Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Commandar (talk | contribs)
46 edits
→Evil Avatar: new section
Line 393: Line 393:
:::First off, COI/N has no power to ban anyone. We try to resolve COI disputes by educating those accused in understanding and following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our objective is to turn them into constructive contributors. The place to take problems with editors who failed to abide by multiple levels of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] up through mediation is [[WP:RFAR|Arbcom]] or, if a user's conduct is so disruptive as to require urgent attention from an administrator, then [[WP:AN/I|Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents]]. However, it is unlikely that they will censure an editor over off-wiki activities that are not pursued disruptively on Wikipedia itself (although they may be taken as evidence against their "good faith").
:::First off, COI/N has no power to ban anyone. We try to resolve COI disputes by educating those accused in understanding and following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our objective is to turn them into constructive contributors. The place to take problems with editors who failed to abide by multiple levels of [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] up through mediation is [[WP:RFAR|Arbcom]] or, if a user's conduct is so disruptive as to require urgent attention from an administrator, then [[WP:AN/I|Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents]]. However, it is unlikely that they will censure an editor over off-wiki activities that are not pursued disruptively on Wikipedia itself (although they may be taken as evidence against their "good faith").
:::Please note, though, that disagreement over content is not a sin, unless it is exercised in a continuing disruptive fashion. I concur with Ed that the ''NET'' article to which you’ve linked appears unexceptional. The “crowing” appears to be chiefly over cold fusion being portrayed as “controversial” rather than “[[beyond the pale]]” – and I think no one disputes that it is indeed quite controversial. Unless you can provide diffs that clearly demonstrate evidence of contentious COI editing on Wikipedia, I’m afraid you have presented us with nothing to work with here. [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Please note, though, that disagreement over content is not a sin, unless it is exercised in a continuing disruptive fashion. I concur with Ed that the ''NET'' article to which you’ve linked appears unexceptional. The “crowing” appears to be chiefly over cold fusion being portrayed as “controversial” rather than “[[beyond the pale]]” – and I think no one disputes that it is indeed quite controversial. Unless you can provide diffs that clearly demonstrate evidence of contentious COI editing on Wikipedia, I’m afraid you have presented us with nothing to work with here. [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This was brought to my attention.. ScienceApologist, why are you revealing the real world name of a user? Are you certain that this user has consented to be identified? A quick check of his current userpage does not show a disclosure, although I may have missed it. I would think that you would be particularly sensitive to the need not to out people. Please either demonstrate where this connection was made, or redact your connecting the users. Thanks. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


== Evil Avatar ==
== Evil Avatar ==

Revision as of 22:06, 18 October 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-wp@wikipedia.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:Ada Aharoni
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader)
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:List of compositions for flute
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    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.

    Overview: History of promotional, possibly self-serving edits and article creations, with apparent use of multiple user IDs (sockpuppets). Possible candidate for Checkuser, although from the evidence (unbroken strings of edits, some under IP, some under user names) it seems fairly clear that we are dealing only with one person.

    According to geobytes, all the IPs involved hail from Casablanca, Morocco, the place of residence of the article subject of Tahir Shah.

    Previous talk page requests to comply with COI and core content policies: [1], [2].

    Examples of problematic edits:

    • Mikegooderson creates The Phararoh Code (with misspelt title): [3]. The article Pharaoh code has been deleted twice before: [4]. Article cites no third-party reliable sources and appears to exist solely to promote Tahir Shah's theory.
    • Coldwinterday inserts circular reference (using a Wikipedia mirror site) to Tahir Shah's Qantara Foundation, which appears to lack independent notability: [5]. Undone by another editor: [6] Mikegooderson steps in and inserts references to another open wiki that uses Wikipedia content: [7]
    • Coldwinterday edits Tahir Shah to describe the father of Tahir Shah as "legendary": [8]; the cited source (the New York Times) describes him as "well-known", as our article said. (Ironically, Tahir Shah's father was accused by critics of self-aggrandisement, and self-publishing an unparalleled corpus of pseudonymous literature in adulation of himself.)
    • IP 81.192.167.196 reinserts unsupported claim that Tahir Shah holds various memberships and honorary titles: [9], [10]. I insert fact templates after the claims: [11]. Now, an hour later, IP 81.192.195.118 adds Tahir Shah as a club member in the article on the Travellers Club, again without RS support: [12], and shortly after adds the edited Travellers Club article as a reference for Tahir Shah's membership in the Travellers Club in Tahir Shah: [13]. Note that it is quite possible, even likely, that Shah is a member of the said clubs; his father was a member of the Athenaeum club, and some of these things are hereditary; but I don't think it is encyclopedically relevant to the Tahir Shah article if no reliable source has commented upon it, making it essentially unverifiable for our readers.
    • IP adds various chunks of unsourced material serving to enhance Tahir Shah in the reader's eyes in Tahir Shah: [15] ("His work is characterized by an extraordinary attention to detail and characters, and is regarded as unusually original, a fusion of styles.")

    To be clear, Tahir Shah is a notable and talented author, with congratulatory coverage in top-class newspapers, as well as a filmmaker, a book reviewer for the Washington Post, a writer of screenplays and much besides.

    It is all the more puzzling that these accounts, rather than capitalising on the good press coverage there is on the man, seek to inflate his achievements with unsourced claims and fawning descriptions. Here is an example of the state the article was in after one of the user's recent editing sessions: [18]

    To be fair, I will grant that some of the contributions made by the above IDs have been pertinent, if invariably flattering to the subject.

    The problem is long-standing; here, in 2006, yet another Casablancan IP deletes "copyedit" and "verify" tags, they are restored by the other user, and then the same Casablancan IP deletes them again the next day.

    None of the user IDs concerned has so far responded to talk page messages. Over to you guys. Jayen466 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User(s) concerned has been notified of this thread: [19], [20], [21]. Jayen466 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More of the same: [22], misspelt title, POV and unsourced. Jayen466 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Title spelling now fixed, page moved. Jayen466 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree wholeheartedly Jayen. The editor/s have created or contributed to several articles promoting possible associates, sometimes with backlinks to Tahir Shah. 81.192.186.193 (Morocco again) unilaterally deleted two sections of Idries Shah, Tahir Shah's father, without first or subsequently discussing. These sections were critical of his father. EricT (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I missed that one. It's another Casablanca IP: Special:Contributions/81.192.186.193, diff link. Jayen466 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears there haven't been any further edits by the user(s) in the last week or so. What to do? Mothball this thread until they come back? Jayen466 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/Coldwinterday has recently created several articles on books by Tahir Shah. Looks like a major marketing exercise. See that article for the list. EricT (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I note at least we now have references, some of them from bona fide sources. There appear to be copyright problems with the book covers (see the talk page of Coldwinterday (talk · contribs)), but the sourcing appears to be a step in the right direction. Would appreciate an uninvolved editor looking the articles over:

    Cheers, Jayen466 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A casual look at just Trail of Feathers and In Arabian Nights and a google search reveals that much of the description is to be found on other published pages. See articles' talk pages. Cleanup-rewrite? Uninvolved editors' help, please. EricT (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, much is lifted from the sites you indicated. I second the call for an uninvolved editor's help. Jayen466 14:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The books certainly merit articles: could someone tag the relevant pages as (say) requiring a rewrite to meet standards, rather than their being unnecessarily deleted? EricT (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that most, if not all, the books are notable enough, and have had detailed coverage in multiple RS (not all of it reflected necessarily in the articles as they stand). Jayen466 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    COI with Bert Convy

    User Bert Convy keeps editing the Gary Trauner article with obvious bias. Especially, since it's the only article he's edited, I'm suspicious that he's working for the Lummis campaign. BeIsKr (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I commented on the article's talk page. ArakunemTalk 14:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, he's still at it, inserting links either to Trauner's opponent's website or to an anti-Trauner propaganda site into the middle of the article, depending on his mood. BeIsKr (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left BC/JW a specific note on the inappropriate external links, as well as some additional commentary on the talk page. ArakunemTalk 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William Eric Alexander

    Radionut (talk · contribs) has declared himself as the subject of the article on William Eric Alexander. he has been today informed of wp:coi policy. his contributions have at times been disruptive and war-ish, and is suspected of using the ip puppets, 71.126.34.110 (talk · contribs), 71.126.39.195 (talk · contribs), and Netio99 (talk · contribs). --emerson7 17:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to be taking a lot of liberty with our policies. Under WP:BLP, article subjects can remove what they see as incorrect information, but he's been fearlessly making edits against the WP:Manual of style and deleting material without explanation. Considering that Alexander is not at present on the radio but is trying to get recognition for his podcast, the article may lack notability. I suggest that an WP:AFD might be considered. If the article is to be kept, the blocking policy will need to be explained to several editors, who may (in fact) all be the same person. I have notified User:Radionut of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has now been proposed for deletion under WP:PROD, due to insufficient reliable sources to show importance per WP:BIO. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AndroidCat (talk · contribs) has a COI Censorship Agenda Scientologist

    Resolved
     – No inappropriate behavior by AndroidCat, per multiple comments below. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AndroidCat boasts on Alt.Religion.Scientology of his "work" here at Wikipedia. This is a clear Conflict of Interest, showing agenda based political intention for censorship! [1] AndroidCat also posts on the Dianetic Groups: [2] AndroidCat recently attacked over and over various Wiki pages called "obnosis" which included good references, until the page was deleted. He has also a history of attacking other Scientology pages and censorship agendas. --lisakachold 24.251.216.251 (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The links you wanted to cite above are [23] and [24]. (Use of the ref tags makes them invisible in the absence of a reference list). Can I request that you post here using your real account, User:LisaKachold, which is still available for your use? Posting as an IP adds a confusion factor. In fact, you seem to have double-voted (perhaps accidentally?) in WP:Articles for deletion/Obnosis, using both your registered account and your IP. Obnosis was deleted fair-and-square in a regular deletion discussion, and so far there is no well-defined misbehavior by AndroidCat for us to study. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses:

    Links for well-defined misbehavior by AndroidCat on various Scientology Cites: The links are [25] and [26].

    More than one person uses this IP base. We did not double vote in the Obnosis discussion. In fact, one person did not get to vote because of Denial of Service packets which disallowed all network use.

    LisaKachold (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He is just as entitled to have an opinion and talk about it on the web as anyone else. Holding an opinion does not in and of itself constitute a COI, sorry. Jayen466 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, this is not a COI issue. In fact, the only thing those posts seem to show is that he's trying to combat a perceived COI from Scientology employees and maintain the neutral point-of-view. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I did nothing against those vanity pages. I don't believe I even voted in the AfDs. I merely reported on ARS that Wikipedia's system for dealing with such pages seemed to be working. (First link) I did vote on the AfD for Obnosis, which seems to be the root of LisaKachold's problem with me, and why she's bringing a non-Wikipedia discussion in here for review. (The second link is just a mirror of the Wiki Dianetics Talk page.) The Obnosis article was a mess that couldn't be saved and deserved the AfD, but even then, it was LisaKachold spamming and coatracking other articles with it and her original research that convinced me. The admission that the obnosis site belongs to her (or someone with an IP just like her) only adds weight to the correctness of that AfD.
    Her continual mentions of her difficulties in operating a computer on the Internet almost sound like accusations of criminal actions, and even worse, acting like a common script-kiddie.
    Of course I'm a free-range critic of Scientology. Never denied it. However, I feel that the best criticisms are NPOV articles with hard-as-nails cites. My nails: Let me show you them. AndroidCat (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any regular COI issue here for us to address. WP is cautious about editors' particular enthusiasms causing them to go overboard, but that could only be proved if actual diffs were supplied about a person doing improper things here on Wikipedia. The submitter mentions AndroidCat's off-wiki interests, and they are duly noted. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with AndroidCat participating in a deletion debate about Obnosis. I suggest that this issue be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LisaKachold. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Toyne

    Yesterday, Toyne's userpage was tagged {{db-g11}} for speedy deletion as blatant advertising and subsequently appeared in the Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion.

    I saw it there and, as no notice had been given on the user's talk page, posted information for Toyne about the speedy deletion criterion WP:CSD#G11, the COI guideline, and the "What may I not have on my user page?" portion of the Wikipedia userpage content guideline. I then deleted the userpage.

    Today (diff), Toyne posted the following on my talk page:

    Public Relations Consultants Association
    Hi Athaenara,
    You recently deleted a page I submitted on behalf of the the Public Relations Consultants Association and I would be interested to know why.
    There are pages on Wikipedia for similar organisation such as the Chartered Institute of Public Relations [27]
    Your help would be much appreciated.
    Toyne
    Toyne (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am posting the issue here on Toyne's behalf for the attention of the wider audience of NPOV editors and admins who share my concerns about COI issues. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (deletion log) — Athaenara ✉ 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gravityforce

    Gravityforce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly User:Slipinski, is a single-purpose account which has been exclusively promoting a alleged new alternative theory of gravitation published by the editor himself, S. Lipinski, in an obscure physics journal. Furthermore, at Gravitation, this editor has persistently edit-warred against the consensus of at least three editors (myself included) to have a section on this new theory, in flagrant violation of numerous policies including WP:WEIGHT, WP:CON, and WP:OR to name a few. Entreaties to stop this behavior have been completely unsuccessful. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected Gravitation for one month due to the possibility of sock editing. Otherwise these IPs have ideas that are inexplicably similar to those of User:Gravityforce. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Yndurain

    New account Yndurain has:

    However, according to the bio article, Francisco Jose Yndurain Muñoz died on June 6 this year, so it is not clear to me whether this is actually COI, or just an SPA with a poorly chosen name. Bio article seems to be too well written for a complete novice, so possibly this is an alternate account. Anyway, bringing it here hoping that someone may know how to handle this. I have notified Yndurain of this post on their talk page. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user might also be family, or accidentally have the same name. A possible approach, which I would suggest: just value the edits on their merits (NPOV, verifiability and undue weight), for the time being. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion:
    • Keep the article Francisco Jose Yndurain Muñoz, which seems fine
    • I support removing his name from 'Prominent theoretical physicists' in Theoretical physics, which Crowsnest has already done
    • His books might not meet the criteria for the book lists they were added to. I'd favor removing his books from all the articles pending a Talk discussion in each case.
    EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    bluepulse - notable? bias?

    BluePulse is a web 2.0 start up. They sort of have a marketing campaign going but I don't know if it has users/notability except for coverage on a few startup blogs. I was first attracted into googling them after seeing that their iTunes ratings were being gamed. (If anyone has iTunes, they are in the app store). I was wondering if anyone could look through the history of edits, check notability, and see if they're complying with rules and such. Because I know not how to handle (There may indeed be no problem, I'm not very familiar). --Drinkadrink (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bluepulse article is basically OK but it would benefit from a rewrite by somebody familiar with Wikipedia style. All the awards, for example, might be trimmed or summarized. Phrases like: well positioned to be the major player in the mobile social messaging space could be replaced by something more neutral. Their chief claim to fame is that their beta was downloaded 3 million times. They've also received $6 million in venture capital. Some of the references seem to be saying 'their features sound great.' Nobody seems to describe actual experience with using their service. Do you want to take a crack at improving the article? EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I'll (try to) strip some of the crufty stuff out. --Drinkadrink (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to move this to Talk:Bluepulse. --Drinkadrink (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a proposed deletion notice to this article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPA campaign at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Hshieh

    This message approved by: VG ☎ 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MISRA C++ article and User:Phaedsys

    Resolved

    Phaedsys username blocked by another admin as promotional, IP editor warned. Doug Weller (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Phaedsys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - also apparently User:80.176.226.26, see contributions from each and spelling of vandalism - editing MISRA C++ on behalf of the Misra project, giving other editors orders. Doug Weller (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies, should have added this link [28] to ANI where this was first raised. Doug Weller (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cadence Quest

    AfD
    Accounts (coi spas)
    Articles

    These accounts have been creating, editing, and re-creating articles which so far have been deleted at least five times. Is it perhaps time for blocks for advertising / sockpuppeting and page protection for the article titles which may be used? — Athaenara ✉ 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If they do it again, you should definitely salt the pages. MER-C 13:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlie Winton

    While working on a series of articles related to publishing, I ran across an article about book publisher Charlie Winton. I looked at the editing history and noticed that the creator and main editor of the page was a User talk:kwinton. Perhaps the name is just a coincidence. I am backing off of editing it for now. The article on its face seems sound, with not an excessive number of superlatives affecting its tone, but it currently does not reference problems in the publishing industry such as those in this article, which quotes Winton: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/21/independent_press/print.html - Please advise on how best to handle this. --Larrybob (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting case...

    I'm not entirely sure if this is more a question about WP:COI or WP:RS; a little of each, perhaps. User:Daytonapost provided this diff, which cites--wait for it--the Daytona Post. As a subsequent editor pointed out, there are serious accusations here in need of citing, but apart from that, is it acceptable for this user to cite this source--and no others--in making accusations of this weight? Gladys J Cortez 22:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Daytona Post does not appear to me to be a reliable source, though I'd have to suss it out a little more to be sure. Regardless, WP:RS is the salient issue here; either the source is reliable or it isn't, and the user name or identity of the editor adding the information isn't at issue. There are obvious WP:NPOV issues, too, of course. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it turned out not to take much more sussing at all: it's a blogspot-powered blog. Clearly not reliable, absent some evidence of editorial oversight or recognized expertise on the part of the (anonymous) author. I'd say nuke information supported by that source and warn the editor, followed if need be by blocking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I just e/c'ed w you to mention that it's an "online newspaper" and that the article regarding same had been speedied back in July AFTER having been created by our good friend Daytonapost. So...next question, does this count as a role account, or not so much?Gladys J Cortez 23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be, yes (see userlinks above). Not a Wikipedia:Role account but clearly a promotional coi spa. — Athaenara ✉ 05:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thacher Proffitt self-promotion

    The below item was posted to the talk page here. Brought here to the project page for the appropriate desired comment. The issue, in my view, is that there are an number of analysis like this, published for law-firm clients, and occasionally visible to the larger world. The particular item in question actually is informative, and not available in the standard media yet--in any form; the source is reliable, but the item was apparently posted by a self-promotional effort, or an account name that pretends to make it a self promotional effort. See below.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If they are the best source, they are the best source even if there is some commercial motive. DGG (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're more like the first source. We'll probably be able to find a better one in a week or so, when the weekly business magazines start to analyze the situation. At this very moment, writers are frantically cranking out the first books on the bailout, and academics are trying to get the first papers submitted. I've been reading one guy who's going through microfilms on the Panic of 1873, looking for parallels. We're going to be buried in reliable sources in a few weeks, and people will be writing about these events for the next century. Let's wait a bit and then dump the link to this quickie piece. --John Nagle (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They're at it again. They put two more links to themselves in Troubled Assets Relief Program. I removed those and put in a reference to an article in Forbes instead. The financial press is catching up; there's no shortage of reliable sources. If you search Google for the names of the documents to which they're linking, they come up in press releases and sites that redisplay press releases. This looks like an organized promotional effort. --John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thacher Proffitt (talk · contribs) linkspammed another article; they were indef blocked and reverted. --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor was blocked for inappropriate username. In principle they might start up again under a new name. We should probably keep this report open for another day or two to see what happens. I'm not 100% sure of the meaning of {{uw-spamublock}}, but I think it means they can come back. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    {{uw-spamublock}} is a username block focusing on the spamminess of the username, in distinction to {{uw-soablock}} where the name might not be lexically related to the entity spammed for. The "spamblock" link in WP:UAA reports defaults to Account Creation Prohibited (ACP) but not IP autoblock, although either of those can be tweaked at the admin's discretion. If the user comes back with a new account or edits as an IP, we can obviously make new blocks as appropriate. --MCB (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Link tracking data follows. MER-C 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://spam.tpw.com

    Lilith Astaroth

    Resolved
     – Page deleted. MER-C 13:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A prod lasted over five days so the article should have been deleted, but User:Lilithastaroth went to the BLP noticeboard and said she objected to the deletion, so someone removed the prod saying it was because she did had objected there and because the prodder was a newish editor, [29] although the time limit had elapsed (?) Is that a new way in accordance with policy for people to avoid getting their articles deleted if no-one who happens to come across the article without being asked to do what she wants will remove the prod? Anyway it's up at AfD now, but she of course has a COI so I thought I'd let you know. Sticky Parkin 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher - Censorship of unfavorable information

    I have been trying to add information on this entry regarding a major case here in Montana where punitive damages were assessed against this law firm, but somebody with a Utah IP address keeps deleting it. I suspect he/she has a conflict of interest for the reason that he has removed this information three times now, stating that "this should belong in a criticisms section, if at all", and only edits this page and the BYU law school page. I am aware that GDC recruits heavily from that law school. I don't necessarily object to his contention that my entry might belong in a different section than I have placed it, but it peeves me that it just keeps getting deleted, instead of moved. There is no talk page for this entry, so I have been unable to initiate discussion with this user. 69.144.136.45 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the case mentioned is in the article now. Incidentally, when making edits to that article, edit comments would be helpful. There are five successive edits by four editors without edit comments. Three of those edits were made by anons or editors with no edits to other articles. The involved parties might want to register for accounts to reduce the confusion. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Onetz53 and ISurv1vor

    User is directly involved in the article above, as shown by viewing the corresponding images on the page in which s/he is admittingly the copyright holder, hence using the article as self-promotion of the game. User does not seem to understand the basic Wikipedia guidelines as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISurv1vor. MuZemike (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Behgjet Pacolli

    Resolved
     – Semi-protected. MER-C 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been hijacked by single purpose accounts clearly linked to the subject: [30]. Watch this case closely. Colchicum (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected by Alex Bakharev until the 31st. Bump us if it happens again. MER-C 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hm2k

    Has added links to his personal blog as references to material he has added to articles:

    He was given a coi warning 09:58, 14 June 2008 by Herbythyme after restoring the link [31] in E-mail address.

    Since then he restored the link in MagicISO on 12:22, 30 July 2008 after it was removed and was aware that his link in E-mail address remained when he edited the sentence containing the link on 11:09, 21 September 2008.

    Previous discussions

    After participating in the discussion above with EdJohnston, Hm2k has decided to restore his personal website as a source to E-mail address [32]. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My read is that Hm2k is adding the link in because there is no better one to use as a source that he can find. This is based on his last comment in the discussion above. Clearly, "It's better than nothing" is rarely a good guideline on Wikipedia. ArakunemTalk 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So we're in agreement that there is no COI. --Hm2k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't say that what you're doing is not problematic. The biggest problem with your links is that they are not reliable sources as defined in the policy I linked. That right there introduces a problem with including them. The fact that you are linking to yourself raises some COI concerns that go beyond what is normally covered by WP:SPS, as the material on your site has not been published or reviewed elsewhere. ArakunemTalk 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this editor's personal web site, hm2k.com, is not a reliable source, the link should be removed. His own work (apparently not cited by others) is hardly so famous that it needs a mention in a general article like E-mail address. Since there has been plenty of discussion, and lots of explanation of our policy, I would argue that a {{uw-spam3}} warning could be left on this editor's Talk page. What do others think? People shouldn't get an infinite number of chances when the policy is so clear. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the link should go. It should not be hard to find a RS stating that "it is hard to regex every possible email address permutation". (If it IS hard, then maybe the statement needs to be re-evaluated). As far as the spam-3 goes, personally I consider this discussion to be filling that role at the moment, provided the discussion actually continues. As I said above, I got the impression from the talk on your page, that Hm2k understood the RS problem with his link, but kept it as "better than nothing". If my read was correct, then HM needs to understand that "better than nothing" is actually not. Once the link is removed, after all the policies have been explained and applied, restoring the link will have to be treated as disruptive. ArakunemTalk 16:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying I cannot restore the link? If so, I'd suggest you recommend an alternative source. --Hm2k (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article contains a statement whose truth you want to question, and it has no reliable source, why not propose removing it on the Talk page? Adding a self-published source for such a claim is not accepted as being the right way to go. In this particular case the statement does not seem very surprising, since people who have used regular expressions are aware they have limited expressive power (cf. any computer science textbook that discusses formal languages). Here's the statement you wanted to provide a cite for:

    Trying to match these restrictions is an extremely difficult and complex task, often resulting in long regular expressions that are too hard to actually be practical.

    I'd be willing to retain that sentence even without a cite, maybe replacing an extremely difficult and complex task with a complex task. If you still object to that sentence unless it has a citation, let's get rid of the sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually warned this editor about COI here in June of this year. I do see this as a clear conflict of interest and an attempt to promote the user's own website. I do not consider that this editor should be permitted to place a link to his website under any guise whatsoever. --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Azambataro and TIBCO marketing

    articles

    Azambataro is a marketing writer for Tibco Software and a coi spa on Wikipedia.
    (Just a basic post here on my way offline for the evening.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor Pierre Carbonnelle

    User:Pcarbonn is Pierre Carbonnelle, an investor in cold fusion pseudoscience that has been promoting the ideas here on-wiki. He has crowed about his successful POV-pushing here in item 18. Since Pierre has a business that has the potential to receive income from a cold fusion enterprise based on thin films, I ask that he be banned from editing cold fusion related pages.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SA, your concerns are important. But our COI policy states, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The italics are mine to emphasize the key point. I have a question and some advice. Question: do you feel you have strong evidence that this user is using these articles to advance his own interests against those of the project? Please bear in mind that Christians edit the article on Jesus to add Christian POV's and as long as they are significant and verifiable and pegged to reliable sources we do not claim a conflict of interest. Has this guy been eeleting any significant verifiable views other than his own? If the answer to both questions is yes, then you have a COI case. But in the meantime, I have a suggestion: hold this editor to the highest standards of NOR, V, and NPOV. Make sure any views he adds are significant and verifiable and from reliable sources. Make sure he never removes any views that are significant and verifiable. Make sure all his views maintain the neutral presentation of diverse views. If he fails to do this correct him but try - at least try - gently to encourage him to abide by our policies.
    I share your concerns but do not think that his busness means he cannot edit articles he cares about or knows about as long as he complies with our policies and works collaboratively with other editos who comply with out policies. So in my view no ban should be automatic, or so simple. Does this make sense to you, at least as a provisional plan? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think the New Energy Times article answers your question in the affirmative. He is intending to tilt coverage of cold fusion toward a POV that advances it as a legitimate enterprise which is position about which Wikipedia must remain neutral. The fact that he has a company which stands to benefit monetarily from an active cold fusion research program based on the idea that there are low energy nuclear reactions happening in certain thin film applications adds up to me that this particular user probably shouldn't be editing anymore. I'm thinking of the integrity of the encyclopedia here. I have no problem with Pcarbonn continuing to add his input on the talk pages, but his advocacy in article space is extremely problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A ban should not be automatic, but I support SA's assertion that Pcarbonn is pushing the POV that cold fusion is valid to a disruptive degree, and since he has a conflict of interest, this should not be permitted. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, disruptive editing is also a violation of policy. Do you think there would be any value to seek mediation for disruptive edition before seeking a ban? If there is a consensus he is a disruptive editor, then you are taking the right course. But have you already doen an RfC? I suggest doing that and seeing what a wider group of editors think - not just on the substance of cold fusion but on issues of NPOV and disruptive editing i.e. content policies - before seeking a topic ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We've tried mediation in the past. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a real dud. I think that a simple ban from article-space would do wonders, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not feel comfortable banning someone unilaterally, but I think if you provided some examples of edit difs where he clearly violated NPOV, and here he was clearly disruptive, and also diffs that show the failure of mediation, other admins will give serious consideration to this. You are asking for a big thing and I really am sympathetic but we need more agreement among admins, and for that you need to provide some details to support your case. If you get no response here, my advice is (1) bend over backwards to be conciliatory to him and then the next time there is a clear example of violation of NPOV or disruptive editing, (2) present your case at AN/I as a demonstrable pattern of disruptive POV pushing editing. COI explains the pattern of violating DIS and NPOV but the hear of the case is the pattern of disregarding these policies. Put some evidence here and let's see what other admins have to say; otherwise try my advice and go the AN/I route when you have abundant and clear cause. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion which was successfully closed on 16 April, 2008, as well as its Talk page. Pcarbonn also gives a summary of the events at the Cold fusion article on his User page. Cold fusion is still labelled as a Good Article at this moment. Usually to show COI editing you need to provide diffs of bad editing on Wikipedia. None have been given in this report, so far. The cited article at New Energy Times, mentioned by SA as 'crowing,' looks to me within the bounds of good faith. Consider opening up an WP:RFC/U if you have data to present. The space limitations of COIN don't allow room for complex cases to be handled successfullly EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, COI/N has no power to ban anyone. We try to resolve COI disputes by educating those accused in understanding and following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our objective is to turn them into constructive contributors. The place to take problems with editors who failed to abide by multiple levels of dispute resolution up through mediation is Arbcom or, if a user's conduct is so disruptive as to require urgent attention from an administrator, then Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents. However, it is unlikely that they will censure an editor over off-wiki activities that are not pursued disruptively on Wikipedia itself (although they may be taken as evidence against their "good faith").
    Please note, though, that disagreement over content is not a sin, unless it is exercised in a continuing disruptive fashion. I concur with Ed that the NET article to which you’ve linked appears unexceptional. The “crowing” appears to be chiefly over cold fusion being portrayed as “controversial” rather than “beyond the pale” – and I think no one disputes that it is indeed quite controversial. Unless you can provide diffs that clearly demonstrate evidence of contentious COI editing on Wikipedia, I’m afraid you have presented us with nothing to work with here. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This was brought to my attention.. ScienceApologist, why are you revealing the real world name of a user? Are you certain that this user has consented to be identified? A quick check of his current userpage does not show a disclosure, although I may have missed it. I would think that you would be particularly sensitive to the need not to out people. Please either demonstrate where this connection was made, or redact your connecting the users. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Evil Avatar

    Evil Avatar Edit History

    This article is repeatedly having edits reverted by an unregistered user of the name 'EvilAvatar'. Evil Avatar is a popular online gaming forum which recently had several administrators and a large segment of its user base depart for another site. Any edits mentioning this fact are being repeatedly reverted with the comment 'Please stop vandalizing this page!'

    It is highly likely that this user is Philip Hansen, the owner of the Evil Avatar website, given that the user is both using Mr. Hansen's online moniker and that this behavior is in-line with the way all mention of this split have been systematically expunged from his own site.

    Wikipedia, however, is not Mr. Hansen's personal webpage, and the repeated removal of relevant, verifiable information from a Wikipedia entry because he does not want it proliferated is not acceptable behavior.

    1. ^ [34]
    2. ^ [35]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=246168104"