Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:12, 7 January 2009

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:Kati Agócs Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Global Citizen Awards Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Elham Kashefi Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Masdar Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Ranker Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zerodur Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

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.

Leonard Sax

Resolved

– Fritzvonturin got banned as an WP:NPOV violating SPA. DarwinPeacock (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Sax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fritzvonturin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently removing material critical of Leonard Sax (sometimes without being logged into an account), rephrasing the critical claims to make them sound less negative or less persuasive, or immediately inserting rebuttals from Leonard Sax phrased in such a way as to sound like Leonard Sax disproved the negative claims against him. He is also flooding the article with positive reviews of Leonard Sax, sometimes by cutting out the critical material in a review and leaving only the positive components of it behind. (Consider, for example, this diff between my edits and his. Look at the explanation of the JAMA review near line 13: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_Sax&diff=259452499&oldid=259407824 . Also consider how he eviscerated the criticism section). Fritzvonturin's comments on the talk page make me believe that he is not making a good-faith attempt at creating an unbiased article. Please consider my proposal of what the article should look like on the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leonard_Sax&action=edit&section=4 . DarwinPeacock (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Harrison

Hubert Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been heavily edited by Perjef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is evidently Harrison's biographer Jeffrey B. Perry. The user has inserted a great deal of self-promotion for his work. Offenbach (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.Perjef (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Offenbach has apparently misleadingly altered the Offenbach comment of 03.28 25 December 2008. That original offering ”outed” me, complained that I contributed too much to the Hubert Harrison page (I note Offenbach has never made a contribution to the factual content of the page), and was part of an effort to censor the Harrison page on generalities because Offenbach “agreed” that he or she did not like how the page “feels.” I think if Offenbach has a new comment to add it should be entered (and timed and dated) as a new comment. I think it is important that in Wikipedia comments, as in Wikipedia pages, we pay attention to factual accuracy. I repeat my previous comment— “The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.” I don’t think the Hubert Harrison article should be censored based on Offenbach’s “outing,” feelings, or misleadingly altered comment above. Perjef (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hubert_Harrison" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjef (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Perjef is on Talk:Hubert_Harrison. No need to repeat everything here. Offenbach (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offenbach claims to have “altered” the initial Offenbach outing comment “after familiarizing myself with WP:OUTING so as to avoid any inappropriate dissemination of personal information.” I think this indicates one of the major problems with what has gone on. Offenbach should not have been so quick to “out,” so quick to “censor,” and so quick to “alter.” I think if more thinking would have been done in the first place many problems could have been avoided.

I think Offenbach improperly outed and improperly censored and I think that which was altered should have been reverted, or returned to a former state (no censoring and no outing), with a properly dated and timed comment indicating what was done.

If Offenbach would have proceeded with more caution Offenbach might have read in WP:COI that “When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline.”

What should have been done? I think that Offenbach should have started with an assumption of good faith on my part. I think that Offenbach’s behavior does not suggest an assumption of good faith. I think that Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists”; that “Editing in an area in which . . . one has . . . expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest” and, most importantly, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor.” I think if Offenbach would have proceeded in this way it would have been in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Offenbach acknowledges that “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Let me repeat that, “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Nevertheless, Offenbach jumped to a censoring tactic without any discussion with the author. I don’t think this was the correct way to proceed.

Offenbach offers as an explanation for the quick jump to censoring that the “self-citation in the article . . . seems excessive.” “Seems excessive”--that is a pretty illusory standard for imposing censorship. Is Offenbach familiar with the literature in the field? If so, why not enter some citations that Offenbach thinks are necessary ? (In fact, Offenbach was quick to censor an article to which Offenbach never contributed). I am familiar with the literature in the field and I think the works cited stand. Again, Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists” and should not have moved to censoring without discussion.

Regarding the talks about Harrison -- they are one of the principal means that people currently have to learn more about Harrison--many talks are in free public libraries (often in very poor communities). It is my assumption that many people go to Wikipedia when they want to find out about somebody or something and that they also use it to find out where they can get more information on the subject. Citing talks at free public libraries etc. is not (to use Offenbach’s original words) “a pretty clear” conflict of interest. I would like to see more such citations about other listings of talks by others on Harrison. I think that Offenbach is way off base on this.

The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate and makes a contribution It cites sources where people can get more information on Harrison. If Offenbach has more to add, good. But don’t censor the article for listing what is out there.

I think that Offenbach should remove the censor template. I think that the outing and the censoring are not in the best interest of Wikipedia.

Then, pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia.” I also think that Offenbach should realize that “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.”

My suggestion--Offenbach should remove the censor template that Offenbach imposed on the page and if Offenbach wants to discuss the page we can--and we can use existing Wikipedia channels if necessary.

Again, I think that the censor template should be removed --in the best interests of Wikipedia. Perjef (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the article, and I agree with Offenbach that there's a problem of excessive self-linking (as well as peacock wording and, despite the copious footnotes, very little specific sourcing).

The linkspamming - decidedly non-minor self-links added under the guise of minor edits - is also of interest. See [1],[2],[3],[4],[5]

The short answer - and it help if Perjef could keep discussion considerably terser per Talk guidelines - is that where there appears to be a conflict of interest, Perjef should follow WP:COI guidelines and let uninvolved editors make the call about inclusion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At 21:58 27 December 2008 Gordonofcartoon placed a COI template on a Hubert Harrison page that was COI template-free. (Another editor had taken down the Offenbach COI template asking the very legitimate question--"on what basis is this a COI?") Gordonofcartoon placed a new COI template on the Harrison page without any discussion with me despite citing me in a statement Gordonofcartoon made. As I previously quoted from Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest-“The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor . . . Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or a ban.” I do not think that Gordonofcartoons’s placing of a COI template on the Harrison article is in the best interest of Wikipedia, especially since Gordoncartoon did not cite one specific on the Harrison page when taking this action.Perjef (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thus far, when one cuts through all the words of the COI template-placers, the only specific about Harrison page content that has been objected to was Offenbach’s concern about a reference to talks on Harrison. I responded that talks “are one of the principal means that people currently have to learn more about Harrison--many talks are in free public libraries (often in very poor communities). It is my assumption that many people go to Wikipedia when they want to find out about somebody or something and that they also use it to find out where they can get more information on the subject. Citing talks at free public libraries etc. is not (to use Offenbach’s original words) 'a pretty clear' conflict of interest.” Perjef (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. No-one is obliged to discuss every edit with you (you might remember WP:OWN). It's also fine to add a template to alert others to an issue, even if you haven't edited a page yourself.

Frankly these Wikilayering essays, and general hostility to others' perception of the subject, look to me strong evidence that there is a problem of neutrality with this article. This is the reason COI has been raised: not to harass you.

PS Please don't duplicate every post here and on the Talk page; and also please indent your posts properly (this applies to Offenbach too). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordonofcartoons’ statement that “No one is obliged to discuss every edit with you” is a straw man argument. It is not what I said. I did not argue that every edit has to be discussed with me. Why Gordonofcartoon insists on carrying on discussion in this way I will leave for others to consider.

I have, however, pointed out that Offenbach and Gordonofcartoon threw up COI templates that mentioned me without following Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest, which states—“The first approach should be direct discussion with the editor . . . Using COI allegations to harass the editor or gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.“

Gordonofcartoon has twice made adhominem comments and twice tried to move discussion from the content of the Harrison page. Gordonofcartoon's most recent comment above tries to marshall “strong evidence” for “the reason the COI has been raised” not in the content of the Harrison page, but in Gordonofcartoon’s subjective characterization of other matters. I think that Gordonofcartoon should stop the adhominem comments and focus on the content of the Harrison page.

As I publish this entry now, I see that is what is finally being done. It should have been done in the first place. It is what I have tried to do and what I have encouraged others to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjef (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest, which states—"The first approach should be direct discussion with the editor . . .

You omitted what immediately follows: "Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN...", and this is commonly how conflict of interest problems are first raised.

focus on the content of the Harrison page ... As I publish this entry now, I see that is what is finally being done

That's what we all want, I hope. But it would help a lot if you took a less snarky attitude to others' perception of the situation - whether subjective or not. You're being defensive of the article. It's understandable. We know you're an authority on the topic. But Wikipedia has its own house style - of emphasis, citation format, relationship of authors to articles - that exists to steer articles toward neutrality in the difficult situation of open authorship. Recognising that, and not treating it as censorship/harassment, will make things go more smooothly. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not read the Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest guidelines as you do—and I think this particular matter might have been cleared up if you had attmpted to specifically cite what you thought applied. What you claimed "immediately follows" does not immediately follow.

The opening paragraph in “How to handle conflicts of interest” describes two measures that may be taken -- reporting on the noticeboard and using the user warning template. It then discusses “Dealing with suspected conflicted editors” and states unequivocally “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor. If this measure fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP: COIN . . .” It then states “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, . . . “

To me this clearly means what it says—when "dealing with suspected conflicted editors" “The first approach should be direct discussion with the editor.” I think this is a correct interpretation, I think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia.

To make this more clear—I read it as follows—when you "suspect" there is a conflict of interest “the first approach” should be to discuss it with the editor. Then, if persuasion fails, consider whether to go to dispute resolution or initiate discussion at WP-COIN. I find nothing in this that supports jumping to a COI Template first, before discussion, as was done in both COI Template instances regarding the Harrison page and I find something in it that does say the “first approach” should be discussion.

I actually think Wikipedia would run much better if the “first approach” were followed. What do you think?Perjef (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that the Hubert Harrison article is somewhat too laudatory and promotional about the subject, and has more links to the work of Jeffrey Perry than are strictly necessary. (It is not surprising that an author would be enthusiastic about the subject of his own work, but If an article reads like an entry in a publisher's catalog, it isn't neutral enough to suit Wikipedia). The article also uses some web sites as references for matters of fact that probably don't qualify as WP:Reliable sources under our policy. Since User:Gordonofcartoon is very experienced with Wikipedia COI issues, and has no reason to assess this article more severely than any other, I hope that User:Perjef is willling to work cooperatively with him to see how the article could be improved. A good place to begin having this discussion is at Talk:Hubert Harrison. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. I appreciate the tone of the EdJohnston comment — and I have a few questions?

In my last post on this page I offered my understanding (based on Wikipedia Guidelines as I understand them) for how suspect COI should be handled. Do you have an opinion on what I have said, on my opinion of how things should be done—in the best interest of Wikipedia? This is a straight-forward question?

Second, my assumption is that we all want to make Wikipedia as good as we can and we all want the Hubert Harrison page to be as good as it can be. (I note that I have consistently urged others to contribute to it and my comments have consistently been in a respectful tone.) That said, when you say the article “is somewhat too laudatory and promotional about the subject” and “has more links to the work of . . . than are strictly necessary” can you see how those concepts are a little hard to get a handle on? How many links “are strictly necessary?” Are there guidelines? What is too laudatory? Is it “too laudatory” to say that Hubert Harrison was an outstanding orator? He was. Personally, I would like to see a lot more concrete suggestions regarding the Harrison page and I would like to see more specifics if people are going to make such statements in Wikipedia discussions? What do you think? Do you think what I am saying is reasonable? Do you think this is in Wikipedia’s best interest? I do?Perjef (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. You should be working on the article Talk page with more experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure that the article meets all our guidelines. Gordon already added the banner about 'insufficient inline citations' which in my opinion is justified. See Talk:Hubert Harrison#Citation. I hope you'll work at responding more briefly in our discussions, since people have short attention spans here. Don't appeal to the best interest of Wikipedia, just make actual fixes to the article in response to suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jim Butler

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

Jim Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User is a practicing acupuncturist. He is currently too active in editing these articles and dominating talk page discussions in an attempt to minimize the mainstream understanding of acupuncture including the fact that there are criticisms of acupuncture for its pseudoscientific aspects and its lack of evidence basis. Indeed, uniquely among many editors on pseudoscience pages, we can be sure that Jim Butler stands to benefit monetarily (at his acupuncture practice) for preventing Wikipedia from reporting on the criticisms of acupuncture and related health items.

Currently, one of the pages he is editing List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts has been tagged by me to point out his specific conflict of interest (though there are others on that page as well). His current tactic seems politically tuned to making sure the criticism of acupuncture as a pseudoscience gets as marginalized as possible: in this case he argues for a separation of sources which is the subject of an ongoing RfC about his promotion of original research.

I'll also point out one of his most recent edits to acupuncture is obviously removing unfavorable opinions about acupuncture and spinning others into more positive opinions. The general consensus (as said by Edzard Ernst, for example) is that there is evidence that acupuncture may help with nausea, but that treatment for any and all other ailments is not based on evidence. Furthermore, the reliance on qi and associated meridians are generally considered pseudoscience, though Jim Butler is carefully guarding the article on acupuncture to prevent exposition of these points.

In short, this user should probably not be editing Wikipedia in these areas in the way he is doing.

ScienceApologist (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm an acupuncturist. I also have a science background, which gives me a unique perspective that has benefited some of our alt-med articles. And I wear my Wikipedia hat first when I edit, which is what makes me "merely" an expert editor, instead of one with COI. My edits and talk page conduct are good, as the respected admin and incoming Arbitrator User:Vassyana observed when dealing with another tendentious editor of skeptical bent. In fact, the vast majority of editors (including some really skeptical ones) with whom I collaborate have no objections to my editing, and some have left quite positive feedback (see my talk page, e.g. here and here). Off-wiki, of course, it doesn't matter whether I say I believe in invisible pink unicorns as long as I edit neutrally.

Now, chronic problem editor ScienceApologist is going after me because I've gone and disagreed with him on an RfC, here. I disagree with SA over sources that suffice to show scientific consensus, and the demarcation problem, and SA's "bulldozer" approach that eschews nuance (and which is on full display in this little attack-fest here). In fact, SA has made his mission clear: "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned."

The idea that I could make money from WP, even if I wanted to, is laughable. I practice acupuncture only part-time, edit very sporadically, and spend most of my time caring for my son, who has multiple disabilities. WP has lots of editors who edit in their professional areas. The vast majority, like me, understand WP policy and don't go trolling for clients. What we're seeing here is what happens when a garden-variety editor gets in the way of a chronic problem editor's crusade. No doubt, SA's approach and mine are quite different. Remember, to have COI, you have to have tendentious editing; now look which one of us repeatedly gets blocked:

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
Jim Butler (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

As for the edit to which SA objects above, I explained it in careful detail on the talk page. ScienceApologist could have, at any time, challenged my comments at the talk page. But this has never been about content; it's about SA playing out WP:GAME and WP:KETTLE. (Additionally, SA provides no evidence of my blocking anything, and distorts Ernst on evidence; for a summary, just head on over to acupuncture; skim the lead and then see this section.) thanks, Jim Butler (t) 12:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint is mistaken. An editor's vocation does not create a COI. COI is when an editor writes about themselves or their own organization, not their own field of work. Whether this matter may involve Wikipedia:Advocacy, a violation of WP:NPOV, is another matter. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mike Godwin editing Wikipedia with a COI

It would seem that this IP address 76.102.192.98 is none other than the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney, Mike Godwin. Is he not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines about self-interested editing on autobiographical articles and themes? -- He called me with jack high (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is he familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, but he knows how to distinguish guidelines from policies. You'd think he was a lawyer or something. MikeGodwin (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you know this how? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're seeing an admission that the IP and the named editor are the same. That answers the question from Riding Hood. For the first question, Mike Godwin does seem to be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. Is there anything more to do here? Were there any edits that anyone feels are inappropriate? EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if editors who are editing articles about themselves, or references to themselves in other articles, would log in so as to avoid the impression that they are avoiding scrutiny. The guideline calls for conflicted editors to declare their conflicts and preferably to limit themselves to making suggestion on talk pages. Guidelines are meant to be followed unless there's a good reason to ignore them. Wikimedia employees should set a good example in that regard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this edit removes from Wikipedia a "failed initiative" that Godwin apparently headed up. I didn't think Wikipedia was about biography subjects anonymously "sprucing up" articles so that their failures aren't mentioned, but rather, presenting the sum of human knowledge with a neutral point of view. And this edit appears to be a nice resume-building piece of puffery that nobody else saw fit to add to Wikipedia, but Mike Godwin did. Also, this edit removed what appears to be the wiki link to the Arabic Wikipedia version of the Mike Godwin article. I don't know the motive for that, but it didn't aid the Wikipedia projects, to be sure. Finally, this edit added a link to a commercial website, SuperLawyers.com, which is "a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement". One might argue that this is again more an act of PR puffery than encyclopedic enrichment for the average reader of Wikipedia. So, what are the next steps? We clearly have a Wikimedia staff member, if not abusing, then at least testing the limits of abuse of our project, thanks to the wiki-lawyering that "guidelines" need not apply to him. It's disturbing at least, if not offensive. -- He called me with jack high (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but which failed initiative are you asserting that Godwin headed up? MikeGodwin (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among all the diffs presented by you, which came with so much rhetorics, I can see one tiny little point that isn't obviously perfectly legitimate: Removal of the arabic interwiki link with no explanation. Rather than create a single purpose account for attacking Mike Godwin it would have been appropriate to assume good faith about this detail and ask him about this, worded nicely, and using your normal account. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I created this account over a week ago, so that I would have a "single purpose" a week later to "attack" Mike Godwin. He's such a vulnerable man, the attack was just so irresistible for this here single purpose account. You think you have the upper hand here by bandying about your aspersions, but in reality, the world is watching, and here's what they're saying:

I guess the concept that those in positions of authority are held to a higher standard or should avoid the appearance of impropriety is completely alien to culture of Wikipedia.
At Wikipedia, the rule is that those in a position of authority are eligible by virtue of their position to insist that they cannot be held to any standards, as the fact that they hold positions of authority is proof that they are responsible not to abuse them.

So, thank you, Hans Adler, for playing your role so perfectly. -- He called me with jack high (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming these were Mike it probably would have been ideal if he had just edited from his account for maximum transparency. The only content that has been removed is content that doesn't seem to be sourced. Moreoever, I cannot fine sourcing for the removed material. So there doesn't seem to be any issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your point, and I disagree with the assertions that there was anything sinister in Mike Godwin's editing. And it is true that it was unsorced and hence subject to summary removal from the current version. (Of course, if oversighted, that would be *bad*).

However, the whole purpose of having a COI ~~policy~~ guideline is to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing, to ensure people can trust the information in wikipedia. With out the trust of our readers we are fucked.

Our officers and staff should be held to a higher standard because of their visibility and notability has a disproportionate effect on that trust, that social contract, if you will.

The shenanigans that our officers find themselves in, however trivial or private, while comical to (most of) us, have indeed had serious consequences for the growth of the project, creating uncertainty and fear in potential donors, for example. All the bad press the COI stuff by Jimbo created, and it really did affect the support for Wikipedia. Some of us had almost cinched corporate gifts and had the funding people convinced and the it all went to hell "cause this Jimbo fellah is a joke, doesn't even follow his own rules". And not to mention the actual contents, of denying Larry etc, that really unbuilt trust. It took years to fix that, and Mike Goodwin and Jimbo Wales both know it. This is no longer a volunteer run, 250k a year one employee operation. This is a six million dollar a year multinational conglomerate. Our officers should step up to the seriousness of the crap mountain they are running - just like our logo is not a crappy ball with hand picked provocative text anymore, our officers shouldn't be going around pulling WP:IAR at will. Its about common sense and rationality, not rules...

I think we should setup a special process of COI-handling were even for trivial edits officers and staff of Wikimedia Foundation, volunteer or paid, would have to request changes to articles they have a COI instead of doing it themselves. It could be an open discussion, where the requests are picked much in the same way as an AfD or MedCab. It actually would be quite fun, and would have the added benefit that editors would feel "close" to the wiki celebrities. I would totally lurk to see the wikids fighting over the honors. Just a thought. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POST OF BANNED USER REMOVED -- Jehochman ^Talk 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, simple personal views, I do not want to be associated with your crowd. :D --Cerejota (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on his talk page reminding him to log into his account whenever he edits articles about himself in en.Wikipedia [6]. That should take care of this for now. Cla68 (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I believe in the value of anonymous edits, I often neglect to bother to log in to add or edit something. In addition, there's the risk that a logged-in edit by me will be interpreted as an OFFICE action, which I mostly try to avoid. Rather than attacking me for purported COI violations, it seems more logical to focus on whether the edits, considered in themselves, are good ones or bad ones. If the edit adds value to the article, then there shouldn't be a problem. If it detracts from the article, then it should be reverted. Once you remember to stick to these principles, a lot of the needless political thrash of Wikipedian editing goes away.MikeGodwin (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that, contra to what is said above, I don't recall ever editing any entry in Arabic Wikipedia. Since I don't read or speak Arabic, it would be hard for me to make such an edit with any competence at all. MikeGodwin (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, but didn't Godwin wikilawyer over at the start of the thread? Took me a while to realize, but LOL!

That said, we all agree with the sentiments expressed here, but in the same way there wouldn't be any shit if we didn't have assholes, it is not really a good argument. I am sad to say that WP:COI is a practical matter on par with the WP:BLP or WP:NLT, and cannot be bunched together with all the drama crap we have to deal with. And while I agree we have to go and make articles better, it is part of our responsibility to defend community consensus - we hate COI, and it is in the extremes where principles are tested: if we let this one slip, some journo is going to COI on purpose and raise a shitstorm over "preferential" treatment of our officers. It has happened before, as we all know. Once bitten, twice shy... I would think enlightened self-interest would make that point clear.

As to the confussion with office, perhaps a role account used only for Counsel actions? If its done for PR, why not Legal? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Aaron Wapniak

Article created and totally edited by a user whose original User name was User:Awapniak (They've now asked for a name change and it has been granted). I put a COI tag on the page and left a uw-coi notice on their Talk page, they removed the coi tag and I put it back and suggested that's not the right thing to do. They claim their edits are informational and not promotional. I don't disagree with the notability, just with the article being an autobiography. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI? Late December 2008

The contribution history [7] of user: Ojuelos seems to promote subjects that may be related to the new editor. Or maybe I'm wrong. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is hard to tell but both David A. Longanecker and WICHE are clearly copyright violations and I have nominated them for speedy deletion. ww2censor (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines

I'm trying to get the conflict of interest guidelines rewritten to be clearer in terms of what is allowable from people with conflicts of interest. At the moment they seem to allow most edits, but there are also several parts saying COI editing is strongly discouraged. It is not clear whether COI editing is generally unacceptable or only when it results in bad edits. This means the guidelines are not very helpful in terms of guiding people with COIs, which is surely their purpose. I have written a proposed revision of the guidelines, but because of my own conflict of interest I really don't want to make any kind of change without consensus. Please comment at User talk:Helenalex/coirewrite or on the conflict of interest guidelines talkpage. --Helenalex (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realgems.org - help!

Resolved

– No support for allowing links to realgems.org in WP articles. EdJohnston (talk)

Thanks to Wiki admin Vsmith I found this page to cry for help!

In short, simple words / facts:

My URL realgems.org is blocked since Dec 20th because I've placed too many links to my own website (about gems and their minerals): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/realgems.org

O.K. that's spam but I didn't know that such link additions to an interesting website are regarded as spam. I added links since July 2008 - without problems. Then, on Dec 20th I realized that all links (including those which were added by others, to me unknown people) were deleted.

I offered my personal input as Wiki editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vsmith) and to delete my own links. No chance :-((

100 dealers, collectors and institutions regard my site as valuable and support me in my project to show gems and their minerals photos and infos. That seems to be unique in this variety / richness.

Others added a lot of links to mineral pages ("projects") but were not regarded as spammers.

According to VSmith I shall show my constant support for Wikipedia (acting like an editor etc.) and then he would think about something like whitelisting or so. To my humble opinion Wikipedia is no company (in which employees can be pressed to increase their input) but an international, free encyclopedia, serving the world with informations. These infos shall not only include bare facts (e.g. about minerals) but also photos etc. which are obviously of interest for a lot of people: Since the Wiki blockade I have about 50% less visitors. That shows clearly the international interest in my website. Therefore I still hope that major Wiki admins will have a close look (e.g. on my extra pages about moldavite or amber) on my work.

Many thanks for heaving read this last effort to release my site from your "prison". Redberyl (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link additions to an interesting website are regarded as spam.

They're not. The spamming is when there's an edit pattern of adding multiple links to the same website; and if it's your site, COI guidelines are that you don't make the call for inclusion (and actively working to get inclusion http://www.realgems.org/info.html is definitely COI).

The main issue over inclusion is - even if the quantity is below spam level and someone else adds the links - whether it's up to Wikipedia standards as an external link (see WP:LINKS "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?")

Looking at http://www.realgems.org, I'd say it's considerably less useful/informative (a personal site, with limited facilities and of no general reputation) than mineralogy links already in use, specifically mindat.org.

To take a specific example where a link was removed: Quartz. Your site has one page - http://www.realgems.org/list_of_gemstones/quartz.html with a basic unreferenced description and a few dozen pictures. What can this really add to Mindat.org? (which has an extensive locality search, name search, and a main Quartz page with equally extensive physical and mineralogical data, fully referenced to books and academic papers, and 4500 photos of quartz). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re "interesting website": Before blacklisting I had a daily average of more than 200 visitors. Re my "info" page and "COI": I have to explain my visitors why my URL isn't listed anymore and that they cannot add links too.

Re "Wikipedia standards as an external link": My site is regarded as useful, tasteful etc. by a lot of people worldwide. How can you state that my site is "... of no general reputation"? Don't try to push me into a debate about scientific standards and don't compare my site with Mindat or other scientific sites. I never wanted (and cannot) to create such great sources for mineralogists like Mindat! Why should I copy facts from e.g. Mindat? For what? For another of all these scientific sites? Nonsense. My intention was and is to collect photos showing the various gemstone colors and types. That's not for scientists, logic. It's e.g. for someone who would like buying a tourmaline because his wife wishes one. At first he might have a look on Wiki, then finding my link, then finding my site, then being astonished that there exist other colors too than the usual green. Then making his wife happy. Same with sapphire e.g.

"Your site has one page - http://www.realgems.org/list_of_gemstones/quartz.html with a basic unreferenced description and a few dozen pictures. What can this really add to Mindat.org?" - I don't want adding something to Mindat! Mindat is for experts, my site is for gem lovers. That should be obvious, also for you.

Did you know btw that Jolyon Ralph, the Mindat chief, thinks positive about my project and supports me since months? He and me too never spent one thought about rivaly or a competition or such crap. I even agreed with Mindat to include my site when I'm out of this world one day. So I still think that my site has a right to exist somewhere on Wikipedia.

For whom do you think shall Wiki serve? Only for experts or also for normal people. Experts know Mindat and don't need Wiki for mineral search.

So please, admins, find a kosher way how my URL can be included. Thanks for reading, and happy 2009! Redberyl (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've given no adequate response to the comments by User:Gordonofcartoon. Your site does not compare favorably with Mindat.org; end of discussion. We do not have to link to everybody who wants a link. You have your business objectives, which are different from the goals of Wikipedia. I trust you do not complain to http://www.nytimes.com that they don't link to you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your level of discussion and solving probs is't mine. Bye. Redberyl (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Spookymarinara

Spookymarinara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User's edits over the past year have been exclusivly to articles involving the band The 88. Including the creation of Adam Merrin, which reads like a word-for-word copy of a press release. I can understand having a "favorite" set of articles, but to have edits revolving exclusivly around a specific band is highly suspicious. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio is an issue that can be dealt with on its own terms, but I can't see any evidence for a direct connection between editor and subject. Could be just No 1 Fan of The 88. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Yoga

There is a concern that this article was created to promote a particular advocate of this area of study. I put the article to AfD, but I think the subject is notable so I've moved to withdraw. If other editors could keep an eye on the article and maybe help clean it up and add broader sourcing I would be much obliged. Another editor has warned the article's creator about COI. I welcome any suggestions if there's a better way to handle this. Happy New Year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding details:

HID-IIY (talk · contribs)
Egyptian Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Babacar Khane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think given the general SPA nature and the self-created image uploads of Yogi Babacar Khane, an association at COI level looks likely (especially as "IIY" are the initials of his Institut International de Yoga and "IIY-HID" is part of one of its postal addresses).

The articles look very non-neutral, with little idea of WP:RS. User:Ronz asked for sources. HID-IIY: "The independent and reliable sources are the Ancient-Egyptian sources: you have just to look and see the representations of yoga postures in some Egyptian temples, graves and museums". FX: rolls eyes. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Babacar Khane has no need to be promoted by Wikipedia. He is wellknown throughout the world in the field of yoga. What I would put in evidence is only a new way to explain some aspects of the Egyptian civilization, not a yoga master in particular. But no matter if you decide to delete this article. The subject is very large for an Encyclopedic article.HID-IIY (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two in a row?

I saw a DYK nom that looked potentially promotional and this is the contribution history of the new user: [[8]]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be in the process of being addressed in various ways by various editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hasdell, User:ClaudioProductions

Lee Hasdell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ClaudioProductions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(I initially made a long description of the entire issue at WP:ANI (currently still there), but I'll just bring the COI-part here.

ClaudioProductions has written most of if not all of the Lee Hasdell article and has reverted all my attemps to clean up the article (problems are mainly related to WP:V/WP:RS and WP:NPOV), and basically taking ownership off it. Recently, while discussing the issues he told me:

Him being my father, I take this page very personally. I understand where your coming from but because I know a lot about him and his career its not like an average fan etc lol. So it bothers me when the page gets changed away from my liking. (diff)

I don't think an user with a conflict of interest who's main method of "taking care" of the article is blindly reverting other user's edits without explanation should be allowed to do so. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion - User talk:ClaudioProductions#Undoing edits - even ignoring the COI, it's a major case of WP:OWN, and he needs a cluebat about the WP:NOR policy too. It's not acceptable to include, long-term, unsourced material from personal knowledge, pending the finding of references. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and removed all unverifiable claims. Let's see what happens next. Any assistance on the page is welcome :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Sarkis by User:Sarkis26

I've opened an AfD on Stephanie Sarkis by User:Sarkis26. Though the article is well-written, cites some sources, and asserts notability, the name of the creating user makes me suspicious that this is an auto-biographical entry. I feel the purpose of the entry is to publicize her books, which is a clear violation of WP:COI. Liberal Classic (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WardXmodem (talk · contribs)

If you are thinking of WardXmodem, he only touched the CBBS article once, back in July. The article looks pretty neutral. I suggest that we may not need to open a COI thread for such a benign case. Someone should take out the 'I, Ward Christensen..' comment from the Reference section. And if there really was an article in the Chicago Tribune in February, 2003, I hope the reference can be found. Google did find another article by Julian Sanchez, who credits Christensen as co-inventor of the BBS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pendulum - A Tragedy of 1900 Vienna and Alexander Fiske-Harrison

Jo Self

Jo Self (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joselfartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just entered an edit war with this user about the COI tag being placed in this article. The user claimed in an earlier edit that he was the subject of the article, but when I recently readded the COI tag, he claimed that he was not the subject. Just now he claimed that he Ralph, whoever that is. I need some persuasion to convince the user that he is editing with a conflict of interest and the tag should remain on the article until it gets cleaned up more. Themfromspace (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is now edit warring to remove the tags again. I have reinstated and posted to the talk page, but have received no response. Dayewalker (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't look too bad, but we can't let this editor keep reverting the proper tags. I left a note, asking him to join this discussion, and warning him he can be blocked for WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:GTTP2009 and Grand Trunk Terminal Project (Portland, Maine)

Here's some recent contrib. history [9]. The article seems rather promotional as well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the contrib.history says 'created our page', referring to the user page. I note that Portlandrailauth (talk · contribs) created the GTTP article. dougweller (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These editors may need gentle counseling. {{uw-coi}} was created for this purpose. I'd only consider sanctions if they persisted in violating WP:COI and WP:NPOV after they had been told about them. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already done that for GTTP2009, the only active editor. I agree. dougweller (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went looking for sources and couldn't find any. The proposal for the project ins't anticipated for months. I've nominated the article for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Trunk Terminal Project (Portland, Maine). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:74.170.17.64

I noticed an odd change in an article about Calea zacatechichi in way that completely changed the meaning of the section using only one word (not) to misinform the reader. Curious as to when and how the article got changed I checked its history, found his edit, I went through his history of edits and he is blatantly advertising or being misleading toward products he sells. In fact a bot removed links to his personal website which I suspect sells these products. If someone could investigate this and take the appropriate action I'd appreciate it. Opensourcefuture (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hayatdurrani

Hayatdurrani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has created article Hayatullah Khan Durrani, attempted to change George Oakes into an article about himself [10] and has now created a category in which his article is the only entry and the category page itself has a large picture of him and the article - :Category:Pakistani Cave Explorer & mountain climbers - Template:Lc1 dougweller (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cityofsinnersandsaints

Cityofsinnersandsaints (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created, and continuously removed CSD notices from, a number of articles related to his/her company and software. Apart from the obvious conflict of interest, the user has ignored multiple warnings (including final warnings). The relevant articles are:

-- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Murtagh

This afternoon there was an edit on Tony Murtagh which removed links critical of the subject and replaced them with positive links. The edits came from 91.143.70.161 which turns out to be a PR agency, PHA Media. This makes me suspicious that Murtagh is one of their clients. There haven't been any other edits from that IP address, but the agency do have a fixed range, 91.143.70.160 - 91.143.70.167. Hopefully this will be their own foray into this sort of behaviour, but it would be remiss of me not to flag it somewhere. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Campbell (journalist) - should be an easy one to clear up

Stuart Campbell (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
83.67.217.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We're having trouble with this article with an editor ((83.67.217.135 (talk))) who seems to want to break WP:OR in order to break WP:NPOV. The issue is thus: Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman". The FairPlay campaign encouraged a boycott of games buying in the UK during the first full week of December. The campaign website claims that there was a "big sales blip during the campaign week which saw Game, Europe's biggest videogame retailer, lose a massive 80% of its share value overnight in response to disappointing sales". It also claims "When the campaign was over, sales shot up again, just as we said they would". [11] Taking these claims at face value, they are all either false or unverifiable. Sales blip: Game's sales figures for the weeks surrounding the boycott are not available. 80% of share value lost overnight: verifiably false using historical share price information. And sales shooting up again: again, no sales figures are available.

It is true, however, that GAME did issue a profit warning on 17th December 2002. News articles ([12] [13]) blame this on a price war with Argos and Dixons. The share price did drop on this profit warning, which came on 17th December (just over a week after the end of the boycott). In order to get close to the "80% overnight" claim, we have to interpret "80%" as "70%", and "overnight" as "15 days". Now, obviously, if we include this information and link it to the boycott, it would be synthesis (WP:OR). What 83.67.217.135 wants to do is to include all this information in the section about the boycott, but not to explicitly link it to the boycott, which he considers not to be a breach of WP:OR. The other editors concerned in the debate all think that to mention one after the other like this implies a link. 83.67.217.135 thinks that this will allow the reader to determine for themselves the "notability" of the campaign. To read this debate, simply scroll to the bottom of the talk page for article in question.

It seems to me that the only reason to include information on a share price relating a claim made on a website for a campaign that the subject of the article is not particularly closely linked with, is to push the POV that the boycott was a success.

As can be seen from the history of the article, 83.67.217.135 considers himself the "owner" of the article, reverting others' changes whenever he disagrees with them, sometimes with an edit summary such as "what the fuck is wrong with you?". From the talk page you can see that he will not listen to other editors, considering himself to be the ultimate authority on what changes are allowed to be made. He has had to be warned about civility on several occasions (indeed, he has recently called me a liar, ignoring me when I show that what I have said is true).

Frustratingly, this debate would probably not be occurring if 83.67.217.135 would declare the WP:COI that he seems to have. He refuses to confirm his identity, or rule anything out. He has almost certainly used at least one sockpuppet on the talk page. With deference to WP:OUTING, examining his contributions reveal that he is almost entirely concerned with mentions of the name 'Stuart Campbell' on wikipedia. His writing style and way of treating people is recognisable from other websites. Yet this article cannot currently be changed without his say-so, as he will just revert the change.

All we really need is a few more than the 3 or 4 editors we currently have to come along and chat for a few minutes. Maybe you will all agree with him, but at least the debate will be resolved. Please do help - it could all be resolved so easily and quickly! Thank you. Jumble Jumble (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint has nothing to do with CoI, and is in fact clearly about an edit war. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there editors standing by, wanting to improve the article, who are prevented from doing so by the IP? If you can make a case for that, it might justify temporary semi-protection. The single event from 2002 that may not be correctly cited is one thing, but I'd like to know if there are broader changes to the article you would recommend. The IP is not required to identify himself, but if he has engaged in a pattern of promotional editing, the usual COI sanctions will apply to him anyway. This editor's personal attacks on others are unlikely to win him much sympathy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself of course, but there are quite a few changes and improvements that can be made to the article (although I think that the heavy debate behind the scenes has already made it quite robust) and I would be interested in making them - but as it stands, this user will revert any change he does not agree with. This has gradually worn away at the number of editors willing to invest their time in it - and indeed I have now confined myself to the talk page, as any edits I make to the main article (including the addition of the COI tag!) just get reverted. We have in the past had a lot of interested editors (certainly, a lot appeared to ask for the article to be kept when it was under the AfD) who would hopefully return when this bottleneck eases. Jumble Jumble (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to reword to more neutral stance, add disclaimers, and remove - where necessary - the worst unsourced statements of the promotional style content in the article, but been repeatedly reverted, when trying where possible to compromise, by the editor in question, for what it's worth. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, does anyone object to six months of semi-protection? I will leave a notice at the article Talk that this has been proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested full protection for the page several days ago, which was not granted on the grounds that recent events were simply an edit war representing nothing other than difference of opinion (a fair assessment in my view). Semi-protection seems unlikely to have any effect other than to allow Jumble Jumble to one-sidedly return to making the specific POV edits that he has repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought consensus for (often on spurious grounds not unlike this inappropriate use of CoI procedure for a non-CoI matter). He has a long history of negative attacks on this page, including blanking it, unsuccessful AfDs, unsuccessful attempts to delete whole sections, and unilateral deletions reverted by numerous other editors as well as myself. A pseudonym is no less anonymous and no more trustworthy than an IP address. I therefore request either full protection for the current version of the page, or no action. Semi-protection is in effect taking sides, and will not resolve the issue. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, to attempt to allay any fears of vandalism or POV editing, if the semi-protection goes ahead then I will make sure to discuss all nontrivial edits on the talk page and gain agreement before putting them in the article. I would expect MysteryReporterX to suddenly become a lot more active, though. Is full protection just "no edits"? Because as it stands, the article is fully reverted to all of 83.67.217.135's preferences (due to no-one else being able to make an edit stick). Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather the page was fully protected with a version that's least disputed [14], I think there are some very misleading statements in the article, without proper citations, but at least this version has disclaimers. But a semi-protection would be better than nothing, I just hope more action is taken along with that to prevent the CoI/disruptive editor from signing up and/or creating various sockpuppet accounts and continuing their present behavior. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at this article lately and yes the IP seems to claim ownership over it, especially with the implementation of several "proposals" on the article's talk page. While a conflict of interest may be suspect, I think it'll be hard to prove in this case. Maybe this should be posted on another board to get the article the attention it deserves. Themfromspace (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I claim no ownership whatsoever. I've been editing the page since March 2006 and have had no issues with many scores of edits made to it by various people. There are two (possibly one - I suspect sockpuppetry between Jumble Jumble and an IP editor, whose arguments and writing styles are near-identical) editors pursuing dubious agendas here (Jumble Jumble's Wiki history consists almost exclusively of edits to this entry and might equally be accused of 'ownership'), and making entirely false claims on the talk page and in edit summaries. I have defended the entry against their vandalism in a couple of very specific areas. I'm not aware of that breaching any Wiki rules. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume I'm the IP editor being referred to here, I'd appreciate it if an admin could run a check just to clarify for everyone involved that I'm not a sockpuppet. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 83.67. If your position is that *you* don't have a COI, allow us to take that under advisement. I'd be more interested in hearing why you just decided today to restore the entire paragraph about a change in the GAME stock price which you attribute to the FairPlay boycott. This claim has been challenged above as being badly sourced. Perhaps you can respond to the arguments that Jumble Jumble offered at the top of this section. To the extent that you try to magnify the role and importance of Stuart Campbell, you seem to be doing promotional editing. As stated above, 'Stuart Campbell has a verifiable involvement in the FairPlay campaign, to the extent of "supporter" and "spokesman"'. I notice that there was a poll on the article talk page in which there were three Opposes and one Support to including the mention of GAME's stock price. (You were the only Support vote). Yet you restored this paragraph against Talk page consensus. That does not seem like good-faith editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the section because as far as I can see it obeys Wiki guidelines and *no valid case has been made for its removal*. It is clearly not "badly sourced" - the sources are the BBC and Yahoo Finance. It is not "promotional" as it makes no assertions about the issue in question, merely reports the facts. I do not regard the Talk page "consensus" as valid for reasons noted above - discounting what as far as I'm concerned is clear POV vandalism, the vote was 1:1, in a sample far too small to be significant in any case. That's just my opinion, of course. But I don't believe vandalism should be allowed to stand just because the vandal is persistent. Jumble Jumble has never made a constructive edit to the entry, and has a long history of trying to remove it either entirely or piece by piece, showing no interest in any other page of Wiki. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made many "constructive" edits to the entry. Someone else might be able to respond to your assertion that we must provide a valid case for removal of contentious content and not the other way around. You're arguing ad hominem almost exclusively. As I have said many times now, I am abiding by the outcome of the AfD. Removing contentious information that is agreed by several editors to be in breach of several Wikipedia guidelines and/or policies is constructive (with the exception of my earlier blanking of the page, which was due to a misunderstanding on my part of the wording of WP:BLP and for which I apologise). Finally, why do you constantly bring up the fact that my edit history is largely concerned with this entry? The main difference between our edit histories is that while Stuart Campbell (journalist) is the article with which I am currently primarily concerned, he is the person with which you are. Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the entry is not contentious. It is notable, relevant and fully, reliably sourced. Your *interpretation* of it is contentious, but your interpretation is not based on anything actually present in the text. Until it can be demonstrated that it contravenes Wiki rules, there are no valid grounds for removing it, and you have consistently failed to do that. Repeatedly asserting it is not the same as demonstrating it. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to clarify: in this instance, I'm using 'contentious' to mean 'subject to much disagreement'. I've detailed how I think it breaks the rules in the original post in this thread. Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't. You've detailed why you think the GAME share price fall was caused by issues other than FairPlay. But the entry doesn't claim that FairPlay caused the drop. It notes that FairPlay claimed a link - a claim which in itself is notable and sourced - and includes the details of what they were claiming a link with. There is no implication other than the one you've imagined, and the fact that you yourself present the content of the article as evidence DISPROVING FairPlay's claim seems to demonstrate that beyond any reasonable dispute. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's there in the article at all is in iteself an implication, if there was no connection between FairPlay and the share price drop then why would this otherwise irrelevant information be in the article at all? Let alone right next to details of a boycott that would have the potential to damage to company. Clearly this is an attempt to subvert WP:OR by failing to explicitly state any link whilst implying that there is one by the mention of it alone. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not this cobblers again. "The fact it's there in the article at all is in iteself an implication" is nonsensical. FairPlay made a specific, dramatic and contentious claim, and the accurate information (which contradicts that claim to at least some extent) is included as reference. Once more - that this specific information has been used as evidence AGAINST FairPlay's claim clearly shows that its presence is neutral.83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to continue your content dispute arguments. Take it to the article's talk page...and stop edit warring while the discussion takes place. Yes, that means someone is going to have to temporarily be dissatisfied with allowing the wrong version to remain. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I have repeatedly requested that edits be discussed rather than edit-warred, but the two editors arguing here persist in editing, while also making untrue edit summaries. I also noted that this was an edit war rather than a genuine CoI issue, to no avail. I will make no further comment on this page. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're in favour of discussion rather that edit-warring, provided it's your preferred version that's the current one. Note you were the last editor to revert, and edits from the other side of the argument have softened to try and find a middle ground by adding disclaimers rather than removal, but you've just reverted those too. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is you've requested, you've nonetheless continued to edit-war. Don't try to push the blame around. Both sides here appear to be editing with blatant POVs to push. Neither seems unwilling to stop warring while discussion takes place. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that. But the page had been stable for a considerable time before the sudden appearance of undiscussed edits noted by demonstrably, unarguably untrue summaries, and I've been reverting it to the previous stable version while discussion of those edits was ongoing. I'm in no way absolving myself of involvement in an edit war, I'm equally guilty and I openly described it as such. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to mention, but I have actually left the article as it is after the other user's last reverts. And I don't have a POV to push, I just want to clean the obvious bias out of the article (in line with what other editors have been trying to do), I'm not adding any POV assertions. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm not edit warring! I made a couple of minor edits today (adding the COI tag which has been removed again by the IP in question), and before that my last edit was on 29th October. I've been discussing things on the edit page. In the end, any edit not by the IP will turn into an edit war, as he will revert it.Jumble Jumble (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another anonymous IP, so my opinion might be disregarded by some here, but I have been casually on-off editing since 2005 or so, I only get involved to this extent when an I get a notice I've been reverted or such, and feel it was unjust and get dragged into debates like this. Just getting that out in the open. Anyway, I can only support the comments being made against the other anonymous IP editor, who blatantly has some sort of particular issue with this article, at least two editors (Jumble Jumble and Dreaded Walrus) that opposed them have been driven off trying to improve the article due the constant reverts and - on occasion - abuse from the editor in question to devote their efforts elsewhere. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your history shows you as arriving on Wiki three weeks ago, and being concerned almost solely with this entry. It's my suspicion, based on edit pattern and wording, that you are in fact Jumble Jumble and therefore in breach of sockpuppetry rules. You are *certainly* in breach of the rules about edit summaries, having made flagrantly untrue claims in edit summaries on this entry. You persistently, for example, claimed "consensus" for the removal of the "historian" label, despite everyone on the talk page having at that point been in agreement that the term should stay. I note that you are still editing that passage even after talk-page discussion showed no consensus or majority for removal or alteration, exactly the thing you're accusing me of doing. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have a dynamic IP, it changes every once in a while. I welcome any admin to clarify for you that I'm not a sockpuppet of Jumble Jumble. The historian label was widely regarded as inappropriate prior to various editors losing interest in the article, and in Dreaded Walrus' case, leaving due to your persistant disruptions. The current consensus is a 50/50 split between removing the label and keeping it. With this in mind I added a ^{[dubious – discuss]} template to the statement being discussed until the a consensus was reached one way or the other. I feel this was the appropriate course of action at this time. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the untrue edit summaries? 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why stating that the consensus to remove the historian label was not incorrect. There was very strong consensus to remove it previously, currently there is a 50/50 split. At the time of the edit, JumbleJumble and yourself were the only other active editors and Jumble had ceded to you to let it remain, that is not a strong consensus that it should be kept. --88.108.243.214 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of your change, the only people who'd been discussing it within a couple of months were MartinHogbin and Jumble Jumble. They agreed (13 November 2008) wit the previous argument that the term should stay. That is 100% consensus, with NOBODY remaining who disputed the term. You, however, claimed that there was "consensus" for removal. By any definition whatsoever, that is absolutely untrue - in fact the precise opposite of the truth - and a serious breach of Wiki rules. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to request an IP check, to get this part of the debate out of the way as quickly as possible. Does anyone know how to properly request it? Jumble Jumble (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need for an IP check. These checks are not granted to prove innocence because they are not conclusive for that purpose anyway. From the testimony of various editors, it's a self-evident case for semi-protection, in my view. There is enough bad faith on display here to prove the case. An editor who is a party of one and has no supporters on the Talk page needs to argue extra-loud if he is going to win. I think that's what he is trying to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:EuroHostels

EuroHostels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created blatant advertising page at Euro Hostels and User:EuroHostels, CSD request done but this obviously a spammer SPA Cerejota (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reported them to [[Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention|UAA], who banned the account. I also spam tagged the user page which was deleted. --Blowdart | ^talk 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:DickLyon

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User Dick Lyon admits to being a personal friend of Lynn Conway in many places, here is a link to one such admission. Lynn Connway started an investigation into the story behind the publication of the book The Man Who Would Be Queen. The book dealt with the topics of various forms of male feminity, homosexuality, and transsexuality. In the book Bailey applied a hypothesis due to Ray Blanchard that categorizes transsexuals as either autogynephilic or homosexual. Conways investigation eventually lead to her filing complaints that the author of the book J. Michael Bailey, had sex with a research subject, and practiced clinical psychology without a license. In the face of all this Dick Lyon as Connway's personal friend writes "I agree with you that Conway did not accuse a book of having sex; she also didn't accuse Bailey." Which in light of all of the above is clearly patent nonsense. DickLyon's personal friendship with Lynn Conway has IMO caused him such a conflict of interest that he cannot neutrally edit this or any related article, or participate on the talk pages in a productive manner. Hfarmer (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is still at it removing content praphrased from a reliable source and claiming that it is not well sourced, or he cannot see where it is in the source. The diff of what he removed The source given for what he removed. when what he is talking about is paraphrased from the personal website of the person the BLP is about.(For a BLP a persons own publications are a reliable source of biographical facts.) He had recused himself from editing the actual article, now he has crossed the line into editing it again. Please help.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Still at it"? This complaint is based on the single revert that I did on Lynn Conway after Hfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) exceeded my tolerance for snipy little BLP violations, and on my talk comments pointing out HFarmer's biased and inaccurate editing of this and related controversial articles. Conway is not the person who accused Bailey of having sex with his research subject; it would be correct to say that she witnessed a complaint. As H says, I have always admitted that Lynn Conway is a long-time personal friend; she was my boss back in the 1970s. My frienship with her motivates my defense of her article against BLP violations, but I do not otherwise have any COI problem; others are invited to check up on this. The persons with much stronger connections to the controversies, both the academics sexologists like User:James Cantor, friends of Bailey like User:Hfarmer, transsexuals like User:Hfarmer and User:Jokestress, alies of Cantor and Bailey like User:ProudAGP and User:WhatamIdoing, are the real COI problems. Dicklyon (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Hfarmer has also admitted to being friends with both Bailey and the lady who accused him of having sex with her when she was his research subject (I can search for the diff on request, or if she denies it). So if being friends is a COI, it's the WP:POT. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Renzetti

Joe Renzetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article was written by Joseph Renzetti (talk · contribs), who appears to be a marginally notable Wikipedian. Probably about half of the article is unverifiable. I thought the correct approach would be to tag the article as an autobiography, and did so back in August. However, Renzetti has insisted on removing the tag from the article, and I want to avoid edit warring. I also do not like to see Wikipedia used for self-promotion. What is the best way to resolve this? Can I treat the removal of legitimate tags as obvious vandalism? Should I pursue deletion? Try to fact-check and neutralize the article? Wronkiew (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what to do about the tag removal issue, but I did find a cite for the Academy Award and added it to the article. (It was definitely not easy to find an independent reliable source for this.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 400: / Line 400: @@
 :::::::::::::You're in favour of discussion rather that edit-warring, provided it's your preferred version that's the current one. Note you were the last editor to revert, and edits from the other side of the argument have softened to try and find a middle ground by adding disclaimers rather than removal, but you've just reverted those too. --[[Special:Contributions/88.108.243.214|88.108.243.214]] ([[User talk:88.108.243.214|talk]]) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 :::::::::::::Whatever it is you've requested, you've nonetheless continued to edit-war. Don't try to push the blame around. Both sides here appear to be editing with blatant POVs to push. Neither seems unwilling to stop warring while discussion takes place. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::I accept that. But the page had been stable for a considerable time before the sudden appearance of undiscussed edits noted by demonstrably, unarguably untrue summaries, and I've been reverting it to the previous stable version while discussion of those edits was ongoing. I'm in no way absolving myself of involvement in an edit war, I'm equally guilty and I openly described it as such. [[Special:Contributions/83.67.217.135|83.67.217.135]] ([[User talk:83.67.217.135|talk]]) 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::::I wasn't going to mention, but I have actually left the article as it is after the other user's last reverts.  And I don't have a POV to push, I just want to clean the obvious bias out of the article (in line with what other editors have been trying to do), I'm not adding any POV assertions. --[[Special:Contributions/88.108.243.214|88.108.243.214]] ([[User talk:88.108.243.214|talk]]) 20:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 :::::::::::::::Hey! I'm not edit warring! I made a couple of minor edits today (adding the COI tag which has been removed again by the IP in question), and before that my last edit was on 29th October. I've been discussing things on the edit page. In the end, any edit ''not'' by the IP will turn into an edit war, as he will revert it.[[User:Jumble Jumble|Jumble Jumble]] ([[User talk:Jumble Jumble|talk]]) 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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