Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:09, 26 March 2008

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bibby Line Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Capital One Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Comcast Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Liberty Towers Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Marbella Apartments Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership User talk:Rob 0017/Wurdian Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rainer K. Sachs Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

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.

Requested edits

Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Nick Schwellenbach

Resolved

– User hasn't editted in 2 weeks, tags in place. MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Schwellenbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - was created by a user named Schwellenbach

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.144.3 (talk • contribs) 28 February 2008

I believe the subject is borderline notable. Though he created the article himself, he appears not to like the current version, since he tried to blank it, though his change was reverted. The article is at present tagged for notability, which seems correct. A thorough search might bring forth new references to show his notability, though that has not been done yet. Anyone who wants to propose an AfD is of course free to do so. I suggest this be closed as a COI item, since the article is reasonably neutral and very short, and it is appropriately tagged for its remaining issues. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the current version is nearly identical [1] to the version this fellow started, except the current version lists the subject as deceased. So its either actually him disagreeing with his life-status or a relative/fan. Maybe a COI tag to the user's page. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Left a uw-coi for the editor, and put {{Notable Wikipedian}} at Talk:Nick Schwellenbach as warning of the possible autobiography. EdJohnston (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TStolper1W

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills (result: redirect to Hydrino theory)

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

TStolper1W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written what is essentially a vanity (i.e. self)-published biography of Randell Mills, an entrepreneur working in an area of unconventional physics. There is a legitimate question of whether there is a WP:COI generated by promoting the target of his work. In his defense, he claims that he has published the book on Amazon free from royalties and claims no other financial ties to Mills or his company, Blacklight Power. He has been asked to refrain from contributing to Hydrino theory, the main page on Mills' work, but shows no interest in stopping. Is there a case to prevent him from contributing at all based on this history? I'd appreciate some expert opinion on this. Ronnotel (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: Stolper is running a single-purpose account - he has only edited regarding Mills. Stolper was blocked once for edit warring on hydrino theory, and also continues to push his own personal POV on the article. Stolper's POV is in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus, which makes the edit warring and COI problems somewhat worse. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: awhile back, I restricted TStolper1W (talk · contribs) from editing the article Randell Mills, requesting that he limit himself to making suggestions on the talk page given his evident COI and related issues. However, now the Randell Mills article has been merged/redirected to hydrino theory, where TStolper1W is editing, and rather heavily at that. One option is to extend the sanction I placed on the Randell Mills article to hydrino theory now that the Mills article has been redirected there. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear (at least to me) that User:TStolper1W has a COI when contributing to either the original article Randell Mills or to the article where it now redirects, Hydrino theory. MastCell banned Stolper from directly editing the Randell Mills article here, and his notice to Stolper can still be seen on the latter's Talk page at User talk:TStolper1W#Notice. If editors who have a COI respond combatively to suggestions from regular editors that they be cautious, this inclines us to limit their editing to the article's Talk page, which is exactly the remedy that MastCell has established in this case. After perusing Stolper's talk page, and noting his approach when he receives comments and suggestions about his COI, I believe the situation fully justifies extending his ban at Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory. Ronnotel already notified him here about the WP:COIN report, but if he does choose to offer comment, we should listen carefully to what he has to say. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Provided Tom respects WP basic editing protocols I see no reason not to allow him to try to influence debate on the talk page. However, I would also like to hear more from Tom on this matter. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My paperback book isn't a biography of Mills. It's an extensively documented and footnoted study of the reception of his work, in historical and contemporary context. The paperback book is available from Amazon for $10.25 + shipping. At that price, there is no profit. Writing such a study and making it available is a credential, not a COI. Mills is a real and original scientist. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done: found a company, direct it himself for over 16 years, raise over $50 million for it, recruit and retain scientists and engineers with standard degrees and research backgrounds to work with him and for him, make presentations at scientific meetings, and publish dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. TStolper1W (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the discussion. You were invited to contribute here because an administrator, MastCell, is planning to extend your existing article ban on Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory as well. Your blanket defence of Mills's wonderful work doesn't give us much reason to take you seriously, since you didn't make any reference to obeying Wikipedia policies. Please explain how you plan to moderate your editing in the future so that you don't continue to deserve a ban from the Mills-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be far apart. Michaelbusch has been biased in the extreme against Mills from the word go, as one can see from what Michaelbusch has done and has written in the discussion elsewhere. In this section, he added a charge against me of running a single-purpose account (see above). It’s illogical to ask me to edit articles about which I know less in order to edit the article about which I know the most. As even Ronnotel conceded at the bottom of my User talk page, I know as much about that material as anyone (other than Mills himself). Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be very unneutral. TStolper1W (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TStolper, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this COI discussion. This is not about your views of Mills, or your mis-understanding of my enforcing Wikipedia's adherence to the scientific consensus. Here we are trying to determine if your block from editing of Randell Mills should be extended to hydrino theory, nothing more. As Ed noted, you are not helping yourself. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a COI to have studied, since 1991, the reception of Mills’ work, nor to have written and made available an extensively documented study of that reception. It’s a credential. The Wikipedia wasn’t founded to enforce orthodoxy. Enforcing orthodoxy by silencing other views stunts the progress of science and always has. Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be unneutral at best. TStolper1W (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that IS what wikipedia is suppose to do - we take the mainstream view on things using published sources - the "progress of science" is irrelevant to wikipedia. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do this: TStolper1 may comment freely on the Talk:Hydrino theory. However, he is limited to 0RR in editing the article hydrino theory. This means that he may make an edit (as proposed text), but if it is reverted for any reason, then he may not reinsert it, in any form. This is an alternative to a complete ban from editing the article which would allow TStolper1 to contribute text suggestions directly, but not to edit-war. Expertise is welcome, but where there is a clear and well-documented connection as exists here, that expertise should be used persuasively on the talk page rather than by editing (or edit-warring) on the article directly. I'll open this for comment before imposing it. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me. It does depend on him knowing how the 0RR works. I assume you'll be the one enforcing it so you'll be able to explain it if he winds up violating the ban due to misunderstanding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a WP:1RR would give him enough leeway to avoid being blocked out of unfamiliarity yet have the same practical effect of preventing him from engaging in edit warring. Zero reverts seems akin to a topic ban. Ronnotel (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, what is the connection to which you currently object? TStolper1W (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I like the idea of your proposal above, but I'm afraid Stolpher has considered it license to add bollocks back to the article - which I have just reverted. Please see hydrino theory's page history. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again yesterday evening (revert by Athaenara). Michaelbusch (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell has updated TStolper1W's article ban to a 1RR on Hydrino theory here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his editing history, Stolper will likely not change his editing habits with a 1RR/24 h ban - in the past week he has logged on three times, blanket-reverted to one version of his unacceptable content, accused the editors that removed it previously (three different editors) of having a personal grudge against Mills, and then gone away for roughly two days. Unless something stricter than 1RR/24 h is implemented, this will presumably continue. I may be overly cynical, but Stolper has demonstrated persistence. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I hope that you will examine the revision history of the Hydrino theory article, as well as the version that results from my editing, before accepting Michaelbusch’s interpretations. He has been leading and encouraging the attack upon Mills in the Wikipedia ever since I became aware of that attack (at the beginning of November 2007), and leading and encouraging the attack upon me ever since I began editing the article about Randell Mills (now deleted) and the article about his work (Hydrino theory), at the beginning of December 2007. Furthermore, Michaelbusch has shown himself to be biased in the extreme against Mills. Here is how Michaelbusch put it on 13 December 2007 in my talk page (his emphasis): “Understand this: Mills is a pseudoscientist and either a fool or a con man - that is the neutral evaluation.” If Michaelbusch thinks that evaluation is either neutral or right, then we are hopelessly far apart. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done, including the publication of dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. TStolper1W (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby invoke WP:DENY and request that Stolper be blocked completely from editing. This entire sad drama needs to end. Wikipedia does not cater to the whims of individual editors, especially when those include denials of the scientific consensus. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Wikipedia:Deny recognition essay doesn't really apply here, and the "solution" requested regarding a content dispute would be quite draconian. — Athaenara ✉ 09:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to lose patience here, but here is the logic: 1. Stolper has made no contributions to Wikipedia except for adding large quantities of POV and nonsensical material to the hydrino theory article (let that include the Randell Mills page that was combined). 2. Stolper refuses to accept repeated removal of his additions and explanations from many editors, nor has he modified his conduct or respected the bans. 3. His stated reason for doing this is that editors who have removed his content are quote 'Mills' opponents' - despite most of them first hearing of Mills when they saw the page. So, we can ask: what is Stolper's motivation for continuing his disruptive edits? I suggest he has been unsuccessful in promoting his views elsewhere and sees Wikipedia as a venue where he can push them on people without their being able to entirely ignore him. Thus I cited WP:DENY and propose a complete block (under the rules regarding long-term abuse of editing rights). It is true that Wikipedia:The_Motivation_of_a_Vandal is a better reference. Michaelbusch (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArborBooks

Resolved

– User warned and articles going through deletion process Fritzpoll (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArborBooks (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA responsible for Oasis Entertainment (along with FeareygroupPR (talk · contribs)) and Derrick Ashong. The latter has had speedy declined under db-bio, and there is a potential notability argument, but in present form the article is pretty much vanispamcruftisement, and the Oasis article isn't a lot better. --Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why Oasis Entertainment isn't being speedied for recreation of deleted material - the deletion was by AfD for lack of reliable references, and all the references in the "new" version are just self-written press releases. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have noted also that some of the referenced press releases are written by an author called "Arbor Books". Am tagging the user's page with a COI tag, and think that should resolve this problem for now. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashong is notable - I've rewritten the article. Neıl ☎ 13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Pharmaceuticals

Resolved

– COI SPA blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Pharmaceuticals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Millenniumpharmaceuticals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I rescued this article from deletion, because the company is clearly notable, but User Millenniumpharmaceuticals keeps insisting on changing the article into a piece of marketing blurb rather than an encyclopedia article. My patience is running out, and I'm sure I will end up being uncivil if I carry on trying to sort this out, so could someone please help out? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have soft-blocked the user for having a promotional user name. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wall

A user editing under name Otherbrothergideon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be the father of the rapper Paul Wall and is changing the birth name and date of the biographical article contrary to what reliable sources have cited. I have tried finding whatever claims that "Otherbrothergideon" has put up, and so far no reliable source relays them. Thus, I have warned the editor about the "conflict of interest". Chances are that this user may be an impersonator. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the right thing. Given he's been at this over a year and seems persistent, I might point him towards OTRS which can better evaluate his identity, etc. MBisanz ^talk 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think the user needs to be blocked for a while because he just hacked the Paul Wall page again today, as he has done far too many times. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Actually, if you'd like to assist the user, go to the editor assitance area. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman

This biographical article on a Vancouver illustrator is almost exclusively the product of Poeticbent (talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses tracing back to the Vancouver Public Library. In the course of an ongoing exchange with Poeticbent concerning copyright and verifiability issues, I came across a “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” on Richard Tylman’s website. This list matches those originating with Poeticbent. My queries to the user as to whether he and Tylman might be one and the same [2][3] have gone unanswered. To be fair, Poeticbent has asked that I email him concerning this issue. I prefer discussing Wikipedia matters within the pages of the encyclopedia itself and have written as much. Thus far, no email exchange has taken place. I am concerned by the presence of references which either fail to support associated statements or – supported only by Tylman’s writing on his website – do not meet the verifiability policy. Poeticbent has removed my citation requests without explanation. I am particularly troubled by a new source which was added to Tylman's site, then linked to the article shortly after I questioned the lack of sources for the associated claim. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, where they have experience of what counts as acceptably sourced from an artist's own site and what demands external sourcing. That said, Poeticbent comes across strongly as wikilawyering on the matter of inclusion. If a detail is unsourced, or there's a discrepancy between what different sources say, it's well within policy to remove it pending verification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject seems notable as verified by independent sources. I see no bias or self-promotion; if a subject is willing to provide additional information (such as the document uploaded above) the better for our project. With regards to copyright, if the artist wants text (images, etc.) from his website to be used on Wikipedia, he should license them under a compatible free license. PS. Personally I oppose anonymity, but it should be noted it is accepted within our current rules. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject seems notable as verified by independent sources

Actually I'd like to see some - and in fact some general proof of this guy's notability (we all set up mimeographed mags when we were at uni, and anyone can self-publish poetry). We're placing far too much reliance on material on this artists's own site. I could set up a site saying I'm Lord of the Universe, but I hope you'd need more than that as verification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, with all due respect, I have never once addressed the issue of notability - not here, nor in the now lengthy ongoing discussion. My concern is what I perceive to be a conflict of interest, hence my report on this noticeboard. Given the history and content of this now twelve day old discussion, I think the time has come for me to be a little more blunt. Although Poeticbent refers to Tylman as "the subject", to Tylman's writings as "his Narrative", and has made statements such as "I hope you’re not suggesting that the subject might have attempted to misinform the reader?", I have come to the conclusion that Poeticbent and Tylman are one and the same. How else to explain the “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” featured on the Richard Tylman website?. And so, this whole matter grew from my defense of Tyman's copywritten material when he, in fact, was the person who introduced it to the article. That said, the issue of copyright was laid to rest with my rewrite of the material in question. This same edit, introduced several citation requests for reasons I outlined on the discussion page. All these citation requests were removed without explanation by Poeticbent. While I respect your opinion concerning the document uploaded on Tyman's website, then linked by an anonymous user to the Richard Tylman article (after I'd raised concerns as to citations), I remain troubled by the sequence of events. I must add that the document in question did not match that described by Poeticbent; it was not a "First Prize award for Illustration" he received, but an Award of Excellence presented to a team of which Tylman was a member. I have corrected this error. It is for reasons such as this that verifiability is so very important... it is for reasons such as these that the now removed citation requests were placed. Whether bias, self-promotion or not, I find myself wondering why it is that a seemingly minor 17 year-old award is accorded such significance, why 22 year-old ads run in magazines are deemed worthy of mention, and why a long, wholly unsourced list of corporations for whom Tylman has provided artwork must be kept intact. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was never my intention to misinform or create false impressions. Selected DYKed articles I wrote for Wikipedia are listed at http://richardtylman.atspace.com/index.html with a link to my User page. Everything is self-explanatory. Please try to “walk a mile in my shoes”. I’m interested in what agreeable solution can be found to end the edit-war and reclaim all that energy invested in bad karma. Originally, I provided reference to webpage about professor Strumiłło and his art because he does not have an article yet. I removed that link later along with his commentary, because no independent sources requested by Victoriagirl are available. Yet, Victoriagirl reinstated her request for confirmation. Why? Piotrus already said in his edit that new ref would be unnecessary because the remaining information is noncontroversial.

The same can be said about the citation request for “the most prominent young professional artists” statement. What's wrong with the source already given? It includes minute detail about the state-owned publisher fully supporting the claim. If this is just the matter of a word for word accuracy, your input would be appreciated. There are editors who express their thanks on Victoriagirl’s Talk page for her contributions to biographies of Canadians. I’d love to be able to do the same since I’m already impressed with how much research she’s done for this one article out of many. However, it takes two to tango. There’s no need to belittle national graphic arts competition. Graphex offers two types of awards: an Award of Excellence and an Award of Merit in 21 separate categories. [4] I won the top one in one of them in 1991 not because I was a part of a team, but because I paint. What documentation “error” was there in the article? By the same token, I’d like to suggest to User:Gordonofcartoon to please do a more thorough research on the concept of self publishing under communism. That sort of illegal activity used to be called Samizdat, but I was not a part of it. --Poeticbent talk 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve nothing more to add on the subject of one’s identity, the issue of addressing oneself in the third person, referencing one’s work as that of another, or the fact that a good deal of time as been wasted defending copyright from a user who, in the end, turned out to be the copyright holder.

Noting that the plea to "walk a mile in my shoes" links to the "Writing for the enemy" essay, I hasten to write that I in no way consider the subject my enemy. However, I do recognize the allusions to vandalism, bad faith, and a repeated suggestion [5][6] that my request for clarification as to the identity of a user somehow counters talk page guidelines (when it doesn’t).

That said, I accept the above as something of a breakthrough and do hope that it might lead to something of a collaborative process. So, in that spirit, allow me, for a third time[7][8], to address my issues with the two citation requests mentioned by the subject.

”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”. This statement, added by the subject on 28 February referenced a link which makes no mention of Richard Tylman’s name. It may have been the subject’s intention to simply provide a reference to Andrzej Strumiłło himself, but it appeared and was read otherwise. While I appreciate that Piotrus may feel the statement is not controversial, I point out that this is not a valid reason for simply removing a citation request. I look forward to the thoughts of others on this matter.
”He received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts (ASP) and was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” The reference provided, a translation from a catalogue found on the artist’s website, does not support the claim that the subject “received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts”, nor does it support the assertion that he “was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” In fact, the quotation features no mention of Richard Tylman at all.

It was not my intention to belittle the Graphex award. I continue to find it odd that no independent source providing information on the 1991 award has yet been found. It is for this reason that I used the word “minor”. My apologies.

I believe my use of the word “error” in reference to the original description of said award to be appropriate. The subject had described the award thus: “He received First Prize award for Illustration at the 1991 Graphex competition…” In fact the subject is not a “First Prize award”, but an “Award of Excellence”. While I don’t doubt that the subject won the award for his illustration, it would appear that it was shared by several others. Minor distinctions, perhaps, but I would argue that it is for reasons such as these that verifiable sources are so important. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Victoriagirl, please note that there were few issues until they were created in this discussion (how could have the copyright holder attacked his own copyright??). A little more good faith in the future can go long way. We have all agreed that this is a notable person and there is no indication of any self-promotion (indeed, the editor in question surely deserves an apology for some heavy handing of this situation). The issues you raise above regard noncontroversial borderline issues. WP:V is all nice and good but if the person in question clarifies something noncontroversial (ex. year of births, etc.) that is not easily found elsewhere it is rather safe to assume they are correct.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piorrus, you write that there were few issues until they were created in this discussion. Though I fail to see the relevance, I point out that the issues that have been raised here, whether by myself or others, all made their debut at Richard Tylman discussion page.

This issue began with an edit in which, amongst other things, I removed material under copyright lifted from Richard Tyman's own website. As such, I unknowingly entered into a prolonged debate in which I was defending said material with Poeticbent who, as it turns out, is Richard Tylman himself. You ask "how could have the copyright holder attacked his own copyright?", to which I must respond: how was I to know that Poeticbent and Richard Tylman were one and the same? In our exchange Mr Tylman refers to himself as "the subject", his work "his Narrative", chose not to answer my queries concerning his identity (even when I made it clear that my reason for asking concerned copyright), and chose not address the issue in private email (though I welcomed him to do so).

I write, with all due respect, that your comment concerning good faith has left me shaking my head. I have made no insinuations, no allusions, no suggestions; in fact, I allowed a good deal of time to elapse before deciding to write of my conclusion that Poeticbent and the subject are the same person.

We have not agreed that the subject is a notable person; indeed, I've never addressed the matter. Again, my report filed here concerns what I perceive to be a conflict of interest. I respect your opinion that the statements l've queried (”He received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts (ASP) and was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists” and ”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”) are not controversial; however, I hold my opinion that verifiable sources should be provided, particularly as the latter concerns a living person. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A minor addendum to my last comment: Piorrus, I've just noticed that you write we have agreed that there is "no indication of any self-promotion". In fact, I have made no such statement. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the new third-party reference as requested by User:Victoriagirl confirming statements made in Mainspace. They're both written in the Polish language and can easily be confirmed by Wikipedia:Translation. I decided to always ask other editors to edit the article on my behalf in the future as suggested by policy guidelines. I was unable to fulfil the remaining request for citation simply because I do not understand its purpose. It is a well established and long standing practise among artist and artisans to reveal the names of their teachers, chiefly out of the feeling of respect for their professional guidance. Such statements hardly require confirmation unless they're made about modern art icons, which is not the case here. I’m willing to let go of the whole mention of Andrzej Strumiłło if you insist on printed proof of our academic link Victoriagirl. I also took the liberty of removing your confirmation tag and hope you don't mind my doing so. Above and beyond, I’m not interested in uploading scans of my university transcripts to Wikipedia or see a notary public in order to satisfy your inquisitive interest, especially under a pseudonym. Teachers' names serve only a customary purpose and are added usually for the benefit of other professionals. Even so I'm most interested in bringing this matter to closure and have the WP:COI tag removed. --Poeticbent talk 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above and beyond, I’m not interested in uploading scans of my university transcripts to Wikipedia or see a notary public

Anything only available through such channels shouldn't be included anyway: the criterion for verifiability is reliable third-party publication - with the assumption that such publication is reasonably accessible to anyone who wants to verify it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent, if you are indeed saying that the two new references [9] [10] confirm:

that you “received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts”
that you were “chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists”

this is good enough for me. My “inquisitive interest” does not extend as far as some users; I have no interest in pursuing translation.

I have written numerous times, both here and at Richard Tylman discussion page, explaining the reasoning behind placing a citation tag after the statement ”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”. To reiterate: the original link provided no support for this claim. As it concerns a claim made about a third party, I had felt that the citation request was appropriate. I recognize that you have removed this request. Wishing to avoid an edit war, I am letting your change stand. It is my hope that a pair of fresh eyes might look at this – those not belonging to a friend or (as you’ve seen fit to imply) “enemy”.

In defending your decision to remove the citation request associated with your claim about Prof. Strumiłło you write: “Teachers' names serve only a customary purpose and are added usually for the benefit of other professionals”. This reference goes to the root of my concerns with this article. It is my opinion that it contains elements of self-promotion. How else to explain the alterations made to one’s own website – seemingly in order to respond to queries made in the Wikipedia article - and then linking the new or revised page to said article? Why, one wonders, are 22 year-old ads run in magazines are deemed worthy of mention? Finally, why the unsourced list of clients (and why the insistence that this long list not be shortened)? These are not new questions... but they have yet to be answered. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to have this matter resolved and am willing to make the necessary concessions to put your mind at ease Victoriagirl. I believe your initial concerns have already been addressed thanks to new third-party references and a number of editorial changes made in the process. I’d like to thank Piotrus for his participation in our discussion. He’s one of the most prolific Wikipedia editors ever and his opinion means a lot to me. The article has been substantially improved, so much so, that it inspired my desire to improve on my personal references as well. For example the alterations which you noted were made because the original link didn’t work, go double-check if you want. I wouldn’t mind having at least the first one of the two new references translated, because the information provided by the book publisher extends far beyond your request for citation. It is a reliable third-party publication thus justifying the addition of a new paragraph to the article. However, I will not be translating anything myself and would rather have someone else do it. Please forgive the repetitious nature of some of my explanations. The assignments listed in the article refer to high profile clients and can help the reader draw their own conclusions about my reputation in the graphic arts community as well as talent, except without the article having to lay it out. Listing just one or two names would prove nothing. Besides, the list follows Wikipedia’s "objectivity over subjectivity" guideline to the letter. In a way, it also replaces an earlier statement which you removed as unverifiable. Please be assured, you could never be perceived as an “enemy” for as long as you're willing to show that you care. --Poeticbent talk 15:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, hope that this issue can be put to rest, which is why I am hoping for an opinion by someone other than myself or a friend. In short, I am hoping that a seasoned editor or administrator might provide answers or at least an opinion on the following questions:

Is it appropriate to feature the unreferenced claim "He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło” as it appears to be "noncontroversial" and benefits "other professionals", or does its inclusion run counter to WP:BLP?
Is it appropriate for a subject to edit his own website in order to respond to queries made in his Wikipedia article - and then link the new or revised page to said article?
Should the lengthy list of companies for which a subject writes he provided artwork require a citation, particularly as it involves claims made about third parties? (As an aside, which statement was it that I removed as "unverifiable"?)
Is such a list necessary in that it helps "the reader draw their own conclusions about my [Poeticbent's] reputation in the graphic arts community as well as talent"?
Do any of these matters indicate a conflict of interest?

Finally, you'll note that I've restored the COI template to the article. While I do try to assume good faith in such matters, I note that the IP address that originally removed this tag has provided a total of two edits in the past 15 months. The first - made just 40 minutes before the removal of the tag - was an act of vandalism. Given this, and the fact that the user has provided no comment in related discussions here and or at Talk:Richard Tylman, I felt that the return of the template was appropriate. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like Victoriagirl is harassing this man and edit warring. 76.10.147.147 (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've again restored the COI template, which has been removed three times by IPs - 206.248.128.136 (talk · contribs) and 76.10.147.147 (talk · contribs) - tracing to TekSavvy Solutions Inc. I have discussed the edit history of the former in my previous post. The edit history of the latter user, which begins 23:08, 22 March 2008 consists almost entirely of personal attacks [11][12][13][14] and unsubstantiated claims [15][16]. Given these facts, the fact that the issue is currently under discussion, I believe its return is appropriate. While I acknowledge that the subject disagrees [17], I also recognize that I am not alone in my opinion.[18] Victoriagirl (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The repetitious nature of questions asked by Victoriagirl in her long, drawn-out speeches (thus challenging my intelligence) and her unyielding attitude with regard to what has already been said only confirm the observations made by anonymous IP user (really, not that much different from someone hiding under a pseudonym for the purpose of edit warring). We’re no longer dealing with a genuine concern regarding verifiability, but rather with Victoriagirl’s increasingly evident harassment of my person. I’m beginning to wonder if this is the right channel for seeking answers. --Poeticbent talk 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I'm still getting a strong feeling of being Wikilawyered here. The close relationship between Poeticbent's edits to the Richard Tylman article and those to Tylman's official site may not be technically wrong, but it seems way out of the spirit of WP:COI guidelines. Generally, I think Poeticbent is being far too pushy in relation to the article: the expected role in COI situations is to take a back seat, guiding via the Talk page, with the right to remove outright falsehoods. But taking a leading role in writing the article, especially in ways that override the views of other editors (such as insisting on inclusion of material without independent verification, and removing citation requests and a COI tag) is unacceptable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: having looked more closely at the citations for poetry and essays, I'm increasingly convinced that this article fails to prove notability, and have nominated it at AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman. This will also, usefully, bring it to a wider range of external opinions, which might lead to improvement by independent editors rather than deletion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd expected my post of 22 March and the questions it contained to be my final words in this matter, Poeticbent's most recent post calls for a response. There seems to be a misunderstanding in that with one exception the questions I've asked have been directed, not to the subject, but at the community at large. Indeed, as I've written, I hoped that my final questions might be answered by a seasoned editor or administrator. Although I cannot take the "observations" of a vandal IP - 76.10.147.147 (talk · contribs) - at all seriously, I do the reference to edit warring. Seeking to avoid such an exchange, I have not been editing Richard Tylman, preferring to discuss the issues here... hoping that some common ground might be found. The sole exception is my return of the COI template. Over the past two days, this template has been removed by two IP vandals (who, judging from the respective edits are the same person) and the subject himself. It has been restored by another user. I, too, have returned the template, which was first placed at the suggestion of this very page to accompany this very process. Finally - and most importantly - Poeticbent has written that I have been harassing him. I can assure him that has not been my intention. If indeed he feels this to be true, I suggest he repeat the charge and present his evidence in the appropriate forum.Victoriagirl (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent asked me for my opinion. First, Wikipedia allows users to be anonymous and takes their privacy seriously. See Wikimedia:Privacy policy. Wikipedia also takes conflicts of interest seriously. So how many of us, if any, does Poeticbent need to tell his real-life identity? Fortunately, I don't need a Wikilawyer because you've already agreed, almost. Poeticbent agrees to reveal his identity, if Victoriagirl emails him. Victoriagirl says "I prefer to discuss Wikipedia articles, policies and other matters on the relevant talk pages. However, if you would like to send me an email, you are more than welcome." This debate presents several complicated arguments, but the email sounds like an easy one to start with. Am I missing something, or is this really an argument over who should send the first email? Isn't that a shape of the table argument? Could it be solved by something as simple as emailing each other at the same time, or emailing thru me—or printing emails, rolling them up into balls, and juggling them between each other until somebody drops one? Of course Poeticbent's identity should be revealed only to Victoriagirl, or perhaps to others with a demonstrated interest in the conflict of interest issue. It shouldn't be openly displayed on a talk page without Poeticbent's consent. Does Victoriagirl promise not to tell just anybody? Art LaPella (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the response by Art LaPella to Poeticbent's request, I think several posts have been overlooked. In fact, Poeticbent wrote in his post of 14 March, on this very page, that he is Richard Tylman. As I see it, the discussion since that time has revolved around whether his edits to the Richard Tylman article constitute a conflict of interest. Victoriagirl (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H. Paul Shuch and User:Drseti

H. Paul Shuch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a scientist and engineer (and singer) who has made 86% of the edits to his own article, mostly as User:Drseti. Of 164 edits to H. Paul Shuch, 118 (72%) are by Drseti and another 23 edits (14%) appear to be him as IP addresses (see contributions by user here). The article makes a few claims that seem to indicate borderline scientific/engnineering notability, but has only four references (two to Shuch's own work and one to the introduction to a book by a close student and friend of his, that he also contributed to).

Drseti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Single Purpose Account that also started Dr. SETI, which is now a redirect to H. Paul Shuch. I left {{uw-coi}} and notices on WP:Autobiography and WP:SPA on Drseti's talk page and will add a link here next. I would also appreciate input on Shuch's notability (should the article exist at all?) as it seems borderline to me. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1: User:Drseti made 6 more COI edits to H. Paul Shuch after COI and other warnings, with no reply to these concerns here, on talk pages, or even in edit summaries. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: I searched a little and found that much of the page was originally (and chunks of it still are) a copy of Shuch's biography at [19] (which he presumably wrote). Asde from copyvio concerns, the questions remain:

what should be done about the COI edits (this is essentially an autobiography) and
is Shuch notable enough, or should the article be sent to WP:AfD?

I would really appreciate any feedback - thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update 3: Drseti has replied at Talk:H. Paul Shuch and removed the {{COI}} and {{Autobiography}} tags from the article about himself. I restored the tags and replied (see below). Thinking about all of this, I wonder to what extent the "The Seti League" is/was a one man show, as their copyright page says SETI League ®, Dr. SETI ®, and the SETI League logo are registered service marks of The SETI League Inc. here, so the League holds the servicemarks on its name and his nickname. I also note that the Seti League web page says at the bottom of each page entire website copyright © The SETI League, Inc.; Maintained by Microcomm, with Microcomm another Shuch website: http://microcomm.net/ On its Personnel page (not directly linkable) it says: Please note that Microcomm is a sole proprietorship, wholly owned by Dr. Shuch.... I copy Drseti's comment and my reply below:

My edits to this page hae been questioned. Indeed, the subject has edited extensively material posted by others. The majority of this activity has been to divide the biography (initially entered as one long paragraph) into logical sections. Little new content has been introduced, other than to provide family background and add a photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drseti (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you reply - I have restored the {{COI}} and {{Autobiography}} tags to the article until the matter is resolved at the Conflict of interest / Noticeboard, here. I will also copy your comment above there, and invite you again to comment there too. I noticed that the current biography seems to be largely copied from your biography at http://www.setileague.org/admin/paul.htm, which I presume you wrote all or most of. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update 4: Drseti has replied at the H. Paul Shuch talk page again - our latest exchange follows:

Yes, the bio borrowed heavily from the SETI League one, which was written largely by Heather Wood, the SETI League's secretary. I believe the bio was originally posted to Wikipedia by Yasmin Walter, a colleague then at Frankfurt University. My edits split that rambling bio into sections. In that sense, it is *not* an autobiography, though I added some personal material to flesh it out. I am also pulling together additional (independent) citations and references, which will be posted within about a week (as I'm on travel at the moment). I understand your tag restoration, and thank you for your efforts. Dr. SETI (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice on the COI/Noticeboard that you question whether The SETI League is a one-man show. Valid question. The organization was founded in 1994 by NJ industrialist Richard Factor and his NYC patent attorney, the late Orville Greene. The original board included two others (an attorney and an accountant). They then hired me as executive director. I was one of three or four paid employees for about a decade, before funding dried up. There is a volunteer Advisory Board, which was (until 4 days ago) headed by Sir Arthur Clarke. So, not a one-man show, though I have much influence. I continue as executive director emeritus on a purely volunteer basis, and now serve on the Board, also in a volunteer capacity. I put the Microcomm link at the bottom of the web pages when I stopped being paid, and began contributing website maintenance to the organization through that consulting firm, which I do indeed own. Does volunteering one's services to a nonprofit charity constitute a conflict of interest?? Dr. SETI (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that everything is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. A conflict of interest arises when an editor with an interest in an article also edits it (summarized as 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.). So your work off Wikipedia can not be a COI here, but making edits about it can. Please see WP:Autobiography too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi

Resolved

– Editor warned, edits have stopped. --Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New iraqijm (talk · contribs) has been entering text describing "Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi" in the strangest places, often deleting valid contents. His entry is often long, and starts out something like this:

"Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi, MD, PhD is the most distinguished Iraqi physician during the previous 3 centuries...."

I would just revert the whole thing, but thought I should bring it to your attention first, and gain some input from others.--Endroit (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{welcomeg}} and {{uw-coi}} tag to his talk page and a {{uw-v2}} and reverted what had not been taken care of already. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for a very expert handling. I wanted to be very careful not to bite the newcomer, but didn't know how to approach it. Those good faith templates are very nice, and I'll learn to use those in the future.--Endroit (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Taxpayers Union

National Taxpayers Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - NTUwikiproject (talk · contribs) appears to be editing from the organization itself. See also 70.90.81.61 (talk · contribs), which is almost undoubtedly NTUwikiproject given the timing of their edits. WHOIS confirms that 70.90.81.61 is used by the National Taxpayers Union. NTUwikiproject continues to edit the article without discussion despite two COI notices on his talk page. · jersyko talk 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No edits after second notice. No anon IPs either, so maybe they got the message. MBisanz ^talk 08:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Gaylord

Fitness4fun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008)
76.227.3.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008)
65.208.164.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2007)
75.4.8.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2006)

Update:

75.51.93.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008)

"Mitch & I keep having to update this information. Why does anyone change it?"

Also, the article reads like an ad for Gaylord's commercial website and his wife's as well.63.202.124.213 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits in response to this notice have just been reverted with the following explanation: "Mitch & Valentina Gaylord updated this page. Please stop changing it."63.202.124.213 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a {{uw-coi}} notice for the main account, Fitness4fun, with an invitation to participate here. Barek left a COI notice for 76.227.3.120 (talk · contribs), the most recent IP editor. Gaylord, as an Olympic medalist, is notable enough to deserve an article. As of this exact moment, the article looks OK to me. We'll need to reason with the COI-affected editors if they won't stop beautifying. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user returned under a new IP. I warned them again on the new IP's talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on CAMERA sourced to CAMERA's office

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.158.119.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.91.135.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gni has been edit-warring on the CAMERA article quite heavily lately. Gni's reverts against consensus resulted in a 3RR block. Gni also edited under IP 67.158.119.138, which ARIN shows as belonging to Camera CTC-CAMERA. Gni acknowledged editing under that IP here. Gni has also edited the CAMERA article under the IP 24.91.135.162, a Boston IP (CAMERA HQ is in Boston). Upon returning from the 3RR block, Gni began a round of contentious edits on the Joseph Massad article, attempting to again insert the CAMERA position.

CAMERA/this editor seem to have a clear conflict of interest on on the CAMERA article. A review of other edits by Gni show an effort to often contentiously insert CAMERA reports into those articles and the CAMERA POV in general, e.g., here, here, here, here, here (a CAMERA associate), etc.

Beyond the apparent serious COI, this editor, working on behalf of CAMERA, has been fairly disruptive. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the first letter of someone's first name and last two letters of someone's last name reveals the identity of a Wikipedia author when cross-referenced against their Wikipedia pseudonym is a bit of a stretch. But putting that aside, I will point out that Wikipedia's policy, expressed on the COI page, is that "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." Gni (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that I strongly deny that I have been editing on behalf of CAMERA. Additionally, if I had edited a couple times from a computer with an IP address listed as CAMERA, this in no way proves a conflict of interest. It in no way shows that I don't "place the interests of the encyclopedia first," and indeed, the history of my edits and thorough comments on various discussion pages -- even if Boodlesthecat is personally opposed to my edits -- show a consistent adherence to Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, which seems to be the relevant and determinative factor. Moreover, Boodlesthecat seems to believe that he has the right to unilaterally ban my contributions (see this diff, even though this clearly violates the principle that "using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon." Should he not desist from reverting reasonable edits, which had been discussed and argued over long before this round of disputes (including by NYScholar, who initiated this change and whose edits and discussion make quite clear that he's no cheerleader for CAMERA), by claiming COI? Especially since this issue has yet to be resolved in various COI forums? Gni (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing my Wikipedia log-in identity referenced above, I want to make clear that I have not been actively involved in editing the article CAMERA since approx. 29 November 2006. Gni came to my talk page last week and posted a message to me which is currently now archived in my talk page archive 20 at the following link: User talk:NYScholar/Archive 20#CAMERA page. Gni--Gni) (talk)--expressed understanding about the fact that I have no current interest in or time to participate in editing this article (see my "N.B." on my current talk page); he asked that I explain my ref. to "diffs.", which I took the time to do. Please do not make reference to me as an ally in this dispute. I am not involved in any way with it. I have not edited the page since approx. 27-29 October 2006 (over a year and a half ago now)--which I found when replying to Gni's request last week; and one other time around 29 November 2006, which I just located. See the "diffs." (posted in my archive page 20 reply to Gni) and diffs. (which I just located). After I archived my recent exchange w/ Gni (in my talk archive 20), it appears that Gni deleted all of the content from Gni's own current talk page; it is now only accessible in its history: history. (As requested in my archived talk page 20 exchanged): Please do not involve me in this COI report/editing dispute. I do not have the interest or time to deal with any of it. Thank you.

Please take it easy. I did not describe you as an an ally. (In fact I clearly suggested above that we tended not to agree on content.) But your edits and discussion are, and should be, part of the record, and shouldn't be ignored when it suits certain editors. That said, you certainly shouldn't feel obliged to weigh in on this current absurdity.Gni (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[If Gni does work with or at the organization CAMERA and if Gni is editing it at times from a CAMERA IP, and if Gni may have a "conflict of interest" (COI) with editing this Wikipedia article about it, then there is an appropriate template for indicating that. Perhaps it should be added to top of the article. See [[Template:COI]]. Just a suggestion. For discussion by others see above and below.] --NYScholar (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[If the language used in the section heading "Praise and criticism" is leading to edit warring, perhaps a more neutral heading, like "Perspectives on CAMERA", could be a viable replacement? (See Talk:CAMERA and CAMERA:#Praise and criticism, currently featuring a template indicating such a problem.)] --NYScholar (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Directly after I posted the above suggestion, I see that the section heading has been changed to Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#Views on CAMERA, so the above link to "Praise and criticism" no longer goes directly to the section. I would still suggest "Perspectives on CAMERA" over "Views on CAMERA", which is not idiomatic English (It is "views of" not "views on" in idiomatic English.).]--NYScholar (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) [But "Views of CAMERA" would be ambiguous; therefore, "Perspectives on CAMERA" is, I believe, both more idiomatically correct and clearer. --NYScholar (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Ah serendipity, just saw your suggestion while making the rounds on all the places this drama is posted. Agreed "Perspectives on..." is better (more woody sort of word, as Monty Python would say), will do. Thanks for you suggestions. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Record

Gni and IP’s, 24.91.135.162 and 67.158.119.138 (this one from the CAMERA office) largely edit on behalf of the CAMERA POV.

Below are selected edits and talk page comments pushing/defending the CAMERA position and/or inserting material from CAMERA, or deleting negative material about CAMERA:

Abuse history

3RR report is here
Use of an IP to dodge a block noted here.

Similar edits are the predominant output of Gni’s IP’s, 24.91.135.162 and 67.158.119.138. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If 3RR or sockpuppeting posts are in there, I think that they should be clearly labeled so the reader can quickly find them. --68.253.57.106 (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links added above. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat, I think this is starting to get a bit silly. I predominantly stand accused of adding material from CAMERA to an article about... CAMERA? It sounds like I'm being charged with trying to expand and improve the article. Guilty as charged. The remaining few examples you found here show that at various times in the past 2 years, I've added to articles commentary by CAMERA directly relevant to the topic of the article. As I've mentioned on various other COI forums here on which you've launched your crusade against me, I welcome all to study the entire history of my output. They will find a)it's hardly limited to using material from this (legitimate) source; and more importantly, b) it lies firmly within the policies, guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia. Gni (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many "other COI forums" are there? I'd be interested to see what I've posted on them. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my relative lack of familiarity with these more-advanced Wikipedia pages. I meant to convey that you've raised this charge here, on the Admin noticeboard, and on the discussion pages of the CAMERA article. Gni (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you brought it to the admin noticeboard, not me, so please don;t make false claims of "other COI forums here on which you've launched your crusade"--I brought it to the proper forum--after you denied working for CAMERA. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gni wrote above "I will also add that I strongly deny that I have been editing on behalf of CAMERA. Additionally, if I had edited a couple times from a computer with an IP address listed as CAMERA, this in no way proves a conflict of interest." I'm not sure what to make of that. --John Nagle (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure either what to make of it either given his resuming his pro-CAMERA edit warring again either. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know how to respond to Boodlesthecat, a relentless edit-warrior, accusing others of edit warring. It's truly Orwellian. As to Nagle's question, what I meant is exactly what I said. I suggest the two of you closely read WP:COI.Gni (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An email that may be relevant

> Subject: CAMERA Seeks 10 Volunteers to Submit Info to Wikipedia
>
> Shalom CAMERA E-Mail Team:
>
> What if you could ensure accuracy and fairness directly in
> one of the Internet's most visited Web sites, without relying
> on reporters, editors or publishers? In fact, you can.
>
> <http://www.wikipedia.com/ <http://www.wikipedia.com/> >
> Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia site, can
> be edited by anyone. The idea behind Wikipedia is that if
> thousands of well-meaning and informed volunteers collaborate
> on an online encyclopedia, the result would be more accurate,
> up-to-date and inclusive than any print encyclopedia could
> possibly be.
>
> The bad news is this allows anti-Israel "editors" to
> introduce all kinds of bias and error into the many
> Israel-related articles, even the entry on CAMERA. The good
> news is, individual volunteers can work as "editors" to
> ensure that these articles are free of bias and error, and
> include necessary facts and context. Assuring accuracy and
> impartiality in Wikipedia is extremely important. If someone
> searches for "Israel" on the Google search engine, for
> example, the top result returned by Google would be the
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israel&btnG=Search
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israel&btnG=Search> >
> Wikipedia page on Israel.
>
> CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to help us keep Israel-related
> entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel
> editors. All it takes to be an effective volunteer is a basic
> comfort level with computers. Call or email me, and I will
> train you on how to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor.
>
> <mailto:gilead@camera.org <mailto:gilead%40camera.org> >
> gilead@camera.org <mailto:gilead%40camera.org>  or call 617-789-3672

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.111.245 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the above email is genuine, Wikipedia may have a problem with the CAMERA organization and not just with editor Gni. They appear to be doing off-wiki solicitation of people who will contribute to Wikipedia to offset the work of those they term 'anti-Israel editors.' I may be jumping to conclusions since the email is not attested, but it may deserve a posting at WP:AN if this can be shown to be real. It appears to be a form of manipulation of Wikipedia for partisan ends. I wonder if the newly-recruited 10 volunteers will be kind enough to identify themselves as volunteers for CAMERA on their user pages, or if they will seek advice at WP:COIN on how to edit in accordance with our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An April 2007 "Battle on the Wikipedia Stage" forward of an e-mail (including "All it takes to contribute is a basic comfort level with computers, time, and persistence" and "Let CAMERA know if you edit an entry on Wikipedia" signed "Gilead Ini Senior Research Analyst www.camera.org") posted on blogspot.com is similar. — Athaenara ✉ 06:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The e-mail is archived here. (For information about Emet, click here.)--68.253.50.109 (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for transparency: I asked User:MBisanz, a fellow admin who often looks at COI issues, to give an opinion on the neutrality of User:Gni's editing. The same offer is open to all who wish to comment. Advice is especially sought from any editors who have left comments on this noticeboard about other COI issues in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I welcome editors to scrutinize my record and determine whether I'm violating any Wikipedia guidelines, policies or principles. I especially urge uninvolved admins, who don't already have a relationship of correspondence with Boodlesthecat (my chief accuser) to do so. And I'd also hope that my history and behavior on this article is looked at in the context of Boodlesthecat's history and behavior on the article. I think it will become clear that I am by far the less disruptive editor; that my request of help from the mediation cabal was declined by Boodlesthecat; and that Boodlesthecat admitted to reverting a change that I took great pains to explain on the discussion section without so much as reading the discussion.

As to the COI issue, I've already made my case on the WP:AN, the COIN and the discussion pages of the CAMERA article, so I won't repeat it all here. I'll just note that the fact that I've on two(?) occasions made edits from an IP address linked to CAMERA is absolutely no reason to bar me from editing the article. The WP:COI page makes clear that this in and of itself is hardly proof of COI; is hardly proof that I edit on behalf of CAMERA; and, although I stand on the opposite side than Boodlesthecat on certain issues, is hardly proof that I'm not committed to participating as a Wikipedia within the spirit of this encyclopedia. I am. So again, please do scrutinize my record, responsibly and without assumptions bad faith. Gni (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gni's defense here is transparently slippery. He claims that having "on two(?) occasions made edits from an IP address linked to CAMERA" does not indicate a conflict of interest. However, despite his sleight of hand, what the editing history actually establishes is that Gni has edited from CAMERA's offices, and that Gni—who we know has edited from CAMERA's offices—has made hundreds of edits on the CAMERA and CAMERA related articles with many of those edits pushing the CAMERA POV, most recently, with extreme contentiousness.Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as someone with a demonstrated, entrenched position in this dispute and about the organization, Boodlesthecat's reference to "pushing the CAMERA POV" should be read with a bit of skepticism. It certainly appears that he wrongly equates the posting of documented, cited info he doesn't like with "pushing a POV."Gni (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Gni: Can you explain why you were editing the article from CAMERA's office? As a regular contributor to the CAMERA article and someone who has edited from CAMERA's offices, do you know anything about the e-mail from Gilead Ini? --68.253.50.109 (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the first question, my privacy takes precedence. There are many many reasons why this could have happened that don't equate to a COI. On the second issue, no, I don't know anything about that email.Gni (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

I've reviewed the situation and have some general and specific comments.

1. Attempts at WP:MEATPUPPETING off-wiki to create consensus on-wiki are prohibited and may result remedies ranging from page protection to prevent edit warring to user blocks for disruptive editing.

2. While CAMERA is notable, I question the notability of its statements on other individuals. In particular I caution involved editors against adding section relating to CAMERA to other articles, especially biographies.

3. While I will abide by WP:OUT and thus not speculate on the identities of particular editors, I do believe editors (anon. or registered) have substantially contributed to the articles in question, creating non-Neutral Points of View, especially at the CAMERA article.

4. I therefore propose that Boodlesthecat and Gni avoid editing the CAMERA pages and other pages' content on CAMERA for a period of 30 days. Suspicious edits by IPs should be reported to the appropriate forum. Users should remember that WP:CHECKUSER can link a user to their IP and that if users attempt to edit disruptively via anon. IP accounts, it will not be viewed favorably.

5. Any user who has an issue with edits made to the article, should discuss them on the talk page. I would also recommend User:IZAK, User:DGG, and User:Lobojo as editors with experience in Jewish issues who tend to be fair and even-handed who could be asked to review the issue to ensure it is NPOV. If one of them were to clear the article as not being biased, I would support removing the COI tag.

Hope that helps. MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Working terriers

Single-purpose account:

Working terriers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NationalTerriersClub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PuppetMasterKnls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rascal43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles:

American Pit Bull Terrier‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Old English Terrier‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user edits pages about terrier breeds of dog using multiple user names. We have had a disagreement about his citation of the web site www.nationalterriersclub.com which I believe he owns as well as his non-neutral tone in changes he makes to articles. He appears to either be plagiarizing articles from the site www.nationalterriersclub.com or claiming that source material from the site is his own, such as photographs as can be seen here: Old_English_Terrier. His edits to the article on the Old English Terrier appear to have been copied word from word from this page: Old English Terrier along with the photographs. Other users have had disagreements with him about content on that article as you can see in the discussion page here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier. On that discussion page other users also complain about his edit warring and editing under multiple user names as you can see here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier#Sockpuppets. I think the tone and content of the edits made by the four users listed are similar enough that they could come from the same person.

In the discussion page on the article for the American Pit Bull Terrier he admitted having the ability to modify the content on www.nationalterriersclub.com as you can see here: Talk:American_Pit_Bull_Terrier. You will also see on that discussion page that another user has raised concerns about his being a COI and posted to the Reliable Sources Notice Board about the National Terrier Club here: Wikipedia:RS/N#National_Terriers_Club_LLC.3F. I suspect that he is actually the owner of National Terrier Club LLC to whom that domain is registered and that he is editing articles to promote his dog registry which he references as a source liberally in every article he touches. Dablyputs (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrex

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

As a representative of World Kitchen I am asking for an experienced Wiki-editor’s help to correct a number of errors, inaccuracies and incomplete information on the entries for Pyrex, soda-lime glass, and borosilicate glass. Given the damaging edits on these pages, I believed a COIN posting was warranted.

The Pyrex entry is incomplete.

The Pyrex entry focuses almost exclusively on a debate over whether the product is made from a borosilicate vs. soda-lime glass formulation. Pyrex® glass bakeware is nearly a century old and currently is used in 80% of American households. I suggest the Pyrex products website as a starting point for information on the brand.

Today the Pyrex trademark is actually used on a wide range of products in addition to glass bakeware and laboratory products. For example, metal muffin pans, cake pans and cookie sheets are all included among the Pyrex branded products. The trademark is used to refer to products with many different glass formulations and even some products which contain no glass at all.

The formulation of Pyrex glass bakeware did not change with the acquisition of the relevant consumer products business by World Kitchen.

Pyrex glass bakeware was composed of borosilicate glass when it was first introduced in 1915. However, by 1946, and possibly earlier, Corning Incorporated (named Corning Glass Works then) was making bakeware from a soda-lime composition that is heat tempered for additional strength. There was no change of the formulation of Pyrex bakeware in 1998 when World Kitchen acquired the relevant business.

The “safety issues” section of the Pyrex article contains numerous false and damaging claims.

The focus on the borosilicate vs. soda lime issue appears to be spurred in large part by ConsumerAffairs.com, a website that is affiliated with at least one law firm representing plaintiffs in product liability lawsuits. ConsumerAffairs.com has been criticized as being biased.

Most if not all glass bakeware products and food service glassware manufactured and sold in the United States today is made from soda-lime glass. The Pyrex article, as well as the associated soda-lime and borosilicate articles and talk pages, confuses tempered soda-lime glass and un-tempered soda-lime glass. Tempered soda-lime glass is able to withstand a wide range of heat changes and is the glass used in Pyrex bakeware. It is more resistant to mechanical breakage (e.g. dropping) and is more environmentally friendly to produce than borosilicate.

Since 1998 World Kitchen has manufactured over 369 million pieces of Pyrex glass products. There has never been a recall of Pyrex glass bakeware. The Consumer Product Safety Commisson’s database of injuries for 2006 reported no instances of injury resulting from any brand of glass bakeware allegedly spontaneously shattering. Given the hundreds of millions of pieces of Pyrex glass bakeware in American households, there should be a far greater number of complaints if the accusations made in this article were true.

When World Kitchen looks into the few reports it receives of safety issues with Pyrex glass bakeware, the company finds the reports largely fall into three categories. In some cases, complainants do not provide glass pieces that can be tested to determine if the broken bakeware is even a Pyrex brand product (and what the cause of breakage might be). In other cases, when World Kitchen tests the returned glass sample, analysis reveals that the product is not a Pyrex brand product. In other cases, we are able to determine the bakeware has been used in ways it is clearly not intended to be used, according to the Safety & Usage Instructions provided with the product. (e.g., placing the dish under the broiler).

STATS.org has written a number of pieces on the science behind this issue. These entries, as well as this link to the Pyrex products website are good starting points for someone interested in editing these pages:

Pyrex, Soda Lime, Borosilicate, and the Environment

Does Pyrex “Explode” Because the Manufacturer Changed the Mix? CBS Chicago’s Epic Investigation Continues

Pyrex-O-Mania Continues on CBS Chicago

CBS Sweeps Week Shocker: Glass Can Break!

I am concerned that speculation and unsupported anecdotal statements and reports are being posted as fact in this entry and, as a result, are migrating to wider discussion. In the case of safety issues, this is particularly damaging. For these reasons, we ask that both the inaccuracies and misleading statements outlined above as well as the picture of what is alleged, but not substantiated, to be a broken Pyrex dish be removed.--Bryan.glancy (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share some of the concerns just mentioned, and I left a note over at Talk:Pyrex inviting those editors to participate in this discussion. Negative information about the safety of Pyrex glassware that has no reliable sources ought to be removed, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better discussed at Talk:Pyrex as there's no real need for noticeboard discussions unless Mr. Glancy attempts to edit the page directly. I see the issue being one primarily of WP:PROVEIT and WP:V - cull the claims unjustified by reliable sources, write the page based on reliable sources and discuss on the talk page. Mr. Glancy's assistance in providing reliable sources in this regard would be invaluable. WLU (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the culling should include the image of the bowl of chips. There's no verification or sourcing either here or on Commons. — Athaenara ✉ 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, wholesale, comments welcomed. WLU (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlson Wagonlit Travel

Carlson Wagonlit Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jmarinovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Linked-In says Jerome Marinovic is Carlson's Global e-Media Director. This user is reverting to a version of the Carlson Wagonlit Travel with lines like "CWT is dedicated to helping companies of all sizes, government institutions and non-government organizations, optimize their travel program and provide best-in-class service and assistance to travelers. By leveraging the talents and know-how of its people and providing leading-edge technology, CWT helps clients around the world drive savings while enhancing service and security." Warned for both WP:SPAM and WP:COI. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artist May be Editing His Own Article

Julio Ducuron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user named User:Julio Ducuron has redid some editing I did some time ago [[20]]. I have reverted because if the user is in fact the artist in question, then it would be a rather blatant example of WP:Conflict of Interest. I have left a note on the user's talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. :) Zidel333 (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be closely based on this biography at World Art Gallery. With due caution about systemic bias (i.e he shouldn't be viewed as non-notable simply because he works primarily in Argentina) he really needs assessment for notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He appears notable due to his museum presence (although this would need verification). He's had some museums shows outside of Argentina, in Italy and the US. This would need more sourcing, as I'm guessing there's not much in English. The article itself needs some major editing. freshacconcispeaktome 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he hasn't edited since the COI warning and I don't see a suspicious IP edits afterward either. Maybe just a spot on someone's watchlist for the future and some nice copyediting tags? MBisanz ^talk 08:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Apparel

→ See also: WP:ANI discussion Potential COI / sockpuppets / meatpuppets again at American Apparel

American Apparel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dov Charney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IrisAlonzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
danicaobrien (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Leftcoastbreakdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Executive employees of American Apparel repeatedly edit, and edit war, in articles for their own company and its founder to add PR-style marketing fluff and downplay sourced reports of sexual harassment lawsuits, sexual activity, and a unionization fight at their American factory, and criticism of sexuality in advertising, months after being caught doing this before and being sternly warned not to do it again. When caught, express contempt for Wikipedia, its policies and editors, and vow to continue. They seem to be operating sockpuppets and/or engaging meatpuppets as well. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/American Apparel and Talk:American Apparel for additional information and evidence. Wikidemo (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is further information on American Apparel in a thread at AN/I. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Handal

NatHandal (talk · contribs) has repeatedly done complete rewrites of Nathalie Handal, including blanking all the templates. She has been told numerous times to explain her actions, yet every day (or few days) she does the rewrite without explaining herself. She's received a 24 hour block for it yet she continues. She's brought up the issue (briefly) at [21] but has made no reply or any indication that she has read it. If she has, she has shown no signs of following through, as today she tried the rewrite again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs) 00:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and Louise and edits by Goddard Claussen (ad agency)

Harry and Louise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
66.208.15.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hilarykoehl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In this edit on March 3, IP editor 66.208.15.194 (talk · contribs) replaced the entirety of the article Harry and Louise with a rewritten version that replaced the lead paragraph with an unencyclopedic magazine-style lead which was laudatory/promotional to the creators of the commercial, removed both sources/citations and the reference section, and removed a sourced paragraph regarding re-use of the Harry and Louise characters in a subsequent commercial and resulting litigation in which Goddard Claussen was involved. The rewrite cites no sources, and has NPOV and verifiablity problems as well as the obvious COI.

The IP address 66.208.15.194 is registered to GC Strategic Advocacy, a part of ad agency Goddard Claussen, who created the commercial and own the Harry and Louise characters.

I reverted the edits several times, with a COI warning. Then the same word-for-word rewrite was made by Hilarykoehl (talk · contribs) whom I assume to be either the same editor or someone else from Goddard Claussen. A discussion ensued on her user talk page, focusing on COI, removal of sources and sourced material, and article style and format.

Since I was involved in writing and sourcing the article, and reverted to my own language, I have refrained from any administrative action regarding this (blocking either user or protecting the article), however, I believe this needs some administrative attention. --MCB (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hilarykoehl responded on her user talk page with the following:

There is absolutely no conflict of interest here. The article is written from a NPOV and does not endorse anyone or any company. It simply states the facts. I asked for help in referencing it because I could not get the references to display properly. I can cite every sentence in my revision as fact, and will happly do so. Unforunately, you feel the need to revert back to your version of the article which remains factually inaccurate, and portrays each company in a specific view. There are two major fact errors in the article, and other minor ones. Furthermore, I find it appalling that you would place my IP address for all to see with a company that doesn't even exist - I do not work for GC Strategic Ventures, have never heard of it, and frankly, couldn't find a reference to it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilarykoehl (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response:

You have a conflict of interest because you work for, worked for, or have an affiliation with Goddard Claussen, the creator of the Harry and Louise commercials. ("Hilary Koehl ’03 is a communications consultant for Goddard Claussen Strategic Advocacy in Washington, D.C."). The IP address 66.208.15.194, which made the previous rewrite which is nearly word-for-word identical to your draft, is registered to the organization "GC Strategic Advocacy" [22], which is part of Goddard Claussen. Having a conflict of interest is one thing; attempting to deny it when the record clearly shows otherwise is a serious breach of Wikipedia ethics and conduct guidelines and may lead to a block or ban. --MCB (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rent to own

68.189.203.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.182.146.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keep reverting all edits to Rent to own (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) negative of the industry. According to MaxMind, they’re both from Cape Girardeau, Missouri. I suspect they’re IP socks of Griffaw, since it is his edits that they are maintaining. It looks like he has a conflict of interest (see User_talk:Griffaw and Talk:Rent to own), and his edits significantly biased the article. It looks like the article will have to be semi-protected to stop them. I’m requesting a checkuser at the same time as post this – most of the relevant diffs are over there. —Wulf (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does appear to be an issue. I've watchlisted the RFCU. Some of the edits are suspicious, and overall the article is in desperate need of wikifying. I'll also note that the IPs appear to be aware of 3RR as they edit to 2RR and then stop for almost exactly 24 hours. MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this dispute when I added some material yesterday that sought to add much-needed balance the article. Perhaps I'll go look at the earlier edits out of curiosity.Calamitybrook (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if an admin looks at the deleted contributions of User:Griffaw he posted a now-deleted article for RTO Online, headquartered in Jackson, MO (just ten miles up I-55 from Cape Girardeau) by Roy Griffaw. I think this is open-and-shut COI even if the IPs don't match. Cool Hand Luke 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this seems to be the best previous version - it looks like they want to remove any (sourced) negative comment about the schemes from the article. --Fredrick day 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Simply reverting to that version cleans up the problems beautifully.Calamitybrook (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some academic sources I'll be adding (once I've worked out wikis stupid tag system). --Fredrick day 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.182.146.232 has been at it again, despite that town getting over 12" of rain. I’ve requested semi-protection for 1 week. —Wulf (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser declined due to age of Griffaw's edits, but added if the IPs geo-locate to the same area and are making similar edits, their probably the same person. Can someone confirm (with Whois/etc) that these IPs are similarly located? MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Wulf says, they're both Cape Girardeau, Missouri, which is very close to the physical location of RTO Online, managed by a one Roy Griffaw. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just wanted to make sure a second party agreed on that. Then we warn and/or block if the warnings are ignored. Leaving now, but I'll check their activity level tonight and see if this is still an issue MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life Ministries

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Life Ministries (closed as keep)

Article: Real Life Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
user: Bg357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (wrote original article)
user: 1TruthTracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This issue involving two edit warring users, both single-purpose accounts or nearly so and each with an apparent conflict of interest, showed up on Third opinion.

User Bg357 wrote the original article and claims (as here) that user 1TruthTracker represents users who are critical of the subject's pastor. — Athaenara ✉ 06:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate any independent review of this matter, I certainly have no desire to continue the editing battle that has ensued on this article. I would like to respectfully disagree with your characterization of my account as "single-purpose". My contribution history shows a wide array of articles I have been involved with over the last couple years. I try to be a constructive member of the WP community and have tried especially hard to maintain the quality of the one article I have written. I was also fairly active before I registered an account, only doing so when I realized it was necessary before I could write an article.

If I had known what a lightning rod this article would turn out to be, I probably would never have written it in the first place but, like they say, hindsight is 20/20. Over the couple of years since I wrote the article, I have dealt with a few actual "single-purpose" accounts, so I know what they look like. 1TruthTracker (talk|contribs), EyesOfFire (talk|contribs) and Mountainview (talk|contribs) are good examples of single-purpose accounts.

I will continue to do my best to maintain the verifiable sourcing, NPOV and general readability of this article.Bg357 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also discussed here. — Athaenara ✉ 09:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also on:

WP:AN here
1Truth's talk page
Bg357's talk page

The AfD was semi-protected due to nonsense and the article is currently full protected (see here because the rv wars were getting ridiculous. This article has also been speedied x 3 and I think once before under another name because Bg references there having been a long time lapse between his/her work: A cursory review of the history log will show that the tag to delete this article first appeared on March 5th, I had not edited this article for over 7 months, at that time. I first discovered that the article had been tagged for deletion on March 10th, (point 2 here). Just some more context for anyone trying to sort this out. I've been involved with the article in a) cleaning up citations b) taking it to AfD and c) requesting page protection, but I have no connection with the church and have stayed out of the edit war. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: here since they've migrated TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 06:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Migrated?? Is this some kind of a duck joke, Cari?

Bg357 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an unintentional one, but hey I'll take credit for a funny ;) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Björn Again

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

Caymanarosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is replacing this brief article with an even briefer " the reduced definitive history without outdated incorrect info" and appears to be identifying himself in an edit summary as Rod Liessle, listed in the pre-existing article as a co-founder. John Tyrrell's role as co-founder gets written out although it seems to be widely documented [23] [24] [25]. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a {{uw-coi}} warning on User talk:Caymanarosa. That single-purpose account seriously butchered the article, which needs to be restored. — Athaenara ✉ 06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I reverted Caymanarosa and added two citations. — Athaenara ✉ 06:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Caymanarosa is a YouTuber (profile). — Athaenara ✉ 07:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to keep an eye out for

The sole employee of Sobelsoft wants to pay someone to get an article on Wikipedia about the company.

http://spam.sobolsoft.com

sobolsoft.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

http://spam.petersobol.com

petersobol.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

Spammer:

SVPPB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Most likely article title:

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

I'd expect to see this "article" some time in early April. See original RentACoder post. MER-C 09:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. Speedy delete was contested: I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sobolsoft on grounds of failure to demonstrate notability via reliable independent sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And... spam request withdrawn after the spammer (above) was "unable to work on the project". Not quite resolved yet, as the "article" needs to be deleted. MER-C 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent COI problems on Albert Camus and similar

Albert Camus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
77.49.178.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
77.49.208.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
77.49.99.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
77.49.90.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
77.49.217.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DimisNasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Plenty of COI edits relating to an alleged Greek journalist named Christos Papachristopoulos, who was deleted as non-notable (and totally unverifiable) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christos Papachristopoulos and has recently been recreated by DimisNasis before being speedied. There's edits like this inserting mentions of himself into the Camus article, supported by an unreferenced mirror version of the Papachristopoulos article. This was brought up previously at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Christos Papachristopoulos in addition. Any suggestions on dealing with this other than reverting? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with what One Night In Hackney has said above. I wish only to add the following: A look at the contributions shows a clear pattern of attempting to connect Albert Camus, Nikos Kazantzakis, Henri Bergson, Jacques Maritain, Gabriel Marcel, and Marshall McLuhan with Christos Papachristopoulos, as in the following addition to the McLuhan article made under the name DimisNasis:

Now, this X of the tetrad can be applied and enhanced also in the media theory of Marshall McLuhan itself, forming a square between, for example, McLuhan and his "associates" Albert Camus, Gabriel Marcel and Christos Papachristopoulos.

No evidence is offered that these men were, in any way, "associates," or that any of them knew this Mr. Papachristopoulos. Rather, the point is simply to bring attention to Papachristopoulos and his theories, as in this addition, also made by DimisNasis to the McLuhan article:

Nowadays, the heir of McLuhan's legacy is the Greek journalist Christos Papachristopoulos with his Insensé theory which relates synaesthesia and Mass Media (for more information, see NationMaster Encyclopedia).

Finally, as is alluded to above, all of this is designed to advance a "fringe theory," perhaps best described in this addition to the Maritain article:

So, the term Nuclear/Perennial Philosophy of Media is introduced, based on the perennial or integral theory of Jacques Maritain in close relationship with the nuclear discoveries of Albert Einstein and the revolutionary theory of Albert Camus. The justifications are found in the Stoic philosophy -the internal or perennial wisdom of river Styx- and the doctrine of Pythagoras of Samos. In the symphysis of the "Spartoi" or "Spartans" group also belong Nikos Kazantzakis, Simone Weil, George Orwell, Arthur Koestler, Karl Jaspers, Hannah Arendt, Lev Shestov, Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevski (See the book "The Nuclear Philosophy of Media: Connaturality" (2007) in NationMaster Encyclopedia).

I can make neither heads nor tails of this, there are no notable references provided, the promotional nature of all of this is rather apparent, and the indications of conflict-of-interest are, at the very least, troubling. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, guys. These look like socks of banned User:ChrysJazz [26] who spammed Albert Camus articles with his own theories about synaesthesia (among other things) and IIRC presented English Wikipedia with a 200k article made up of his own translation of a Camus work into Greek. Since he's an indefinitely banned user, his socks can be banned on sight and any information he's added should be removed. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In a nutshell: if you're an admin, please ban any socks of this guy on sight and destroy any information he's added. He's had his breaks, he refuses to get policy, he keeps coming back in multiple incarnations. All we can do is save the encyclopaedia and our own sanity from his crankery. --Folantin (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Aahhh! Thank you, Folantin, for that information and for setting a course of action. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've slapped a lengthy semi-protection on Albert Camus, which will hopefully have some effect. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should help. But, if, as Folantin has argued, this is a block-evading vandal, should not further action be taken against the IPs? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs are dynamic based on the quick turnover so blocking is a bit pointless, but DimisNasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) could do with blocking I think? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Moreschi (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick question before this is ofer -- is NationMaster some kidn of mirror or copy of Wikipedia, and if so can wikis like that ever be used as sources? im not involved in the whole Papacristopoalus drama but i have seen NationMaster and other Wikipedia-similar copies referneced elsewhere before and I was hoping if someone here can clear that up for me. Thanks for your time. Smith Jones (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a message left on my talk page earlier this evening, the IP 77.49.91.133 refers to himself as "Christ" and "Christos," which, I would argue, answers any question as to whether this is really him. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tegan Summer

Tegan Summer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tegan Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tegan Summer Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On The Bench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looks like self-promotional editing. Nesodak (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles tagged and user cautioned. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tegan Summer Productions. I'm not sure about the notability/verifiability of Tegan Summer or his TV show. MER-C 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He looks notable, maybe just lacking sources and the show I'm on the fence about. Its not a huge COI and could be notable. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm working with the user to vet his sources and assertions. Production company will probably be deleted due to lac of notability, I think with some work, the other 2 can be saved. MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of COI policy

I would like to start an article on the Three Dimensional Black Board. I would like clarification first on policy to make sure that I won't be violating any Conflict of Interest Policy. Your comments on the matter are appreciated in advance. Phineas J. Whoopee (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reason to believe that you may have a conflict-of-interest? If so, what is the basis for said belief? If you are in doubt, it might be best to err on the side of caution and ask, instead, that the article be written by someone else. This can be done here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3DBB and Professor Phineas J. Whoopee are from Tennessee Tuxedo and His Tales. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Rs (website)--anyone care to comment on this situation?

The Three Rs (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
user Dee4leeds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
user Melaisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently posted the following to the related VfD: "Dee4leeds and Melaisis wrote the article. The article is about a blog where Dee4leeds and Melaisis are two of the main contributors. The article not only mentions Dee4leeds and Melaisis, but links to their Wikipedia user pages. Then, when the article is nominated for deletion, the only KEEP votes thus far come from--ta-da--Dee4leeds and Melaisis. This should be archived as a tutorial example of WP:COI.[27] Qworty (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy Morrison

Lindy Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article has now been moved to protected. The edits of User:Lindymorrison appears to be self-promotional vanity editing. Information in the article was removed and replaced by user, with no sourcing.
Lindymorrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - See [28], [29]. TheClashFan (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SubCulture (webcomic)

SubCulture (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kfreeman13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A clear case of conflict-of-interest as Kfreeman13 is almost certainly Kevin Freeman, the creator of the webcomic in question. Complicating the matter, it seems, is the question of whether the webcomic even meets Wikipedia's standards for notability of such material. The conflict-of-interest and self-promotional nature of the article, however, are rather clear. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KSEE

KSEE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kseegeoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.114.12.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Ran across an odd edit war on a California TV station article that has apparently going for months under the radar. Kseegeoff (talk · contribs) (possibly Geoff Roth, the news director who is mentioned in the article) and 67.114.12.30 (talk · contribs) have been reverting each other since January on whether an anchor named Bud Elliott resigned or was "forced out". Possibly a candidate for WP:LAME. Nesodak (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Yak

Resolved

– Article deleted as spam. MER-C 12:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Yak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gyak1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Armwrestler, probably notable, but has just restored enormous article which I'd trimmed back where he talks about how wonderful he is, his hopes and dreams and quotes and philosophy and all the rest of it. Pseudomonas_(talk) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TragedyStriker

00:4400:44, 12 June 2008 diff hist +100‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) ‎No edit summary
00:4400:44, 12 June 2008 diff hist +194‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) ‎No edit summary
00:3600:36, 12 June 2008 diff hist +958‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) ‎No edit summary
00:2600:26, 12 June 2008 diff hist +533‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) ‎No edit summary
00:2300:23, 12 June 2008 diff hist +1‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) ‎No edit summary
00:2200:22, 12 June 2008 diff hist +17‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) ‎No edit summary
00:1900:19, 12 June 2008 diff hist +2,617‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) ‎No edit summary

23:1023:10, 11 June 2008 diff hist +160‎ User talk:Tony Fox ‎ →‎Spamming?
23:0323:03, 11 June 2008 diff hist +412‎ User talk:Tony Fox ‎No edit summary
23:0023:00, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,805‎ User talk:ThuranX ‎No edit summary
23:0023:00, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,805‎ User talk:Sgeureka/Archive03 ‎No edit summary
22:5922:59, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,805‎ User talk:Starblind ‎No edit summary
22:5922:59, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,805‎ User talk:Jclemens ‎No edit summary
22:5822:58, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,804‎ User talk:C.Fred ‎ →‎Zachary Jaydon
22:5822:58, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,805‎ User talk:Tony Fox ‎No edit summary
22:5722:57, 11 June 2008 diff hist +101‎ User talk:DCEdwards1966 ‎ →‎Zachary Jaydon
22:5722:57, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,804‎ User talk:L0b0t ‎No edit summary
22:5722:57, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,703‎ User talk:DCEdwards1966 ‎No edit summary
22:5322:53, 11 June 2008 diff hist +3,062‎ User talk:Fattyjwoods ‎No edit summary
22:5022:50, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,980‎ User talk:IJA ‎No edit summary
22:4722:47, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,950‎ User talk:Dominik92 ‎No edit summary
22:4422:44, 11 June 2008 diff hist +2,701‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Jaydon (3rd nomination) ‎No edit summary
22:1822:18, 11 June 2008 diff hist +365‎ User talk:Bradv ‎No edit summary
22:1822:18, 11 June 2008 diff hist +365‎ User talk:Kww/04022009 ‎ →‎Zachary Jaydon
21:4221:42, 11 June 2008 diff hist +475‎ User talk:Celarnor ‎No edit summary
21:3121:31, 11 June 2008 diff hist +101‎ User talk:Bradv ‎ →‎Sexy Hair
21:3121:31, 11 June 2008 diff hist +357‎ User talk:Bradv ‎ →‎Sexy Hair
21:1321:13, 11 June 2008 diff hist +710‎ User talk:Fish and karate ‎No edit summary
20:4420:44, 11 June 2008 diff hist +101‎ User talk:Bradv ‎ →‎Zachary Jaydon
20:4420:44, 11 June 2008 diff hist +225‎ User talk:Bradv ‎No edit summary

20:5420:54, 8 June 2008 diff hist 0‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎ →‎User:TragedyStriker reported by User:Kww (Result: )
20:5420:54, 8 June 2008 diff hist +1,306‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring ‎ →‎User:TragedyStriker reported by User:Kww (Result: )
20:3220:32, 8 June 2008 diff hist +1,004‎ User talk:Dominik92 ‎No edit summary
20:3220:32, 8 June 2008 diff hist +1,004‎ User talk:IJA ‎No edit summary
20:3220:32, 8 June 2008 diff hist +1,004‎ User talk:Fattyjwoods ‎No edit summary
20:3020:30, 8 June 2008 diff hist +1,004‎ User talk:Wildhartlivie ‎No edit summary
20:3020:30, 8 June 2008 diff hist +1,003‎ User talk:Celarnor ‎No edit summary
20:2420:24, 8 June 2008 diff hist +366‎ The Mickey Mouse Club ‎ Sources Provided.
20:2220:22, 8 June 2008 diff hist +802‎ User talk:Kww/04022009 ‎No edit summary
16:3916:39, 8 June 2008 diff hist +366‎ The Mickey Mouse Club ‎ I missed the "note" that was included by another editor. Source has been provided, and article has been corrected.
16:3116:31, 8 June 2008 diff hist +482‎ The Mickey Mouse Club ‎ Go FIND These Sources, and see the information plain as day.
03:1803:18, 8 June 2008 diff hist +482‎ The Mickey Mouse Club ‎ Independant, Reliable, Official Sources Have Been Cited. Case Closed

05:4405:44, 6 June 2008 diff hist +21‎ The Mickey Mouse Club ‎ →‎Cast

21:3621:36, 31 May 2008 diff hist +341‎ The Mickey Mouse Club ‎ Search this source in a public library, or request a copy from Disney. Who determines fraud? It's not even been proven. Sources Cited Correctly.
16:4416:44, 31 May 2008 diff hist +242‎ Talk:The Mickey Mouse Club ‎ →‎Zachary Jaydon
16:4316:43, 31 May 2008 diff hist +341‎ The Mickey Mouse Club ‎ These sources are CREDIBLE, INDEPENDENT & VERIFIABLE!
05:5205:52, 31 May 2008 diff hist −12‎ Justin Timberlake ‎ "Con Man" is inappropriate and irrelevant to the article.

02:1702:17, 4 May 2008 diff hist −6,910‎ User:TragedyStriker/sandbox ‎ ←Blanked the page current

06:4106:41, 24 April 2008 diff hist +35‎ The Mickey Mouse Club ‎ →‎Full cast of 1990s Mouseketeers

16:4516:45, 15 April 2008 diff hist +172‎ Craig David ‎No edit summary

Tragedy Striker is Zachary Jaydon usuing either an alias or a stolen name (I am no longer sure). Looking at his edits all he does is edit pages about himself in a PR style with no citations claiming to not be himself. Why would someone be so obsessed with an unknown entertainer as to edit a bunch of pages about him? I left a detailed message about how and who he is here. In addition to that he has been slandering people he once worked with and spreading my personal info all over Wikipedia. In addition he has also edited and used the ip 74.215.40.191. Please do something thank you. --Thegingerone (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 352: / Line 352: @@
 ::::::Note that as someone with a demonstrated, entrenched position in this dispute and about the organization, Boodlesthecat's reference to "pushing the CAMERA POV" should be read with a bit of skepticism. It certainly appears that he wrongly equates the posting of documented, cited info he doesn't like with "pushing a POV."[[User:Gni|Gni]] ([[User talk:Gni|talk]]) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 ::::::To [[User:Gni|Gni]]: Can you explain why you were editing the article from CAMERA's office? As a regular contributor to the CAMERA article and someone who has edited from CAMERA's offices, do you know anything about the e-mail from Gilead Ini? --[[Special:Contributions/68.253.50.109|68.253.50.109]] ([[User talk:68.253.50.109|talk]]) 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
+:::::::On the first question, my privacy takes precedence. There are many many reasons why this could have happened that don't equate to a COI. On the second issue, no, I don't know anything about that email.[[User:Gni|Gni]] ([[User talk:Gni|talk]]) 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 ===Outside view===

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

Revision as of 13:09, 26 March 2008

Possible autobiographies found by bot

Requested edits

H. Paul Shuch and User:Drseti

Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi

National Taxpayers Union

Edit warring on CAMERA sourced to CAMERA's office

The Record

An email that may be relevant

Outside view

User:Working terriers

Carlson Wagonlit Travel

Artist May be Editing His Own Article

American Apparel

Nathalie Handal

Harry and Louise and edits by Goddard Claussen (ad agency)

Rent to own

Real Life Ministries

Björn Again

Something to keep an eye out for

Persistent COI problems on Albert Camus and similar

Clarification of COI policy

The Three Rs (website)--anyone care to comment on this situation?

SubCulture (webcomic)

12 June 2008

11 June 2008

8 June 2008

6 June 2008

31 May 2008

4 May 2008

24 April 2008

15 April 2008