribute to her. With respect to sourcing, the rule is straightforward: we do not use archival material, we use self-originated material only for uncontroversial biographical details, and we prefer sources in third-party published sources. A good deal of the article is devoted to a defense of her importance, not a presentation of it, and this is not the appropriate tone; neither is a long discussion of the difficulties of women in science, especially those with more famous spouses. It's a very real topic, and what is said is in my opinion correct, but not an appropriate part of the article. I have done some editing, and will be doing some more. I'll be glad to discuss the details on the article talk page. I also agree with EdJ's removal of the paragraph from the article on Benzer. It is really peripheral. I recommend to shadow a careful examination of WP:COI, and WP:RS. DGG (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, three questions:

1. You say "This is supposed to be an article about her, not a tribute to her."

What portion of the article are you calling a tribute, and why? And a 'tribute' as opposed to WHAT? Are you saying this is not truly factual information?

2. You say "we do not use archival material, we use self-originated material only for uncontroversial biographical details, and we prefer sources in 'third-party' published sources."

I didn't originate any of the material I cite. It was all originated independently by others -- in many cases, before I was even born.

Why is http://www.estherlederberg.com not considered to be a 'third-party' source? All the artifacts it displays (including a number of letters written by third parties) were created by others, and are all verifiable in physical fact. (They are all documented parts of Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg's Stanford archive, duly checked in and catalogued by a Stanford employee.)

Can you give me an example of a good, relevant 'third-party' source on Esther Lederberg, that would serve in place of all the 'self-originated' material you say I cite? Other than the third-party sites I already mention, that is. (To the best of my knowledge, all the journal articles I cite are long since in the public domain, as is the Brandeis University scientific.legacies site.)

3. You say "I also agree with EdJ's removal of the paragraph from the article on Benzer. It is really peripheral."

If you do that you're denuding the Benzer page of most of its content.

What about that editor's statement that Benzer should have won the Nobel Prize? I see no third-party attribution there, and yet that statement still stands. Isn't that a defense of Benzer, or a tribute? Why is that okay? Are there different criteria for Seymour Benzer than there are for Esther Lederberg? And if so, why?

(By the way, I'm not disputing that Seymour Benzer should have won the Nobel Prize.)

Shadow600 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate content; use the article talk page for that. This is to determine a potential Conflict of interest.

You say you have no connection to http://www.estherlederberg.com. Is there ANY connection that would present a conflict of interest, e.g. family member, protégé, colleague, employee of any of the above? I notice that still hasn't been addressed. Pairadox (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't addressed because it wasn't asked. (In the real world I am, among other things, a technical writer. Hence, VERY literal. It drives me crazy when computer manuals advise users to "HIT Return.")

But since you ask:

I am not a member of Esther Lederberg's family, a protege of Esther Lederberg, a colleague of Esther Lederberg, or a former employee of Esther Lederberg.

I am not a member of Matthew Simon's family, a protege of Matthew Simon, a colleague of Matthew Simon, or an employee of Matthew Simon. (Actually, I believe the guy is retired.)

I'm currently engaged in a serious investigation of Wikipedia Guidelines. I don't expect to create or be involved in further trouble on this score.

Henceforth, I'll take content issues to the article talk page.

Shadow600 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you responded to the examples, but left the core question unanswered. To reiterate: Is there ANY connection that would present a conflict of interest? Pairadox (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not. Shadow600 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Shadow600 has denied some of the obvious real-life connections that are treated at this noticeboard. However this user is still busy adding the self-published personal site http://www.estherlederberg.com as a reference for factual claims to a variety of different articles. This is *not* a reliable source for any factual claims. I'm requesting a consensus of the editors here that this site be removed from all the articles Shadow600 has added it to.

Another issue that may of wider concern to administrators is that Shadow600 is making troubling changes to the article on Joshua Lederberg, the biologist who shared the 1958 Nobel prize with Edward Tatum and George Beadle. Joshua is the ex-husband of Esther Lederberg, and since he is still alive our rules about Wikipedia:Biography of living persons apply to any changes to his article. I draw this edit to your attention. Here is a section from it:

References to Joshua Lederberg's accomplishments (including those claimed by the National Library of Medicine and others) must be examined with great care. Citations are often missing. When references are provided, names of other participating researchers are explicitly excluded. When photographs announcing discoveries are provided, they are from entirely different events. Such photographs exclude other researchers who either made the discoveries or were co-discoverers with Joshua Lederberg.

How do people feel about Shadow600 adding attacks on the conduct of Joshua Lederberg to that man's article? The word 'dishonesty' is used in the title of the self-published link that has been added as a reference. Before any talk of blocks is introduced, I guess it should be observed that reverts of defamatory material don't count toward 3RR. I'll wait to give a chance for response from others before I do any edits of this article myself. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Shadow600 replies for what she hopes is the last time:

I agree that I got carried away with changes to Joshua Lederberg's page. I have not reversed anything you or other editors have deleted from that page since that time, because I see that I overstepped.

So really, I think the remaining energy on those changes, all these days later, is quite misplaced.

I read your "self-published" jibe as a commentary on the 'ransom note' quality of much of the Esther Lederberg Memorial Web Site, and I understand it. It's a pity that the site looks so ANGRY. Still: what does one do, when sites by grieving spouses, have scans of real, honest-to-god artifacts, that aren't available online anywhere else?

No, don't answer that. This has really gone on far too long already.

Shadow600 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bikerfox

Resolved

 – Article was deleted at AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

A self-styled internet celebrity, originally editing as Bikerfox, recently through IP 68.12.57.246. Contentiously engages in revert-warring over absurd claims, self-promotion, and resorts to vandalism when opposed. Similar behaviour exhibited on Frontflip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CounterFX (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Per etiquette, I have informed the said editor of this report, and also mentioned it on the Bikerfox talk page in case past editors would be interested in participating. CounterFX (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikerfox (2nd nomination). MER-C 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Freddy Moore

• user Eroomgf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• user Fgmoore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• article Freddy Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've described the incident here. I'd like an administrators (or other editors) comments. Please, if you could, once you have commented please leave a message on my talk page stating so, as I will most likely forget about this otherwise. Thanks! Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 06:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Though you were right to mention this at COIN, the further discussion which has occurred over at Talk:Freddy Moore#Possible Conflict of Interest indicates this editor is quite unlikely to be the singer himself. The article is not badly written and nobody (it seems) has been reverting this person's edits, which seem collaborative. The singer may not really deserve this much ink, but if so, it's up to some industrious person to rewrite the article. I suggest that we close this report and remove the {{COI}} tag from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the IP creator of the article and the named account are actually two different people. Looking at the IP contribution history[10] shows that the IP was editing both Demi and Freddy Moore's articles on 9 May 2006 until 22:54. Fgmoore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created just 6 minutes after that, and immediately started uploading pics for the Moore article. Even assuming the best, there is the fact that the majority of edits by Fgmoore (and Eroomgf) have been in relation to the various bands, people and albums that Freddy Moore has been involved with; Skogie (band)‎, The Kats‎, Boy (1980s band)‎, Dennis Peterson‎, Skogie and the Flaming Pachucos‎, The Nu Kats‎... well, you get the idea. I think there's a strong case for COI, if not on this article, then on many others. Pairadox (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think there's a real COI, then probably we should just rewrite the article to remove the excessive material. I had assumed that all this stuff was added by a fan. Almost nothing in the article has citations to online-accessible sources, so we would probably need to shorten it drastically. Nothing prevents Fgmoore from coming back with reliable sources, of course. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the patterns, I'd call it likely. Given the sheer number, I'm not sure how to proceed with the follow-up. There's probably better than a dozen more than the ones I listed, included more bands, albums, songs and people. Pairadox (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Atma Singh

• Atma Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article created by AtSiKa -- apparently an acronym of the subject. Majority of edits from anonymous users, who have only edited this article; or by Askangconsultancyltd, which is apparently a company whose chairman and MD is the subject of this article. Much of the text, and all of the images, come from the subject's own web site. The subject may be notable; but the current article reads like a vanity article. RolandR (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atma Singh. Pairadox (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Howson autobiography?

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

I suspect that User:MichaelBergman is in fact Frank Howson, the user is the creator and a major contributor to the Howson article. I posted a note at WP:BLPN about a week ago. The following interchange has occurred on my talk page (I have cut and pasted it):

BLPN

Hello. It's been so long since you placed your note at WP:BLPN about Frank Howson, that I thought I'd duplicate my reply here. :) I'll be watching your talk page if you'd like to discuss it with me further.

I have tagged the article with {{COI2}} and left template {{Uw-coi}} at the talk page of the editor. I am unfamiliar with the subject, but as a regular contributor trust that you will be keeping an eye on it. :) If you feel the problem persists, you may have better luck addressing it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where volunteers are more accustomed to dealing specifically with this issue. I know it recommends at the top bringing BLP issues here, but I do see other autobiographies addressed on that page. I suspect (though I'm not sure) that they mean a COI where an editor is deliberately defaming the subject of the article rather than promoting him. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response, my concerns relate to both self-promotion within the Frank Howson article but also the editor's contributions to linked articles. To my eye they tend to be non-NPOV and poorly referenced & I have corrected some that I felt were too extreme: other editors have done likewise. Until recently, I was unaware that the editor was almost certainly the subject of this article and thus had particular personal biases for or against living individuals in other articles. With this hindsight, more of his contributions are possible non-NPOV statements and they still remain, both here and elsewhere. Since I have also been a contributor to many of the same articles I felt that I should not delete nor modify his contributions due to possible bias.

I suggest looking at the article's Page History starting with 14:30, 9 August 2007 version, just before I started editing the article: it was due to be deleted! I put in a lot of effort to wikify this article in good faith perceiving the content to be notable but poorly formatted. Check the article's version on 00:21, 21 September 2007 after most of my changes had been implemented. I did contribute a few more times attempting to obtain a photo of Mr. Howson for the infobox but no usable image was available however consider: Image:Frank Howson.jpg uploaded by the editor and which I used for the article but was subsequently deleted. I pointed out on the editor's talk page (on 11:41, 25 September 2007, before due date of deletion had occurred) that it was a good image but that it was the same as that on Mr. Howson's MySpace page: I believed it had been taken off the page without permission but the editor may have been able to provide evidence of such permission.

Now, however, I suspect Howson of writing almost all of the content of the article - I concede that he has a phenomenal memory (or has kept very good notes): I have been able to verify / edit substantial portions of his account but some remains murky and likely non-NPOV. I notice from the article that Howson has researched and is promoting a "tell all" book, he has produced/directed new film/stage projects since returning to Australia and is looking to start more projects: thus portions of this article becomes highly suspect as self-promotional.

IMO, other articles that require checking for possible non-NPOV statements made by this editor (or by non-identified ISPs that may be same person) include: Terry Reid (self-promotion?); John Paul Young negative non-NPOV & since deleted (but may return in future); Kerry Armstrong negative non-NPOV is still in article; Les Darcy (self-promotion? & negative non-NPOV to Heath Ledger); Stan Rofe (self-promotion?); Magical Frank (self-promotion? & merge to existing Frank Howson as being same person!) similar {{COI2}} and {{COI2}} may be needed here too; and Guy Pearce (self-promotion? some still remains: most of the original non-NPOV (negative comments about Pearce) entries have be deleted by other editors).

Due to my own involvement, I don't believe I have sufficient neutrality to undertake the edits / changes that I perceive to be required. Hence, I have asked for a suitable administrator to check entries by this editor (& possible non-identified ISP edits) for non-NPOV content.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It sounds very much as though you might want to file this at WP:COIN, then. I would imagine that the editors there are used to dealing with such situations and may be able to help straighten it out. Good luck with it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that suitable action can be undertaken.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through the edits he's made to articles beyond his biography. It looks to me like he's trying to do nothing more than drop his name in as many articles as possible, within unreferenced material that apparently has no encyclopedic value. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, does anyone think Magical Frank has any encyclopedic value? If the content is a fair presentation, then it's obviously notable, although Bergman/Howson clearly wrote this as another piece of pure vanity. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Magical Frank should be redirected, however, is it possible to redirect it to the relevant sub-section of Frank Howson called Early years?

I would like to thank Someguy1221 (& others involved) for the time-consuming task of tracking down User:MichaelBergman's contributions to other articles and re-editing where appropriate: I happy with the ones I've read. IMO, Guy Pearce still needs to have the Howson component toned down: Pearce was already a notable TV actor (in Australia) and, although Howson assisted in Pearce's transition to film acting / international recognition, the article's sentences by Howson/Bergman read like it was a one person effort.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol COI dispute (Nraden and DebV)

Resolved

 – The issue has quiesced. Those concerned are obeying the COI guideline. There have been no further personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Book written by T. S. Wiley. Her husband, User:Nraden, has been involved in a COI dispute with User:Debv for quite some time, and issues resulting from this dispute have spilled over onto Wikiquette alerts, User talk:Cheeser1, User talk:Nraden, and my talk page. Nraden says that Debv is an outspoken critic of the Wiley Protocol, that she runs "hate sites" off-wiki and pushes her POV, and essentially blocks progress toward constructive edits. I have not seen much of Debv's side of this, but I've officially told Nraden by way of my talk page that I no longer want to be involved in the matter.

The latest point of contention is that Cheeser1 added a COI tag to the top of the Wiley Protocol article and a COI-user template to Talk:Wiley Protocol that calls out Nraden as a COI editor. Nraden believes that DebV should also be called out as a COI in this manner, but his attempt to add that tag was reverted. My personal take on this is that Nraden, being Wiley's husband, is clearly in COI - nobody seems to dispute that. I also believe that if Debv is as outspoken a critic as Nraden says she is, she would also be in COI, or at least should be watched for violations of WP:NPOV. I'm not in a good position to judge this conflict, so that's why I'm bringing it up here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Debv is ACTIVELY involved in an attempt to stop the Wiley Protocol. This goes beyond her website, wileywatch.org, she contacts media outlets and internet sites wherever Wiley appears. This is clearly COI. She has much more skin in the game than just a negative opinion. We agreed almost a year ago to not edit the article, agreeing that we were both COI. It has worked well, with the help of WLU, but Cheeser1 is meddling because I filed a WQA against him. I ask that you either remove my COI template, or reinsert the one Cheeser1 removed for Debv. Neil Raden (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For context:

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Neil Raden: Original WQA filed against Neil Raden by Debv, accusing him of personal attacks and veiled threats against her.
• User talk:Nraden#Wikiquette Alert: Extensive discussion in here, including by Cheeser1 (who handled the above WQA).
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Cheeser1 (2): WQA filed against Cheeser1 by Neil Raden, accusing him of false accusations and other incivility. I attempted to help out in this one by pointing out to Cheeser1 how some of what he had said in the prior discussion may have been offensive. I also told Nraden that by chastising Cheeser1, I was *not* condoning Neil's actions or taking sides in the matter.
  • Cheeser1 discussion
  • "Witch hunt" discussion in Cheeser1's talk page
  • Conversation between Cheeser1 and Nraden - Cheeser1 tells Nraden to stop "trolling" in his talk page.
  • Discussion in my talk page, partially copied in User talk:Nraden#Cheeser1

What this boils down to is a long-standing feud between Nraden and Debv, which has obviously spilled over onto Wikipedia in the form of edit warring on the Wiley Protocol article, and is further spilling into back-and-forth fighting that's involving WP:WQA and other noticeboards. At this point, it's difficult for me to tell which of the ANs this issue really belongs in, since quite a few policies have been breached at this point, and it's caused (in my opinion) a lot of undue stress on several editors who have tried to help, myself included. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the tag, even though I'm not one for the use of that tag. Seems like Nraden/DebV dispute needs to be escalated to ANI, or at least Nraden's persistent, tendentious behavior should be. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you should conclude that a COI template for DebV should be added too. She said, in her WQA complaint, "Both of us are obviously COI." Why don't you ask yourself why only one of us was singled out? Also, "tendentioius" is the same word Cheeser1 used just a few minutes ago. Is this a coincidence? Neil Raden (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm using "tendentious" in reference to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was "obviously" COI but looking WP:COI over again (it's been a while), it's not entirely clear to me whether I qualify. I suppose the "Campaigning" example would be the closest match. But it really doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I'm happy to limit myself to the talk pages of these two articles and let others decide whether any of what I bring to the table merits incorporation.

I'm not involved in the dispute over COI tags and don't wish to be. To me, the only outstanding issue between Neil Raden and me (here on Wikipedia) is the persistent personal attacks, and I'm pretty well resolved at this point not to respond to them. If they continue, I'll take the issue to the next level. Debv (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Limiting yourself to the talk pages, not responding to the personal attacks and using proper "no personal attacks" channels are very good decisions. Pairadox (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Close? On 28 January, after appropriate discussions Cheeser1 removed the {{COI2}} tag from the article. I notice that Nraden and WLU have been working on a revised version of the article in a calm manner. Both Nraden and Debv are continuing to observe the COI rules by staying off the article itself. The submitter of the complaint, KieferSkunk, is not inclined to do anything more with the issue. Since the previous unpleasantness seems to be dying down, is it time to close this? EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: Editorial process being dictated by followers

• Osho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the editing and decision making process, particularly the inclusion of relevant factual information by others (generally from academic sources or news items)is being manipulated and controlled by two individuals; both of whom have had, or still have, affiliations with Osho International Foundation. It can be easily verified that said individuals are "Swamis" by doing relevant searches on the internet. They are intentionally frustrating the efforts of those who attempt to address serious NPOV issues that exist in this article Semitransgenic (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Which accounts are involved? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One would assume

• Jalal (talk · contribs), whose user page reports past association with the movement and dissatisfaction with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing on this subject.
• Jayen466 (talk · contribs), who Semitransgenic claims is a swami in the Bagwash's movement. Evidence? 86.147.151.211 (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect Semitransgenic is referring to me. It is a response to some reverts that I made to his previous edits. Semitransgenic has a deep dislike of cults and Osho (see edit history of subject), for instance, referring to him as 'Bagwash' above. This negative viewpoint skews the narrative of the article. Plus, as above, Semitrangenic makes some of his edits from an IP in order to bolster his earlier edits.
  I've always been open about my involvement and knowledge of Osho and the Osho movement (see my user page), that was 20 years ago and I'm quite capable of writing from a neutral point of view. jalal (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is about edit quality. I reverted the addition of one major chunk of text added by Semi (as did subsequently Jalal). The reason was that the text made a number of statements, purporting to be taken from reliable sources, which upon checking these sources were found to have been either made up or come from somewhere else altogether. For example, this applies to everything sourced to Carter: Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram, p. 63-64 in the edit reverted above. Pages 63 to 64 of Carter are available in Google Books. I copied Semi's text out and placed it on the discussion page, for further discussion. -- Jayen466 12:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Semitransgenic could provide some diffs to show how he thinks these editors have acted improperly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bagwash? Actually, I didn't write that. Nor did I ever make up sources, pages numbers wrong, yes, the sources were all valid. Also, the accusation that I intentionally make edits from a different IP is false, I have on a number of occasions simply forgotten to log on (from as many as four different machines at my disposal), on other occasions I have been logged in but for some reason wiki had logged me out by the time I had submitted my edit.Check the history, if i was trying to do that why would I suddenly log in directly after an IP edit and use exactly the same writing/language style, not to mention that the IP logs and my username would share the same edit topics over time. If I wanted to "bolster" edits, I would employ a different technique.

As for evidence, is was provided, but user Will_Beback removed it. Jayen then made it clear that he had been a member of Osho's commune - see discussion - and he has recently used the title Swami; and has elsewhere proclaimed his love for Osho.

Jalal, after consistently denying the inclusion of relevant material (see below) states "we have a page for the Osho movement" - who's "we"?

In the section entitled Legacy I included the following:

Recently, the resorts management instigated a so-called "de-Oshoisation" of the commune. Hundreds of pictures of Osho, which earlier greeted visitors, were removed from the premises. A senior member of the management team has openly declared, in a New York Times interview, that Osho’s pictures were removed because new visitors to the resort found them off putting. In response to this move, former spokesperson for Osho, Chaitanya Keerti, stated that the removal of Osho’s pictures was part of a deliberate plan to emphasise the "resort" aspect of the facility and downplay the commune’s association with Osho.Other allegations regarding the "unpalatable" rampant commercialisation of the Ashram have been made and Keerti has said: "Osho wanted the Commune to be a resting place for the spiritual seeker. Now it is called the Zen Resorts Pvt Ltd and anyone who can pay Rs 1,900 a night can stay there."; the suggestion being that some believe Osho's spiritual legacy may be under threat.

The above paragraph was entered immediately after mention of the Osho International Foundation Resort and serves to elaborate on its status, in the context of it being an aspect of "Osho's Legacy". It is sourced from two The Times Of India stories, one of which is entitled "Osho's spiritual legacy under threat". Jalal reverted this a number of times and then stated "we" have a page for the Osho movement, as he feels it belongs there and is not fitting for Osho's biography. I fail to see why the above paragraph does not relate directly to the Legacy section.

I would go further, by saying that since I've started pushing the NPOV policy on this article Jalal and Jayen have "tag teamed" on edits to try and limit the inclusion of what they see as "negative" material.

I also invite doubters to compare the current page with the page that Jayen submitted for peer review (which was a hagiographic fan page essentially). There is a marked difference in terms of a balance of information but the tone is still incorrect for an encyclopedic article. The inclusion of relevant material that Jayen has intentionally avoided using is remarkable (he had all the information, please see the discussion history for evidence of this, he just refused to use it, which I allege was because of his affiliations). Now that the matter is being pressed he is changing his tack, one only needs to look at the edit history to see this.

However, he still nit picks everything, and is very controlling of edits - with wording always written to down play any "negative" connotations. Damage limitation is clearly at work here.

Finally, I fail to see how my edit history demonstrates a deep dislike of cults, that is a moot point. I dislike the way religious groups present falsehoods as absolute truth and then intentionally hinder objective inquiry, hence the NPOV issue I raised for the Osho article. Wikipedia is not the place for hagiography, that is my position. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, in relation to the material Jayen refered to, the chronology was inaccurate in the edits I made, this has to do with my lack of insight in this area but the material presented was correctly sourced. One section, to highlight Jayens selectivity, was taken from a book (Urban) that he had also used. This is the material: By this time the community had also come under serious investigation by the U.S government, specifically around the issue of the interlock of the Rajneesh Church and the city of Rajneeshpuram, and it's claim to tax-exempt status (in 1986, the state attorney general finally decided that Rajneeshpuram violated the church state separation clause of the Constitution). Osho and his disciples had also come under investigation for their various criminal activities - which included, among other charges, counts of electronic eavesdropping, immigration conspiracy, lying to federal officials, harboring fugitives, criminal conspiracy, first-degree assault, attempted murder, burglary, racketeering, and arson.[24]. This is taken verbatim from Urban, who references Carter; just as Jayen had used a section, verbatim, from Urban. Jayen then inferred that Osho was never under investigation for criminal activities at Rajneshpuram, but this is a patently false assertion.

Another sentence: The group very soon ran into difficulty with the local community regarding land use laws and over time became increasingly antagonistic towards it's American neighbors supported by Latkin, also removed.

Another one: They clashed first with the local residents of Antelopes peaceful retirement community, whom they attempted to displace and push out using terrorist tactics. These began initially with activities such as dumping animal parts on the lawns of local officials and then escalated, in an attempt to effect the outcome of county elections,[24] to a bioterror attack on the citizens of The Dalles, Oregon, using (salmonella)[25]; an incident that resulted in the poisoning of seven hundred and fifty individuals and which is one of only two confirmed terrorist uses of biological weapons to harm humans [26] supported by Carter.

I was then accused of inserting "propaganda" by Jalal. I did not conduct the above studies, I did not write the reports, however, this information comes from authoritative sources, that is beyond dispute.

Another example, this paragraph went from: In mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (he suffered from asthma, diabetes and severe back problems). After a brief spell in Montclair, New Jersey,[21] his followers bought (for US$6 million) a 64,000-acre (260 km²) ranch in Wasco County, Oregon, previously known as "The Big Muddy Ranch", where they settled for the next four years and legally incorporated a city named Rajneeshpuram.

to: On 10 April 1981, having discoursed daily for nearly 15 years, Osho entered a three-and-a-half-year period of self-imposed public silence,[25] and satsangs (silent sitting and music, with some readings from spiritual works such as Khalil Gibran's The Prophet) took the place of his discourses. Then, in mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (he suffered from asthma, diabetes and severe back problems). Though ill health is cited by his followers as the reason for Osho's immigration, others attribute the move to the various conflicts that had marred the period preceding his departure from Pune.[26]

to: By 1981, Osho's Ashram hosted 30,000 visitors per year.[32] On 10 April 1981, having discoursed daily for nearly 15 years, Osho entered a three-and-a-half-year period of self-imposed public silence,[28] and satsangs (silent sitting and music, with some readings from spiritual works such as Khalil Gibran's The Prophet) took the place of his discourses. Then, in mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (apart from his other health issues, he now suffered from a persistent and very painful back problem).[33] The move to America seems to have been a unilateral decision on the part of Osho's secretary, Ma Anand Sheela, who wished to ensure the availability of medical facilities in the event of any further deterioration in Osho's health.[34][33] Others attributed the move to the various conflicts that had marred the period preceding his departure from Pune.[35] There is, however, ample evidence that Osho had not intended to reside permanently in the United States.[36]

So where is the ample evidence? A page number in Fox? (which, until pushed, was Jayen's primary source, other than Osho books, for the entire article)

Yet we have in Urban, and elsewhere, the following I am the Messiah America has been waiting for. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, upon his first arrival in the United States

There's more, I enter this: In March 1984 Rajneesh prophesied the death of two thirds of humanity from AIDS, the "spiritual disease." As a result, sannyasins were required to wear rubber gloves and condoms while making love and to refrain from kissing.[37][38] Osho at this time held that an apocalyptic future was inevitable declaring that "...all the causes for a third world war have already happened.There is therefore only a very remote possibility that the conflict itself will not take place. It would take something totally unpredictable-such as, for example, contact with an intelligent life form from another Galaxy-to change the direction in which humanity is heading...the third world war...will begin sometime between 1993 and 1999."[39]Osho maintained that "Rajneeshism" was in essence a Noah's Ark of consciousness thus positioning himself as the savior of those who chose to follow his path[40]

then becomes: In October 1982, an article in the Rajneesh Foundation International Newsletter announced that Osho had said an apocalyptic future was now inevitable, declaring that "... all the causes for a third world war have already happened. There is therefore only a very remote possibility that the conflict itself will not take place. It would take something totally unpredictable – such as, for example, contact with an intelligent life form from another Galaxy – to change the direction in which humanity is heading ... the third world war ... will begin sometime between 1993 and 1999."[41]

In 1983, Sheela announced that Osho had predicted the death of two-thirds of humanity from AIDS.[42][43] As a precaution, sannyasins were required to wear rubber gloves and condoms while making love and to refrain from kissing.[44][45] This was widely seen as an extreme overreaction, as AIDS was not considered a heterosexual disease at the time and the use of condoms was not yet widely recommended for AIDS prevention.[43]

A book entitled "Rajneeshism" was published by Sheela in 1984, claiming that Rajneeshpuram was in essence a "Noah's Ark of consciousness," a "still centre in the midst of the cyclone" – in short, a safe haven for those who chose to follow Osho's path.[43]

Yet in Urban we have this: Bhagwan prophesied that by the end of the 20th century man would either die in a third world war or man will take . . . a critical quantum leap . . . and become a new man . . . 1993 would be the beginning of World War Three . . . this would destroy civilization, except a few Rajneesh communes which would give a start to the new world.

Above we see an example that is prevalent amongst Rajneesh followers who write about their guru, Sheela is widely used as a scapegoat,when she says something it is "a claim", so that it casts doubt in the mind of the reader as to whether or not the Bhagwan actually said such a thing. I am highlighting this because it has become apparent to me from reading into this subject that there are a number of rifts in this movement, they are actually divided on a number of issues, yet they all claim allegiance to Bhagwans "vision". Anyone observing this saga from the outside can see that there are many contradictions, many falsehoods, and many doubts as to what did or did not happen, what was or was not said. Jayen and Jalal have a deep emotional connection to their guru so are overtly defensive when it comes to edits they see as being too "negative".

I can provide many more examples. And there will be many more inclusions of material that they perceive as being "negative".Again, I ask anyone who doubts that there is a religiously biased agenda at play to simply look at the article Jayen sought to have passed for peer review and compare it with what we have now. The result is an example of NPOV enforcement but there are still issues to be resolved. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick correction regarding the review history of this article. Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Nichalp reviewed this version of the article in May of last year; his comments are here. The result was a B-class assessment. The recent peer review was initiated by User:TheRingess, who described the article as a "solid B-class article". Regarding bias -- while some of your edits have added value, and introduced some worthwhile sources, others struck me as examples of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing that took considerable liberties with sources. One example was given above, where three times you indicated a source that had absolutely no relation to what you were inserting. Another is here. The source referred to is this. This clearly attributes the statement you inserted (the funniest joke ever played on our pathological consumerism) to Tom Robbins (not a follower of Osho), whereas your edit claims it was "The justification provided for such extravagance". The next edit is more of the same WP:OR – it is simply not what the source states. -- Jayen466 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK

A) Are disputing that Rajneesh achieved notoriety for the number of Rolls he had?

B) would that be the same Tom Robbins who is described in the very same article as "an outspoken supporter who once called Osho's fleet of Rolls-Royces the funniest joke ever played on our pathological consumerism and deemed Osho the greatest spiritual teacher of the 20th century? Also we see Tom Robbins here in an Osho International Foundation video talking about Rajneesh.

C) your original link for the Rolls item states "Americans became unbelievably incensed over the brilliant satire on their cultural values". Also, we have, on page 380 of "Osho Rajneesh and His Disciples: Some Western Perceptions", in a paper by Susan Palmer, entitled "Charisma and Abdication: A Study of the leadership of Bhagwan Shree Rajnessh" this: "The Rolls Royce collection was a wise investment of the commune's money but explained to a skeptical public as "a sign of the great love between master and disciple," or, alternatively, as a "joke": Bhagwan is like a child who delights in his toys. He has 92 Rolls Royces, the most expensive car in the world, and yet he . . .can only drive one

D) We have over on the peer review discussion a dissenter (Curt Wilhelm VonSavage)who points out the following:

• This article is not neutral in the slightest. It reads like a blatant puff-piece/hagiography/whitewash. Some specific points:

1. It seems as if distasteful information about "Osho" is pushed down into a "Controversy and criticism", whereas this info would be better off incorporated chronologically into the article itself, and expanded upon, instead of briefly mentioned in passing in couple lines.
2. The immigration violations are covered in one sentence. This was a major United States Federal Government investigation. This needs to be elaborated upon, instead of just skimmed over as if this was a minor incident. See [11], and [12], [13] for some more info that is barely covered in the article at all.
3. Several legal cases and cases from United States Federal courts are not covered at all. These should at the very least be mentioned and summarized within the article. To name a few notable ones:

   • United States of America v. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, et al.
   • Rajneesh Friends International v. United States
   • Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International
   • State of Oregon v. City of Rajneeshpuram -- This one was a landmark case involving a discussion of a potential violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

4. In addition to the bioterrorism attack, the first in United States history, which is only covered in eight words of the entire article, the other incidents listed briefly, (serious and criminal misconduct by the commune's management (including conspiracy to murder public officials, wiretapping within the commune, the attempted murder of Osho's personal physician), conspiracy to murder a United States attorney is not even mentioned or discussed at all.
5. In summation, coverage of the above extremely controversial issues is glossed over, and barely discussed. These sections of the article are grossly in need of expansion, unless editors wish for the article to read like a praising hagiography piece which lauds over its subject and skims over unimportant details like conspiracy to murder federal officials, and bioterrorism, all of which are heavily covered and available in both government sources, books, media/news, and reputable websites.

Semitransgenic (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(After editing conflict) I have already mentioned elsewhere that Osho was not accused of any of the crimes Cirt refers to. The crimes in question were committed by Sheela and her cronies in 1984, and remained undetected until a year later, when Osho convened a press conference (16 Sept. 1985), came forward with evidence and asked the U.S. authorities to investigate. There is no doubt that had he not done so, these crimes would not have come to light. The salmonella incident e.g. had been attributed, by the official investigators, to food handlers' lack of hygiene. See 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. -- Jayen466 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Urban: This was discussed on the Talk:Osho page. Semitransgenic reverted the insertion of this sentence with the edit comment revert: not a source quote. strongly biased POV. I then placed the verbatim from Urban on the talk page, for reference. Despite Semi's allegation of "not a source quote", there is in fact very close agreement (not literal agreement, that would be a copyright violation) between what I inserted and what the source says. (Btw, this edit was a copyright violation.) -- Jayen466 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for content disputes (or soapboxing). Please discuss content on the article's talk page or in some form of dispute resolution. Pairadox (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is supposed to be a discussion of Conflict of Interest. I'm still not clear why the tag was put on the page. That has not been clarified by the kilobytes of material posted above. Unless it refers to ST's CoI? jalal (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply doing what I was instructed to do by admin Semitransgenic (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So let's talk Conflict of Interest then. What is your interest in Osho? You have no interest in any other biography in Wikipedia. You could have edited Einstein, Rev Paisley, Satya Sai Babha... anyone of thousands of other interesting, fascinating people here in Wikipedia. But you didn't, you went straight to the Osho biography. You've put a phenomenal amount of effort and editing time into the page, some of it good. You've done research. You've even researched me! So what is it that drives you? Isn't it about time you declared exactly what you're interest is in this little project?
In my case it's clear. I've met Osho, I have a lot of respect for him, it's interesting for me to work on his biog here. But you, you're a bit of a puzzle... jalal (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

dude, I've made my position clear, and I only have so much time on my hands, I've tackled Sai Baba elsewhere using other means, I'm familiar with the controversy surrounding him, also interested in B. Premanand's debunking work in India etc. It was by chance that I came across the oshso page on wiki, and once I saw it, I thought "this is a bunch of POV BS", so got stuck in, if I put my mind to something, I get absorbed, especially when avoiding the real work I'm supposed to be doing, and more so when there is opposition, research is easy, it's all on the net, also have access to JSTOR, so pulled stuff from there, there's really not much to it actually, I'm simply a random glitch in the system. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Riiiggghhht.... well, I'm less than convinced. We'll put "wannabe guru-buster" then :-) That explains your strong POV issues with regard to the subject matter. But I don't think there is any Conflict of Interest. Unless you plan on taking up a career as a guru-buster.jalal (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What convincing do you need? it really is all on the net, did you know that noby guy had you pasted up there like that? should be more careful about your cyber trail, as I said, sometimes I will do anything to avoid real work, sitting at a PC all day can easily take one on unusual tangents, this is the latest one. Of course I am interested in the mystical tradition, otherwise I wouldn't bother, and yes I have my opinions regarding authenticity, that would be my main POV, but facts are the important thing. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've no need to "be careful about my cyber trail" because I've nothing to hide. I've been on the internet since it's birth, before that fido net and bulletin boards. I live on the net... but this is not the place to discuss that. If you wish to discuss this, and the search for facts, any further, leave a note for me on my talk page. Otherwise, I think we are finished here. jalal (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The page Talk:Osho is very confusing right now, due to all the charges flying around about people misquoting the sources. I doubt that any of the editors mentioned above will come under severe criticism for COI if it appears they are sincerely helping to create a neutral article. If it is just a matter of quoting sources correctly, that sounds like it should be a doable task, so I'm not sure what all the difficulties are on the article Talk page. It seems there is a lot of incivility on the Talk page, and the need to address the problems in a more calm manner is something that admins may be able to enforce if the parties themselves can't work in a more orderly fashion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Osho has calmed down a bit. The same people who exchange barbs here (Semitransgenic and Jalal) seem to be collaborating somewhat on the article Talk. Since the only remedy I can envision (short of letting the status quo continue) is to ban both of them from the article, this suggests that we may as well close the COI report. Does anyone request that it stay open? If so, what remedy do you propose? EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think EdJohnston is mistaken in his assessment, Semitransgenic and Jalal collaborating? don't take this the wrong way but can you please present evidence to support this claim? Also, the questions that have been raised regarding the repeated exclusion of relevant material has not been addressed, yet you propose banning Semitransgenic from the article because he has highlighted this and other questionable edits. BTW who exactly was Jalal referring to when he said "we have a page for the Osho movement", there has been no response to this. The rationale behind this decision seems unclear. One admin person ushers the disupte here after advising this on the discussion page, and now, without any serious consideration given to the claims EdJohnstons solution is to simply ban people from the article based on an inaccurate assessment? Wouldn't it be more effective to transfer to Dispute resolution if you consider the COI issue moot? However, I propose that the COI banner remains on the page until a genuinely NPOV biography emerges. If that happens then the COI and NPOV banner can both be removed. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW who exactly was Jalal referring to when he said "we have a page for the Osho movement" - "we" = Wikipedia jalal (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?Semitransgenic (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Majken schultz

• Majken schultz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new editor, whose username is the same as an author of two books that this editor has been adding as references
• Brand management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - editor added two paragraphs, apparently sourced from a book by Schultz that will be published in March 2008.
• Corporate branding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - editor added content sourced again by same March 2008 book, as well as a 2001 book also by Schultz.

I've placed a coi notice on the editor's talk page, but there's no indication that this new editor has seen it yet. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

An independent editor has restored the content to Corporate branding. I've removed it, as this is a very strange situation. The book has not been published yet, so how can it possibly meet WP:V and how is including it not promotional? I'd appreciate suggestions on how to handle this. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems blatant. I agree that Majken schultz shouldn't be adding links to his own book to articles. Let's see if your {{uw-coi}} notice will get his attention, and persuade him to join this discussion. He has not edited since your notice on 28 January. I also invited the independent editor to participate here. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the 2001 reference was just an article in the harvard business review. Obviously, we need some other way to verify the contents of the 2008 book;; we may just have to wait until march. Although, maybe Majken can provide us with references from this book to substantiate his contribution. --BETA 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear all. Thanks very much for all your comments. I sincerely appologize for these misunderstandings, and for being this slow at replying. I am only beginning to understand the Wiki Media. I thought I could add perspectives on the article on Corporate Branding. I understand now that references to an upcoming book is inappropriate. The figure I have uploaded is a new rendering of a figure used in several other publications. I will proceed with caution to broaden the Corporate Branding article with references to the published research of myself and others, adhering to wikipedias NPOV principles. I will keep an eye on this talk-page for your comments. Thanks again. Best, Majken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majken schultz (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park (and related pages) - JPLegacy

Resolved

 – The submitter and everyone who responded have agreed this can be closed. We don't see the link to jplegacy.org posing a COI problem. The intrinsic value of the link can be decided by others. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jurassic Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages
• Tyrannosaur (talk · contribs)

I have some concern over whether or not the external link to Jurassic Park Legacy falls within the bounds of WP:COI, considering the fact that a significant contributor to the articles in question is the site's webmaster. However, being involved in an unrelated dispute between the site in question and another site (Jurassic Park Terror), I feel that any decision I make could be misconstrued as a personal campaign and so seek neutral opinion from the wider community at large before, or in lieu of, taking any type of direct action. --Dinoguy1000 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First off let me comment that this issue had been resolved a long time ago. Wikipedia agreed to only allow JPL's link becuase JPL is the only Jurassic Park encyclopedia online. Most of the others, if not all, have since expired or have not attempted to place their link on wikipedia. JPT placed its link along with other JP related sites in an attempt to gain popularity through those who would be reading the JP article and would be interested to join their forum. They offered no encyclopedia information and as thus, Wiki decided to remove their links and list them simply as "fan links," which are not allowed.

All right, I was not aware that any previous discussion on this topic had ever taken place. Could you please provide me with a link to it? Also, stating that "JPL is the only Jurassic Park encyclopedia online" (emphasis mine) is nothing short of ignorant. Off the top of my head, I could point you to the Jurassic Park Wikia wiki. Also, I was making no statement as to the placement of JPT links. Personally, I feel that JPT probably shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia, unless an impartial third party gave a convincing enough reason for its inclusion. --Dinoguy1000 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur was the leader of JPL and many people were banned from the site and those people tend to congregate on Jurassic Park Terror. Their displeasure with the site has turned into an all out war on their part to discredit JPL and this is simply another attempt. Tyrannosaur has since stepped down from leadership of the site due to high stress in his life and becuase he is moving. There is no real conflict of interest except that on the part of JPT which has continuously flamed this very board and this very article, removing our link, removing information contained in the article, or changing links to redirect would be visitors to JPL to JPT, causing anxiety on the part of JPL. If there is any conflict of interest, it is by those who have asked you, an Admin of Jurassic Park Terror, to examine this.

While I do not deny the circumstances surrounding the "war" between JPL and JPT, and also freely admit that I am a JPT administrator, this is not another attempt at one-upsmanship on JPT's behalf. When I come onto Wikipedia to edit, I do so with the sincerity of any other editor, and I started this discussion because I felt there was the possibility of a conflict of interest. I assure you, no one else even hinted at me to start this - I doubt that most of JPT's members actually know enough about Wikipedia policy, and most of them would just resort to the same type of vandlism you mentioned above. And considering that I was originally planning to comment out the JPL link in lieu of further discussion, I believe you should give me the benefit of the doubt. Also, I hardly see why spamming JPT's link in place of JPL's should have caused any editor anxiety, since reverting such changes is a very simple and mundane process. --Dinoguy1000 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as Tyrannosaur's contribution to the article, if you check the history, you will find that his contributions have been well founded and are based solely in the want to articulately define cannon and non-cannon sources, thereby dividing the article into clearer sections.

Merely reading the article will simply prove that no jaded view meant to further JPL's influence on the community or garnish further popularity is expressed.

I was not at any time questioning the veracity, authenticity, and correctness of Tyrannosaur's edits. This started out as a genuine concern that there may be a conflict of interest in the link to JPL, given that Tyrannosaur seems to be a significant contributor to Jurassic Park-related pages. --Dinoguy1000 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that Jurassic Park Legacy has been approached by several Universal Licensed Companies to aide in different research and development opportunities both for props and exhibits and currently has contacts both in ILM and in the Universal Theme Parks so if there is a question of JPL's authenticity, Universal thinks highly enough of JPL to contact it and utilize it for the Jurassic Park franchise which speaks in and of itself of the authenticity of Jurassic Park Legacy.

--GoodMusician (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)$--[[Special:Contributions/72.188.34.9|72.188.34.9]]([[Usertalk:72.188.34.9|talk]])07:54,29January2008(UTC)$

Once again, it is my own fault that I didn't know that, and I would be interested in seeing links for further information on this matter. --Dinoguy1000 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as Links, I believe all the information is still contained on the original JP page. As far as JPL being the only encyclopedia, I stated as well that it's the only one that has attempted to place any link to itself on Wiki, which is all that's really relevant in this issue.

I must further ask, what is the question of Tyrannosaurs edits? You say there is a conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest is if someone who loved Tom Cruise kept going onto his Wiki page saying what a god he was. That's neither neutral nor accurate. Any Edit TY made wasn't done in such a way as to limit information, spread mis-information, or to attain fame, so I see no basis on which a conflict of interest is at all valid.

What is the question being asked becuase frankly, I see no conflict of interest. The whole point of wiki is for people to come on here and to update it. His knowledge of Jurassic Park is documented in every page of his site. If a man who knows what he's talking about cannot come on here, and edit Wikipedia and say "this is correct and the citation is here," then who can? --GoodMusician (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If my understanding of Wikipedia policy is correct (and I am certainly not making any claims on the subject), in general, it is considered a conflict of interest to reference yourself and/or your own work on Wikipedia. I was never suggesting that Tyrannosaur be barred from contributing to Jurassic Park-related articles, I was merely requesting the review and opinion of an uninvolved, unrelated third party about whether any conflict of interest existed, and if so, how it should be dealt with. —Dinoguy1000 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two articles to consider, Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park (film). Both articles include http://www.jplegacy.org as an External Link. I'm not impressed by the value of the link and if it were up to me personally, I would remove it. However that link has survived a long time on Jurassic Park (film) which is currently a featured article, and it had the link in it the whole time. So it's hard to come up with a focused COI argument for why the link doesn't belong. The link has (it seems) been reviewed by many people already, and it has survived. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. This is exactly the type of response I originally posted here to get - someone uninvolved with the issue, giving their own opinion on the matter. Unless anyone else has something to contribute to the discussion, I would be perfectly content to drop the issue in the face of prior review as EdJohnston pointed out above. —Dinoguy1000 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would impress Wiki, but apparently as stated, JPL's link has remained through both the original review and the further one for being a featured article. And in all fairness, Tyrannosaur may have been citing his website, but the website is compiled from many further sources documented on the site itself so perhaps it is a bit misleading and easy to think he's citing himself, but the reality is he's citing further evidence. Past that, I have nothing really further to add as well.--GoodMusician (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, on that note, this can be marked as closed or resolved or whatever, unless someone else wishes to comment first. —Dinoguy1000 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

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

---

Arion 3x3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has admitted to working in Homeopathy [14], but there is disagreement over the relevance of this issue with regards to his editing and discussion of the subject [15]. Clarification of how the policy applies here is requested. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - Homeopathic medicines, as well as many other medical modalities and therapies, are utilized at the clinic where I have worked for 27 years. In fact, homeopathic medicines are dispensed free of charge as an adjunct to other medical care, never as a primary treatment. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if it's true that you make no money off of homeopathic treatments, that's certainly a mitigating factor. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

comment (to Arion) First, what wiki defines as homeopathy, and the way the term may be used at a particular facility, may be different. Second, placebos are sometimes administered, and the effectiveness of a placebo (they can be effective, e.g. in hysteria) can be affected by what it's called, e.g. a sugar pill would not have a beneficial placebo effect if it is called a sugar pill. The (mostly benign) practice of subterfuge in treating cases aggravated by hysteria or psychosomatics can confuse the discussion, as a practioner of subterfuge does not want to advertise himself that way, no matter if the purpose is benign (giving a sugar pill to an hysteric) or malign (defrauding the patient with quack medication). That said, Arion's point is well-taken as it stands, I don't mean to impugn their practice particularly. It might be helpful to give a particular example. Pete St.John (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My commentary on the talk page is directly opposed to that of Arion. That said, I do not believe Arion is editing with a COI. People who work in a field should be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia; their knowledge is invaluable. That is all he is doing. He's not pushing his practice or selling or trying to insert original research. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In general, I agree with that, however I do feel that there is nevertheless the potential for problems. These mostly crop up when someone tries to edit in order to put their subject of expertise in a better light for reasons that have to do with what they stand to gain if it's presented that way. While Arion has certainly been arguing towards a more sympathetic view of Homeopathy, I would still agree that there's no COI seeing as he doesn't stand to gain from doing so. I'm quite willing to mark this case as resolved if no one has any further objections. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

comment (to the board) I do take issue with Arion's editing of the article, because he is a clear hindrance to any meaningful changes happening to the Homeopathy article. A cursory glance over the past few days of his edits show that he vehemently opposes classifying it as a pseudoscience (or even using the word) even though the a large group (I'd say 80% or so) of the editors at least agree that the word pseudoscience should be used in the LEAD (based on a ton of RS), even a homeopathic supporter. Though he has been warned about it, he has a habit of dropping a giant amount studies that support his position onto the talk page, which is a serious problem for two reasons. Firstly, these are all primary resources and including every single study ever performed that reaches a positive result for homeopathy is clearly not how things work. Secondly, in a talk page that has Mizabot set to archive everything older than 2 days, because of the vast amount of use, it sucks up valuable talk space. It seems that every time someone cites a secondary source (or a dozen) stating that homeopathy is not actually a science, Arion comes back with a few studies (primary sources) that say the opposite and then claims there is no consensus for the claim. I am sure we all understand how easy it is for primary sources to be misinterpretted, which is why they are not used nearly as often. Arion appears to be unable to distinguish between the two and the article is definitely suffering. If an editor who is deeply involved within a field can't edit objectively, then he is not an asset to the project. If he can edit dispassionately, welcome aboard. If not, well steps should be taken. Baegis (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I respectfully disagree with Baegis's description of my comments on the discussion page. I did post 3 short excerpts from 3 abstracts of laboratory research indicating there were definite measureable biological effects elicited by homeopathic remedies at the 200C level (no molecules left) which could not be explained away by placebo effects. This was to offset the massive amount of discussion about how there is no evidence that homeopathic medicines have any effect.

That said, I would hope that we could get at least one person with experience in photography to edit photography articles, at least one person with experience with chemistry to edit chemistry articles, etc. I hope you see my point. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

reply Peter Morrell is a renown homeopath and he has no trouble working with other editors to the betterment of Homeopathy articles. You still didn't address the problem of you constantly using questionable primary sources and completely disregarding the growing consensus. Baegis (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

reply even though ia lso dabble in homeopathy i msut agree with User:Baegis's assertions here. i myself have witnessed one instance where User:Arion3x3 selectively quoted form one of his own sources to portray a biased pro-homeopathy view, a movement that not only harms the article but discredts homeopaths who legitimately want to edit this article in good faith and following NPOV and all the equal weight principles that user:baegis mentioend above. (the instance in which I noticed that Arion3x3 was first accused of selective quoting is here. Smith Jones (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the numerous other places this topic is being scrutinized, I'm tempted to mark this done and leave this to those forums and editors to hash out. Pairadox (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that people here on both sides of this issue appreciate Peter Morrell. However, Peter is more of an expert on homeopathic history than homeopathic research, while Arion 3x3 has rightfully sought to educate people here about the V, RS, and notable character of basic science and clinical research in homeopathy. As such, he (and others) assert that homeopathy should not be in the category of pseudoscience. Considering the fact that there are hundreds (!) of double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials and basic science experiments, how many "pseudosciences" can make such a verified claim? One would think that everyone would welcome the references that Arion has provided, whether it be short or long. Instead, some editors are attacking the editor, not the content (WP encourages us to analyze the content primarily. Further, whether Arion prescribes homeopathic medicines or not should not determine if he is COI. If so, does this mean that every medical doctor cannot edit any medical topic? Please clarify this concern. Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile was recently banned from editing homeopathy under Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. There is an appearance that this conversation has been set up as a strawman argument. Some of the other sympathetic editors commenting above seem to have coordinated their comments with Inphophile in order to create the appearance of a consensus that does not exist. This thread is disruptive, and if this sort of thing continues, I will issue bans. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Above said, there is not COI, because the editor is not promoting their own products or links. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Living Faith Fellowship

Resolved

 – Article deleted by Nyttend under CSD G11: Blatant advertising. CounterFX (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Living Faith Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Creating editor's summary is "basically our church is trying to build this page and will take some time before completion." This appears to be an obvious COI as it both advertises when their services are and is sourced only to their website. MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a {{uw-coi}} notice for this new editor, hoping that the template is not really BITE-y and gives good advice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaz Simmons

Resolved

 – Article deleted. MER-C 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Kaz Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Creating editor's userid is Kazsjazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the tone of the article seems to be more self promotional/autobiographical. No sources. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion. Article does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Myles Doupe

Resolved

 – Article deleted by Versageek under CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance. CounterFX (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Myles Doupe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Creating editor's userid is Mylesdoupe and the tone of the article seems to be more self promotional/autobiographical. No sources. MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arabian Prince

• Article: Arabian Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: T3flondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An editor appears to be turning this into a promotional article.See [16]. I don't have time to deal with this so am hoping that someone else can do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

LectureShare

Resolved

 – Article speedy deleted as blatant advert. Pairadox (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• LectureShare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Creating username = article title. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• LectureShare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Resolved

 – Not a COI. MER-C 08:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Michael Lucas (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor David Shankbone has made an edit seen here [17], to the Michael Lucas (porn star) page. This is a reversal of his earlier statement of intent seen here [18], where he said "prostitute is too well-documented." It also reverses his earlier edits seen here [19], and here [20], and here [21], where each time he re-inserted the text on Lucas being a prostitute after that specific text had been deleted by editor Lucasent. Lucasent has been blocked from editing, evidenced here [22].

That Michael Lucas was a prostitute is well-documented on the internet:
(1) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/02/16/law-blog-law-graduate-of-the-day-porn-king-michael-lucas/,
(2) http://nymag.com/movies/features/23146/index1.html,
(3) http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=255.

Previously, when the text about Lucas being a prostitute was deleted, the matter was discussed by other editors, as seen here [23], and here [24]. One of those editors noted: "The reference stating he was a prostitute comes from the Yale Daily News. I think we can consider that a highly reliable source."

That source is the current source cited in the text of the article -- it supports the fact that Michael Lucas was a prostitute. The source does not state that Lucas worked as an escort, as Shankbone has edited the text to read. --72.68.122.138 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you got any evidence of a conflict of interest on the part of the parties involved? MER-C 13:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is found in the citations above. In summary, Michael Lucas or somebody purporting to be him wrote on the talk page of his bio expressing dissatisfaction with its content, including the reference to his being a prostitute. David Shankbone replied specifically to the prostitute reference saying, "...if information is well-sourced, you will have a difficult time asking it be removed, and the prostitute mention is in the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and at least several others" and "But we'll work with you..." and "Unless someone reverts me, I will make a few of the minor changes." Shankbone also admitted to corresponding with Lucas outside of Wikipedia. Prior to this exchange, Shankbone had three times restored the prostitute reference after it had been deleted by the banned editor Lucasent. Subsequent to the talk page exchange, Shankbone removed the prostitute reference and inserted the comparatively benign term "escort." The source cited for the text does not say Lucas was an escort, it says Lucas was a prostitute. Other reputable sources say Lucas was a prostitute, as Shankbone himself noted, yet Shankbone removed the prostitute reference knowing full well that it is well-documented fact.--71.127.235.96 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been invited to comment on this thread. To reply only to the conflict of interest aspect, I see nothing improper about David Shankbone's involvement. If Mr. Lucas was indeed the person who protested, then leaving a comment on the talk page was one of the appropriate ways to express it. So is corresponding with experienced and uninvolved editors. Mr. Shankbone has wide-ranging experience on several Wikimedia projects. I suggest moving this discussion to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, since the serious issue is about the degree of sourcing that would be necessary to support a biography statement about prostitution in a living person's biography. Durova^Charge! 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is not about sourcing, totally reliable sources say Lucas was a prostitute. The serious issue here is Shankbone's conflict of interest in the edits he made. Lucas didn't like that his bio had him as a prostitute. Shankbone took out reliably sourced info, that Lucas was a prostitute, and put in unsourced info, that he was an escort, even though the source says Lucas was a prostitute. "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor." Shankbone put it original research, there's a conflict of interest. Lucas wanted prostitute out of his bio, and Shankbone took it out, so Shankbone promoted the interests of Lucas, there's another conflict of interest. Shankbone knew what he was doing, otherwise why would he take out prostitute and put in escort when he previously restored prostitute three times after Lucasent deleted it? Anybody can take this to BLPN and maybe it should be in both places, but it belongs here mostly because Shankbone has clear conflict of interest with this article: planting OR and doing it for Lucas.--71.127.233.107 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, myself and other editors have been watching and sourcing the article as that's what we do here and I haven't seen any issue with Shankbone's edits except where they and I disagree on content issues which have never been COI-inspired. His work on wikinews has only benefited wikipedia and correctly calling Lucas a male escort, which is the industry term for prostitute, to me, is a non-issue. This isn't central or notable to his bio and as Shankbone has stated the information will be in there one way or another. If Lucas is charged with prostitution or the term otherwise becomes notable we can certainly re-add it but it seems quite minor in the scheme of things. Benjiboi 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has been at WP:COIN before. The article on Michael Lucas (porn star) is now in a rather neutral state after being slanted either for or against Lucas at various times in the past. The issue that has been presented to us this time doesn't seem of enough moment to get concerned about. I agree with User:Benjiboi's diagnosis. Since the submitter of this complaint, 72.68.122.138 is an IP who has not edited WP before, it would be good to hear if there are any other editors who are concerned that Shankbone's edits represent a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see not conflict of interest in David Shankbone's involvement; merely a conservative interpretation of WP:BLP. Durova^Charge! 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree so far with the above, esp. Durova. I don't see COI here, this case could be relisted at BLP or at NPOV boards however. If the specific intent is to promote "prostitute" over "escort" I'd suggest first going to the BLP page for further discussion. COI is only for situations where, say, Shankbone is Lucas' roommate, or publisher, or brother or wrote a book about him or something.Wjhonson (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Several points made in response to the nomination: (1) To characterize this substitution of terms as WP:OR is an unreasonable and unsupported attempt to apply the concepts of OR. Escort means prostitute (as does hustler, rent boy, and several other terms, depending on the genders of the provider and client), and escort is the term generally used in the industry, so it's simply not OR to use that term instead of the legalistic term prostitute. For example, escorts is the only listing category used for that profession in newspapers, magazines, and on-line. If the cited sources support Lucas being a prostitute, they necessarily support his being an escort, as the terms mean the same, so there is no evidence of "planting" OR. (2) Further, in terms of labeling, we routinely use, for example, gay instead of the legalistic term homosexual, African-American instead of Colored or Negro, and other preferred terms of identity, per WP:MOS, unless in direct quotations. Why pick on the world's oldest profession? (3) Also, the actual label used in one source above, Yale Daily News, is "hustler", not "prostitute", as in: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution to open up his own porn production company in New York City." The term prostitution in this citation is used in the sense of source of income, not a label for a person and the actual word "prostitute" was not used. (4) I don't see this as WP:COI either. Claiming that there is a COI because Shankbone removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content at Lucas's behest is also unreasonable and unsupported, since it remains fully sourced, as explained above, and there was absolutely no material change in the content or slant as a result of this word substitution. (5) Endorse closure as not supported. — Becksguy (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will only privately quiver at the intimate knowledge that Becksguy has of rent boys (titter titter). Benjiboi 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

AutoSimSport Magazine

• AutoSimSport Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Per this thread User_talk:DGG#AutoSimSport_Magazine the article creator and main editor is the employee of the magazine whose job description [25] is "Marketing/Contributing Editor/Merchandising/Advertising" MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ljmagyar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would be the editor in question. Pairadox (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alison Lawton

• Alison Lawton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A day after the subject's husband was on the front page of the NYTimes, an employee of Alison Lawton has returned to insert self-promotional material (name-dropping Bill Clinton, Dali Lama, etc). I'm just a very occasional editor and I can't seem to get through to the editor User:Mindsetmedia. Canuckle (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For anyone looking here, Mindsetmedia (talk · contribs) has identified himself as having been asked by Alison Lawton to "spearhead the description on her wikipedia page." I haven't decided the full merits of his edits, but the present version of the article is clearly a fluff piece. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Buniverse

• Buniverse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been adding links to various articles pointing at the website which may be appropriate, but probably isn't a reliable source since its user created. MBisanz ^talk 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

BUniverse (the website) is the Boston University Today's Media Archives, and seems to be run by the University. A random sampling of the actual links show them to be videos of lectures or talks conducted at Boston University by various departments featuring the subject of the article in question. While this may technically be a COI, I think Wikipedia readers would be better served by informing this editor how to place their links. I've left a welcome note on the talk page, since nobody has even greeted them yet. Pairadox (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I should've sampled. I saw the "Submitting Videos" link and thought "O great another youtube on a college network". MBisanz ^talk 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're doing a great job just reporting them here. Pairadox (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I think we regard the action of a publisher or a library in trying to post links to its content in articles about people on whom it has published or about whom it holds material as spam. Such items are best added by editors working on the subject in question. if there is relevant material held by BU, it should be mentioned on the article talk page for discussion. There is no particular reason I can see to post such a link as "*Watch Chuck Close and Robert Storr in Conversation on http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=153 BUniverse" on the Robert Storr article. Staightforward spam links, in my opinion, though not COI.DGG (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Larry Tanz

• Larry Tanz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Larrytanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User name = article title. Article is a personal bio MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor given an autobiography warning by User:JohnCD, one pass at reducing resume qualities for the article. Could still use more work. Pairadox (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Youens

Resolved

 – Article deleted. MER-C 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ryan Youens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RyanYouens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User name = article title. Article is a personal bio with some spammy external links. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  It's a copyvio, so tagged. MER-C 07:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Beat Autopsy

Resolved

 – Article deleted. MER-C 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Beat Autopsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beat autopsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User name = article title. Article is links to external sites. MBisanz ^talk 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Brook

Resolved

 – Deleted and salted. MER-C 01:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Paul Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) picture release credit from author of page says he's with Paul's "team" and the article looks like an advert. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

• The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - is an article about a machine that is variously claimed as either the answer to mankinds energy needs or a perpetual motion machine (and therefore pseudoscience/fringe-theory).
• ESoule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be Evan Soule'. On this page: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis19.html Evan Soule' identifies himself as: "Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS". It would appear to me then that his continual efforts to rewrite the article in order to support the claim that it truly does produce energy from nowhere (essentially) is a severe conflict of interest. I have asked him to cease working on the article both on his own talk page and on Talk:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman - but without success. In his latest post to Talk:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman he does not exactly deny his relationship with the company...but claims that he merely worked as a volunteer. Personally, I don't see how that makes a difference from a WP:COI perspective. What can and should be done about this? SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Baker: Never have I written that the energy machine "produce(s) energy from nowhere." Certainly Joseph Newman -- the inventor of the technology -- has never said such a thing. On the contrary. Newman has repeatedly described the source of the energy produced by his technology: the kinetic energy contained within the (electro)magnetic fields produced by the invention. And those (electro)magnetic fields originate from the atomic domains comprising the conductor and permanent magnets used in Newman's system.

Mr. Baker: I am a Director of Information for Newman Energy Products. I literally "direct information" about the energy machine technology. Who hired me? No one. Who asked me to be a Director of Information? No one. Am I paid to direct information about the Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? No. Have I ever been paid to direct information about Newman's technology? No. Am I in business with Joseph Newman? No. Having voluntarily helped Joseph Newman disseminate information about the technology for nearly 25 years, I have direct, first-hand knowledge about the technology and its history as well as supporting documentation. That is precisely why I have corrected errors in statements made by others on the Wikipedia page, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Example: Someone had previously posted on Wikipedia that Newman "rented" the Superdome in New Orleans. That is a false statement. I know for a fact that Newman was invited by two gentlemen in New Orleans to present his technology at the Louisiana Superdome for a week. Those two gentlemen had previously heard his free presentation to more than 2,000 people at the New Orleans Hilton Hotel, liked what they heard, and they wanted to provide Joseph Newman with a larger and longer venue at the Louisiana Superdome. Thus, of their own initiative, they personally contracted with the Louisiana Superdome and invited Joseph Newman to come and present his technology to a larger audience. Before that presentation, Joseph Newman requested that the event at the Superdome be free and open to the public. However, Superdome officials required a minimum $1.00 entrance fee to the event. Joseph Newman subsequently agreed to the presentation on the stipulation that all entrance fee monies be paid directly to the Superdome and retained by the Superdome. Joseph Newman publicly announced at the Superdome event that he "would not accept any entrance fee monies" since he had originally requested the event to be free and open to everyone. Since there have been factual errors posted by others on Wikipedia, I have endeavored to correct such errors. 206.255.88.80 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a debate about facts and non-facts in the article. This is about your personal involvement in the article. You clearly ADMIT your involvement with the inventor of the machine and his business. That's a conflict of interest and it's not allowed. You are now adding to the problem by admitting that your editing is Original research...precisely the kind of problem that arises when people with conflicted interests are permitted to edit. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(I just reviewed User:ESoule's edit history - and aside from edits to The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, the editor also edited Executive Order 6102 in order to add his own name into the article, and aside from a handful of edits to Andrew Joseph Galambos, those are the only edits this user has made. I would point out that WP:COI states: Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. - I submit that User:ESoule is indeed such an account. He has been repeatedly warned - and is still editing The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman - so perhaps a block should be considered. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the entire history of this case, but my opinion is that, notwithstanding of SteveBaker's assertions, if the involved parties refrain from engaging in contentious or disruptive editing, then suggesting factual corrections (backed by reliable sources) to be made to articles should be encouraged. Unfortunately, some errors can only be brought to light by individuals who were directly involved, and it's counter-productive to condone such errors on grounds of avoiding COI. Maybe the editor should be asked to redirect his efforts to the article's talk page, and have another uninvolved editor perform the changes after verifying that the information checks out against the sources. CounterFX (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with ESoule discussing edits on the talk page, explaining where we're going wrong or suggesting other avenues of investigation. My problem is with his direct introduction of new "facts", backed up largely by references to Newman's web site - which he, himself (as 'Director of Information') may very well have written! Far from doing this with the cooperation and agreement of independent editors - he's making changes that directly conflict with the proper disposition of the article. At the very least, this is a conflict of interest of the worst possible kind. This effectively gives ESoule carte blanche to put any information he likes into the article - and then to provide his own reference to make it 'legal' per WP:V. If this person were merely a technician or machinist at the organisation, that would be much less of an issue (although I'd still be uncomfortable with it) - but to have the "Director of Information" pushing information into Wikipedia is quite intolerable! SteveBaker (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from COI, ESoule’s contributions raise some other interesting policy issues. Let’s take Wikipedia:NOR for starters. — NRen2k5 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m an idiot. ^_^ I see SteveBaker has already brought up the OR too. — NRen2k5 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI.

I think there is a possible COI with user:CzekMate and the article Ray Robson. (1) the user only edits that article, (2) the user acts as if he "owns" the article, and (3) the user refused to answer my question about any connection to the person and deleted the question from his talk page. I'm not sure if this is a COI, and even if it is a problem, but I would like to get some input. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is odd that such a young (14 years old by my math) chess prodigy would have such an ardent fan. And of course the user name is a strong chess references. And the external links seem rather details for what is a minor honor of being the youngest grand master in a particular US state. Can't really prove COI though, since he hasn't used the first person or brought in non-public material (family, etc). Although an edit like this, does provide an extreme level of detail [26]. A comment like this [27] concerns me though, as how do you know where his dad works? MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the city in which his father works with a Google search. I assumed that he lives in that area - maybe that is wrong. Notice the edit history - always changing what I and another editor put in there. Even when one was a copyedit (but that was allowed to stand this time). As I said, even if there is a COI, I'm not sure how big of a problem it is. I do appreciate you looking into it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is in the third external link in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats the answer I was hoping for (as opposed to something less honorable). My suggestion might be to take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess, which would be able to help more with style and fact-vetting. That or WP:BLPN which would handle the standards to which an article on a living person must be vetted to. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an active member of that project. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Then I guess just keep a watch and if you see first-person or personal details, feel free to drop the {{COI}} template on the page and come back here. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I did do a uw-coi on the user's talk page a couple of hours ago. Bubba73 (talk), 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that is good, and if it proves very likely that he is a COI, you can tag the actual article with a warning box. MBisanz ^talk 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Ducey

Resolved

 – Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Matthew Ducey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Ducey1337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username and article name are similar, its a bio written from a personal perspective MBisanz ^talk 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

City of SeaTac Fire Department

• City of SeaTac Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• SeatacTraining (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Admits on user talk page to being the creator of it MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Article tagged as a copyright vio. Pairadox (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Machine Embroidery

Resolved

 – Redirected to Embroidery. Pairadox (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Machine Embroidery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Sewdragondesigns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Only external link is to same name as creator username MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I turned the stub into a redirect to Embroidery since the exact same paragraph was in the parent article also and reported the username to WP:UAA. Pairadox (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nativity parish

Resolved

 – Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nativity parish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Page admits that this is a class project of students at the school. Don't know policy re: this. MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeros 40D Sky Dragon

Resolved

 – Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Aeros 40D Sky Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Aerosml (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Advertisment for product from a username that looks like its a corporate name MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ned Bristow

Resolved

 – Article deleted. MER-C 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ned Bristow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Nedbcfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Personal career bio MBisanz ^talk 05:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gymnázium Vrútky

Resolved

 – Username blocked. Pairadox (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Gymnázium Vrútky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Gymnazium vrutky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• GymnaziumVrutky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Org name = username. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably no more COI than your average teenager editing their high school's article, but referred to WP:UAA anyway. Article itself is pretty neutral. Pairadox (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LA.Direct Magazine

Resolved

 – Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• LA.Direct Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Ladirectmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Org name = username. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Muris Varajic

Resolved

 – Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Muris Varajic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Muris Varajic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Org name = username. Personal bio MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Annandale United FC

Resolved

 – Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Annandale United FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Annantown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Org name and user name are similar and it appears to promote the team. ~~

Mozart Face Recordings

Resolved

 – Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mozart Face Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Mozart Face (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Org name and user name are similar and it describes who holds various corporate posts. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Central Asian Shepherd Dog

• Central Asian Shepherd Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did a long needed cleanup for this article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Shepherd_Dog in September, 2007 and did not check it until today.

I found out that 4 days after the article was edited by another user, UKC CASSA, with defamatory and libelous statement about me. I asked to remove the statement, thanks a lot to Pairadox for help and a useful advise.--Afru (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are still two issues that need to be resolved. First is that the information about this breed of dogs is very limited in English. I did my best to translate and publish the most current, accurate and reliable verifiable information while I was in the country of origin for the breed as per September, 2007. It was replaced by way outdated, and way less informative article of very questionable accuracy.

I placed links to the registry in the country of origin and the most complete breed pictures gallery. Those were changed into links to UKC CASSA user's own US based kennel club (she is DBA for) and a US kennel, advertising dogs of this breed for sale.

I do realize that the article may need editing, but in my opinion this is not the sort of editing any given Wikipedia article will ever need. What would be the best way to prevent this sort of interruptions?

Second issue is that user UKC CASSA has years of history of online harassment me and other people involved with purebred dogs, especially of this breed. She did have lawsuits against her, numerous complaints for cyber stalking and such.

What is the best way to permanently stop as well as prevent future personal attacks at Wikipedia site? And who can remove a false and libelous statement about me in the history section ?Afru (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)AFRU

To find out how to have items removed from the history of a page, go to Wikipedia:Oversight. Pairadox (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Dog breed wars. While libels can't be tolerated, Afru's edits are problematical too.

This breed overview is the most accurate. Further editions of this page contain wrong, incomplete and/or outdated information [28]

Wrote a true and correct breed overview based on modern population analysis. [29]

Sources? I don't see any. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Will add sources and more links. And will do my best to provide relevant materials. I do not pretend that my edit is perfect, but it was replaced with a sort of breed commercial based on 1994 materials. The issue with this breed is that there are working lines and fighting lines under the same breed name. At the very same time, there are traditional dog fights in the place of origin, that differ from modern dog fights. Now, there is a major difference between aboriginal dogs that are normally not dog aggressive within the same pack, and modern time pit and bandog mixes used for "modern" fights. Any given breed description must contain a disclosure and ideally help people unfamiliar with the breed to determine how to differ one from another. --Afru (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon All-Stars 2000s doesn't exist!

Resolved

 – Not a COI Pairadox (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• 66.245.194.183 (talk · contribs)

Despite repeated warnings User:66.245.194.183 keeps adding credits for a non-exsistant animated special called "Cartoon All-Stars 2000s" and unsourced information about various animated caharacters.--Hailey 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this edit here [30] , it looks like its an unsourced future prediction. I'd say point him at WP:RS and it that doesn't work, keep warning/teaching through the WP:WARN system. Once he hits 4, take it to WP:ANI and they'll take care of it. Or he'll get the message and not add speculative stuff. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the IP linked to Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue, a 1990 work. I don't see how this is a Conflict of interest. Pairadox (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Greensburger / Ziusudra / Eridu Genesis

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

I would like to express serious concerns about agenda pushing on the part of User:Greensburger.

I am trying to create an article on a famous archaeological artifact, known as the "Eridu Genesis", which inexplicably has not had it's own article at all until now, but was tucked away under the Ziusudra article. This led to a conversation with User:Greensburger: Eridu Genesis, and I really didn't grasp what he was trying to propose.

When I tried to make the move that I said I would, he reverted it, calling it vandalism [31]. So I then put a "split section" tag on the page, which he changed [32]. The ensuing discussion on the article's talk page is here: [33]. When I perused his talk page, trying to figure out where he was coming from, I noticed a discussion (Genesis 5 article) about this book [34] by Robert Best, which appears as a reference on a number of Ancient Near East pages. The theories listed on the back cover of the book ([35]) are obscure to say the least, and very fringe theories. Fringe books get published too, and simply the fact that somebody published it shouldn't give it credibility.

The problem is that archaeological facts need to be "adjusted" to make these theories work at all. Two areas of original research which I see repeatedly all over the Ancient Near East articles are:

1) Attempts to link the "Eridu Genesis" Flood myth to the mention of a historic flood on the "Sumerian king list". The way to do this is to insert Ziusudra, the hero of the Flood myth, into the king list, right before the flood. (see the discussion mentioned above on the Ziusudra talk page).

2) And attempts to "re-interpret" the very long lives and reigns that ancient literature gives to ancient kings ([36] and [37]). This is entirely original research.

I also have to say I can't help thinking that this could be the author of the book himself, as his other editing seems to be in line with having a BS degree in Physics (about the author), and he's created and edited articles about other people with the same last name.

I hope I'm submitting this in the right place, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the above sounds like an ordinary content dispute. I do not see evidence of any conflict of interest. "He sounds like he might know some physics; ergo he must be the person who wrote this book, who is also a physicist" is the weakest link to a CoI I've seen proposed here in a long time. Even if this editor pushes a fringe theory (which I'm taking your word for, for the purpose of the discussion), is there any good reason to think that he does so for a reason other than a perceived wish to spread the truth? –Henning Makholm 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the physics degree because that and the other circumstances I mentioned suggested to me that he might be the author of this book and that he might be quoting himself, and I thought that was against the rules.

The big problem is his persistently promulgating original research and fringe theories, which I also thought was against the rules. Sumerophile (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the article which Sumerophile is nominating for COI investigation is Ziusudra, so I formatted the header of this COI complaint accordingly. Greensburger has not edited Sumerian origin legend at all, so there is no reason to include that in this complaint. I don't perceive that a Talk page consensus was reached anywhere on Sumerophile's idea of splitting the Ziusudra article. There may be WP:FRINGE stuff floating around, but I don't believe that S. followed due process with G. on the issue of splitting the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was nominating the user, if that can be done. The problem is this fringe agenda has been spread all over the Ancient Near East articles, and possibly on Genesis and Noah-related articles as well. I'm vetting it in the Ancient Near East section, and came up unexpectedly against Greensburger again in the Sumerian king list article [38], in what appears to be another fringe agenda he's pushing - about when the Ubaid and Sumerian Dynastic periods occurred. Sumerophile (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether Ziusudra and Eridu Genesis should be two articles or a single article is open to debate, and can be discussed calmly on talk. This is a perfectly pragmatic question. I have misgivings about Greenburger's attempts to portray any of these floods as "historical", but looking at the debate, it appears clear that Greenburger is perfectly willing to base his argument on academic literature, while Sumerophiles behaviour is much more erratic. Perhaps Greenburger is pushing an outdated academic view, but the way to counter this is by citing more recent academic literature, not by removing his material. This is entirely the wrong noticeboard for this. If Greenburger presents a lop-sided argument, set the score right by citing academic literature, not by wikilawyering about it. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a fringe theory [39] using outdated sources for its base is very different from an outdated academic view. Just because somebody cites academic literature doesn't mean he's an academic or that his theories are sound, and his selective use of older material is a good example of what citing academic literature should not be.

And I do not appreciate being labled "erratic" for making a case against this, or for reporting concerns about this matter here. Sumerophile (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Paste Magazine

Maryrobbins06 (talk · contribs) was posting a large number of links in the "Professional reviews" section of album articles, all of them linking to Paste Magazine's website. She disclosed that she is indeed affiliated with the magazine so I informed her of our COI policy. She stopped editing, but then 72.16.210.162 (talk · contribs) was adding links, so I gave the same warning. Interestingly, this anon then removed Maryrobbins06's message on my Talk page, and added this. My inclination would be to remove all of these links to Paste Magazine due to the likely COI, but I would like others' input. Thanks in advance. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt its spamming. I've opened a case here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.pastemagazine.com, and will look into it more. --Hu12 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The updated link for the WPSPAM posting is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Paste Media Group. I agree that someone affiliated with Paste Magazine should not have been posting these links, per the COI rules, but I'm uncertain whether regular editors should be allowed to post the same ones. Note the following language from Wikipedia:ALBUM#Professional reviews:

Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at WP:ALBUM#Review sites.

This seems to open the possibility that Paste Magazine could be a valid source of professional reviews. (Our definition of 'professional' seems to be 'written by a member of the editorial staff of a reliable source'). I noticed that a review that appeared in Paste was included by Metacritic for an album that I spot-checked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have received major awards both as general and specialized media from good sources. Removingthese links is counterproductive in terms of establishing notability. It's not my subject, but it appears from the evidence that they are a RS for popular music. this was not the right way to put in the links, but we are here to build content and source it. It should be explained to them how to cooperate properly by suggesting them on the talk pages. DGG (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jossi and Prem Rawat

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I see no purpose in prolonging this discussion at this stage. What mainly seems to have happened here is that The Register and a few other editors have discovered OMG Jossi is a follower of Prem, which he disclosed 3-1/2 years ago. After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools. The Conflict of Interest guidelines do not prohibit COI editing; they advise against it because editing with a COI can sometimes lead to disruptive behavior, edit-warring, failure to follow consensus, and so forth. If you think the article is a "whitewash", then fix it. If, during the process of fixing it, you get into disputes with Jossi that can not be solved by dispute resolution (RFC or mediation), then it would be time to consider article or topical bans. However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites. As far as discussion of policy is concerned, and whether appearance of a conflict is actionable in the absence of actual disruptive editing, that policy discussion should be held at WT:COI. Thatcher 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
*Further note, if you will read the archives at this page, you will see that this board mainly issues warnings and recruits editors interested in fixing articles. This board is merely a first step is the dispute resolution process and does not substitute for article content RFC, mediation, or user-conduct RFC. Fix the articles, consistent with editorial policies, and bring currently active disputes to mediation or RFC. Thatcher 12:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• Jossi (talk · contribs)
• Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An article [40] in The Register had just presented strong evidence that Jossi has serious COI issues with Prem Rawat articles. I've formally requested [41] on his talk page that he stay away from Rawat-related articles and away from issues, such as policy changes, that appear to be intended to assist in pushing POV in or protecting Rawat articles. The article also mentions that User:Momento and User:Rumiton may have COI issues with Rawat as well, but doesn't present as clear evidence of it so I'll leave that for further discussion and observation for now. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You can read my comment in my user page about this, as well as my request for advice placed at the Village Pump on January 15. I intend to continue editing Wikipedia, and at the same time submit myself to the community's review on these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I made some comments challenging The Register as a source for the Criticism of Wikipedia article, a few days before I was contacted by that journalist. See: diff and diff. Not sure if the attack piece was a retaliatory action on their part, or not. When I asked the journalist about this, he did not respond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, the article presents evidence from people using their real names in stating that you worked personally for Rawat, even "sitting at his desk". That's as strong a COI as I think as it can get without actually being Rawat himself. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I have acted transparently about my affiliation and I have adopted a behavior to disclose COI and contribute via talk page discussions, offering sources and insight for others to consider, and ensure that statements are accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The existence of a conflict of interest is not reason to pre-emtively and completely prohibit an editor from editing an article or topic. Do you have any actual diffs or discussion threads to back your claim that Jossi is pushing a POV? Because I just went and searched all of Jossi's edits to Prem Rawat in the last half a year and didn't see anything to suggest that. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As one of the people named in the article, I feel I should comment. The Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat is a whitewash of the Prem Rawat described in all independent press articles. My website has a collection of those articles at the press room [42], and if Jossi was as neutral as he claims the article would reflect the views expressed in those articles. Instead, Jossi, and his associates (Momento and Rumiton) reject the entire 4th estate as 'tabloid'. Unfortunately, even if Jossi is prevented from editing Rawat related articles, other Rawat cult members would take his place. If editors here care about the integrity of Wikipedia they must address this gaping flaw in the Wikipedia project. --John Brauns (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been problems in other areas of Wikipedia in which "tag teams" of editors combine their efforts to push a particular POV or squash criticism in all the articles related to a specific subject and which appears to be the case here. If these editors refuse to correct their behavior, and Jossi has already stated on his talk page in response to this that he'll edit wherever and however he wants to, then further, formal action may be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is an issue that has been examined over and over again. Jossi is periodically reported for a conflict of interest, leading to his actions being repeatedly put under scrutiny. I think if this were an actual issue of concern, something would have come of it by now. I'm also a bit concerned about the source of this round of scrutiny. The Register is hardly unbiased or entirely accurate when it comes to reporting on Wikipedia. Similarly, when it pertains to matters dealing with Prem Rawat, John Brauns and Mike Finch are no more reliable than Ed Decker in matters dealing with the Latter-Day Saints. Certainly, if it is felt necessary, Jossi's contributions should be reviewed yet again. However, I would recommend treading carefully before seizing onto the claims of such clearly antagonistic sources. Vassyana (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So I'm new enough here to not know that Jossi created the COIN, but after reading the Register article, I'd say there are enough exaggerations and questionable interpretations to make me not trust this specific article. If anyone insists, I will go through and identity these, but quite frankly, I'd want to see some specific diffs of Jossi inserting or deleting material to which COI would apply before I'd consider a full out investigation. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody wants to take claims uncritically, especially from a source with such a flair for the dramatic. On the other hand, given that Wikipedia's value to the public is based in large part on a perception that we are trustworthy, I think it's worth taking the time to carefully look into the questions raised and put together a page detailing the facts as we see it.

However, I'm certainly concerned that Jossi has made over 1000 edits to the Prem Rawat page alone, more than any other editor. Given his admitted conflict of interest, that can't help but look suspicious to an outsider. Combine that with Jossi's Jossi's early dedication to these topics, and I think a reasonable outside observer could be concerned. William Pietri (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perusing the article and article talk page and history shows some of the well-known tactics used to push POV: frequent archiving of the discussion threads, tag-team reverts, delaying tactics in discussions on the merits of sources, attacking the supposed motivations of the authors of the sources, etc. To be fair, if Jossi hadn't somewhat declared his COI (and the Register article gives evidence that he may have misrepresented his COI) on the subject, he would only be guilty (arguably, of course) of POV pushing. But, POV pushing plus evidence of COI equals serious COI, as in serious enough that action has to be taken to protect the article from it. Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone starts believing "The Lord of the Universe owns Wiki", here is a incomplete list of people who edit Prem Rawat related material who regularly contribute to the anti-Rawat forum- User:Wowest,User:John Brauns, User:Andries,User:Sylviecyn and User:Nik Wright2. And let's not forget the anon editors like User:24.98.132.123, User:137.222.107.32 and User:84.9.48.220 who burst on to the scene in the last week to edit without discussion. Prem Rawat articles have often been a battle ground of opinion but thanks to editors like Jossi, Vassyana and others, it has been transformed from a bloated, editing warring, quote fight into one of the most meticulously researched articles in Wiki. The PR article is almost entirely composed of the indisputable facts of Rawat's life as gleaned from independent sociologists and religious scholars. It has very little opinion pro or con as to the efficacy of Rawat's teachings and that's as it should be, Wiki is here to present the facts. If you want opinion read The Register. Momento (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento, attributed scholarly opinions about Rawat and his teachings do have a place in wikipedia. You have repeatedly and systematically removed many scholarly sourced critical statements. Andries (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, diffs of any bad behavior? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I get the feeling this is more about appearances (Caesar's wife and all that) rather than any evidence of concrete wrongdoing - so far anyway. There's no real doubt that Jossi has a significant COI here, but that's not the same as saying that he's edited abusively. To quote an unnamed Wikipedian cited in the article, "So long as you divulge a conflict and you edit appropriately in light of that conflict, then it's OK to continue editing." If people want to make the case that Jossi has edited inappropriately, there needs to be hard evidence of that. Otherwise this matter relies more on suspicions and innuendo than anything concrete. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Does that include re-writing COI policy so you yourself are not in violation of COI? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The main culprit is revert warrior Momento. I think all people who were heavily involved in this conflict have sometimes edited inappropriately in the past (incl. me and Jossi). Diffs are easy to give. Andries (talk)

Actually, if you look at anything ever called a "cult," "large group awareness training," "Landmark Education (and anything remotely related)" any and all things remotely called a "cult," or anything possibly related to it, you'll find Jossi's trail. We're talking films, television programs (episodes of 'The Simpsons' for chrissakes) that reference cults. You admins have let this guy pretty much do whatever, including rewriting the COI policy to allow for his actions. It's the admin clique and backscratching that goes on here that got everyone caught with their pants down. All some of us had to do was sit, sift through the edits, sit back...and watch. It was assumed other admins would come to his defense to try to quickly remedy the situation, just not sure exactly how long it will last (and given this is Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if it was hidden in the basement like a deformed sibling). There's no real definitive action on editors who have jeopardized Wikipedia (or rewritten it to suit their POV) as long as they're admins who will back you up in a jam, scratch your back when you happen to need it, vote for you, and keep silent on issues such as the topic of that Register article and damning things related to it. I'm willing to bet a large sum of money there is only a symbolic wrist-slapping followed by sweeping the whole issue under the rug. Any takers? Seriously. Every edit Jossi made is in question now. And I'm ducking the bullets now because I've already been given veiled threats by an admin for even discussing any of this. --Pax Arcane 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What admin threatened for discussing this? That is highly inappropriate. Lawrence § t/e 14:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AuburnPilot on my talk page. Threatening to block me. I have had no interaction with this guy previously. ≈ jossi ≈ has had a pattern of harrassing behavior on any critical edits concerning anything New Age/New Religious Movement/Cult/Large Group Awareness Training/Landmark Education (and probably EST/Werner Erhard)...as he acts as "the police" on these subjects and acts on behalf of anyone who who is sympathetic to these orgs and stopping any and all criticism through some of the loopholes he's helped write (appropriate sources) or just trying to help others erase criticism of their controversial orgs, from day ONE since I began bumbling about editing on Wikipedia.--Pax Arcane 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That would be me. Of course, I didn't make veiled threats to block Pax Arcane for discussing this, but for incivility and personal attacks after seeing this and this. See here where I'm accused of "veiled threats". - auburnpilot talk 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thoughts:

1. The Reg is not always a neutral source for such things. It's a useful "heads up" to look at an area, but a source that makes exaggerations of the kind The Reg often produces, and prefers misrepresentative "hype" to reality checking, is not (for me) a reliable source for interpretation, and its claims of facts often need double checking for good faith, fairness, balance/selectivity, and validity before any conclusions are drawn. Jossi may be respected as an admin, but the mind boggles to see him described as "ruling clique" or "inner circle" as The Reg wants to present it; no more than any other of 1000 admins and an additional 4 - 6 RFA'ed every week. He gets overturned or disagreed as easily as any other admin on project page discussions, in my experience (I haven't edited on articles he's edited on so can't comment there). A number of previous Register articles on Wikipedia have problematically sought to "find some drama element" in an issue, creating, distorting, or enhancing it to do so, if needed.
2. Cases on Wikipedia are based on evidence from diffs. I've prepared many of these myself in disputes or for misconduct; they can take time to do well, but to make a case that's what is needed. Not just impressions with no cites provided. The nearest we have to these above are a couple of statements above saying that the history shows "some of the well-known tactics used to push POV", and that in any cult related article one will "find Jossi's trail". It is not unreasonable that an editor with an interest in such things may edit on these topics. The issue for COI/N is more, whether the editing was partial and agenda driven. For that we need to see evidence and discussion of evidence.
3. I would therefore support those above who say that we need diffs from (say) the last year, showing manipulation of prem or cult related articles.
4. Note well the common problem with unpopular topics: they often have strong detractors (many more detractors than supporters) and these detractors often are non neutral also. Accordingly a user who is genuinely seeking neutrality must at times rather often add "pro" material more than "anti", and at other times add "anti" as well as "pro", or refactor wordings... this can sometimes cause problems of interpreting intent. Which is why COI can be such a problem.

If anyone wishes to put together a Wikipedia case that Jossi has misedited, in any recent time interval (communally we don't tend to dredge up distant issues from years ago that seem long dead) -- say in the last 6-12 months -- then that'd be more to the point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have no idea whether or not Jossi has edited inappropriately, and take no position on this subject. However, I think that the Prem Rawat article needs significant work to be compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:V. In its current state, it relies very heavily on a single hagiography (Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat) and not nearly enough on mainstream media and scholarly sources. It concerns me that Rawat (a.k.a Maharaji)'s repeated early claims of being "God" or "Lord of the Universe" or something similar are not included in the introduction. Whether or not he's embarrassed by such claims now, they were an important part of his public persona in the 1970s. *** Crotalus *** 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A review may be no bad thing. And although I haven't read the article on Prem, no bio should rely overly on one source or viewpoint (especially if painted by the subject or connected parties) without making it very clear this weakness, and seeking to rectify it via other reliable sources. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You are welcome to read the article which is based on 72 citations, mostly from scholarly sources, with only but a few sourced to the Cagan book, and these mainly for things like the name of members of his family and other non-disputed facts. I have always welcomed reputable sources, and created holding page for all these at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As my name has been invoked as an "editor" of the Prem Rawat article I would like to put on record that virtually nothing in the current article meets with my understanding of what is Encyclopaedic or unbiased. Every balanced, constructive and intelligent attempt at creating an honest article has, in my view, been resisted by pro Rawat editors. The scale of deceit can be easily established by reference to http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/falsity.htm and http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/sources.htm It is not necessary to go down the route of ploughing through the minutae of diffs to see what is wrong - it's simply a matter of recognising that there are numerous viable sources which are excluded from the current article(s).

That said I do not believe that the Rawat related articles provide the greatest area of concern. What ought to be a fundamental worry to Wikipedia is that Jossi has had a significant influence not only on BLP policy but incredibly on Wikipedia's very own Conflict of Interest policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136159823

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135156880

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135157157

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=109821402

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104271006

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=101182863

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99553349

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=88586627

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=87213909

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86449604

An administrator who is conflicted over a BLP and associated articles, is CONFLICTED over BLP policy and Conflict of Interest policy.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, and www.prem-rawat-critique.org is obviously a neutral, non-biased site that meets reliable source guidelines? All I see here is a group of anti-Prem editors accusing a pro-Prem editor of "whitewashing" or whatever. Well guess what will happen if we decide to ban all editors with a demonstrated conflict of interest from the article. Evidence speaks louder than agitated hand wringing and finger pointing. Go get some actual evidence. Thatcher 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time that someone has named Jossi in a COI complaint regarding the Prem Rawat articles. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 12, "Jossi (talk · contribs) Conflict of interest on Prem Rawat related articles." Marked as Resolved by Marskell on 30 May 2007 due to lack of specific evidence of wrongdoing. Google for 'Prem Rawat wikipedia' and you'll find plenty of evidence that the Rawat articles have been a vortex of disagreement over the years. In Jossi's RfA back in October 2005 there was a support voter and and an oppose voter who mentioned his work on Prem Rawat. Through his contributions at WP:BLP/N Jossi has been helpful in a number of contested areas and I'd be surprised if his judgment is as bad as some have portrayed above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an editor who is not given to flights of drama and who had, at this time yesterday, no particular opinions on Prem Rawat (although I'd heard of him, obviously), and I am actually stunned at how blatant a whitewash the article is right now. I haven't looked into the history enough to know whether this is due to a COI by Jossi (in recent history, it seems to be mostly non-Jossi editors who are the problem), but the article needs substantial work. I'm not even saying that where there's smoke, there's fire - just that where there's smoke, NPOV requires you to report smoke. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Jossi has not been the one involved in the whitewashing. From what I can piece together In jan 07, it was decided to merge Criticism of Prem Rawat into the main article since it was a POV fork. Yet, currently there is no criticism section due to several whitewashing reversions by Momento (talk · contribs). These attempts at removing the criticism, rather than trying to reach a consensus version, started shortly after the merge was completed in Jan 07. The reversions from Momento has been occurring since then, as in this example from June 2007. In Sept 07 there was a removal of NPOV tags from a user wondering why there was no criticism and two recent reverts from feb 3, 08 and feb 6, 08.

I see no evidence that Jossi participated in this type of editing but he must have been aware it was occurring since he was a constant presence on the page along with Rumiton (talk · contribs). Judging from the page history since the POV fork was merged into the article all three users (Jossi, Momento and Rumiton) have worked closely to create the current version of the article. David D. (Talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• My response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good thing Wikipedia isn't a governmental agency [43] or an organisation existing in the real world [44]. In the real world, even the appearance of COI is problematic at best. Here we try to find reasons why something couldn't possibly rise to the level of COI. "But so-and-so edited neutrally", is a common defence and yet a spurious one. Alleged neutrality (in this case the neutrality is certainly in question) is one of the most hotly contested concepts on WP. It's interesting that the Prem Rawat article has not one word of criticism -- I suppose he must be the Perfect Being, or perhaps criticism is kept out. Whatever the case, we know that Jossi has had a hand in the presentation of the Prem Rawat article, which, given that he is employed by Prem Rawat is a definite COI. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't propose that someone sanction or warn Jossi nor am I going to spend hours looking at every edit to see if they really were neutral -- I see no need to. The situation is very simple: Jossi should not edit Prem Rawat-related articles. That's true whether he's neutral in his editing or not. I'm not going to wikilawyer over current or past versions of our Conflict of Interest Guideline -- we all know in our hearts that Jossi editing this article is very inappropriate, whatever fine print might be squeezed into the conversation to allow it. It's just incompatible with our culture. Not only that, but it's especially important that admins set a good example.

I think a promise from Jossi not to edit this or related articles going into the future should be sufficient. There's no need to flog him or cast aspersions on him.

Jossi, can you agree with this? --A. B. ^(talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You would have to acknowledge the other types of articles I mentioned above. Otherwise, this is going to pop up yet again. I don't see him agreeing to either scenario. I see it being played out as he advises people on talk pages or offsite on editing that article, and in essence, he'll still be editing it. You take the cult-related topics away from him, he'll have no reason to be here anymore, no paying day job. --Pax Arcane 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If Jossi truly was a neutral editor in the Rawat and associated articles, then the articles wouldn't have as much of a skewed POV as they have now because Jossi would have helped fix that. He's been editing Wikipedia for almost three years now (or is it longer) and should know by now how to edit a neutral article. Since it appears that he's either unable or unwilling to edit the Rawat articles neutrally, I again state a formal request that he stay away from all Rawat-related articles. Cla68 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the last 250 edits to the article, jossi has made 6 by my count, and these are the diffs"

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

Is someone really suggesting that he is introducing POV to the article? If so, then they need to provide such diffs. A COI only applies if the person is a POV editor. Where is the evidence? The very closest I see see above is that he's made a lot of edits to the article. What you need to show now is that they, or a significant number of them, were POV edits. This, unless I'm mistaken, has not been done. If it has, please point me to the analysis. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And one other thing: any expert has a COI. Do we really want, as -A. B. said above, to restrict expert editing? There is a reason that the rules are written as they are: we need the experts, as long as they edit neutrally. Here is what the ArbCom had to say on it [50]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Note well the common problem with unpopular topics: they often have strong detractors (many more detractors than supporters) and these detractors often are non neutral also. Accordingly a user who is genuinely seeking neutrality must at times rather often add "pro" material more than "anti", and at other times add "anti" as well as "pro", or refactor wordings... this can sometimes cause problems of interpreting intent. Which is why COI can be such a problem. This, from a previous contributor, sums up a key issue. There are enough editors in Wikipedia whose only interest in articles on New Religious Movements is to add derogatory, often poorly sourced information. Truly neutral and knowledgeable editors taking a committed interest in these articles are few and far between. Leaving these articles to the detractors, who have their own POV issues, will not result in neutral articles either. Note that no one would seriously want to suggest

• that muslims should be prohibited from editing the article on Islam,
• that the article on Hillary Rodham Clinton should only be edited by Republicans and/or supporters of Barack Obama,
• that women who have aborted should be barred from editing the article on abortion, or
• that gay editors should stay away from the article on homosexuality.

Even if followers of Prem Rawat should prove to have been somewhat too successful in eliminating criticism from the Prem Rawat article, this is preferable to what would result if none of his followers were allowed to edit the article. Such problems as there may be present can be solved with community involvement. There are important principles at stake here; let's not chuck the baby out with the bath water. -- 172.189.198.112 (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's where he removed a criticism section concerning an organization that his been called a cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=103890457 I'll keep adding to this as he's the "whitewash" admin for editors on that page. --Pax Arcane 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here's where he removed a criticism section concerning an organization that his been called a cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=103890457 I'll keep adding to this as he's the "whitewash" admin for editors on that page. --Pax Arcane 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, all he did was move the critisism to a different section, not remove it. He also would have been right to remove it if he had, as the section was completely unreferenced. All your link shows is his own self-restraint. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's where he removed a criticism section concerning an organization that has been called a cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=103890457

I'll keep adding to this as he's the "whitewash" admin for editors on that page. --Pax Arcane 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Since all jossi did was move the section to a new heading, you are doing a good job of creating evidence that this is merely an attack, without any basis in fact. And you're being disruptive and not listening to other editors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break

The article does appear to be a bit positive at present, with a lack of criticism. Jossi linked to the collected scholars page, but there is no reason to not use additional sourcing from maintstream international media. For example, it's a fact that Rawat billed himself in deity-like terms, was called "Lord of the Universe", or still is, and his followers lined up to kiss his feet. Why is there no mention of this? A ten-second Google news trip turns up media coverage of this. Considerably more sourcing by searching for "Maharaji" instead of his current non de plume. Why isn't there critical or "negative" coverage of him, when it seems to exist? Articles are never limited to just "scholarly" sources. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems unusual to me that a COI is filed because of something outside of the Wikipedia community, especially given the obvious bias of the article, and the request of the editor in question for assistance in dealing with the ever sensationalist press.

"The Register had just presented strong evidence that Jossi has serious COI issues with Prem Rawat articles."

The Register has presented...? If there are concerns with an article, there are procedures in place so that the editors of the article can deal with the problems, like discussion as an obvious example. If those editors cannot deal with the problems, then there is another procedure, and then another. Filing a COI because of the press is a slippery slope. Where does that stop? Do Wikipedia editors really want to be tossed around like so many leaves in the wind. That's what we are looking at if the press starts to influence the business of this encyclopedia.(olive (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

In a word, yes. I grant completely that the Register is sensationalizing things, and it could all be bunk. But anybody should be able to call our attention to a potential problem. And if they have an audience of a half-million people, that's all the more reason for us to look into their concerns. We are only as effective as we are trusted. William Pietri (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

ec::Like wow, maybe no one noticed the connexion until it was pointed out. Like, did you know about Abu Ghraib and waterbording before it was pointed out? When I saw Jossi's "disclaimer" the other day I wasn't happy about it, but I was too lazy to check it out. There's a reason that a Pullet Surprise is awarded for investigative reporting. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

ec::Yes, the press does "influence this encyclopedia" otherwise we wouldn't require sources. The fact is, the Register piece has brought to light mis-doings on Wikipedia. Should we just ignore it? Seriously? I think not. There's no denieing a "good ole boy club" exists on Wikipedia between some Admins. I would urge everyone to take this matter seriously and to do what is right, whatever that may be. However, ignoring it or slaps on the wrist is not doing "what is right". - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The press is alleging misdoings. If its all bunk we are putting a well respected admin. and editor through a lot to find out that it was all bunk. We have ways of dealing in the community with problem articles . If there is a problem deal with it. If the editor in question indicates at that point that he is not capable of NPOV editing, then go to the next level.(olive (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

No, there have been no mis-doings. I'll state it like that. Now, it is your job, as the prosecution, to present evidence of POV editing. If you don't, then this is all merely noise- and attack noise at that. If jossi has not edited in a POV manner, he can consider it a non-issue, a tempest in a coin pot. Give some evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Better. Innocent until proven guilty.(olive (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Register article is bad editorial

Disclaimer: I skimmed through the above, but read The Register article in its entirety.[51] I wanted to comment on the editorial. I have to say, it's a pretty bad editorial. First off, it's titled "Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'", which is your first red flag. It's extremely sensational. It assumes that Wikipedia is ruled by someone, that this someone is the "Lord of the Universe", and then goes on to suggest that this Lord of the Universe is actually Prem Rawat, and that Jossi is his proxy. What a load of garbage. Not even Jimbo himself runs this place, and to suggest that Jossi is somehow all powerful ruler in charge of Wikipedia is complete BS. It's all innuendo. What's more is that this innuendo conflates one topic, the topic of Prem Rawat, as representative of all of Wikipedia. It's meant to demonstrate that Wikipedia is a cult, ran by an obscure cult, when we all know that Wikipedia is a huge community representing all manner of interests and can't be pinned on one topic, or one editor. To suggest that one editor rules it all is complete horseshit. I normally enjoy reading The Register for IT trivia, but this load of garbage is worse than supermarket tabloids. It is purely written to cater to people's fear of cults and should not be considered reliable at all. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Nixonites raised the same crit of the Washington Post. Nixon resigned. The WP still exists. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I supposed to be a metaphorical Nixonite here? There's a huge reliability difference between the Washington Post and The Register, and this editorial tries to demonstrate that 1) Wikipedia is ran by a cult 2) The cult is The Prem Rawat Foundation and that 3) All of Wikipedia's checks and balances rely on this very noticeboard (It makes the claim that the COI Noticeboard is the central hub of WP's policing). I mean, come on, in the second paragraph of the editorial it says:

But there's a catch. One of the site’s leading administrators bears an extreme conflict of interest, but you can’t expose him from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. He created the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.

Obviously that's BS, because here we are. It's an editorial meant to cater to the fear of cults, and undermine the reliability of Wikipedia, but presented with a gross misrepresentation of how Wikipedia actually works. The checks and balances Wikipedia afford are not dependent on this noticeboard, and no one is immune from this noticeboard. If the writer at The Register even bothered, he could have even posted his gripes about Jossi here. It's pure sensational rubbish. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is ran by a cult" run, run, the word is run. "but you can’t expose him from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard" huh?

As for the rest, it's very difficult to have a discussion when the points are poorly presented. Knee-jerk defence is as bad as knee-jerk condemnation. I prefer to look at the facts. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're seriously suggesting that the Register editorial should be taken as reliable because of my grammar? The second part about the COI noticeboard is a direct quote. So I'm a metaphorical Nixonite with bad grammar, great, the editorial is still rubbish. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, and when you've done that, present the evidence of jossi behaving badly here, so we can all look and decide if he has made POV edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If anyone doubts that the editorial was written just as a sensational piece, catering to people's fear of cults, and meant to discredit Wikipedia as "controlled" by cult religious freaks, just read the comments posted about the editorial.[52] It's exactly the message readers got out of it as well: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia controlled by cults. That was the author's intent, and that's what readers got out of it. Unfortunately it's a poor assessment of Wikipedia's checks and balances. Jossi doesn't control this COI board, for example, as the article claims. The readers there don't know the difference and assumes he does. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And at Digg it's been reframed [53] as:

One of Wikipedia's top 3 editors is a longtime student of Prem Rawat, the India-born spiritual leader who is largely considered to be a cult leader. This leads to an extreme conflict of interest because he maintains and edits the guru's page. But you can ’t report a Conflict of Interest because he's the head of that council too.

LOL. Of course that was the author's intent, to discredit Wikipedia and make it look like it's being run by a cult. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On conflicts of interest

Above there are some notions about conflicts of interest above that I'd like to address, as I think they are not just mistaken, but dangerously so.

• First, it is suggested if Jossi's edits are all good ones, then there is no conflict of interest. That's incorrect. As an admin and editor on Wikipedia, Jossi has an interest in Wikipedia doing well. As "a proud student of Maharaji, which I have known for more than 20 years," he has an interest in his teacher being seen in a positive light. These interests will unavoidably conflict, even if he manages the conflict well.

• Second, someone expressed the notion that forbidding conflicted edits would mean ruling out expert contributions. That's not so; people with conflicts of interest are invited to contribute through discussion. Further, participants are not the only experts, and are rarely the best ones. For example, if a member of the Clinton administration were to start rewriting Bill Clinton's page, I'd be horrified, no matter how much expertise they might have.

• Third, there's an implication that no bad edits mean there's no problem. That's dangerously wrong. Even if the article were perfectly balanced (and some suggest otherwise), we still have an issue of appearance. Consider another analogy. People in the US are widely suspicious that Haliburton has been helped unduly by its former CEO, Vice President Cheney. Even though no improper behavior has been proved, the relationship still has reduced the credibility of the Bush administration.

That's not to say that Jossi has done anything wrong. I haven't had a chance to dig in enough to have an opinion, and from seeing him around I have favorable impression of him. But because Wikipedia only matters to the extent people trust us, I think it's worth taking the questions raised very seriously. William Pietri (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a point to looking into this further. Jossi has admitted to having a COI, and the only things that can actually be done about a COI are blocks and topic bans to prevent bad behavior. And to disagree with your third point, the lack of bad behavior (or the lack of evidence thereof) is a pretty good indicator that there's no bad behavior to prevent, except some completely hypothetical one. Issues with the article should be handled by bold action, discussion, and dispute resolution; they should not be dealt with by suggesting that Jossi is responsible for them. And what's really feeding this thread are a few editors screaming "POV-pushing" without providing any diffs of such behavior, which to me is just further suggestion that no bad behavior exists. And while action can be taken merely to preserve Wikipedia's image, I think it would be a bad idea to give the Register article any more weight in that sense than your run-of-the-mill Wiki-bashing news story. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That there are no codified options doesn't mean that there are no options, and it certainly doesn't mean that there's no point to discussion or further investigation. We could jointly put together an examination of the Register's claims, for example. If we think they are meritless, we can say so. And if people feel there's a problem, we could, as Cla68 has, ask Jossi to stay away from those articles where he has a conflict of interest.

My current feeling is that even if we throw out the Register article entirely, I'm still concerned. That an admin has made thousands of edits to a topic where they have a deep and multi-decade conflict of interest strikes me as a big image problem, no matter who the admin or what the topic. William Pietri (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, it is all about edits. Nothing else.

• People with possible COI are invited to edit the article, as long as the do so carefully and follow NPOV [54].

• Actually, your horror at possible COI is fine- it's yours, and you have a right to it. But it isn't WP.

• No bad edits mean there is not a problem. It isn't an implication, it is a fact. We aren't about appearance, we are about content.

• Someguy is correct: no bad behavior means no problem. Further, it means that jossi's expertise is applied in the proper way, the way that WP should hope all experts will edit: toward the creation of an NPOV article without letting personal bias interfere. The more experts, AKA "people with COI problems" who edit that way the better.

Either present some evidence, or quit harassing jossi. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I deeply resent your claim that I am harassing anybody. If you'd like to suggest ways that I can raise my concerns more politely, feel free. But telling me not to raise them is inappropriate. Second, conflating expertise with a conflict of interest is, as I said above, bad thinking. Third, conflicts of interest harm credibility, which is why real-world institutions take them so seriously. This is important to us because our mission requires not just that we write articles, but that people trust them. William Pietri (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about this whole claim. Lack of evidence = harassment. And I've seen this often: claims of COI without evidence of POV editing. It just adds up to a way to harass editors. "conflating expertise with a conflict of interest is, as I said above, bad thinking" Right, and that is why we need evidence. Which we don't have. We aren't a political institution- if we do a good job, and people say "ah, they're just COI" then that's just what happens. All you do otherwise is encourage people not to use their real names. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin, are you seriously suggesting that he doesn't have a conflict of interest? It seems pretty obvious to me that he has a huge one. From that, I think there are three reasonable questions: Have his edits been good ones? Is the article balanced? And, setting aside the edits and the article, does the conflict of interest harm Wikipedia's reputation? Of those three questions, only one of them can be decided by looking at his edits. Which we should certainly do, but the discussion must not stop there.

I also disagree utterly that our reputation does not matter. It may not matter to you, but credibility is vital to our mission. William Pietri (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that puts it well. I would say:

1. A COI is not a potential COI. Whether or not a person has a real as opposed to potential COI is determined by their edits. So it is yet to be determined whether or not he has a COI, see nutshell quotation on the COI page.

2. Whether or not the article is balanced is not relevant, unless it is determined it is jossi's fault that it is not balanced.

3. If we are going to determine COI on whether the editors have the potential for COI, WP won't work. Jimbo can't edit policy, and no one can edit anything they know anything about. It simply won't work. No, we cannot determine whether a person has a real COI on who they are or what they do, only on their edits. Think of the results otherwise- if nothing else, as I said above, it merely gives an advantage to the less honest, who don't use their real names. What you want is to treat people fairly- which means judging them only on their edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. Take a look at our mainspace article, conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists not when somebody has behaved badly, but just when their interests conflict. Jossi has many roles, including editor, admin, devotee, and employee. In those roles, he has different interests. When he edits Wikipedia articles on his guru or his employer, those interests conflict. Whether he handles the conflict well or poorly does not affect the existence of that conflict. What you call a potential COI is just a conflict of interest. Is that clearer?

On point 2, Jossi, especially as an admin, has an obligation to work toward a balanced article. Doubly so given his vast activity on the topic.

Regarding point 3, expertise does not automatically create conflicts of interest, and having conflicted interests does not make you an expert. An expert should be able to write broadly and neutrally about a topic. Being a partisan may give you a fair bit of information, but does not make you an expert. I agree we should avoid advantaging the dishonest, but that doesn't mean we should ignore problems with honest editors, either.

Hoping that makes things clearer, William Pietri (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that's just not true. The article begins "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Emphasis added.

Well, that means if he has been an NPOV editor, he has only a potential COI, not one which WP is concerned about. Thus, evidence of POV editing is necessary to determine if his COI is anything real or not.

The rest of what you say I agree with. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Martin, when I say "conflict of interest", I do not mean "Wikipedia conflict of interest as defined at WP:COI". I am talking about the thing that the rest of the English-speaking world calls a conflict of interest, where one's interests conflict. It is defined in our main-space article on the topic, and any number of other reference works. Jossi has a major conflict of interest on these articles and on the COI policy itself, even if he has not edited in violation of our WP:COI guideline.

I understand that you are saying that he has not violated that guideline as written. I agree that if people want to accuse him of that, they should provide evidence in the form of diffs. However, there are other important issues here, and it is mainly those that concern me. William Pietri (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

With that explanation, then, we agree on things, and Durova's advice below would be good. As usually defined, he has a COI, and should be open and highly circumspect with relation to the articles -as I'm sure knowing him that he has been all along. The COI as defined outside Wikipedia shouldn't entirly keep him from editing and participating in the articles though. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

William, if you'll notice, Martin has no confusion over what a COI is, merely over what wording to use and when. His point is quite on the ball that COI doesn't promote sanctions against NPOV editors, and Martin prefers to call these "potential COIs." You can call them actual COIs if you want, but that change of wording doesn't translate into a need for action. You say that investigation is warrented, so please, go ahead. If you look up through this discussion, you'll notice that Martin and I have searched for problem edits and didn't find any. Others claim they exist but won't provide actual diffs. If you see something bad in Jossi's contribs (ie, an actual reason to believe he can't be trusted to edit under his COI), please let us all know. But until then, there's nothing here to warrant any action. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When a person's interests conflict, that is a conflict of interest, not a potential one. This is not a quibble over definitions; actual conflicts of interest have real-world implications, and Jossi has a major conflict of interest. As I've said several times in this section, the issues that concern me exist whether or not any individual edit is in violation of the WP:COI guideline. I've explained it several ways and don't know how to be clearer. If there's some way I can aid you in understanding my concerns, please let me know what that would be. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to get you guys to see the gravity, tonight and tomorrow, I will list each article Jossi has a COI with so you can see the totality and severity of the situation. It's not _just_ Prem Rewat article. It is many articles. I'll start with the one from an episode of 'The Simpsons' and owrk on down. My example above was a poor one, but I'll be damned if anyone claims there's a COI with Jossi on ONE article. --Pax Arcane 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a lot. But it won't matter a whit unless you find some POV diffs. Here is what COI is:

This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.

Unless you show where jossi violated this, rather than where he might violate it if he were going to violate it, you really show nothing at all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to take a moment to get the articles. There are many. The Reg article took a considerable amount of time to write because it included specific instances. I know where they are, but I'm not an admin, this isn't my day job like it is Jossi's, and it will take time. But each separate article is going to get a COI listing on this page NOT this section. Too much slippery room for it to get swept under the table listing them here. 'The Joy of Sect,' a Simpsons episode is going up first. If parody and humor of a cult leader needs a pro-cult POV, something is horribly wrong at Wikipedia, and with turn-the-blind-eye admins. --Pax Arcane 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So the situation is: a sensationalist article written by someone who probably has very little knowledge of how Wikipedia operates has decided that one of the editors here has a COI. Therefore, all of the articles this editor has worked on will now be posted. Rather all of the articles will be posted as chosen by another editor who independently decides these are COI articles. Then, the assumption will be that every article will undergo careful scrutiny by multiple editors to see if there are COI edits. Rather than Dirova's suggestion "My recommendation to Jossi is to continue monitoring any article of interest, but exercise greater use of noticeboards and ask for impartial intervention when there's a problem, if direct intervention might be construed as improper."If we can be sure that every single article is carefully scrutinized by every single editor who comments than this might be practical, otherwise I would suggest that Durova's recommendation would be less wieldy. Wikipedia itself must provide the internal checks and balances that keep the encyclopedia neutral without the interference of the non-neutral press.(olive (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Olive, if it's gotten to the point where other admins have to hold another admin's hand like a child, that person (and the enablers) have no business being admins or ever editors at Wikipedia. Jossi is a 50-something year old grown-ass man. Hand holding and gently scolding are for 5-year olds. Is this turning into Wikipedia Daycare for Admins? --Pax Arcane 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pax. Let me be perfectly clear here. I personally find Jossi to be an excellent admin and editor from all that I've seen of him . I don't think he needs his hand held or slapped , and I see no evidence that he has edited in a way that is non-neutral . I am however invoking the internal structures of Wikipedia to deal with the questions that some editors are asking rather than begin to look outside of ourselves for suggested evidence of wrongdoing.(olive (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Arbitrary section break

The central point of of our onsite mechanisms has been to manage Wikipedia internally so that the free press doesn't manage it for us. The free press is in the business of selling eyeballs to advertisers; this does not incline them to be kind. I have always advised people who had a conflict of interest to manage their own actions so that they minimize the appearance of impropriety. WP:COI and WP:COIN are minor things compared to an actual public relations disaster. It remains to be seen whether other press outlets will pick up on the Register story. Most reporters have very little idea how this site actually operates, and that affects the quality of their coverage. My recommendation to Jossi is to continue monitoring any article of interest, but exercise greater use of noticeboards and ask for impartial interention when there's a problem, if direct intervention might be construed as improper. The particular way the Prem Rawat article looks on some given day isn't very important, compared to the embarrassment of negative media coverage. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the people who've turned a blind eye and essentially colluded need to have the hell embarassed out of them. The world doesn't doesn't have to understand the inner workings of Wikipedia. They don't and won't, but if they smell a rat and impropriety, take your licks as admins and editors. You ALL had the power to prevent this article for happening. You've edited with him and watched him edit. The public has a need to know the end result, and if the behind-the-scenes stuff is something they won't understand, be prepared to explain why what happened, happened.--Pax Arcane 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pax, your repeated injection of drama into this is not helping us toward clarity. Punishment, through embarrassment or otherwise, is not Wikipedia's way. If people make mistakes, we assume they do so in the best of faith. When we discover the mistakes, we try to correct them and learn from them. When people are unavoidably disruptive, the most we do is disallow their participation, as to do otherwise would hopelessly impede our work.

In this case, I see no evidence that anybody has acted other than with the best of intentions. From everything I've seen, Jossi seems like a skilled, energetic, and affable participant. Everybody else involved seems to be working in equally good faith. If you are having trouble treating your fellow editors with the respect and generosity that is their due, I'd suggest you take a long walk. It does wonders for me. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pax, please have the good faith to suppose my attentions were elsewhere. Wikipedia has 1500 administrators and millions of articles. It simply isn't possible to keep on top of everything. COIN needs more volunteers; I've implored the community to prioritize it. Please join that effort. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it good-faith, gullability, or complete lack of concern? That's where the distinctions have to be made. You voted this guy on RfA, is this correct? I've watched you congratulate him on his talk page, correct me if I'm wrong. You can't say you didn't know something was up. I just got here and saw what he was doing deep into my second month. It was/is so brazen. COIN does need more volunteers, I agree. I think, however, no one but Admins are taken seriously, and if one follows that to the end result, when one of your brothers and sisters fall...you all fall. I admit to being uncivil, headstrong, and stubborn while editing articles who have cult-apologists hovering over them. I'm in the medical field, mental health...believes in science. I'm also a former journalist. I take both seriously. My behavior at Wikipedia has very much been like heated debated in the press room when we all had deadlines and had to get the facts straight with confirmation. I've had difficulty adjusting to this new environment. But I've worked with biased writers who have ruined rags I've worked for, and ruined the good, ethical work we all did. Wikipedia shall not take that direction. I think the RfA process should take a lot longer than it does, be more lengthy, and I agree more people need to volunteer at COIN. But I think a middle ground of 'tween Admins needs to exist between editors and Admins. And maybe this will prevent the ballot stuffing in the RfA process and will make 'tween Admins earn their Admin status. Just my honest thoughts. --Pax Arcane 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is Jossi's RFA. As you can see, it closed on October 15, 2005. My first edit to Wikipedia was on October 22, 2005. To pharaphrase your choice selection of words, is it bad faith, gullibility, or complete lack of concern that led you to pose such a loaded question over a speculation you could have disproven in less time than it took to type the post? Durova^Charge! 04:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a speculation solely aimed at you, it's why I asked if you voted for his RfA...couldn't remember, didn't want to accuse you. I'm tired and not swift at seraching Wikipedia for those kinds of edits on the spot. Please bear with me. I'm exhausted. Do my suggestions make sense, though? --Pax Arcane 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've quite a few thoughts along those lines. It isn't easy to counsel someone about how to protect himself or herself from a major PR liability while the person doesn't understand anything more than Wikipedia is a top Google return and I'm the one saying "no" to them. Those people are often rude, difficult, you name it. And I worry if there's an unfavorable appearance regarding a respective editor. Bear in mind, though, that it's very easy to work in different areas and simply trust the people whose reputations are well established. And once the press gets into a story it's out of our hands. Durova^Charge! 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi COI diffs

Jossi disclosed his conflict of interest on October 15, 2006, if not earlier. The disclosure is deeply buried and the link is in small type. We don't know when the conflict actually started. It predates his editing on Wikipedia according to the Register article. Either way his activities since declaring his COI are relevant. Also, Jossi isn't just a follower. According to the Register article he's been an employee in the office of Rawat. So this isn't like a Muslim writing about Islam - this is like a statesman's press secretary writing about his boss.

Jossi's conflict of interest has been a sticking point for a long time: [55][56][57][58][59][60][61]

Jossi said:

• "I am not editing this article besides making no-contentious edits, making minor edits, and applying BLP as advised by this guideline and the WP:::BLP policy."
• "I am not participating in deletion discussions"

Here are edits to Prem Rawat that aren't minor, that impact the POV of the article and that don't comply with WP:COIC. [62] [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99]

He's made significant edits to every article in category:Prem Rawat. Having a conflict of interest regarding Rawat means also having one regarding the Prem Rawat Foundation, Rawat's family, books about Rawat and other closely related topics. These are just the edits from 2007. He made even far more before that.

• The_Prem_Rawat_Foundation [100][101]
• Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat [102][103][104][105]
• Techniques_of_Knowledge [106][107]
• Divine_Light_Mission [108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116]
• Elan_Vital (organization) [117]
• Hans_Ji_Maharaj [118]
• Sacred_Journeys (book) [119][120][121][122][123][124]
• Lord_of_the_Universe_(documentary) [125][126][127][128]
• Soul_Rush_(book) [129][130][131]
• Who_Is_Guru_Maharaj_Ji? (book) [132][133][134][135]
• List_of_Prem_Rawat-related_topics [136]

Jossi's conflict of interest editing isn't limited to the English language. He's made significant edits to PR articles in other languages. Whilst that isn't an enforcement issue for EN.WP it shows his approach to editing with a conflict of interest. [137][138] He also promotes Rawat on sister projects.[139][140]

Jossi says he does not participate in deletion discussions though that hasn't been the case. [141][142][143][144] (a list that includes Prem Rawat)

Jossi has even used his admin tools to block related usernames (the blocks were alright although he should have foundunconflicted admininstrators to do them). [145][146]

He's worked with a tag team of user:Momento and user:Rumiton as can be seen throughout the edit history plus these pages: [147][148][149][150][151][152]

He's come to the defence of members of the tag team [153]

He's pursued action against those who's edits aren't favourable to his POV: [154][155][156]

Jossi looks like a neutral editor and administrator on other topics. On this topic he does not. Jossi has declared his COI and now he needs to follow through by not editing in any way the articles related to Prem Rawat. COIN tosser (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — COIN tosser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (UTC).

Jossi first disclosed his conflict of interest on 1 September 2004, so I don't think it's right to imply he was hiding anything. Thanks for posting the links; I will look through them when I get the chance. Could you say why you started a new account to post this? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked through about half your diffs before I decided to stop, failing to see a single act of POV pushing. In case this was your point, simply failing to ever add negative material (actually, he did add a teeny bit of that) is not the same as POV pushing. As for the deletion discussions, even SPAs are permitted to participate in those, so even if there's a general reason to be concerned there, I just don't see anything to get worked up over. As for the "tag-teaming", there's nothing wrong with users having similar interests, unless you're going to accuse them of sock/meatpuppetry, or gaming the 3RR system. And as for "pursu[ing] action against those who's edits aren't favourable to his POV," all I see is constructive discussion and one 3RR post that didn't go his way. In fact, pursing action in the appropriate forums in the form of candid discussion shows all the more his ability to restrain himself from abusing his administrative powers, and thus is even more reason to trust him to edit within policy. If I am to go even further, the fact that you're an obvious scrutiny-evading sockpuppet (the log shows you created your account today) is just further evidence to me that this thread exists only to make insubstantive complaints about Jossi. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So you skim a few and bury your head in the sand for the rest? I'm not getting it. What purpose does this serve and what's your interest in beating the "Jossi's innocent" drum? What's the payoff? --Pax Arcane 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If by "a few" you mean 25 of his 90 diffs and links. This serves the purpose of weeding out frivolous complaints. As I said above, if you have a substantive complaint to make, if you have a diff that shows bad behavior, show it to the world. If you're only here to whine about Jossi's COI, nothing is going to come of it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone sort the above into questionable edits and mundane edits? There are 102 (I think) and if someone can sort them into ones that might be POV and ones that clearly aren't, it would help. I know it's been said before, but COI isn't just editing the article (interest), it's editing the article to push a POV (conflict). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mention above, his interests conflict whether or not he has made bad edits. As an admin, he a responsibility to work in Wikipedia's interests. As an employee and follower, he has an interest in people thinking well of Prem Rawat. Those interests conflict when he edits articles related to Prem Rawat. That's not to say he has done anything wrong, and his early declaration of his conflict of interest suggests he's trying to handle the conflict responsibly. But still, the conflict of interest exists and is a major one. William Pietri (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not actually right. If Jossie...

1. Has a responsibility to Wikipedia's interests (admin), and
2. Has an interest in people thinking well of Prem Rawat (employee),

then it's only a conflict if either

1. Prem Rawat is against Wikipedia's interests (admin), or
2. Wikipedia has an interest in people thinking poorly of Prem Rawat (employee).

Otherwise the two "occupations" and interests are not conflicting. If Wikipedia's interest is NPOV concerning Prem Rawat (policy establishes this), then it can only be a conflict if Prem Rawat's interests regarding Wikipedia are established as non-NPOV. In other words, the conflict of interest is established only through a demonstration of Prem Rawat's interests (Jossi by proxy), and requires a POV push away from NPOV. If Jossi's edits are NPOV, then it is established that Prem Rawat's interests regarding Wikipedia are likewise NPOV, and therefore no conflict exists because the interests are the same: NPOV. So the "conflict" is actually edit-dependent.

Hypothetical example: A marketing representative from Microsoft wanting to make sure the features list on a software title published by them is factually correct is not a conflict of interest, even if their interest is purely financial. The reason it is not a COI is because the edit is factually neutral, and in accord with Wikipedia's NPOV interest. Thus, though their interest is financial, because the edit is factually neutral there's no conflicting interest; the financial motive is made irrelevant through the neutral edit and Wikipedia's NPOV interests are served. Maybe someone else can think of an example where COI isn't edit-dependent, but I can't. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel this is an important discussion of policy, not just about Jossi. In much of the world, people are required to avoid a potential conflict of interest. For instance, judges recuse themselves from cases. We're concerned if a judge has a conflict -- regardless of whether we personally deprecate the judgment, so likewise we should be concerned if an editor has a conflict, regardless of whether we personally deprecate the edits. Our current policy is quite lax, in my view, regarding potential conflicts of interest, which should be avoided to the extent feasible. Leaving Jossi aside, I would like to see us make progress in getting editors w/COI to avoid directly editing on their conflicted topics. This could greatly improve our articles and disputes, not to mention the appearance/reputation of Wikipedia (if such "exposes" have any effect). Thanks. HG | Talk 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's failure to assume my good faith diff 9 Sept. 2007, "Just to remind you that you blew your previous three attempts at dispute resolution. You have zero credibility in this project as it pertains to any assumptions of good faith, Andries." diff 14 Oct. 2007 Andries (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I see no purpose in prolonging this discussion at this stage. What mainly seems to have happened here is that The Register and a few other editors have discovered OMG Jossi is a follower of Prem, which he disclosed 3-1/2 years ago. After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools. The Conflict of Interest guidelines do not prohibit COI editing; they advise against it because editing with a COI can sometimes lead to disruptive behavior, edit-warring, failure to follow consensus, and so forth. If you think the article is a "whitewash", then fix it. If, during the process of fixing it, you get into disputes with Jossi that can not be solved by dispute resolution (RFC or mediation), then it would be time to consider article or topical bans. However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites. As far as discussion of policy is concerned, and whether appearance of a conflict is actionable in the absence of actual disruptive editing, that policy discussion should be held at WT:COI. Thatcher 11:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Postlude, re. "If you think the article is a "whitewash", then fix it." (part of the closing editors' recommendation): I did. See [157] and [158]. Only I know, and feel bad about, that probably I overwrote some intermediate constructive edits in the process too. So, inviting others to further improve the Prem Rawat article. If however all criticism is whitewashed (again), I might get involved (again), notwithstanding my low interest in the subject of that article. Happy editing! --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve Abbot actor

(Moved from WP:UAA)

Steve Abbott actor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Adding himself to articles.[159], [160] and [161]. Been warned. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader articles editor with serious personal grudge against Nader

• user Griot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• article Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• article Ralph Nader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Griot has been heavily involved in the above two articles, as well as other Green Party related artciles (e.g., Matt Gonzalez]] for at least a year, consistently and belligerently pushing a hard-line, anti-Nader POV, ferociously battling against attempts at balance or neutrality. Elsewhere on Wikipedia he has described his own serious personal grudge against Ralph Nader, yet persists in attempting to make the articles show the subject in the most negative light, and disrupt efforts for balance. (see here for just the most recent example, and note that Sedlam in that discussion is a possible sock puppet of Griot). Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the above information supplied by User:Boodlesthecat is true. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay (Jeremy Camp song)

• Jeremycamprox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has contributed articles on Jeremy Camp, not sure if its a direct or indirect COI. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought

• Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Philosophicalfrontiers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username indicates relation to journal, possibly a "corporate" account. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric Jurgensen

• Eric Jurgensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Nikolausjurgensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Same last name, promotional tone. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

California Women's Law Center

• California Women's Law Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• CWLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username acronym of article title. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

an important and notable organisation, but the article is incredibly self-promotional; first step would be to check for copyvio.I tagged it. DGG (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NRG Recording Studios

• NRG Recording Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Nrgstudios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Promotional article about studio, username indicates connection. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

seems notable, contained two lists of everyone who has ever recorded there--I removed one of them. Needs attention from someone who knows the subject better than I.DGG (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bob Baldwin (musician)

• Bob Baldwin (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Baldwin77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Promotional autobio. Admits being subject in edit summary. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Raymond J. Brune

Resolved

 – Article deleted by Roger Davies per CSD G12: Blatant copyright infringement of [162]. CounterFX (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Raymond J. Brune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Rayjay2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username similar and in highly promotional tone. MBisanz ^talk 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Poplar High School

• Poplar High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Poplar High (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username same, promotional tone. MBisanz ^talk 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

trivial, we get and fix articles like this routinely. DGG (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dan Benton

• Dan Benton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Danksank44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Media upload info + username indicates a connection. MBisanz ^talk 08:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Buzz!

• Buzz! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hi, I'm employed by a company called Sleepydog and we work on the Buzz! franchise of video games. I would like our company to be credited appropriately on this page and in accordance with your guidelines but would like your advice on how to do this. Sleepydog came up with the original concept for the buzz games (see http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=16290566&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=buzz-is-the-business--name_page.html), and since then we have wrote all the questions and supplied all the images, audio and video clips for the games (see http://www.thumbbandits.com/Buzz_Relentless_Q_and_A.asp). Sleepydog is also credited in all the instruction manuals which are shipped with the games. I’ve discussed this with another Wiki editor, who has highlighted the potential COI issue, and recommended I seek your advice on how best to implement these changes. Many thanks. Neal 2004 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a mention in this diff. Thanks for taking this route to raise the issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help, it's much appreciated. Would you be able to replicate this amend on the pages for: Buzz! The Big Quiz, Buzz! The Sports Quiz, Buzz! The Mega Quiz and Buzz! The Hollywood Quiz? These are all games which we have written the questions for and provided all the pictures, audio and video clips. We are credited for this work in the instruction manuals which are shipped with the game, so I would like us to have a mention of some kind on these pages if possible. Thanks again. Neal 2004 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ideasintoaction

• Ideasintoaction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lean accounting‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• maskell.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• leanaccountingsummit.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The coi case isn't completely clear, but I thought it best to start here to see what others think. "Ideas Into Action" is the name of a consulting company (ideas2action.net) that offers "specialist organisational development support focussing on developing lean organisations through lean accounting and lean leaders." The company has a business relationship with BMA Inc. (maskell.com), as part of BMA Europe Ltd (bmaeurope.com).

User Ideasintoaction has been adding large amounts of unsourced material to Lean accounting that has included linkspam to maskell.com. This material appears to be copied directly from another source, because it included references to figures which an ip then removed [163] [164]. Ideasintoaction has since made some attempts to source the material, but other editors have been reverting these as original research and/or copyright violations. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddworld

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

For some time now, an editor switching between two IPs, 217.150.112.45 and 82.5.133.228, has been edit warring with other editors to include a couple of fansites in the "External links" section of Oddworld. During a lengthy discuss taking place on the talk page, the editor stated that he/she is the owner of one of the sites they have been adding in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

User:Jossi and Prem Rawat 2

Resolved

Please look at Jossi's succesful recent attempt at stopping dispute resolution. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the dates? July 2007 isn't recent. This issue is CLOSED. MER-C 13:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that Andries brings that diff. Hope editors go and read it, and see the kind of behavior I have had to deal with there. Some people do not seem to be able to get a clue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)