Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Draft talk:Abdulla Al Nuaimi Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Monica Behan Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Shmuley Boteach Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Eric Gallager Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Global Citizen Awards Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Greystar Talk:Harsco Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Jats Talk:Christian Kälin Talk:Elham Kashefi Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Ranker Talk:Reworld Talk:Rivulis Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Martha G. Welch Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

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.

Edwards Rail Car Company (1997-2008)

Resolved. Stale. User is not active and offending edits have been removed. Workaround for OR provided. -- samj _in^out 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Edwards Rail Car Company (1997-2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by Steve torrico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mr. Torrico is or was president of this organization, and continually removes content without explanation or edit summary, despite evidence presented on the articles talk page of why this information is relative to the articles subject.

Specifically, he removes content relative to EIKON International, which is clearly a company related in some manner to Edwards (see articles talk page for evidence)).

He had previously received a COI warning, and has just received a warning about removal of content without explanation. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has already been warned, so I'll watch the page for any more suspicious edits. Themfromspace (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon looking over the edits, although the account's intentions might not have been the best, Wikipedia articles do generally tend not to discuss other companies than the one in the article. I have reremoved the mention to the company in the lead. This can be interpreted as undue weight and/or promotion. I'll still watch the article for any suspicious editing. Themfromspace (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Would the inclusion of this information at another point in the article (near the end?) be more appropriate? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it would be appropriate unless there has been adequate coverage of this similarity in the press. Themfromspace (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) These 2 firms have received very little press.

After much checking, the only 3rd party reference to the companies interrelation I can find is a company profile that lists the address for Edwards, which is the exact same address that EIKON lists on their website as their physical address ( I believe we can trust a company to be truthful as to their own address).

Would this finding be Original research?

If not "Original Research", would this, and the 2 companies extremely similar lines of products and services, be enough 3rd party reference to tie the 2 together? Would it at least qualify for a see also as a company with a very similar product line?? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be considered original research, since it requires a synthesis of information that requires logic to put together. Wikipedia can not report that 2+2=4 in an article unless it's already been documented, no matter how logical the conclusion is. I don't think it would qualify as a "see also" link either, since Wikipedia generally does not link to other articles until a connection has been established by sources. Themfromspace (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement ("EIKON International appears to be a related or successor company.") is original research. This statement ("EIKON emerged in 2008 as Edwards Rail Car Company ceased production of railcars at the [same] Montgomery location.") is not, but should be referenced nonetheless.

It does appear the User:Steve torrico has a COI and is attempting to conceal a link, but it could also be true that the original research is in fact false. -- samj _in^out 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stale? -- samj _in^out 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories

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.

---

Resolved

 – moot, editor has been topic-banned from related articles, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Proposed_restrictions_on_PJHaseldine below

• PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) is a proponent of one or more theories covered by Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (article previously named "Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103"), and also repeated in related articles such as Bernt Carlsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His COI over these articles goes back to a socket puppetry case over this article as well as his own biography. A COI case was opened back then, which resulted in him being blocked for a period, as well as agreeing with WP administrators to abide by WP guidlines for making COI edits. However it seems that the agreement has now been cast aside, as we're back in a situation where he is making COI edits to the Pan Am Flight 103 related articles. Part of the issue is that he's been partially successful in the past in using WP as a soapbox - for example, the Scotsman newspaper cut/paste his POV content from this article verbatim some months ago, thereby giving it some mileage (which was promptly self-referenced in the article in an attempt to meet WP's verifiability requirements). However his theory is not published or referenced by any reliable sources, and therefore is being given undue weight as well as being original research. In other words, he has a very strong COI to keep pushing his theory via this article here at WP, as is evident by his track record of ignoring repeated requests/reminders on associated talk pages to follow COI guidlines. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is an ongoing COI issue with the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories and Bernt Carlsson articles, it is one that Socrates2008 (talk · contribs) himself has to address. He is a South African editor who does not want to acknowledge the possibility that apartheid South Africa could have been responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. My recent edits to these articles followed his wholesale clean up, for which I congratulated him.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To anyone who may not understand the insult made above, Mr Haseldine is attempting by his comment above to portray me as (racist) apartheid-lover. Please don't let him distract you from his self-stated COI over this article and others related to it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

From Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories:

I have no COI over this article. However, Socrates2008 appears to have one - see this COI discussion.---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's quickly summarise your lack of COI, shall we:

• You have a personal alternate/conspiracy theory that you have been pushing in multiple WP articles (Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, Bernt Carlsson, Bankole Timothy, Pan Am Flight 103, Patrick Haseldine, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, your user page), via your blog, here, from the UK government petitions website (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) and other internet locations.
• You've been using Wikipedia as your personal website, by maintaining the primary content here that you continue to link to from multiple Internet websites. You therefore have a very strong COI in keeping this content up for all these external links you've created, and for the subject matter to reflect your own POV. Some of this info you have been publishing at WP has been driven from main article space by other editors, but you continue to flaunt WP policies by publishing it on the talk pages instead. (e.g. External links from here and here to here and from the UK government petitions site (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) to here).
• You and your theory are not mentioned by any reliable, verifiable sources. (Try searching Google books - nothing). So there are issues of weighting and original research over your theory vs others that are well-published.
• You've been representing your theory as fact in the WP articles you've been editing.
• You added and defended citations to the Scotsman newspaper, despite knowing that they had cut/paste your WP edits.
• You've used multiple accounts in the past to try to hide your edits and to give the impression of consensus when your POV has been challenged. Yes, the socket puppetry now appears to have stopped, but it still illustrates the depth of your COI.
• You continue to make COI edits to your own theory in articles such as this one and this one, despite repeated requests (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ) to follow COI guidlines.
• You have been edit warring with other editors when your COI/POV content has been removed. (e.g. here)
• You are the only person who has been expanding your theory in various WP articles over the past 24 months.
• You have now gone back on your own word in a previous COI case where you agreed with Administrators not to make further COI edits.
• You edited my first post above to replace Bernt Carlsson with Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, in an apparent attempt to limit the scope of this COI case.
• You have been attacking other editors such as myself that are pointing out your COI, in an attempt to distract attention away from yourself. (e.g. here and here)

So, do you still say you have no COI over the Pan Am 103 conspiracy theories? In answer to your allegation of my own COI, I challenge you firstly to provide the edits; secondly I call your bluff - I will happy sign up for a topic ban across all Pan Am 103 related articles if you do... Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Between 23 and 25 February 2009, Socrates2008 made a total of 39 edits to the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article. His WP:clean up of the article was necessary and long overdue, and I congratulated him for it.

However, Socrates managed to misrepresent - whether deliberately or not - the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory. In particular, he was wrong to say "More recently, the theory has been expanded by Patrick Haseldine from the original version where the South Africans had only been forewarned of the bomb, to one were they were actively involved in its placement. The alleged motive was to assassinate United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, and thereby prevent the transitioning of Namibia to independence. Haseldine cites the following unconnected events to explain his theory here."

As is clear from this discussion on Arthur Rubin's talk page, my alternative theory was first publicised on 7 December 1989, thus pre-dating many of the perhaps more aptly named conspiracy theories.

I therefore corrected Socrates' edits to the South-West Africa (Namibia) section, as follows: "According to another theory, apartheid South Africa was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103. The theory is rooted in an allegation made in the film the The Maltese Double Cross and by Die Zeit that the United States government knew of the bomb and warned staff from its embassies in Helsinki and Moscow, as well as a high-level South African delegation, to avoid the flight.[36] Someone allegedly contacted the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland 16 days before the bombing, warning of a bomb on a Pan Am aircraft departing Frankfurt for the US; none of the staff at the Moscow embassy took the flight, despite it being a popular route for them over Christmas.[6] The allegation prompted a strong statement from the then South African Foreign Minister, Pik Botha, (made by his private secretary in November 1994) stating: 'Had he known of the bomb, no force on earth would have stopped him from seeing to it that flight 103, with its deadly cargo, would not have left the airport'."[37][6]

"Initial allegations of South African responsibility for the bombing were made in a series of letters by former British diplomat, Patrick Haseldine, that were published in The Guardian newspaper between December 1989 and December 1993.[38][39] Haseldine did not accept that the South Africans had simply been forewarned of the bomb, but were actively involved in its placement. The alleged motive was to assassinate United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, and to frustrate Namibia's progress towards independence from South African rule. Haseldine cites a number of related events to support his theory:[40]

• Signing of the Namibia independence agreement on 22 December 1988 (the day after the Lockerbie bombing) at UN headquarters.
• Cancellation at short notice of a booking on PA 103 by a 23-strong South African delegation, headed by foreign minister Pik Botha, and including defence minister Magnus Malan and director of military intelligence General C J Van Tonder.
• The last-minute change of travel plan by Bernt Carlsson. Instead of flying direct from Brussels to New York on December 20, Carlsson was persuaded by a representative of De Beers to stop over in London the following day and to join the PA 103 transatlantic flight."[41][42]

"He also links a version of his South-West Africa (Namibia) theory to the Joe Vialls "radio detonation" theory."

I stand by this version of the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory in preference to the incorrect one made by Socrates2008 (to which Arthur Rubin has reverted).

Wikipedia editors each have their own subjects of interest and expertise. As a British Wikipedian, my main subject of interest (and expertise) is the Lockerbie bombing. As befits a South African editor, Socrates2008 shows a great interest in South African battles and in aircrashes. His compatriot, Deon Steyn, also concentrates on South African military-related subjects. Neither editor seems to accept that he could have a conflict of interest in editing in his own subject interest areas, nor in their both collaborating to mount a concerted attack on the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.

In summary, I accept that WP:COI prevents me from editing my own biography. However, I should not be restricted from editing elsewhere on Wikipedia, just as Socrates2008 should continue to edit articles such as the Vela incident, and Deon Steyn can edit Koevoet without restriction.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Final response:

• You've failed to address any of the COI complaints raised against you.
• COI guidlines, with which you are already familiar from your biography, would allow you to express any concerns over your own theories via the relevant talk page.
• My "collaboration" 18 months ago with user:Deon Steyn was limited specifically to rooting out the 4 socket puppet accounts that you were using to edit your own theory and bio.
• Your attempt at painting me as an apartheid racist/militarist is not working. Kindly refrain from making further attempts at guessing my politics, as they are insulting far off the mark. Unlike you, I am not forwarding any original fringe theories or politics of my own here at WP. (I edit a wide range of articles, and have submitted a number of good articles) PS: Nice try once again trying to deflect the attention off yourself.
• As above, you should absolutely be restricted from editing your own theories on WP - that is EXACTLY what the WP COI policy is all about adressing. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now would be a fine point at which an Admin could review this case and take decisive action. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that it is only the South African Wikipedia editor, Socrates2008, who has raised this plethora of what he calls "COI complaints" against me. I have replied to his catalogue of criticism in a perfectly reasonable way, but he responds by unjustifiably accusing me of painting him "as an apartheid racist/militarist".

I would hope that when an Admin does come to "review this case and take decisive action", he will take action against both Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn for collaborating to mount a concerted attack on the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it must have felt like a "concerted attack" to have all your socket puppet accounts closed down. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure it has not gone unnoticed that your partner Deon Steyn awarded you The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for all your diligence in that respect! In fact, your concerted attack on me in collaboration with Deon Steyn has been recorded by no less an authority than Wikipedia Review.---PJHaseldine (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:NPOV and/or WP:V issues rather than WP:COI (which would requirebe obvious if there were off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest on a topic, none of which appear to be present). Is there any reason why this would not be better handled in another forum? -- samj _in^out 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam, from Conflict of interest examples:

• Citing oneself - PH regularly cites his own letters to the Guardian when he details his own theories. There are no reliable secondary sources for these letters or for his theory.
• Campaigning - PH is campaigning for a UN investigation into his theory that Pan Am 103 was downed in order to assassinate Bernt Carlsson. (See http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/, which contains a link to South Africa luggage swap theory, which redirected to Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories#South-West Africa (Namibia) before it was deleted.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam, I agree with you about the inapplicability of WP:COI to this case.

This Canada Free Press article, headed Looking in the Mirror, demonstrates that Socrates2008 is wrong on both counts.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• An interest is not a conflict of interest. Citing oneself is more relevant to academic papers and the like - citing letters to the editor is an obvious violation of WP:V (specifically WP:SPS), much the same for circular references (which you can discuss specifically at WP:RSN). As for campaigning, I don't see an off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest here. In any case this is not the forum for discussing such issues as the late Mr Carlsson's last minute travel changes. As this appears to be a dispute between two editors how about keeping WP:COOL and getting a WP:3O? -- samj _in^out 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam, can you point out where in the COI guidelines that "off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest" is specified for determining whether somebody has a COI? Obviously a COI is much clearer where this is evident, but I believe that campaigning and advocacy of this sort are covered by the guidelines; indeed campaigning has a subsection there, and the guidelines specifically states that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." --Slp1 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the individual derives no benefit despite clearly having a strong interest in the case and a specific point of view (which can be articulated in the article along with others provided it's verifiable). The point where a strong interest crosses over to a conflict of interest is where there is a benefit (e.g. money, votes, popularity). As there is no such evidence we need to assume good faith. -- samj _in^out 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are clear here that it isn't just the individual's benefit that counts; it is even bolded "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". This may involve personal "off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest" including money, votes, popularity, or it may involve "getting the word out" about a cause, organization or group. I see the confusion about the term "campaigning", but campaigning doesn't just refer to political campaigns. I haven't looked very closely at this specific case, but a cursory glance suggests that the originator and promoter of a Fringe theory about the Lockerbie bombing could be very much be in COI when editing WP articles on this subject, since there would be a strong (and natural) desire to advance your pet theory. --Slp1 (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy goes on to say "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest" and there is no such organisation for the user to be 'involved with', rather a point of view. As it's not clear I'm commenting on the content rather than the contributors (per WP:NPA) and suggest they should try to do the same - particularly when it comes to nationality/race. WP:FRINGE is a good reference, as are WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:POV, which explains "article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue".

I am however concerned about this edit which contradicts the findings of the European Court of Human Rights relating to his dismissal (personal COI) and this more recent series of edits which show the {{OR}} tag being repeatedly removed (potential WP:3RR violation). -- samj _in^out 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the above continues to be a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes a COI; campaigning may be for organizations or not, but the COI guideline (including the nutshell) makes clear that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups", while WP:SOAP (which is actually policy, while the COI guidelines are not) make clear that WP is not the place for "propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise". I agree that the focus needs to be on whether the edits show that an editor is not editing from a NPOV, including using unreliable sources etc. I appreciate that you have identified some areas of editing concern that indicated that there may indeed be an issue here. In my view, other examples provided above by Socrates, also suggest that there is cause for concern.--Slp1 (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst not in any way condoning potential WP:3RR violations, I offer the following discussion starting with Socrates2008 categorising me as a conspiracy theorist in mitigation. This is the category about which EricWarmelink has today taken issue with Socrates2008, whom he accuses of archiving in order to to win the edit war.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I sincerely doubt that a posting on Canada Free Press qualifies as a reliable source, but that is a question for WP:RSN--Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only comment to a pattern of behaviour, which includes

• the use of sock puppets (Phase1, Phase2, Phase4)
• COI edits to article of himself (Patrick Haseldine) and
• canvassing support for an external petition (petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) relating to the Lockerbie bombing via:
  • direct appeals to six users
  • external links in six articles related to the topic: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

His conflict of interest stems from his real life public support for these conspiracy theories and his dismissal from the British diplomatic service for –amongst other things– his public criticism of Margaret Thatcher's handling of South African agents at the time of the Lockerbie bombing. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Socrates' buddy, Deon, finally rides to the rescue!---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to Sam's comments above:

• I agree with Slp1 that your interpretation of not deriving benefit is too narrow. There is considerable "financial benefit" to be gained as the currency of politics (Mr Haseldine is active in British politics) is fame, notoriety and votes.
• The underlying issue for me - the one that prompted me to re-open this case, is unverifiabile OR. If Wikipedia is happy with someone writing an article about something controversial, citing only themselves as a source, giving their ideas more space than other well-published and reviewed points of view, using the talk pages to publish when ideas are removed from main article space, then we're done here.

PS: I find the "dirty tricks" employed here (e.g. making accusations above against Deon Steyn, who hasn't edited any of the related articles for at least a year, then crying wolf when he comes to defend himself) to be quite distasteful, but I sincerely hope he is not succeeding in diverting anyone's attention through it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Permit me to correct Socrates2008 on a couple of points:

1. Since standing down in 1995 as the first elected Labour parish councillor for Chipping Ongar, I have not even been involved, let alone been active, in British politics.
2. Deon Steyn did not come guns blazing to "defend himself". He came to do Socrates' dirty work, and to attack me.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did in fact come here to defend myself against more personal attacks. Mr. Haseldine, you have been warned before against linking to external sites making personal attacks (suggesting I might be an apartheid era general etc.), because that is in fact considered a personal attack (Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack). — Deon Steyn (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No changes in the pattern

Removal of the COI tag over PH's personal theory in the Bernt Carlsson article. Furthermore, neither the section in article itself nor the "reference" on the talk page meet verifiability criteria. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the case, as Socrates2008 well knows! This is the full talk page edit:

Discussion pasted here by user:PJHaseldine from Talk:Bernt_Carlsson#Special_Representative_of_the_Secretary-General

Special Representative of the Secretary-General

Had UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, lived to see the signature of the New York Accords on 22 December 1988, he would have been appointed Special Representative of the Secretary-General, and would thus have overseen Namibia's transition to independence. Carlsson would not have stood for all the shenanigans that the South Africans got up to. For instance, he would not have authorised the deployment of SADF units and Koevoet against the alleged incursion of SWAPO "fighters" from Angola on 1 April 1989, as his replacement Martti Ahtisaari was persuaded to do by Margaret Thatcher and Pik Botha (see Missing diplomatic links and the Lockerbie tragedy).

The South Africans knew that Carlsson would not tolerate any interference with Namibia's progress towards independence. And it would have been an independence election with SWAPO achieving well over the 66.6% vote that was necessary for them to revise their "imposed" independence constitution!---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Namibia successfully transitioned to independence, with SWAPO the majority party, so the outcome would not have been any different. Your assertions need reliable secondary sources, as they are only conjecture. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How's this? "In July 1989, Glenys Kinnock and Tessa Blackstone of the British Council of Churches visited Namibia and reported: 'There is a widespread feeling that too many concessions were made to South African personnel and preferences and that Martti Ahtisaari was not forceful enough in his dealings with the South Africans.'Glenys Kinnock (1990). Namibia: Birth of a Nation. Quartet Books Ltd. p. 19."---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine

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.

---

Resolved

 – Topic ban enacted at User:PJHaseldine/Community_sanction and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I recommend that admins impose a topic ban on PJHaseldine that will restrict him from editing any articles related to Pan Am 103, or the Lockerbie disaster. The articles he should not edit would be:

• Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories
• Conspiracy theory
• Pan Am Flight 103
• Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
• Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial

• The topic ban would include articles about people who died in the Flight 103 crash, such as Bernt Carlsson, and on people who have written about the Lockerbie bombing, such as Hugh Miles (journalist).
• Many COI cases are settled by discussion and mild warnings. Mere discussion isn't going to work in PJHaseldine's case. He is a one-man Lockerbie industry and he persists in inappropriately adding material to articles that he is personally connected to. I would welcome comments on this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I propose the following wording: "PJHaseldine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, Bernt Carlsson (person on the flight crash), Hugh Miles (journalist) (person who wrote about flight crash)." EdJohnston, do you have any issues with this? I've assumed you don't want to include talk pages and related discussions; if you would like to include that in the ban, please let me know so I can tweak it in a couple of spots. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment How would you like to handle articles on the periphery that have from time-to-time also been involved, albeit less so? e.g. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, State-sponsored terrorism, Tripartite Accord (Angola), Robert Black (professor), Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission, conspiracy theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs)

I don't object to any reasonable rewording. I never intended that Patrick be banned from Talk pages. @Socrates2008: I believe that all the articles you mention are included in the ban under the new wording of Ncmvocalist, as 'articles relating to Pam Am Flight 103, broadly construed.' EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I support Ncmvocalists's wording, with a clarifying note that this applies to article not talk space. I believe we have a working consensus (nobody other than PJHaseldine opposing, multiple experienced users and admins agree unanimously). I also support Samj's comment below regarding other editors close to the situation being requested to edit with caution during the period Haseldine is topic banned. NCM, if you want to do the honors, go ahead, or I or another uninvolved admin can later today... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

All  Done Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If such a wide-ranging topic ban were to be imposed on me, surely "equality of arms" would require that Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn be restricted from editing any articles related to apartheid South Africa.

As an example of Socrates' COI over that subject area and specifically over the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article, he has this morning craftily and unjustifiably moved the New York Accords article (which includes the signing of the Namibia independence agreement) to the less appropriate Tripartite Accord (Angola) article.

Deon Steyn made a POV edit to the Bernt Carlsson article on 5 March 2009. As noted in the above subsection, I responded fully to his edit at User talk:Bernt Carlsson#Special Representative of the Secretary-General, after which I removed Deon's redundant edit. Socrates reinserted Deon's patently wrong edit here.

It seems to me that EdJohnston's proposal is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and could even be interpreted as advocating a form of censorship. I do not have a WP:COI on Lockerbie bombing-related articles. All that is necessary is to challenge and correct any edits that are not in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith - the old article name is not the most commonly used - see discusion. A request for reliable references is not censorship as this is an encyclopedia, not Speakers' Corner. You have been requested numerous times to provide reliable secondary sources for your theory, but have thus far not been able to, even throughout this disussion.Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor Socrates2008's spelling of "discussion" lets him down (twice). And 35 paragraphs ago, Socrates said it was his "final response"!

Don't forget that I was the one who said "All that is necessary is to challenge and correct any edits that are not in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV." I did not equate reliable references with censorship: Socrates did.

Thus, it is abundantly clear that Socrates has lost this whole COI argument, and when he talks about reliable secondary sources: where is his secondary source to confirm that Patrick Haseldine is a conspiracy theorist?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Support There is now considerable evidence on this page to demonstrate the lengths that PH will go to in order to defend his one-person POV conspiracy/alternate theory and to prevent a topic ban being implemented over his COI related to it. Most importantly, please note above how requests for reliable secondary sources are met with personal attacks, anger, denial, accusations, decoy arguments, but not the requested sources that would simply end any dispute on the spot. I would therefore welcome this plan and encourage others to support it too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. A conflict of interest is not by itself a problem, but the editor is regularly violating V, NOR, NPOV, and WEIGHT to promote his own fringe ideas in the articles, and it is disruptive.[7] (I don't understand why Haseldine is in the article at all, given that it is only citing to his blog posts and letters to the editor; the inclusion seems to violate WP:FRINGE's warning against the inclusion of idiosyncratic views held by noone else.) If he has a complaint against other editors' COI, raise it in a separate section, but I see nothing defending Haseldine's own editing. THF (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reject. As SamJohnston has quite rightly said above: "An interest is not a conflict of interest. Citing oneself is more relevant to academic papers and the like - citing letters to the editor is an obvious violation of WP:V (specifically WP:SPS), much the same for circular references (which you can discuss specifically at WP:RSN). As for campaigning, I don't see an off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest here." Sam Johnston also said that this is an WP:NPOV issue rather than a WP:COI one. In short, I (PJHaseldine) have no pecuniary interest (ie no conflict of interest) in this article. However, others such as the South African editors Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn may well stand to benefit financially by rubbishing the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory. I would Support restrictions that might be placed upon Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn, for COI editing if appropriate.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to have the topic ban on Haseldine be based on persistent violations of NPOV rather than COI. If Haseldine wishes to make a separate complaint about other editors, he should feel free to do so in another section on this page. Samj is quite frankly confused about the policy: self-promotion in mainspace in violation of FRINGE violates COI as well as other policies. THF (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

THF might be the one who is confused, rather than SamJohnston. Where are all of THF's "persistent violations of NPOV" that he imputes?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually I disagree that there is necessarily a conflict, and I don't think it matters since regardless of the cause there are violations. Thus:

Support per my reasons explained above; violations of WP:V, WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE), WP:3RR, etc. (that is, generally disruptive editing). It was this edit that really tipped the scales for me. -- samj _in^out 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam, the edit that really tipped the scales for you sought to correct my disputed entry as a conspiracy theorist ("British 'FSO' official" changed to "British diplomat"). It was Socrates2008 who originally categorised me and was challenged by EdJohnston to explain why. I have consistently opposed Socrates' insult and others have sought to remove the category from my biography but have so far been prevented by what appears to be some aggressive editing from Arthur Rubin and Deon Steyn. In the edit immediately preceding the voting above, I asked Socrates to provide reliable secondary sources to confirm that Patrick Haseldine is a conspiracy theorist. I think that you will agree that if Socrates cannot provide a secondary source, the category should be removed.

I'm not sure how you can describe my editing as generally disruptive when my edits are mainly uncontroversial and always fully referenced.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The offending (still visible) edit added an unverifiable reason as to why you were "dismissed by the Thatcher government in 1989": "for writing a letter to The Guardian on 7 December 1988", which is in direct conflict with the referenced European Court of Human Rights findings which explicitly state "The Commission finds that the applicant's dismissal was based on his breach of the Diplomatic Service Regulations, and that no sanction was imposed in respect of the opinions which he expressed as such". If this is representative of your edits relating to this topic then I think a topic ban is a fairly light punishment.

As User:THF said, "If [you have] a complaint against other editors' COI, raise it in a separate section". -- samj _in^out 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the ECHR findings did not — and were not required to — address the reason that I was dismissed. On the other hand, EdJohnston's edit here did do so. As did the following references removed from the biography by Socrates2008:

• The Guardian December 7 1988 - Letters: The double standards on terrorism
• The Guardian December 9 1988 - page 24, Richard Norton-Taylor and David Pallister: Commons test for SA arms row - Letters:Clive Ponting The burden of conscience in the civil service
• Observer December 11 1988 - Richard Ingrams: splendid kamikaze attack on Mrs Thatcher
• The Guardian December 13 1988 - Letters: Geoffrey Bindman Shabby manoeuvres that aid and abet Botha
• The Guardian December 17 1988 "Fifth man" professor identified in South African weapons ring
• TIME December 19 1988 - page 22: Sour Land of Liberty
• The Guardian May 6 1989 - Richard Norton-Taylor: Thatcher's Whitehall critic to appeal against loss of job
• The Guardian July 27 1989 - Richard Norton-Taylor: Thatcher critic faces dismissal
• The Guardian August 3 1989 - Editorial: Just out of court - David Pallister: FO to dismiss official in Pretoria row
• The Daily Telegraph August 4 1989 - Alan Osborn: Foreign Office sacks Thatcher attack diplomat

As regards THF, he made this edit today. He has thus effectively rendered the whole of this COI discussion nugatory. I am commenting elsewhere about THF's other recent activities.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I believe the two events are intrinsically linked (and I think that comes through clearly in your bio now), however an encyclopedia reports verifiable facts. User:EdJohnston's edit reverts a link that is at best synthesis (stating the link as fact: "[dismissal] resulted from [criticism]") to one that is fact, leaving the reader to fill in the gaps ("[dismissal] followed [criticism]"). There is a subtle but critical difference even if you don't see it. -- samj _in^out 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment is it customary for those involved in the dispute to vote on it? I see this as 3 supports thus far, ignoring the participants. -- samj _in^out 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support as a temporary ban pending closer review. (A closing admin should take responsibility for the duration, it should not require return to this forum, and if the closing admin becomes unavailable, any admin should be able to lift it.) The editor should be encouraged to propose edits to Talk pages, and should be cautioned against incivility. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and being "right" is no defense against being disruptive. My support here makes no assumption that the behavior of other editors is free of fault; however, the subject editor clearly needs to work toward better dispute resolution. If a topic banned editor believes that suggestions are unreasonably being ignored, that editor can seek assistance from other editors. Pecuniary interest is a clear form of COI, but others exist. The basic issue on that is outside affiliation that might impair neutrality. However, the topic ban may be justifiable without any reference to COI. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would happily support these limitations and would suggest that other editors who are close to the situation (User:Socrates2008 and User:Deon Steyn) exercise caution in making potentially contentious edits during this period. -- samj _in^out 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be very happy to keep an eye on the PA-103 releated articles without editing them if that will assist the administrators in this case. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposed restrictions on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn

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.

---

Resolved

 – No action needed. The nomination may be a WP:POINT violation by a naive editor, whom I have been advising at his request.--Abd (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with Samj's suggestion above, and subject to the same limitations in respect of PJHaseldine,

• I recommend that admins impose a topic ban on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn that will restrict them from editing any articles related to Pan Am 103, or the Lockerbie disaster. The articles they should not edit would be:

• Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories
• Conspiracy theory
• Pan Am Flight 103
• Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
• Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial

• The topic ban would include articles about people who died in the Flight 103 crash, such as Bernt Carlsson, and on people who have written about the Lockerbie bombing, such as Hugh Miles (journalist).
• Many COI cases are settled by discussion and mild warnings. Mere discussion isn't going to work in Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn's case. They are a combined Lockerbie industry and they persist in inappropriately adding material to articles that they are potentially in conflict with.
• I propose the following wording: "Socrates2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Deon Steyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, Bernt Carlsson (person on the flight crash), Hugh Miles (journalist) (person who wrote about flight crash) as well as articles on the periphery that have from time-to-time also been involved, e.g. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, State-sponsored terrorism, Tripartite Accord (Angola), Robert Black (professor), Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission, conspiracy theory."

I would welcome comments on this plan.---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Just as the topic ban imposed on me is based upon alleged WP:V and WP:NPOV infringements (rather than conflict of interest as defined by Samj), this proposed topic ban should be imposed on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn for their disruptive behaviour, such as:

• Edit warring by Socrates2008.

For anyone interested, PH was using the talk page of his bio to publish this content (now archived), which he was trying to keep in place so that inbound links from sites such as this would not be broken. (WP:NOTWEBHOST) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wrongly categorising Patrick Haseldine as a "conspiracy theorist".
• "Phase4 has now been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of PJHaseldine i.e. Patrick Haseldine. I wonder what all the Phase1, Phase 2, Phase4 stuff was about...? It was pretty clear that those users were the same person, or at least related. They made little attempt to obfuscate the fact, and I haven't seen anything particularly disruptive or misleading in their edits. I also think the theory of South Africa's involvement in the (Lockerbie) bombing is more compelling than that of Libya's. I'm now very curious about the motivations and identity of Socrates2008 and his tag team partner Deon Steyn. Their edits show an interest in South Africa military history and weapons."
• Concerted attack by Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn on the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.
• NPOV infringement by Deon Steyn.

• To assist the admins, I will happily patrol the Lockerbie-related articles to ensure compliance by Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn with the proposed topic ban.---PJHaseldine (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something, but how do Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 have a conflict of interest? I doubt that being South African is considered a conflict under any Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of conflict of interest. A point of view is not a conflict of interest. I don't even see a single diff where they have violated policy. This is frivolous, and I hope administrators take action to deter such disruption--PJH has now issued complaints in multiple forums against every editor who has dared to point out he is violating policy. THF (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This case is about your editing, not anyone else's. As per the advice above, suggest you open a new COI case if you have evidence to support your thus far unproven allegations against another editor. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOTCOI the only conflicts I have identified here are User:PJHaseldine's edit that fails verification with the EUCHR reference (discussed above) and a weak link with validating a theory publicly associated with User:PJHaseldine. As such I prefer to focus on the policy violations and those are clear as day (also discussed above). I'd suggest that this case be closed and a new concise case be opened with clear, relevant evidence should User:PJHaseldine wish to proceed against the other two editors. -- samj _in^out 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - The examples of disruptive behaviour cited above make the case for the proposed topic ban on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per other users who've commented above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Conspiracy theorist

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.

---

Resolved

 – No action needed. Wrong forum. --Abd (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that THF has deleted the Haseldine "conspiracy theory" from both the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories and the Bernt Carlsson articles, logic requires that the [Category:Conspiracy theorists] be removed from the Patrick Haseldine biography and his entry be removed from the Conspiracy theory article. Could we please have a vote on this issue?---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Remove the category on the biography and his entry on the Conspiracy theory article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - The category was added to the biography by Socrates2008 as evidenced by the following extract from Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Conspiracy theorist?:

• "Socrates2008 recently added Category:Conspiracy theorists to this page. I think this requires a reference within the page. Either a self-identification, or a reliable source referring to Haseldine as a conspiracy theorist. Since I'm new to this area, maybe this is something well-known, but it still needs a cite. If this follows automatically from some rule that is observed on other Wikipedia pages, please specify how it follows. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. Labelling someone a conspiracy theorist is certainly POV:- it is a pejorative term used to discredit the theories expressed by that individual (and I'm not expressing support for his beliefs.) In contrast his position as a diplomat is fact. The link recently given by Socrates2008 on the talkpages of State-sponsored terrorism in support no way proves Patrick Haseldine is happy to be labelled a conspiracy theorist. All it shows is that someone who registered as PJHaseldine, and linked himself to this article, did not change the description. This is not support as anyone could claim on Wikipedia to be him, and it is policy that Wikipedia is not used as its own reference. Also Wikipedia cautions about comments about a living person - WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.217.219 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comment. No inference should be drawn from Patrick's non-removal of the term 'conspiracy theorist,' since he has agreed to stay off the article to avoid COI issues. We appreciate his cooperation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"

• It now behoves Socrates2008 to explain this insult and to apologise.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree with reasoning - Notability is not reciprocal. That a relationship between A-and-B is notable enough to include in Article B does not mean that the A-B relationship is notable enough to include in Article A. Thus, Barack Obama is mentioned in the Aaron Klein article, but Aaron Klein is not in the Barack Obama article. But I agree that the Haseldine article needs some real scrubbing for WP:PUFF, which may or may not include the Guardian letters: I leave that editorial decision to others. THF (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have scanned the article for issues and find the guardian letters acceptable as a primary source for describing Haseldine's opinions, but not for establishing notability for inclusion in other articles in the absence of other reliable sources. If anything I find the article rather critical of Haseldine, albeit largely justified thanks to his own EUCHR filing. -- samj _in^out 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree - THF's reasoning is spot-on. The category is not "Conspiracy theorists who are widely discussed in the media" or "People with conspiracy theories that are discussed on Wikipedia." Bhimaji (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - there's an element of WP:DUCK here, but per User:EdJohnston should we not require this statement to appear in a reliable source? After all we've just sanctioned User:PJHaseldine for same offense. On the other hand the conspiracy theory itself is supported by User:PJHaseldine's own primary sources. As such I would be inclined to Support removal of the pejorative Category:Conspiracy theorists category but Reject the removal of the reference in the conspiracy theory article per User:THF above. -- samj _in^out 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Reject both removal from the category and removal of the content on the grounds that the category "specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories" (which is clearly met) and the content itself is supported by User:PJHaseldine's own primary sources. -- samj _in^out 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - There is a suggestion to refine the category inclusion, as follows: "People can be included in this category only if there are verifiable secondary source media references either where they have declared themselves or which label the person a conspiracy theorist."---PJHaseldine (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - This has nothing to do with WP:COIN. Make a {{request edit}} at the two articles in question, since you're bound to relitigate this there anyway since there's not a snowball's chance you'll get the result you want at this board, where we're already familiar with your case. THF (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take this content dispute elsewhere. This long ago stopped being a COI issue. THF (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion pasted here by user:PJHaseldine from Category talk:Conspiracy theorists#Adding_people_to_this_category_is_purely_POV.Socrates2008 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: User:PJHaseldine's case is an interesting one. He has a primary source on his bio (Patrick Haseldine) - the letter(s) to the editor discussed in conspiracy theories - which is adequate for verifying his opinions but inadequate for inclusion in articles related to the theory itself. Now that an indefinite topic ban has been imposed at WP:COI/N he seeks to remove these references (and this category), even if it means redefining "conspiracy theorist".

Initially I too called for reliable sources stating that he is a "conspiracy theorist" but then I retracted this after reviewing the current category requirements which seem fairly reasonable; in my opinion the WP:DUCK test passes so he belongs in this category. If this were a list then the existence of the reliable (if primary) source would likely justify his inclusion independent of his bio.

If someone can be verified to be a proponent of a conspiracy theory then they are by definition a conspiracy theorist (they need not be a proponent of many such theories either - usually there is on ly one). The real grey area then is in defining what exactly is a conspiracy theory, but that's a topic for another article. In summary, WP:V applies as always but in my opinion there need not be an overt "X is a conspiracy theorist" statement (these are rare anyway). -- samj _in^out 10:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have another take on this: there's no doubt about his association with a theory about PA-103, that it's his own invention, that he's been campaigning for supporters for it and that there are primary sources that back this up. So if the duck test is so obviously satisfied, then what's the problem? Looking at his own wording in the content he's created around this, he prefers to euphemistically call his theory an "alternate theory" rather than a "fringe theory" or "conspiracy theory". While I'm quite sure he will be quick to differ when he chirps in, my interpretation is that he's trying to keep a positive "spin" on his story while trying to gain public support for it (i.e. he's concerned that the word "conspiracy" may have negative connotations for his campaign), and secondly, that he absolutely believes his own theory, so that from his POV, it is fact. In other words, this is a form of COI, as the subject's objectives and perceptions in respect of his theory differ from those of uninvolved editors, who simply see this as another of many conspiracy theories around PA-103. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My so-called euphemism was shared by all editors until less than 3 months ago when the title of Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was converted to conspiracy theories without discussion. And it was Socrates' pal, Deon Steyn, who put the Alternative theories article into the Category:Conspiracy theories in the first place!

Didn't their concerted attack work out well?---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

Edits by alleged Single-purpose accounts

• Just over a year ago, the Wikipedia Review commentator, tarantino, alleged that the South African editor Socrates2008 had "turned into something of an SPA" through his edits to PA 103-related articles. The same commentator went on to say: "I also think the theory of South Africa's involvement in the bombing is more compelling than that of Libya's. I'm now very curious about the motivations and identity of Socrates2008 and his tag team partner Deon Steyn. Their edits show an interest in South Africa military history and weapons."

• This is what Abd told me two days ago about Single-purpose accounts:

"As an SPA, you are vulnerable, and need take special care. SPAs are sometimes effectively topic banned as to the article, there is no clear boundary between WP:SPA and WP:COI. From the other side, experts in a field are often SPA or COI, so my view is that, while the community should set and maintain strict behavioral boundaries for such editors, we should also actively invite their participation in Talk pages, and attempt to moderate the disputes which arise. In my view, much damage has been done to the project and its reputation because of a lack of understanding of this, and experts have been rather badly treated. Many or most experts have, as a result of their extensive knowledge, a strong POV, as viewed from a general perspective, though not necessarily from within field. (When I've special knowledge in a field, I've been accused of POV-pushing when I've simply expressed what is well-known in the field, as I know through extensive off-wiki communication with others even more knowledgeable than myself, but which is not necessarily easy to prove from reliable source; without supporting RS, I can't incorporate such knowledge into articles, generally, but I should definitely be able to mention it on a Talk page without sanction.)"--Abd (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• From the above, I believe that South African editors Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn are both SPAs, and should be restricted from editing any articles describing people and events where apartheid South Africa has been accused of responsibility for what happened. This restriction should clearly apply to Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories and all its related articles such as Bernt Carlsson. Just as clearly, they should stay away from: Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 air disaster and Samora Machel; Olof Palme assassination and Olof Palme; and also South African Airways Flight 295 (because the flight was said to have been carrying sanctions-busting munitions). The two South Africans should be cautioned against editing articles such as Koevoet, Civil Cooperation Bureau, Tripartite Accord (Angola) and P. W. Botha for example: if in any doubt, Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn should refrain from editing, and stick to the relevant Talk pages.---PJHaseldine (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard pressed to convince anybody to agree that either Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn are SPAs when less than 2% of Socrates' article edits [8] and less 1% of Deon's article edits are to the Pan Am article.[9]. Nor are they inappropriately focussed on South African topics. These accusations (see above for proposed restrictions of the same two editors, which was declined) are becoming more and more pointy and inappropriate. Please stop.--Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another SPA — who may or may not be linked to Deon and Socrates — is User:Checkeroffacts whose contribution record since the account opened in May 2008 has been focused on the Patrick Haseldine biography.---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I urge Mr Haseldine to focus on improving some articles rather than pursuing this disruptive attempt at retaliation against other editor for initiating the COI complaints that resulted in him being topic banned and having his socket accounts uncovered. The two cases against him, unlike this allegation, had considerable evidence to back them up, and were reviewed by a cross section of administrators and experienced editors before appropriate action was taken. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I would expect a South African SPA to respond when challenged over the clear COI edits that he made to the wide range of articles listed above.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This allegation (without a single diff of an allegedly problematic edit) is plainly frivolous, retaliatory, and violates WP:HARASS and WP:POINT. I hope admins take action, and that the falsely accused editors don't feel the need of wasting time responding. THF (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm also troubled by this "clear COI" claim which lacks supporting policy violations, a demonstrated conflict of interest and proof by way of specific edits - frivolous reports aside this to me constitutes a personal attack and I too would like to see PJHaseldine supporting these claims with the best two or three offending edits he can find before we consider taking any further action. -- samj _in^out 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Subsection re-attached to parent section to provide context and to demonstrate COI through cited specific edits above.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an extension of the same case.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Although I'm still waiting for a specific smoking gun for User:Socrates2008 and User:Deon Steyn, User:Checkeroffacts has a problematic history and does indeed to be an WP:SPA for WP:HARASSing and/or WP:HOUNDing User:PJHaseldine for almost a year - it is not surprising then that he might suspect others are up to no good (indeed it seems somebody is). -- samj _in^out 11:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the SPA verdict, and would be happy for an admin to run a checkuser against my account if that would help to narrow down the possibilities. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea (to run a checkuser, not fishing necessarily against your account). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Checkeroffacts. -- samj _in^out 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I reckon the smoking gun for User:Deon Steyn is lurking somewhere around here,here and here.

User:Socrates2008 is more subtle, and probably attaches a silencer to reduce sound and smoke emissions, but his efforts as an SPA apologist for apartheid South Africa are evident here and here.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

PJH, Stop it! You seem to have seriously lost your balance. Those two edits you point out as making "evident" the editor being what you asserted, quite simply, don't. That is, suppose he is. Those edits don't show it, and that you would make such an accusation without carefully providing proof could show that you are unaware or incapable of following community norms regarding civility and personal attacks, in which case, there will be no option but to block or ban you. I'm not threatening you, I don't have the tools to block, and, indeed, I'm trying to protect you (and the project) from this outcome. If you think that an editor is a POV-pushing SPA, you will have to be much more careful and thorough and patient to deal with the problem. What you are doing is essentially committing wiki-suicide. This discussion does not belong here, insufficient grounds have been established to file a COI complaint. --Abd (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment First edit about Tambo is unreferenced original research. The second edit, which was discussed at talk:Patrick Haseldine as well as here and on this very page, meets the criteria for inclusion in the category and furthermore has nothing to do with "apartheid". I agree with admins that this case is a WP:POINTy form of harassment in retribution for my initiating the two earlier COI cases that resulted in user:PJHaseldine's socket puppet accounts being closed and a topic ban being enforced by the community. I suggest Mr Haseldine is cautioned about civility, personal attacks and assuming good faith in his comments in which he continues to direct at editors rather than content, and where he alludes to other editors being (apartheid) racists. Here is evidence that he believes he does not have to comply with these core WP policies unless the topic ban imposed by the community is lifted first. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Dcourtneyjohnson

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

Every edit this user has made has been self-promotional except for the ones that have simply been unsourced POV-pushing. He threw a fit and accused me of being part of a right-wing conspiracy to silence him when I pointed out some suspicious sock-puppet behavior and nominated his unreferenced autobiography for deletion, so if other editors who are not part of the right-wing conspiracy can be the ones to explain Wikipedia policies to him, it would be useful.

In addition, this is a good opportunity to ask whether Mr. Johnson is subject to the same de facto topic ban that I am; every time I edit a tort-reform-related article, there is a gigantic fuss, no matter how Wikipedia-compliant my edits are. I'd like standards to be uniform here, given that Mr. Johnson claims his expertise in tort reform in his autobiography, and given that he is not even attempting to follow the rules about neutral and self-promotional editing. THF (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Diffs couldn't hurt. JW _|^|_| Talk 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry -- when I made the report, he had many fewer edits, and they were all pretty self-evident. The entire Commonweal Institute article content is written by Dcj. He also made this edit to medical malpractice adding a non-notable Commonweal Institute report, and a similar two to tort reform. His edit to Dave Johnson (putting himself at the top of the page as the most important Dave Johnson) has been reverted, and his creation of an autobiography was deleted by WP:SNOW. THF (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered this complaint about me here, was not notified of it, and am a new user so I didn't know to look for this. I appear to be accused of having a conflict of interest on the Commonweal Institute article. I am an unpaid Fellow there so this is correct. I did not know that Wikipedia prohibited me from editing articles where I have a conflict of interest and I have stopped all editing on the Commonweal Institute article as a result, and have let others involved with the Institute that they should also refrain from editing. (After I stopped, I was told that am should be "tending to the article," so am left confused.)

However, I did not make "self-promotional" entries and if you look at the edit record you will see that.

Here is background of all this: Someone emailed me that I should have a bio at Wikipedia, so I started an account and added one, and while I was at it and learning the wiki protocols I also added a Commonweal Institute article because it should be here. A short time after I started I was told I could not add a bio about myself, so I got back to the person who had suggested I add it and said I couldn't do that. That person added it, and a couple of other people did some edits. Shortly after that everyone received a notification that they were going to be banned from Wikipedia. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dcourtneyjohnson and PLEASE read the entire discussion there. Everyone else involved is likely never to be seen at Wikipedia again, which you can understand is a natural reaction to the hostility here. I think Wikipedia is a good project so I am sticking around in spite of this, as well as to defend myself from the multitude of accusations that are lodged against me in the short time I have been here.)

This was quite a surprise, and the comments and actions were quite hostile, so I checked out what was going on and discovered that the person involved may be associated with a "Tort Reform" blog. Since I write on the subject of tort reform I pointed that possibility out and the person involved said yes it was him (self-outing), so I suggested it might be inappropriate for someone in that line of work to be trying to remove from Wikipedia a bio and an article of opponents of corporate-backed tort reform. I was then accused of "trying to out" that person. I didn't know about the policy and have not referred to his outside identity (which appears to be well known here) since.

Subsequently that person started to show up everywhere I made edits or left a user a message at Wikipedia, often within minutes, removing the edits, leaving disparaging comments, etc. If I mentioned this I was accused of "making personal attacks." I was unable to disengage anywhere I was on Wikipedia, and this hounding continued. Also the person is question has set up new articles here, existing only to mock Commonweal Institute. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_wikipuffery

So in the short time I have been involved at Wikipedia I have been accused of "sockpuppetry", "meatpuppetry", "outing", "personal attacks" and a number of things, all by the same person.

My own bio was removed before there was any chance by others to improve it (notification on a sunday evening, removed by Monday morning) -- I of course had stopped working on it because of the accusations.

Please review the edit records (some seem to have disappeared, I don't know how that works) and draw your own conclusions.

Thinking about this, I would like to make a suggestion for a "professional advocates conflicts policy" at Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. This is broad-based and not targeted at any particular person but Wikipedia should protect itself and police itself from negative consequences of professional "advocates." To me it is a positive contribution if a professional advocate works on a project like the Wikipedia insofar as he or she ADDS to the project. Adding new articles and discussions opens up items for people to start to contribute to, and eventually enough people can join in and a good article results. So such professional advocacy ends up as a net positive for the project in that it can lead to a positive conclusion. But when the professional advocate prowls the wiki for things that oppose the viewpoint he or she is paid to promote, and works to get them removed from the wiki, that is a very different thing. When the professional advocate harasses and intimidates users (especially new users) who try to add stuff that he is paid to oppose, this is bad for the wiki, because it inhibits the open flow and eventual perfection of the information that is made available to the public through the project. So the policy I recommend is that if a person is a professional advocate the person be restricted from suggesting that articles about the subject of the person's profession be removed, restricted from removing edits on those subjects, and restricted from suggesting that people who write opposing viewpoints be banned. That would be a start. Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcourtneyjohnson (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that both our conflict of interest guidelines and our neutral point-of-view guidelines are binding on opponents, as well as proponents, of a particular organization or movement. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's an element of WP:TLDR going on here but it seems User:Dcourtneyjohnson better understands policy now and is working on improving the article. I would suggest that when he's done he pings us here to verify and remove the tags. -- samj _in^out 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Skittles

Resolved. Stale, article now under control (even if skittles.com is broken as a result) -- samj _in^out 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe that this hasn't been mentioned here already, but some of you might want to check out what's been happening with the Skittles (candy) article. Particulary this talk page discussion. Themfromspace (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a novel [ab]use of Wikipedia if I've ever seen one! I wasn't able to find any COI problems but people floating stuff on top of our pages could well be deemed problematic. -- samj _in^out 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Brown (Magician/Illusionist)

Resolved. Deleted by AfD. -- samj _in^out 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray Brown (Magician/Illusionist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - AFD'd autobigraphical article. COI notice has been placed on authors talk page but he continues to edit including removal of AFD tag. Rtphokie (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the removal of AfD votes significantly more troublesome. While they've been warned, they were warned repeatedly before that point. -- samj _in^out 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Best and Less

Resolved. Article was edited by subject but speedy was denied. Tagged with {{COI-issues}} and user counselled. -- samj _in^out 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Best and Less (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Do I need to do anything else than warn 203.221.217.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? -- Teen Sleepover Kid (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Subject is notable but the article is beyond repair so I've tagged it with {{db-spam}} and explained to the user what they need to do before replacing it. -- samj _in^out 23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI states "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."

WhoIs explictally says that 203.221.217.226 is registered to 'BestandLess', so shouldn't we be encouraging Best and Less to not edit that article, as that would clearly be a COI, would it not? -- Teen Sleepover Kid (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That depends who you ask. WP:COI edits are not forbidden (indeed it's not even a policy... yet) and since they will happen whether we like it or not it is better for us to assume good faith and encourage editors to disclose conflicts so we can keep an eye on them. After all if they want to pay someone to improve Wikipedia and don't mind doing so on our terms (e.g. WP:NPOV) then we may as well let them. See WP:WHYCOI for a more detailed explanation.

In the mean time the speedy was denied as there's some useful content in there so we'll leave this incident open for the moment and keep an eye on it. -- samj _in^out 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sitebrand

Resolved. COI verified but no policy violations found. Comments left on talk page. -- samj _in^out 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sitebrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - vast majority of edits to this article about a company, including creation of the article, are by a single user. Googling the combination of the company name and the user name seems to suggest that this user is an employee of the company. Mlaffs (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. The article currently appears to be clean of any policy violations and the user appears to be a newbie acting in good faith. I've warned them with {{uw-coi}} and also on the article talk page, but in the absence of any active policy violations I haven't tagged the article itself with {{coi}}. Seems to be verifiably notable, though there's just one source. Given they're in online advertising this is probably one we should keep an eye on. Second opinion wouldn't hurt either. -- samj _in^out 23:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

the article is well-written, and clean. notability may an issue, but worst articles exist. the warning was preemptive; if this is good practice or not is not my concern.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WebHamster and article Round the Horne

Resolved

 – per WP:MULTI, content dispute will be resolved at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters

mooted by Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters

User:WebHamster repeated edit wars against multiple editors to insert his own band into this article, violating both WP:COI and WP:CONSENSUS. see [10] and here [11] Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Before wasting admin time on this disruptive editor please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Bluescreenofdef to gain an insight into the basis of this spurious complaint. Also please note Bluescreenofdef contribution history of reverting anything Hamsters related. This editor obviously has a grudge against me and the work I do on WP, as his contribution history going back to last year can attest. If anyone has a CoI it is Bluescreenofdef, it's a negative one. He appears to think that The Hamsters are "non notable garbage" and as such is doing his level best to remove any mentions he can get away with. He consistently levels the accusation at me that I have a conflict of interest. I don't, I'm a fan of the band, yet only a very small percentage of my total edits (13k) have been hamsters related, yet a very high percentage of BSoD's edits are. In fact I think his main space edits of Hamsters related material is close to 100%. I'm sure you can judge for yourselves who in actual fact is the biased one. --WebHamster 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC) More to the point, User:WebHamster has created and guards most of the articles related to the band The Hamsters mainly focusing on their purchasable merchandise such as DVD's CD's and T-Shirts (see here). When someone actually tries to bring neutrality back to the encyclopedia he does not repond with civilised discussion but instead will just hurl profanity such as this or this. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) As I stated before this isn't a case for this board but another. It will end up at WP:MEDIATION since you both won't give up only one inch of ground. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) On the contrary. This is the perfect place to discuss the WP:OWN and WP:COI issues embroiling User:WebHamster and all articles relating to the The Hamsters. User:WebHamster even suggested it himself. Although his method of "goading" (see here) another user to hardly satisfies WP:CIVIL. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, of course, you never had an issue with WP:CIVIL. How much drama do you want to start? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Yes you're right. I unreservedly apologise for swearing at the creator of User:WebHamster/fuck and User:WebHamster/fucking. Not to mention classic hits such as these Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I still can't see any evidence that implies COI or even OWN. This diff only mentions some shirts, but does in no way show how to purchase them. I don't know the band, nor the shirts and so can't say if one or the other is notable enough for being included here or not. But if this is all you can come up with, it's not that much at all. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC) The reason I don't go into any detail of where the t-shirts can be bought is, apart from the obvious breaking of the rules, because most of them can not be bought. They are no longer available and most haven't been available from before WP's inception. This is why there's a t-shirt museum on the band's website. As for the allegations of the DVDs, well that falls flat too. Their new DVD has been out since last September yet magically there is no article for it. Surely if I was attempting to gain monetary gain for the band I would have steamed in there to get as much publicity for the new DVD as possible, now wouldn't I? I'm trying to rack my brains to figure out what started this and I have no idea other than there's a good chance that BSoD is a sockpuppet from someone whose failed band page I slapped a CSD on. I can't think what else it could have been as his second ever edit as BSoD was to call me a fucking idiot. His third to blank my user page. It's patently clear that this user has a grudge and his doing his best to disrupt and annoy. He continues to do so unceasingly unabated. Isn't it about time an admin sorted this once and for all? --WebHamster 02:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, it is. At WP:MEDIATION. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Mediation is not what is required. It's pretty bloody obvious what is going on and mediation is not going to solve it. --WebHamster 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I would be more than happy to engage in WP:MEDIATION to discuss specific edits. However this forum is appropriate to discuss any possibility tha User:WebHamster has a WP:COI issue with any articles relating to The Hamsters. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) So prove where the CoI lies then and quit wasting everyone's time. --WebHamster 03:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC) NOTE See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Bluescreenofdef, are you saying that The Hamsters is WebHamster's band, or are you not? If you are saying it, where is your evidence for saying it? If you are saying something else, what are you saying, and where is your evidence for it? -- Hoary (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) NOTE See this diff and another piece of the puzzle seems to fall into place, given that the band's drummer's real name is Alan Parish. So it does look quite like someone here does have a conflict of interest, and it isn't me. I vaguely recall having to revert some vandalism associated with the name Alan Parish being inserted into a Hamsters related article after the IP editor inserting it blanked some content. --WebHamster 03:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Let him answer the question. (As for "Alan Parish", you and your nemesis have been squabbling over somebody of that name very recently indeed.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Comment There are some real WP:V and WP:NPOV problems with The Hamsters' article, for example "They became increasingly popular and found that more and more people were requesting that they do more shows" with a reference back to their own site (WP:SPS). WP:COI or not these policy violations need to be fixed. -- samj inout 03:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC) For purely historical information on their own inception, I'd say the horse's mouth was the best place to go after all they are experts on their own history. If you have a problem with the wording change it, but the basic facts of information like this being obtained from the primary source is a quite common practice here. Where else is salient information like this going to come from given that it happened almost 21 years ago? --WebHamster 03:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) But common practice in WP often sucks, and you've pointed to an example. A band is not a RS on itself. Other sources: 21-year-old music magazines. -- Hoary (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed, common practice may sometimes suck, but it's common practice that usually changes rules. I agree, a band is not an RS on itself when subjective data is required e.g. how much their fans love their music, but factual and objective historical data such as that presented or even the date they performed their first gig is another matter. This is especially the case when it's quite a while ago so that 3rd party sources don't exist in the cyber realm. But this is off-topic, ike you I still await the evidence against me. --WebHamster 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed. However, a user has alleged COI. Let him present the evidence for this (or admit that he has none). -- Hoary (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC) And where is this horse's mouth? There are no references anywhere, and no suddenly we have to drop all fundamental wiki policies regarding WP:V and WP:RS and just accept your word for it. Oh and then we can't dare bring up if this violates WP:COI. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Which only goes to show that you don't actually know what the expression you've been bandying around actually means. Like it or not there are certain facts that are commonsense to accept from the primary source or is anyone asking for a RS for Obama's real name being Obama or are we just accepting that is his name because he says so? Regardless of this digression though you have been saying a lot yet you haven't actually demonstrated any evidence whatsoever that I have breached CoI rules in spite of coming here and opening a case and then been asked multiple times. Yet on the other hand every single edit you have made in article space has been Hamsters related, yes, every single edit since you started editing here in January 2008. Is that evidence of your breach of CoI rules? Or is it just evidence of a disruptive pattern of editing? --WebHamster 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) So do you have any evidence of COI, or don't you? Hoary (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I'd say if you look carefully, a user named User:WebHamster has created a whole range of "Hamster" related material, with the only additions being other editors questioning the article's notability. Check the Andy Billups article. Look at the citations. Tell me how this article satisfies WP:N. User:WebHamster will then jealously guard all Hamster references around wikipedia in violation of WP:OWN. He will change article rules to insert himself in see here, and insert "the Hamsters" into the Articles Round the Horne and Cross Road Blues. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Once again you're getting your wires crossed, you appear to be accusing me of WP:OWN not WP:COI which is what we are here for. I am protecting my work from a tendentious editor, not because I own the article, but because you have a disruptive agenda which is patently obvious. It should also be noted that I have left several of your edits be as there is a case to be made for them, but to merely use the mantra WP:CONSENSUS (when you're on your own) and WP:COI willy nilly just so you can delete material because it offends your musical sensibilities is not in the best interests of WP. You are not here for WP's benefit you are here to disrupt. Your editing style demonstrates that admirably. Now where's that evidence? --WebHamster 04:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC) The issue here isn't Bluescreenofdef. He can be dealt with elsewhere. The issue (or, as seems much more likely, non-issue) is alleged COI by you. So here, let's see what evidence Bluescreenofdef can produce for this (if any). -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC) You say He will change article rules to insert himself in see here. I saw it. There are lots of names. Which of these is WebHamster, and what evidence do you have for this? -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Which edits of mine are disruptive? Please provide evidence in the form of diffs? It is against WP:AGF to throw around accusations of disruptive editing without providing evidence of my edits which to not improve the encyclopedia. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) All of them as can be evidenced by the furore that has followed them,, now please supply your evidence or rescind your accusation(s). --WebHamster 04:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Please provide a solitary diff of mine that is disruptive and rescind your accusation of vandalism. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC) How about the fact that you have made twenty edits to WP:COI/N accusing another editor of violating WP:COI without ever actually identifying the conflict at issue? Let's see that answer in the twenty-first edit, or we can shut this down as WP:HARASSment. THF (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Here's one. Now, please, can we shut up about you. Instead, you claim that WebHamster has a conflict of interest. Where is the evidence? -- Hoary (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC) So you had to go back over a year to find your edit. Good work. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC) No, I merely used the example freshest in my head. So you've made the one additional edit that THF invited you to make, and you still haven't answered any of the simple questions put to you about the conflict of interest that you allege. Ergo, you actually have no evidence whatever, although you can't bring yourself to admit this. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) User:WebHamster has created a whole range of articles and media related to The Hamsters, All articles have virtually no WP:RS and we are then told by User:WebHamster that he is a friend of the band and we just have to believe his "horse's mouth" references as fact. Well excuse me if I don't buy it and need to see som WP:V as per usua wiki policy. He constantly inserts Hamster references into any article he can find, all while providing tenuous reason and flimsy references. Edits such as this and this expose a very close relationship with the band. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC) For File:Zcolne1.jpg, you threw a temper tantrum with a dozen edits on my talk page and at ANI? That is your evidence? Thanks for wasting everyone's time. Can someone shut this down? THF (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Being a "friend of the band" would constitute WP:COI and there are policy problems. Where's your proof? -- samj inout 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I've only ever claimed to be a fan of the band, where has it ever been admitted or demonstrated that I'm a "friend of the band"? --WebHamster 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC) How about here where you describe how the band personally asked you to intervene in the bands article and how you tried to persuade them to write something else. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) So far WebHamster has been very active in writing articles about The Hamsters. This is not his sole activity on Wikipedia but it is one of the major ones. He does risk falling into the role of 'promoter,' especially since the notability of The Hamsters under WP:MUSIC is not obviously a given. (They are not published by a major label, and there is no evidence of tours or of receiving well-known awards on which WP has articles). I think WebHamster overreaches by repeatedly trying to add a Hamsters reference at Round the Horne. That show looks to be much better known than the Hamsters, and adding the item there does look promotional. Promotional editing is covered at WP:COI#Blocks, and does not require anyone to show a real-world connection to the entity being promoted. If WebHamster would agree to back off from trying to underline the great importance of The Hamsters in other Wikipedia articles, we might be able to close this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC) According to Wikichecker I have made 97 edits to The Hamsters article (as of right now). According, also to wikichecker] I have made 13,001 total edits to WP. Please explain how that equates either to "very active" or "a major one"? I have made similar numbers of edits to several other articles, some music orientated, some geographical yet there are no accusations of WP:OWN or WP:COI on those articles. Why is that? It's becoming increasingly clear that there is no evidence that supports the view that I have a conflict of interest. I am knowledgeable about the band, I'm a fan of the band and I frequently listen to their music. The same can be said about 1000s of other WP editors. Yes I am protective of articles I've expended large amounts of time and energy on, especially when they are used as a method of exacting some sort of revenge on me for something someone thinks I've done. Given that there's no evidence perhaps some admin would like to close this case as a total waste of everyone's time and is just one more way of feeding a troll. --WebHamster 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC) NOTE: My definitive last word to both of you. Let this case rest until the mediation has been set up. Don't do edits on the related articles, don't talk to each other. Collect your evidence, accusations or defenses - or whatever and bring them up when asked. LET IT BE. Man, I feel like Kindergarden Cop... (I even thought of this whole thing being a publicity stunt by two of the band members...) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC) No fucking chance, not whilst some twat is going round WP sullying my name. --WebHamster 21:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC) A block to both of them for WP:STICK would seem to be in order. THF (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Promotion of Microsoft ideas at Ribbon (computing)?

Resolved

 – Potential WP:COI identified but not serious. Noting it on talk page, warning user and reffering reporter back to article/talk page. -- samj _in^out 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ribbon_(computing)&diff=next&oldid=261681851 by user:PHenry ip range ownerships should be researched on these type of things, this one lasted 2 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientus (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The offending passage is only two sentences of that article. Why not try to revise that passage to make it neutral? There is no harm in including Microsoft's own theory of why their ribbon is different, so long as we don't imply that their opinion decides the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

but there was a deliberate changing of "KDE developer Jarosław Staniek notes" to "some critics contend", which is not in good faith. That is what irked me.Scientus (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick google search reveals this guy is (or at least was) likely a Microsoft employee, which would certainly be a WP:COI. That said the offense here is fairly minor. Potentially contentious edits go back years but none of them appear to have been egregious. I'm going to mention this on the talk page and warn the user, but otherwise agree with User:EdJohnston above. -- samj _in^out 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. I haven't worked for Microsoft for seven years. I don't know anyone who works on Office, and I don't know anyone involved in the implementation of this feature. My "conflict of interest" here is no greater than that of any of the legions of FOSS devotees who write articles about programs and features they use and know and like, which is exactly what they should be doing.

If you have a problem with the accuracy of what I wrote, then let's hear it. Don't use this noticeboard as a cudgel to intimidate people into not following your particular party line. I don't appreciate being made the target of false and unfair accusations, and I sure as hell do not appreciate having my commitment to good faith questioned without foundation. Try a little AGF sometime and you may find that it pays off. —phh (^t/_c) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor complained about a specific edit that has obvious (if mostly benign) WP:V (WP:SPS) and WP:NPOV issues. Given you're a former Microsoft employee then their complaint about WP:COI may well be justified, but it's irrelevant given there were other policy violations. If there are indeed FOSS developers editing the article (and I mean developers, not devotees because an interest is not a conflict of interest) then they would be subject to exactly the same rules as you are. -- samj _in^out 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if an interest is not a conflict of interest, then none of this applies to me, now does it? Explain to me again why we're wasting everyone's time with this? —phh (^t/_c) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Even ex-employees have conflicts sometimes. -- samj _in^out 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And sometimes they don't. Regardless, we certainly wouldn't want to take any radical actions like assuming good faith, would we? —phh (^t/_c) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MattKeegan

Some of the links he writes for;

• matthewkeegan.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• saycampuslife.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• thearticlewriter.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

User only edits to insert links, whick he wrote. this is an ongoing issue. Back in August of 2007 he acknowledged there is a coi, yet he continues to use wikipedia to promote his work.--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy minnesota canned meat company batman! I'll happily Support whatever punishment is deemed necessary, right up to an indefinite block. 0% signal to noise ratio. "The duties of the original stewardesses went far beyond providing cabin services"?! -- samj _in^out 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Have reported the sites for blacklisting. Should wait for result before starting any cleanup. -- samj _in^out 14:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Vickers

Resolved. No WP:COI identified. WP:MULTI case already closed. -- samj _in^out 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See accusation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Colony_Collapse_Disorder#Issue.232 WhatisFeelings? (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Added {{npov}} to the hack job in one section of the Mae-Wan_Ho article for a start. -- samj _in^out 11:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Since all of this is going on without Tim being notified about it, I've notified him. dougweller (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. User:WhatisFeelings?, per above: If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them. -- samj _in^out 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"If you are discussing the actions of another editor" - I'm not; the ones interested are taking a look into it. I'm observing for the consensus.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've commented on the mediation page. This is all very silly IMHO, and the new editor who is throwing around accusations needs to learn more about Wikipedia before making such accusations. He is upset because Tim (rightly I think) reverted an edit because the source was unreliable, and gave him a 3RR warning which he deserved. dougweller (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should have specified that this was for the Mae-Wan Ho article, not the Colony Collapse Disorder incident. You may well be right - these edits, while negative, may well be neutral. I do worry about professionals tinkering with each others' articles but on closer inspection Tim's edits seem to be supportable, and largely pruning content back to the bare facts. -- samj _in^out 14:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've replied here. However, I'm still puzzled as to what article I'm supposed to have a COI on. Was it the Mae-Wan Ho article, or the Colony Collapse Disorder article? I can't think of any obvious link between either of these articles and my work, which is medical research on neglected tropical diseases. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the more I look at this the more I lean towards dougweller's assessment. -- samj _in^out 17:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

KeepItEven has replied to Tim's comment over at mediation, so I'll wait it out.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't wait it out, WhatisFeelings. I find KeepItEven's comments extremely hard to understand and am still unclear as to what article I'm supposed to have a COI on. Could you give a clarification on that point at least? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"I find KeepItEven's comments extremely hard to understand" - yes, i completely agree, ha.

"I'd appreciate it if you didn't wait.." - as a responsible, and diligent mediator, i ought not close a problematic case, but thankfully, i am not, so therefore the case is now closed. you should consider not using unreliable sources however.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but if I understand the complaint correctly, the case seemed to be about me removing an unreliable source, not adding an unreliable source. Anyway, if this doesn't require any further action from me I'll get back to work. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal case was filed because Tim Vickers removed a link to http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8436, which is a self-published article by Brit Amos that attributes the failure of bee colonies to the bees' consumption of GMO plant foods. Self-published articles that do not appear in a mainstream venue and enjoy no review by other scientists are usually considered to lack credibility under WP:RS. I note that the Mediation Cabal case is now closed, and the reason for considering this to be a COI appears nebulous. (KeepItEven has written: Again - as he is a biochemist and director of the Genetic Wiki Project - this seems to be a blatant case of conflict of interest.). Now, being associated with a WikiProject is a COI? Real scientists should not edit Wikipedia articles? Time to close, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

USNS Impeccable

There are several possible conflicts of interest with the USNS Impeccable. Most of the COI is over the word harass, and if it is permissible to use it, after sources have been offered that show that the Chinese government disputes the claim that they harassed anyone. There have also been several edits made by unidentified IPs that have changed the article significantly to favor one government or another. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, from your description. Which editor do you think has a conflict of interest? and for what reason? –Henning Makholm (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going around naming names, but most of the anons trying to slant the article came from one or another domestic ISP. Some of the IPs and at least one new user also didn't seem to edit with either the maturity or the persistence to be expected of an organized external campaign to influence the article. Conclusion: Just run of the mill POV pushing that's actually died down now and settled into a good faith content dispute. So no need for a COI discussion here. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

IPG Photonics

Resolved

 – First account has admitted to being an employee of SMA, a p.r. firm specializing in "investor relations"; both have been spamusernameblocked Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• CRanjiSMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • SMAir2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), f/k/a User:SMAInvestorRelations - These two s.p.a.s edit only this article and related topics. They represent, I believe, Sharon Merrill Associates, a p.r. firm working for the subject firm. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS209005+17-Jul-2008+BW20080717 Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you examine my talk page, you will see that the first account has just admitted working for an "ir" (i.e., "investor relations") firm. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Willis

Resolved. Speedy deleted A7 -- samj _in^out 01:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

Steven Kirk

Resolved. Speedy deleted A7. -- samj _in^out 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

User:Medianyc

User: Medianyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) is a SPA that is solely adding borderline references to observer.com . Username seems to indicate a COI. An inquiry at their talk has been ignored. ccwaters (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

User seems to do nothing but add references to the NY Observer. In the examples I checked, about half his edits were reasonable. I reverted the others, and left him a notice of this discussion. At first glance he *does* seem to be promoting the NY Observer. If he'd propose his changes on the article Talk pages, nobody would mind, but that's not what he's doing. On the principle that an account which is 50% spam and 50% not spam will still be blocked, I think we need to get his attention and persuade him to change, or take some action. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one account. How many other accounts have been adding links to the Observer? Green Cardamom (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The (few) edits I have sampled were all about adding references in places where fact tagging would not have seemed inappropriate. A priori that is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia; certainly the bar should be much lower than for non-reference external links. The relevant inquiry should be (1) is The New York Observer a reliable source? Judging from its article, it probably is. (2) Do the references in fact source the claim they attach to? I did not check that. However, if both answers are "yes", I fail to see any conflict of interest. We do not have a policy that calls for any particular "balance" in the selection of WP:V references. I wouldn't even see a problem if the NY Observer openly contributed the time of one of their employees to Wikipedia for improving sourcing based on an in-house article database. That would be a win-win exchange: we get better verifiability; they get goodwill for helping out Wikipedia. But it certainly would look better as a declared relatio. (Also, Medianyc ought to use {{cite web}} more). –Henning Makholm (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The refs added by Medianyc were substantive, but sometimes they were not appropriate. In two cases he included a review of the wrong book (a Cheever review added to an article about Yates, for example). I am concerned that he may overlook his duty to edit Wikipedia accurately. At both Rupert Everett and Nathan Lane he added a review that was mainly about other people and was of little value to their articles. A 50% error rate is too high. We can't assign a person to clean up after his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so your answer to my question (2) is "no". That is fine by me. I just wanted to prevent a consensus that adding lots of (otherwise good) references to a publication one is affiliated with is, in and of itself, a bad thing. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I never read The New York Observer, but I have no reason to question its reliability. What I *believe* is happening is that User:Medianyc is an agent of the publication, taking the most recent weekly issue and finding the subjects' wiki articles to link from. I bumped into all this at Sean Avery. ccwaters (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vexus Puzzle Design

Resolved. User warned and reported for WP:U violations. Articles nominated for deletion. -- samj _in^out 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

SPA created to promote some puzzles made by someone dba Vexus Puzzle Design. Created articles about new logic puzzles he created and is trying to sell to people and linked other articles to those. DreamGuy (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. -- samj _in^out 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Promoted prod to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Navigrid. -- samj _in^out 01:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reported WP:U violation. -- samj _in^out 01:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

User has also been blocked indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Eveda

Resolved. Article listed for AfD. -- samj _in^out 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Eveda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User with name of product all the user's edits have been to promote, creating own article Eveda (which looks like it was deleted at some point ni the past and then recreated again by same user) and links to that article in other articles. DreamGuy (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Article listed for AfD (user already warned for WP:COI): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eveda -- samj _in^out 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Son of musician writing eulogic articles

• Pjs012915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Main writer asserted "I am one of the composer's son."[12] about his eulogic articles American Rhapsody and John Serry, Sr. Articles seem salvageable but understandably full of POV and OR (I only tagged and cleaned leads). 62.147.36.251 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• See also Concerto_For_Free_Bass_Accordion -- samj _in^out 17:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple living external link

I removed a personal essay from the Simple living article as it violated several points of WP:ELNO, namely points 1, 4, and 11. The IP became indignant and attacked me because I am a college student, which somehow means I can't grasp what he's saying in the article. He has persistantly called me a vandal and has not assumed good faith. On several occasions he has stated that the essay is his own and has not responded to my suggestion that he read and follow WP:COI. I'd like some more help trying to deal with this guy. ThemFromSpace 14:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there may well be grounds for semi-protection and/or sock warnings, since there's a user clearly edit-warring from multiple IPs:

• 59.95.10.47 (talk · contribs)
• 59.95.13.234 (talk · contribs)
• 218.248.79.4 (talk · contribs)

Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)