Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:59, 31 May 2009

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

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

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

Requested edits

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

User:Jklein212 Jonathan Hay (publicist) Sabrina (American singer)

The AfD discussion and contribution history kind of speak for themselves. The publicist article was created by this editor. Then we have the May 9 addition of wikilinks at other articles to the publicist by the same editor. Then we have the noting of "what links here" in the AfD discussion about the article. And the Sabrina article probably warrants some scrutiny too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to chime in with CoM's observation--to me, it's as clear as day that there's fishy things going on here. I've gone through earlier and removed a bunch of the wikilinks to Jonathan Hay, and I called it wikilink spamming in my edits--I hope that was OK. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-posting this here, from the AFD page, so it does not get overlooked: Please do review my history. You will see my diligence and attention to detail. I will agree that I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have made several mistakes (as most do) learning along the way. But I do know that you are to assume good faith. And assuming I am the person in this article and am using it for my own purpose is not assuming good faith. I am NOT the person in this article, nor am I related to him in any way. I simply chose this article as a starting point before I ventured on to other articles, and I have gone to great lengths to improve, learn and research. It can be very confusing learning to navigate around Wikipedia at first, so please assume that any mistakes on my part are not intentional. I am still learning. You will see that I have ASKED for help many times. As far as the "what links here" links, I understood that I was to go to other articles that included his name and link them to his page.

And if you would kindly take a closer look, you will see that I was NOT the one to move Jonathan Hay (publicist) to Jonathan Hay (songwriter) and will note my reply to editor that did so, here. I do not know who this editor is and had to remove a lot of things he added to the article, such as changing his middle name and some random words at the end of the article. But since he did remove the AFD, I assumed it was okay to continue working on the article.

I assure you, my only intention is to better Wikipedia, not add useless or spam-filled articles. I still feel strongly that Jonathan Hay is a good article for Wikipedia. (By the way, if you do a regular Google search for him, you will see page after page of coverage. I hardly think he needs the publicity from a Wikipedia page.)--Jklein212 (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented on Jklein212's talk page about how he is a single-purpose account who has done nothing but spam himself and his clients since he started here. Drawn Some (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Sabrina (American singer) does not meet any of Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles so I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Smartse (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your speedy was declined so I did an AfD. I couldn't find any references. The whole Jonathan Hay article and moves and problems with all of that has been cleaned up. Drawn Some (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI/Spam/Self published ? Peter norton

Resolved

– All links in articles have been removed Smartse (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter norton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - These are old - but still there - he has created 39+ links to his own company website under the guise of being educational but his website also sells the projects pictured. Certainly feels like SPAM/COI. Tried to start cleaning them up but they are buried deep (and old) in many pages so hoping for an admin bulk revert. List of 39 links here: [[1]] 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 09:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all remaining. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had removed some but forgot to finish or make a note here, that's why you didn't see 39. Drawn Some (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for getting started on it, I removed the rest... was just being lazy hoping for an admin to come along and mop it up with a mass reversion of all the users edits. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an extra 'User:' from the userlinks template above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charles.edmunds and FileQube

Resolved

– Article deleted Smartse (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles.edmunds Created article FileQube, and seems to be affiliated with the company, as evidenced by his username and the blog post here. Brianga (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AfD :Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FileQube Smartse (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatashe

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

Hatashe (talk · contribs) has recently created two articles American Chronicle [2] and Modern Ghana [3]. It seems he's an editor in both those electronic publications and he has put his own articles as references to those articles. After a quick look at his contributions, I saw he is adding his own articles as references to a lot other articles as well[4][5][6][7][8][9]. Does this constitute self-promotion under WP:COI? --Avg (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added spam and COI tags to his talk page. From his user page I would think that he is genuinely trying to contribute in a positive way and not just maliciously spamming. Regardless, there is a conflict in interest being indulged by linking to one's own work; it is plainly self-promotional. Drawn Some (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've PRODd American Chronicle but Modern Ghana may be more notable but I'm not too sure. Smartse (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROD removed by anonymous IP in Bangladesh (possibly Hatashe) - now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chronicle Smartse (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 123.49.40.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the AfD notice on American Chronicle - their edit history shows that they have edited articles on subpages of Hatashe's userpage - I think Hatashe needs to be warned over this (I imagine that it is also very likely that he removed the PROD) but I'm unsure in what way to do so as there's no direct evidence. Any suggestions? Smartse (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though this IP is also from Bangla Desh, my guess is that the editor is not Hatashe. I've semiprotected the article for one week to prevent any further removal of the AfD banner, in lieu of blocking the IP, who seems inexperienced with our policies and may be well-intentioned. We still need to decide on a good response to Hatashe's insertion of links. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm inclined to disagree but lets give them the benefit of the doubt. As shown at the AfD the website is clearly not a WP:RS and any links should be removed. There are an awful lot of links (397) that need removing however: [10]. Just to clarify the American Chronicle can be edited by anyone as shown by the disclaimer on their website. Can they all be removed quickly or does it need to be done manually (I hope not!!). I've tried to encourage Hatashe to explain their POV on this but as yet they are silent - not sure what action to take considering this. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that Modern Ghana should also be sent to AfD. Regarding the 397 spammy links to those two websites, I suggest leaving a report at WT:WPSPAM and ask for the best way to get the links removed. Somebody who runs AWB could probably do it in a jiffy if they were sure of consensus for the removal. The posting at WPSPAM would probably be enough to justify it. The excessive redirects to American Chronicle will qualify for speedy deletion if the main article is deleted at AfD. I've left a {{uw-spam3}} warning for Hatashe. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been done here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#americanchronicle.com I'll look take a deeper look at Modern Ghana later. Smartse (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Ghana has just been speedily deleted as a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

‎User:Pattysuesmith

Unresolved

‎Pattysuesmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
‎American Digger Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
‎American Digger (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Premiercover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Consistent spamming of this magazine, in which she is the website administrator of (see bottom of this page). MuZemike 02:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been deleted and I added a warning template to her talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has had at least three COI warnings on her talk page. She has also now created ‎American Digger (magazine) to shirk the deletion process. MuZemike 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged ‎American Digger (magazine) as spam.Smartse (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was declined (somehow) so I've prodded the article. Smartse (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prod was also removed so it is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Digger_(magazine). Smartse (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD result was "no consensus". The article currently states it has a "current circulation of over 2000". Mccomas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared and Pattysuesmith disappeared as soon as PROD was placed on the article. Their editing suggests that they may also have a COI. Smartse (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arimasa

Resolved

– Article deleted and user hasn't edited since 5.5.09 Smartse (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arimasa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has been posting at Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre with denialist propaganda that breaks WP:FRINGE and WP:OR [11]. The material added by him comes from his own personal website! PCPP (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance of Power (forum game)

Resolved

– article deleted and redirected Smartse (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance of Power (forum game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mrdie (talk · contribs) is the administrator of a similar forum and does not wish to have "competition" from a "rival" forum so he has twice, using two IP addresses here and here, removed the link to another forum. This "rivalry" extends beyond the Wiki and is spitefully trying to get back at another forum by constantly removing it from Wikipedia. There is not a monopoly of the forum game and making it out to look that way is malicious, and thus vandalism. Thank you SonnyCorleone (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither forum should have a link per WP:EL rules, and the article in question is not encyclopedic as there are no reliable sources and the topic has no notability. Whole thing goes away now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention so it could be dealt with in the way most appropriate to our standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think sending it to AfD might have been a better course since the redirect amounts to a de-facto Speedy Delete of the original. I think the outcome of the AfD would very likely have been the same, though. Arakunem^Talk 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted (rightfully IMO, neither you or I created the article). To clear things up, Sonny's forum was created due to a split on Diplomacy (the forum linked). I included Diplomacy because it is a professional (paid-for) forum and is by far the most active BoP forum (and oldest) whereas Sonny's forum is a basic, free forum closed off to everyone except those who register. I also wanted to substantiate the claim that it was being played in both various topics online (which I did, like 8 citations) and on a forum-wide basis (which I did, by citing Diplomacy). As noted however, the article shouldn't have existed. --Mrdie (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for forum drama reaching the wiki. I saw a link to that forum and believed that people should see what other versions of the game are like. I totally respect this decisions. I came here to prevent an edit war. Looking over Mrdie's contributions he seems to be embroiled in several revert wars and did not want that to happen. Thank you for your decision. SonnyCorleone (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radialpoint

Radialpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Radialpointpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Prrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Radialpointfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Paigemce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page Radialpoint was just greatly expanded by User:Radicalpointpr. The COI is clear but the information added appears more encyclopedic and in-line with our standards than with most COI cases. I tagged the page but didn't revert the edit. I'd like feedback to see if this was the proper move. Them From Space 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to save what was remaining. There might be some more stuff that should be removed or other info from previous edits that should be reincluded. It would be useful if someone else could take a look. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it wasn't just this editor - others have edited the page before who also seem to have a COI. I've added the usernames to this page and will warn them too.

Pruning of the promo and peacocking looks good. There was a bit of press-releasey type stuff that was removed which might not have been too objectionable, but hopefully the user(s) will read up the COI links provided and edit accordingly if they think that info really serves the article by inclusion. Arakunem^Talk 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new user User:Paigemce has appeared and added the same information back. There is strong evidence to be found through google that they too have a COI - the edits have been reverted but I was wondering whether this merits firmer action (i.e. checkuser)? Smartse (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

121.220.36.117 continually deletes Yves Carbonne entries in favor of promoting Garry Goodman

Resolved

– The evidence suggests that the COI was the opposite way to that suggested Smartse (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

121.220.36.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Extended-range bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bass guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Continues to vandalize any entries made about Yves Carbonne, in favor of Garry Goodman, both bassists. All Carbonne entries have valid supporting links, whereas the Goodman entries 121.220.36.117 continually reinstates (either while replacing Carbonne entries or while adding to Goodman entries AND replacing Carbonne entries) have excessive promotional value, no links or supporting references, etc. In addition, the information 121.220.36.117 continually reverts (wipes out Carbonne, replaced by Goodman) has very detailed information about Garry Goodman's strings (he is more of a string maker than a noted bassist), information possibly only Garry Goodman or a representative of his would know, and promote in an effort to sell strings. This person follows me around, makes very few edits to anything else, and is literally stalking any pages with information about Yves Carbonne, who is not receiving a "lack of consensus" as 121.220.36.117 alleges, but spreading bad information and making accusations he cannot support. There were Carbonne entries that did not receive a consensus a while back. Since then, the correct type of third party links were added, and there seems to have been a change in consensus, to Carbonne's favor. However, 121.220.36.117 continues to write the same derogatory comments over and over, although he has absolutely no proof of his allegations. He has now reverted information added by a second editor on the extended-range bass page, and reverted my last entry on the "bass guitar" page. It should be known, there were about 20 editors in the middle of my entry, and his revert, and at no time did anyone object to the Carbonne information being present. As soon as something goes up about Carbonne, he is there, usually immediately or by the next day, to remove it and add information about Garry Goodman. I have given him 2 warnings, and an admin gave him a third. Please see all the revisions he made to "Carbonne" here ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.220.36.117. It is abundantly evident that he has a definite conflict of interest, and is trying to prevent information from being shared on Wikipedia, which is very relevant to the history and future of the sub-extended-range bass guitar, because I suspect, absolutely, that he fancies himself as a competitor. Please block him from continuing his vandalism and stalking, and using Wikipedia as a promotional venue for Garry Goodman. Thank you.TruthBeTold (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I modified the header of this report to follow the conventions normally used at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. First timer over here. TruthBeTold (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence of a COI, other than 2 camps very intent on their opinions. This looks to be a content dispute more than a COI. While the IP does remove your Carbonne paragraph often, I only see 2 edits by IP-121 that add info on Goodman (one of which was a couple of lines just mentioning the different number of strings in one of his basses). The recent edit to Bass Guitar did add a fair amount of Goodman related info. Reading through the talk pages on the 2 articles in question, it does seem like the general feeling is not to have Carbonne's info in there (I count 3 opposed, and only yourself in favor). As Ed Johnston mentioned on the locked page, you should work with the others on that page to arrive at an agreement as to whether Carbonne should be on there. Several claims are mentioned about Carbonne that may or may not support his inclusion; that is up to the discussion on the talk page though. (Unfortunately I am unable at the moment to view the cited articles on bass-musician-magazine.com to offer an opinion there... the site seems to be having problems pulling article text). Arakunem^Talk 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You don't see evidence of a COI, when ip 121..., as his first contribution on here (without being a registered user) deleted Carbonne? And then did it 10 more times, on 3 different pages, including the Michael Manring page, on which Carbonne played on a collaboration with Manring? You don't find it odd that another 20 or so editors on the bass page didn't object to Carbonne infomation, but lo and behond, 121 removed his information yesterday, put up the reason that Carbonne was not notable, and just HAPPENED to conveniently enter unsupported information about Goodman (no sources)? You don't find it odd that every time a change to Carbonne has been made, my me or someone else, that he goes in right after, and deletes it? That's really interesting. Looks like a big gaping COI to me. TruthBeTold (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the IP editor of this discussion. For additional background, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Carbonne, which closed with Delete on 5 April. There have been other relevant discussions at User talk:TLCbass. It would be helpful if TLCbass would disclose how he happens to be concerned about this issue, since he used 'bass' in his user name. He is here at COIN suggesting that the IP editor has a conflict of interest, while he himself might have a business or professional connection to this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most absurd thing I ever heard. Go on the bass dicussion: every other person on there has bass in their name. Boy, you are reeeealy reaching here. I use the name "bass", because I love bass. For people asking me why I have an interest this, there seems to be a lot of people on here who have a lot of opinions, and voice them unduly. My interest is as follows (you could have just asked, instead of beating around the bush): I do not accept the fact that an outstanding musician and pioneer is being dissed on here, and the information about how he has created an instrument and a concept which will further the expansion of the instrument - is being bullied off of here because of people with conflicting interests and suspect motives. Furthermore, I am the one who brought the complaint against 121... He is the one removing Carbonne entries (mine or other) to replace them with Goodman entries. The Carbonne entries are supported by Bass Musician Magazine. The Goodman entries contain enormous amounts of promotional and opinionated information, and in addition, is not sourced or supported. I already said - when I first put up information about Carbonne, I was new on here, and included inappropriate links according to your site. I have since corrected that, and another editor with whom I am not affiliated in any way, shape or form, took it on himself to write a very educated, factual blurb about Carbonne's bass, which he conceived. I am getting very very tired of being put on the defense, when I, as an editor, who has spent MANY MANY hours on here, continues to be questioned. This while you have someone with a blatant conflict of interest getting away with doing everything that is against your policies. I am not following 121 around and removing HIS entries... I am not stalking 121... I am not targeting anything that he holds an interest in. But, he is doing that to me and another editor. This is really to the point of being beyond ridiculous. TruthBeTold (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to put you on the defense, we're just trying to impartially gather the facts here. I'll respond to your previous couple of posts above in one spot here, as I'm sure you can see that breaking them up would start to get hard to follow.

On the COI: In order for there to be a conflict of interest, IP121 would have to have a close connection to the topic (in this case, Goodman), and/or benefit in the real-world by the way the article is written on-wiki (such as a business promoting itself to drive up sales). I have not seen a COI demonstrated in this case using that definition. Thus far, I see IP121 as being a bass enthusiast who happens to not think Carbonne should be included. Just as you are a bass enthusiast who thinks he should. If either of you have a closer connection to Carbonne, Goodman, or indeed any of the manufacturers named in the article, or otherwise stand to benefit from the shape of the article, then you/he/they have a COI. Just being an editor who edits in one field, from one point-of-view does not automatically prove a COI.

On the notability of Carbonne: Please see This Page for specifics on what constitutes notability on Wikipedia. Again, we are just using the criteria as defined here. The notability policy even states "topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic". The criteria that determines notability is Verifiability. If a topic has been covered significantly (not just passing references) in multiple independent sources, then it is likely notable as Wikipedia defines it. I still can't bring up the bass-musician-magazine.com articles so can't comment on the sourcing aspect, but if Carbonne is covered in other independent sources, then notability should not be a problem. I do note that the article on him was deleted precisely because nobody could or would add such sources.

On IP121's deletions: I am not sure why he is so intent on deleting the Carbonne paragraphs, but this topic is not my forte. If the paragraph claims are supported by the cite (dang bass-musician-magazine.com again) then the question becomes: Does including the paragraph improve the article? That determination is made by consensus on the article's talk page. My advice would be to enter into a more detailed dialog about just why that information seems to be inappropriate in the IP's eyes. The only explanation I've seen for that was "We said we weren't going to list everybody" which may be fine if Carbonne is grouped in with "everybody", in which case I might want to know why if I was the one who wanted that information in. A more friendly discourse, rather than accusatory, might end up with you convincing the others that he should be in there.

Sorry for the length of this post. Please do reply below if I can be of additional service. Arakunem^Talk 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just using the search function at http://bass-musician-magazine.com brings up 38 hits for 'Carbonne' and 4 hits for 'Goodman.' This suggests that the magazine found Carbonne more noteworthy. Someone would still have to read the actual articles to see how they rate the importance of these guys. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: If you read the exact text IP121 put in under his changes when adding info about Goodman, it is clear he is connected with the subject. I have not been able to find any of the info about Goodman he added on the web. In addition, his deletions of Carbonne are always directly after someone adds him, and always make reference to the fact that he isn't notable. That was never really established. His article was deleted because I finally demanded that it was deleted, because I am the one who made the mistake of adding information other wikipedians found to be containing praise. That was MY mistake, not Carbonne's. He had nothing to do with it, and had been on here for approx. 2 years - with his own page - before I added information about him, that sadly, ended up in a long, drawn out argument. After editors continually reverted the information back to outdated and incorrect information, instead of making positive suggestions as to how I could change it so it would be "Wiki-appropriate", it turned into a battle I no longer had the time or inclination to continue fighting. If you look at the "battle", you will see that it was suggested that someone else pick up the reigns to add info about Carbonne. Now, someone has, because is a HUGE force in bass development, and is an outstanding musician. That is not my opinion by the way, that is a fact. I added numerous links to independent sources, but it was too late. To have this perverse interest in now eliminating a one sentence addition by an editor unknown to me is just persecution. I am truly firm in my belief, based on ip121's pattern, he definitely has ulterior motives to do what he is doing. Carbonne does meet notability. I am not retying all of that here. You are free to look at my talk page or the article's talk page for support of that statement. TruthBeTold (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have no problem whatsoever getting into the Bass Musician Magazine Articles. Not sure why you do? He has also received positive reviews in Bass Player Magazine (Hard copy, not on line), The International Institute of Bassists, and ALL of the Bass Forums online. If you look at his myspace page (which has become the new standard for reviewing a musicians notability, at least in the music industry it is: record companies go there to see how an artist is doing), you will see, of ALL the bassists on the site, he is second (in both song plays, page views, and fans) only to Marcus Miller. Every other bassist on the site (which actually has a page for ANY bassist you have ever heard of) has less song plays, fans, and pageviews than Carbonne. Feel free to verify that information. http://www.myspace.com/yvescarbonne

TruthBeTold (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, thanks for notifying me of this discussion. I have been wanting to start a COI discussion regarding Carbonne but just haven't had the time and so I am very grateful a discussion has been opened here and I welcome an examination of this issue. Arakunem: Just to clear things up, I'm not a "bass enthusiast who happens to not think Carbonne should be included". I'm not even a bass enthusiast. I'm simply a Wikipedia enthusiast and I've been trying to protect Wikipedia from a SPA who is on a promotional mission with 100% of her edits directed to trying force Wikipedia to include information about Yves Carbonne.

As way of background, I became aware of this issue when the Yves Carbonne article was nominated for deletion. I did some research, checked the links TLCBass had provided and then came back to comment on the AFD only to find it had already been closed. Before the article was deleted, though, I noticed that TLCBass claimed repeatedly in edit summaries that she was here as Carbonnes "authorized" representative. The article has been deleted now so unfortunately I can't check the exact wording, but administrators can look at the deleted edits of that article and see that she repeatedly claimed she was authorized to make edits regarding Carbonne. Also, when I followed some of the links she added to the article and the talk page, I very quickly realised who she was, what her username means and she has a very significant conflict of interest and I believe she should not be the one to decide what, if any, information Wikipedia has about this man. Now, I personally don't care if we have information about him or not. An editor at Talk:Extended-range bass said he feels that a brief mention of Carbonne may be appropriate in the extended range bass article. If he, or another experienced user, were to make such an edit, I would accept whatever they considered appropriate. My objection here is that we have a SPA with a very significant COI and that person should not be the one to decide and then enforce what Wikipedia says about Carbonne, especially when the Carbonne subject has been rather contentious (I am not the only one who has reverted TLCBass's edits about Carbonne).

TLCBass accuses me of "using Wikipedia as a promotional venue for Garry Goodman" and of adding information that only Goodman or his representatives would know. To be clear: I have absolutely no connections to Goodman or any other musician in any genre of music (if only TLCBass could say the same thing). The truth is, I have never made any content edits regarding Goodman and the information about Goodman which TLCBass blames me for adding to the article was not written or contributed by me! It just happens that TLCBass replaces the Goodman content with her information about Carbonne and when I reverted her Carbonne edits, the Goodman material is restored as an effect of the reversion. I don't even know anything about Goodman beyond the information I have read in the article and I don't care if we have information about him or not. Her accusations are ridiculous and not grounded in fact.

TLCBass refers to "(my) first contribution on here (without being a registered user)". Being a registered user or not is beside the point. Editing as an anon is a right protected by the foundation principles and should have nothing to do with content disputes or how a user is treated. I do have an account and I've contributed thousands of edits to Wikipedia over around five years. I've been on an extended Wikibreak since last year and over the last few months I have gradually begun editing again as an anon. I am not editing simultaneously with my account and I'm not avoiding a block, ban or other sanctions (and would be willing to prove this privately to an administrator if necessary) so I'm entitled to edit anonymously if I wish. My IP is dynamic and it changes on a regular basis, varying from every few days to every couple of months, so all my anonymous edits are not under this IP as TLCBass seems to suggest. Anons have been welcome on this project since its inception and they aren't supposed to be treated as second class citizens and I really object to the snark and abuse that TLCBass has hurled my way.

TLCBass claims I am stalking her edits, following her around, reverting all her edits. I have not been following her, but I have been watching the articles involved. It's unfortunate that 100% of her edits to Wikipedia are about Carbonne because if she edited on other subjects instead of just trying to force information about Carbonne into the encyclopedia, she would quickly see that I'm not following her and that I'm not interested in her beyond trying to protect the integrity of the project. Had I been stalking her, I would have found her complaints about me to AN3, Sockpuppet investigations, and here and commented on all of them already, but I didn't even know about this until Ed notified me and I only found out about AN3 and SI a few minutes ago (TLCBass, it's considered good manners on this project to notify users when you make complaints about them). TLCBass is a SPA with a significant COI and I ask the administrators on this page to take a close look at what is going on here. She is also highly incivil and takes an attitude that anyone who is not on her side is against her and she uses bullying tactics, false accusations, threats to have the other party blocked if they don't yield to her and general aggression as a means to try to intimidate other users and get her own way in regards to content. Also, I see that she's still bothering the user who nominated her Carbonne article for AFD by following him to an unrelated AFD to pester him about the Carbonne AFD. [12]

Finally, TLCBass's accusations of vandalism are untrue and offensive. By definition, good faith edits are not vandalism. All my edits to Wikipedia are made in good faith and with the best of intentions for Wikipedia and therefore under the policy cannot be classed as vandalism - "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Also, under the same policy, a content dispute is not vandalism - "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". So I ask TLCBass to stop making false accusations, accusing me of vandalism, COI etc and instead be honest about her own Conflict of Interest and then follow the recommendations laid out in the COI guideline and leave the content decisions up to other users who are not invested in Yves Carbonne and his inclusion/exclusion in this encyclopedia. 121.220.36.117 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Also, TLCBass is trying to mislead above when she states that the Yves Carbonne article was deleted because she requested it. It was deleted as a result of the AFD as anyone who reads the AFD can see and the AFD is cited as the reason in the deletion log - [13]. 121.220.36.117 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that after looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yves_Carbonne it does seem as though TLCBass may have a COI with regard to Yves Carbonne. 121.220 whilst it is your right to remain anonymous it is also worth pointing out that having an account actually increases you anonymity and tends to garner respect (rightly or wrongly) from other editors. Can an admin confirm the claims 121.220 has made about TLCBass having a COI with Carbonne? Also a quick request to please keep comments short and to the point if possible please. :) Smartse (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the long reply but TLCBass has made so many accusations about me on multiple noticeboards that I did not know about until after they were archived because no one ever bothered to notify me and thus I've never had an opportunity to respond. Anyway, I've tried to cut my post down a little to respond to the key accusations on this page. Also, I do realise a user has more anonymity with an account and as I stated above I do have an established account. I am not editing anonymously because I am seeking anonymity but for personal reasons that I won't elaborate on here but would be happy to discuss this (and to identify my account and my real world identity) with an administrator privately if there are genuine concerns that I have a conflict of interest regarding this subject area. Thanks Smartse for looking into this. I appreciate it. 58.168.215.13 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (121.220.36.117, sorry my IP has rotated again 58.168.215.13 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Hmm, a quick look at User talk:TLCbass would seem to back this up. The first sentence in the deleted Yves Carbonne (presumably written by TLCbass, as they've kept it on their talk page) article read "Yves Carbonne is the most listened to French instrumentalist on the internet to date" and was unsourced. There is also a note from user:chzz with regards to a COI. Smartse (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganging up me again? GOOD! Except I have better things to do with my day than argue on here. Yes, I deleted that because it was sourced back to myspace, which is the considered the record industry standard for determining an artist's popularity. But, of course, Wikipedia did not approve that, so I removed it. And 121... perhaps if you didn't act like a stalker, you wouldn't be accused of being one...TruthBeTold (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at lots of pages involved with this and I'm starting to think that maybe neither of you have a COI and that this is just an edit war. TLCbass definitely appears to be a fan of Yves Carbonne (at least judging by Yves Carbonne's myspace page) but this doesn't constitute a COI. 121, you accuse TLCbass of being Carbonne's partner here do you have any evidence? (be careful not to out her though if you do-a diff would be the best way to do this). It would also help if you knew what your IP was before 121 so we can all look at your previous edits. From your history at 121 you haven't added the info on Garry but I can't tell whether you did before. Let's please try and resolve this. Thanks Smartse (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, look, I'm not going to write anymore here. I have said enough about this and provided enough clues (starting with the deleted revs to Yves Carbonne where she admitted it in edit summaries) and this section is long enough as it is. In my experience on Wikipedia the longer threads become, the less and less likely it is that the right people will actually read them. I could provide every IP I've ever used and it still wouldn't prove that I didn't add that information about Garry Goodman so it's really pointless. I mean, I could have used an account to do it, open proxies, public IPs etc, right, so it's pointless expecting me to prove that I wasn't the one who added it. Really what it boils down to is that as an anon I have no credibility unless I sign into my account and prove that I'm an established and trusted user on this project, which is something I am unprepared to do at this point. So instead I will contact an administrator privately, identify my account and my real world identity and address this with them. Thanks, 58.168.215.13 (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin viewing the deleted revisions, I can confirm that there are several deleted revisions on the "Yves Carbonne" article where TLCbass specifically, unambiguously refers to themselves as an "authorized party". Edit summaries include "I am absolutely authorized to put ALL information on this page. Whoever keeps changing it - STOP RIGHT NOW!" (used twice in an edit war on, get this, 1 April 2009), and on the same day, "Correcting and updating information. I am an authorized editor.". This was the same day they first started editing the page, adding almost 80% of it. Some of the contents included unencyclopaedic passages such as: "One might infer from the sounds heard on Seven Waves, the instrument when in played in France, sounds as if it has the potential to register on Richter scales in the Americas." and "What Carbonne captures in this recording is the powerful rock solid, bass register underpinning of a brew of all these elements, with musical intuition that renews familiar conventions with a freshness and emotional intensity that at once seems as genuinely felt as it is intelligently composed." The user created their account 4 minutes before their first edit to the Yves Carbonne article which added 5k to its length, with the edit summary "Added accurate, up to date information 3-30-2009". Their AfD comments on their third day of editing showed a disgraceful lack of regard for Wikipedia policy and for fellow editors and users. Orderinchaos 04:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace is considered a record industry source? Somebody should have a read of WP:V and WP:RS, methinks... Orderinchaos 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from above for visibility) I can vouch for the identity of the IP address as being a long-serving user and administrator in good standing, who has not significantly edited from their main account for some time - in fact they've resolved some contentious issues at BLPs between warring parties in the past 12-18 months on a number of occasions. I also agree that it's insane that someone should have to sign into their account to have any credibility - that isn't the principles on which this project was based, and I myself edited as an anon for nearly a year before registering and, back then, was never challenged once or treated any differently for it. The behaviour of User:TLCbass should be separately investigated in my view. Orderinchaos 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that settles it then in my opinion, thanks for revealing that Orderinchaos. There is absolutely no evidence of the IP having a COI and yet there is strong evidence for TLCbass having one. I think this is now resolved although the Extended-range bass article needs to be changed accordingly. Smartse (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?? Nothing is settled and no one has heard anything from the contributor (not me) who's info was removed again. You people really do conduct yourselves like a lynch mob...

Even though Yves Carbonne has an astronomically larger fan base, substantially more references, is praised all over every bass forum online, has been recognized by the International Institute of Bassists, has been reviewed and interviewed several times in Bass Musician Magazine, has been reviewed in Bass Player Magazine, etc. And Gary Goodman has not. Interesting.

Furthermore, to go into Michael Manring's page, and actually remove part of HIS discography because you all apparently have a vendetta in play here, is reprehensible. Perhaps I will write to Michael Manring and let him know that you have defaced HIS page, IP121. There is something VERY underhanded going on here, about the viciousness involved of people ganging up to remove Carbonne. It is actually sick. I am not ruining my holiday arguing with you people who are evidently clueless re: the bass world. I will wait until the luthier whose entries you removed, 121, has a say in this. He's probably just disgusted at what he sees, and doesn't want to bother arguing with you people. And if Carbonne's fans get wind of what is going on here, you can be sure you will be hearing from them as well. Really, at this point, what you are all doing is just plain twisted. I have better things to do with my time than getting aggravated arguing with people who are obviously involved personally in making sure that Carbonne is not on here, i.e. persecuted (because of clear conflict of interest... I suppose that is why you are all turning everything around, and accusing me of a COI) and promoting Gary Goodman, who has apparently taken over the page as his personal promo page, although he has few if any fans out there. But it's apparently OK that his name is mentioned a whopping 6 times on there - without ONE source. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, smartse... It's clear: wiki rules apply selectively, not impartially. At this point, I am all out of tact. I suspect there are several sock/meat puppets involved, several people with a COI, and I think there is something VERY wrong going on relative to the blatant persecution and favoritism going on here. And if the shoe fits, wear it. In fact, what you all are doing by outing a notable, widely respected artist, and preventing interested parties from accessing information about him on this particular site, is just out and out perverse. So keep promoting metalheads and Garry Goodman and out widely respected artists with huge fan bases, and see how quickly your credibility as a site goes down the tubes. Perhaps you should have read the articles I wasted my time putting on here for your review, instead of finding excuses as to why you couldn't because your internet connections didn't work. If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable. TLCbass (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my use of in my opinion others are welcome to say whether they agree or disagree. Please do disagree anybody, if you think that my last post is incorrect. Are you accusing me of being a sock/meatpuppet and adding info RE Garry Goodman?! Who am I? I'm a student who first and foremost respects wikipedia for the fact that information on it is not added by people with a COI. That's why I look over the cases posted here. Your COI is singing out to me loudly, as illustrated by the above discussion. Smartse (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even *play* bass so I don't see how I could have a vendetta (I'm a six stringer myself). About all I know about bass is that the guys from Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Faith No More are pretty good and that I can sort of do an acceptable effort trialling them in a music store. As for 121, who is from the other side of the world from Carbonne and had never heard of him until the AfD last month, I'm pretty sure they don't play any instrument, and neither 121 nor myself had ever dealt with Smartse or any other person here prior to this incident. Orderinchaos 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed my Wikipedia username and my real world identity to the administrator Orderinchaos and I'm sure that he can confirm that he is more than satisfied that I do not work in the music industry or any remotely related field. I do not have a conflict of interest but you do. I think the fact this upsets you so much and makes you so angry and abusive highlights why you should step back and leave this up to other people who are not invested in Carbonne. Also, have you ever heard the saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? It goes double on Wikipedia. You will find that people here are far more amenable if you are polite and treat them with respect rather than abusing anyone who doesn't instantly agrees with your opinion of Carbonne and launching into false and laughable accusations of every wiki-crime you can think of without a shred of evidence in an apparent hope that if you sling enough mud eventually some of it will stick. To now accuse uninvolved people like Smartse and Orderinchaos of having a COI or being socks is just ridiculous. 121.219.164.214 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was taking the long weekend off. A couple of points now that I'm caught up on the above. I am able to view the bass-musician-magazine.com articles now. The "About Yves Carbonne" article seems a bit promotional, but the section on tuning the sub-bass frequencies, which is what was cited from that article, strikes me as ok. Combined with the Jerzy Drozd link, the inclusion of that info in the article does not seem problematic to me, as it contained the cited fact on that tuning, and left out the promotional tone ("a pioneer in electric bass development") that the articles contain. The "Why Fretless" article was written BY Carbonne, so may not appropriate as it is a primary source.

Secondly, TLCBass, please stop accusing everyone of a COI, Sockpuppetry, etc. Wikipedia has a very specific definition of COI, and repeatedly accusing people in the absence of any solid evidence can be considered a personal attack. "Why else would they be doing this" is not considered solid evidence. So far, the closest thing to COI proof was yourself stating you were authorized to make edits, which suggests a close relation to the topic, which IS the Wikipedia definition of a COI.

Lastly, IP121, you stated that the Carbonne info may be ok in the article, as long as TLC is not the one adding it due to a perceived COI. According to the COI guidelines here, a COI-affected editor may still edit the article they may be in conflict with, as long as they maintain a neutral tone. Regardless of TLC's COI or lack-of-one, the Carbonne edits don't seem promotional or biased to me (admittedly not anything close to an expert in this area).

I AGAIN encourage the parties to discuss constructively on the talk pages of the articles, rather than slinging COI accusations, posting vandalism reports, and so on. If TLC wants X in the article, discuss why. If IP121 does not want X there, discuss why. Discuss how this roadblock can be worked around. Build a consensus. Arakunem^Talk 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm saying is that I personally don't care if Carbonne is mentioned in an appropriate article or not (but I don't think he should be discussed in all the articles TLCBass wants him in) but because this topic has been so contentious - the material has been removed by several people, not just by me, the concerns about his notability raised at and around the AFD and in other discussions, and the discussion on various talk pages like Talk:Bass_guitar#Addition_of_Bassists_and_Bands_2 and Talk:Extended-range_bass where no one but TLCBass has supported inclusion of Carbonne, any content decisions regarding this should not be made by someone who is so patently and clearly partial, invested and compromised as TLCBass. I'm personally not at all convinced of this fellow's notability under the guideline, but as I've said on the talk page of Talk:Extended-range bass, I would accept an uninvested, established editor making a content decision, but I do not accept a self-admitted representative of the artist making such a decision in the face of an active lack of consensus amongst other editors and then returning regularly to enforce the content. TLCBass has no edits outside Yves Carbonne and really appears to come here just to police Carbonne content in those articles and I absolutely do not accept her editorial judgment in this matter. Also, I find that a rather superficial description of the Conflict of Interest guideline. While the guideline states that COI isn't reason enough on it's own to reject edits, it also states that general policies must be adhered to and clearly there are a variety of policies and guidelines that TLCBass is violating (WP:CON, especially, plus WP:EW, WP:OWN, WP:CIV, are just a few policies that come to mind). As a conflict of interest editor, it was fine for her to add the material but once it was clear that Carbonne's inclusion was contentious and that there was no consensus, under both the COI guideline and general Wikipedia policies, she should have stopped, discussed it, and reached a compromise with others on those articles. And she was asked to do this many times by different editors and administrators. Instead, she edit warred and tried to police and enforce the content against an active lack of support and without a consensus. (Not saying that I'm faultless as I recognise that I should have pursued WP:DR and I regret not filing a ANI/AN3 report because although she didn't violate 3RR in a 24 hour period she has violated other aspects of the policy as well as CIV and NPA and reporting it may have helped resolve this earlier). 121.219.164.214 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I find that a rather superficial description of the Conflict of Interest guideline. Quite right, I forget that you are an experienced Wikian. I'm a tad used to simplifying the guidelines for those situations where it is asserted that COI=Barred from editing (mea culpa). :) I think we've about wrung this issue out though. The COI does appear to be on the other side of the argument, and the consensus in the article talk pages is for non-inclusion of the Carbonne info. I would once again invite TLC to discuss the content she wishes to add on the talk pages, and perhaps arrive at a consensus with the other editors as to the exact wording. There's no conspiracy against Carbonne, just a conspiracy to keep Wikipedia conformant to its policies. Arakunem^Talk 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Thank you Arakunem, Smartse and Orderinchaos for the time and effort you've all spent looking into this issue. I appreciate your time, effort, advice and assistance very much. 124.181.137.158 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Children's Rights Council

Resolved

– users blocked and articles permanently semi-protected Smartse (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Children's Rights Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parental alienation syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parental alienation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

S-MorrisVP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Smith research (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked until 25.05)
JaniceMT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition to egregious POV pushing and a whole lot of other nonsense, I believe I've just recieved a notice that there is a conflict of interest problem [14]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a blatant COI issue here. S-MorrisVP has also complained here that other users have "taken control" of the article on her organisation - in clear contradiction of WP:OWN. All their edits so far have been adding links to the Canadian Children's Rights Council's website and the user has been blocked twice before and been warned about the COI before yet continues to edit as before. The article listed here seems to be taken care of but I think some other articles may need a look over. I gather from the WP:ANI that this is not an isolated user. I've added some other users and articles to the top of this. Smartse (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the editors involved and indefinitely protected CCRC; see this AN/I thread. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CV Travel

Resolved

– Not a COI issue, but I think it's resolved anyway with consensus removal of advert tag. Rees11 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone at this noticeboard take a look at CV Travel and see if this article still has an advertising tone? The article initially had some advertising elements but I think I've cleaned it up. Quartermaster (talk · contribs) has added an {{advert}} tag to the article because they believe that this article is still promotional. I disagree, and we are discussing this at Talk:CV Travel. Please comment there as to whether or not the article is promotional. Thanks for taking a look at this, Cunard (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tone is ok, but the article strikes me as overly detailed. It reads like a brochure, not an advertisement. So while I've seen worse, I think you're not quite there yet. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QuotationMan is a Single Purpose Account

Resolved

– QuotationMan has agreed to a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Libertas.eu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Declan Ganley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
86.45.196.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

QuotationMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be a Single Purpose Account, editing on Declan Ganley and Libertas.eu Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a checkuser Catalpa (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He had been removing well-sourced critical material from the two articles, suggesting he was editing in support of his personal POV. QuotationMan was blocked 24 hours on 21 May and has not resumed since the block. An IP editor, 86.45.196.61, started removing text and references from Declan Ganley on 23 May with no edit summaries, so I've semiprotected that article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wise to semi protect I should have asked earlier. 91.189.71.198

started that pattern of editing out of references and I assume that they are related IPs. The latter is most likely Rivada Networks/Libertas based at Mr. Ganley's house in Tuam, Co Galway. That presents another WP:COI issue. 91.189.71.198 - Geo Information, IP Address 91.189.71.198 Host ptr-71-198.knr.ip.airwire.ie, Location IE, Ireland City Tuam, 10 Organization Airwire.

The latter Ip removed most of quite a good page that had begun to get hit with weasel words and silly edits but was more or less stable. Footnotes had been at 58 well sourced references. The issue would be to rebuild without violations of WP:BLP esp. as the subject is running for election. Catapla (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single purpose account

This is not a single purpose account. Aside from writing about Libertas, Ganley and on related pages, I also write about the Democratic Deficit and Judicial Activism.

Like everyone else editing Libertas, Declan Ganley my point of view is not neutral. However, it is allowed for people without a neutral point of view to make certain edits on Wikipedia, in order to defend the privacy / reputation of a private person or organisation. I am with my non-neutral point of view allowed to defend Declan Ganley's and Libertas' privacy and reputation on Wikipedia.

Political parties and movements have no right of privacy to protect; don't be absurd. Your obviously non-neutral POV is showing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indent

Libertas.eu is a pan-European political party with aspirations to become a political party at European level that has attracted the support of the President of the Czech Republic, the former Prime Minister of Latvia, elements of the far-right, has at least seven member parties, approximately twenty-six affiliate parties, (there's a question mark over Lithuania) and is running at least 500 member/affiliate candidates in sixteen countries for the European Parliament election, 2009. Whatever it may be, a "private organization" it is not. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indent ends

Catalpa, Truthinirishpolitics and Gerfinch do NOT have neutral points of view and must not be allowed to add controversies, change nationality to English, label Rivada a military contractor etc. When your point of view is NOT neutral you are allowed to defend reputation, privacy - NOT attack it.

--QuotationMan (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ganley's nationality has been the subject of a lot of press coverage it is clear he was born in the UK and claims Irish citizenship. can you point to the diffs that assert I have said anything else?

Rivada is a military contractor as its contracts are with the military see Irish Times 29 10 2009 or 46 military contracts awarded to Rivada

It is also clear that you are only editing on the Ganley Libertas pages Catapla (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:QuotationMan has returned to the article and continued to delete well-sourced criticism, without waiting to get support for his changes on the talk page, I have blocked him for a week for disruptive editing. A note has been left that his block can be lifted early if he will agree to stay off the Declan Ganley article and limit himself to the Talk page. I welcome review of this block by other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QuotationMan is now unblocked, subject to a promise to stay off the Libertas and Ganley-related articles and to limit himself to the talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk, QuotationMan has claimed that three editors here are all related to a blog called PeopleKorps... which is a semi-professional campaign against Libertas. I have not seen any evidence of fishy editing by people who oppose Libertas, but there is actual evidence that PeopleKorps wants to affect the Wikipedia article on Declan Ganley. Here on the PeopleKorps site you see this comment: If you edit on Wikipedia you might like to add some of the sources and info back in. If you don't edit do sign up and help stop Libertas employees destroying an open source resource. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to point out that the PeopleKorps blog is unusable as a wikiresource: it's a blog and a somewhat erratically phrased one at that. I've certainly never used it as a source (please, please feel free to go thru my edits), and I suspect (given the timings) that it uses us as a source. To preempt accusations, I now need to point out that I am not related to that blog and I have never edited it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur, it would appear that PeopleKorps blog uses this site as a source. It has not been used as a source on main page edits as a reference/source. I believe I have once used a link on a talk page as a ref to some WP:RS sources that were posted there with links. The issue that I was disturbed about recently was several IPs and then newly registered users removing the substance and sources from pages. Those sources being all complying with [[WP:RS]. I have maintained a scrupulous NPOV policy in my edits Catapla (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, there are no links in any article to PeopleKorps blog. The accusation made by QuotationMan doesn't really add up. Anameofmyveryown and Catapla are both experienced editors and the articles they've been involved with about Libertas look fine to me. I also found this which certainly raises the possibility that somebody with a COI may have been editing Declan Ganley to give it a favourable spin. Smartse (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is resolved for the moment - QuotationMan has agreed not to edit articles related to Libertas.eu and at least for the moment they are keeping to their word. Judging from the press coverage the articles need watching however to make sure no new editors appear removing well sourced but controversial information. If any suspicious editing occurs I suggest that it be reported immediately. Smartse (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flowerman11

Flowerman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bloomex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adding three other pro-Bloomex SPAs: Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floralexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alexflorist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
64.230.12.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Flowerman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits on Bloomex suggest he is in some way related to the company. He continually reverts cited criticism and has just added "Some consumers and business rivals are trying to use this fact to discredit Bloomex business." to the article. [15] (ignore part of my edit summary, I was getting confused about who did what, Bloomex does in fact ignore BBB complaints, but that is not the only reason for its unsatisfactory rating). Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for WP:SYNTH too. It's definitely original research to try to spin criticism by juxtaposing unconnected citations dissing the critic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowerman11 was blocked 24h, and has not continued since. The IP listed above hasn't edited in 2009. The other two are new accounts and can't edit due to semiprotection. The currently running AfD on Bloomex seems likely to end in Keep, since there are press mentions of this company. Anyone who has some spare time could look at the article and see if the criticism that is still included there comes from reliable sources. The BBB reference looks legit but the others may need examination. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowerman11 is back, has removed most of the disputed material again, and appears to have admitted to a COI ("i did some contract job for them"). Rees11 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section includes some two valid items but two others that seem inappropriate. The BBB rating is OK. Ellen Roseman's blog comment should also make the grade, since she is a Star columnist. The two others are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. The comments at redflagdeals.com and ripoffreports.com are *forum posts* from individual Bloomex customers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's what I've been arguing on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowerman11 was indef blocked by Blueboy96, but Floralexpert continues to edit. He had previously changed the Bloomex article to remove reference to the company's low BBB rating. His most recent change is at Florists' Transworld Delivery. I will notify him that he has been mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might add 5alextheflorist, who just blanked much of Talk:Bloomex. --CliffC (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5alextheflorist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Levanteditor, User:Nora abazed, et al.

Levanteditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nora abazed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Quinn56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Abdulsalam Haykal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Transtek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was speedily deleted and has since been restored
Forward Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Compass ERP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) speedy delete requested and declined

User:Levanteditor appears to be a single purpose account that has solely contributed material related to Abdulsalam Haykal since its creation in 2008. Such articles include Haykal's, which was created by this account, along with Transtek (a Haykal company), Compass ERP (a Haykal product) and Forward Magazine (a Haykal Media publication). This user edits in close harmony with User:Nora abazed, an account that was created within a day or so of User:Levanteditor and occasionally with User:Quinn56, an account created on the same day. I've tagged Transtek and Abdulsalam Haykal articles with {{COI}} a total of 6 times, but one or another of these accounts has eventually reverted 5 of them. I've posted on article and user talk pages and tried to establish a dialog (here and here, for example), but without ever receiving an answer as to why the accounts revert the {{COI}} tags. This could use some community attention. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Transtek was nominated for speedy deletion on 2009-05-24 by User:Smartse under A7, was subsequently deleted and has since been restored. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my original post above, User:Nora abazed has twice vandalized Talk:Abdulsalam Haykal by blanking most of the page. I've reverted each change and coincidentally posted {{uw-delete}} warnings on the user's talk page, much to the dismay of the user. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once the Transtek article was restored, two of the accounts cited above added bogus citations supporting the claim that "Transtek is the largest business software firm in Syria." The first was a video-blog interview with Transtek's president, the second was a reference to Transtek's own web site. The restored article also contains a citation to an article about Transtek's anti-money laundering software, but the article appears in a magazine published by Transtek's president.

This case could become a poster child for prohibiting COI-editing on Wikipedia. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nora abazed has revealed the basis of their COI on Talk:Transtek. They interviewed the somebody, I assume Abdulsalam Haykal and is using this interview as a reference. I think the claims made about being Syria's biggest software company are probably credible but there aren't any reliable sources for this claim. I'm not sure how to proceed. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Smartse. The conflict at issue hasn't anything to do with whether this user interviewed someone; that's WP:OR and tangential to this WP:COI. The core of this is captured above: 3 accounts that prosecute the interests of one individual. Add to that, this user has thusfar refused to discuss any of the actual conflict issues or explain why he or she has removed {{COI}} tags. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how many times I have to mention that I removed the COI tags out of ignorance. I spent the morning with someone I don't know on wiki chat, trying to learn about things. However, Mr Jim Ward has taken this from good vigilance to harrassment. By the way, Forward Magazine is a very reliable source. And when Mr Ward decideds to discredit its content so easily, it only attests to my claim that his arguing in a very deffensive manner. Just for the information of anyone reading this, I have done minor edits to about 400-500 articles relating to Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. And I still do that without signing my name. I have no relation to the other two editors that Mr Ward mentions. I think they are watching the pages. But enough is enough. I think this vigilance should be taken somewhere more deserving in Wikipedia. A lot of articles include a lot of bias, but Mr Ward's major business today is my edits. I rest my case.

Needless to mention, I owe a big debt of gratitude to all those who spent time looking at this matter, and I apologize for having wasted their precious time trying to find out what the story is all about.

Nora abazed (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nora abazed has grossly confused persistence with persecution and has chosen an ad hominem response rather than focusing on the facts surrounding this issue. It has crossed the civility line.

Nonetheless, I stand by each of the observations and analyses in my original post at the top of this section. The 3 accounts at issue have never communicated via user talk pages, though have edited the aforementioned articles in close synchrony and with common goals. An example? User:Quinn56 created the category WEF YGL Honorees; the accounts cooperatively added Wikipedia articles to those categories. No other Wikipedian has worked on this category. Coincidence? Only if you believe in the tooth fairy. U:Na's claim of no connection to these accounts fails WP:DUCK – even when viewed apart from his or her admittance of making contributions under other account names. A checkuser would likely clear this up, though I think these cards are sufficiently face-up on the table.

Claims to náiveté ("ignorance") above in response to deleting 5 {{COI}} tags and blanking article talk pages don't wash well, either, considering that the user, who first appeared in July '08, claims 400-500 anon edits alongside 280 edits attributed to the 3 topical accounts. Moreover, the user acknowledges the legitimacy of my conflict claim and significance of the COI tag when telling me that I should AfD an article rather than flagging it COI. Curiously, that acknowledgement at User talk:Levanteditor was posted 12 minutes after U:Na removed a COI tag on Abdulsalam Haykal. Another unlikely coincidence.

By my reckoning, one user + three accounts + one common agenda = conflict. Even when heavily dosed with WP:AGF, I can't make the math work out any other way.

Fwiw, I stumbled onto one of the articles at issue while reviewing new pages; I added improvement tags and persisted in follow-up, leading weeks later to this point. While I'm disinterested in the subject matter, I am motivated to see our community's standards upheld. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have done mistakes but definitely they are out of naivity. Now that I know better, they won't be repeated. It's up to you to remove all my entries, however. Ward mentions all these incidents. However, he never mentions the other users editing these pages too. I'm sick of this, I apologise, and rest my case, for the embarassment this has caused you, Wikipedia, other users, and the subject of these articles. It's definitely not in their interest that this conversation is taking place!!!!Nora abazed (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:AskMissA

AskMissA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -
Andrea Rodgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Courage Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Late Night Shots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gregory R. Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User created autobiographical page Andrea Rodgers and also created The Courage Cup with links to her; subsequently has modified existing references within Late Night Shots and Gregory R. Ball to include positive/peacock words linking to her. Notability may not be an issue, but the conflict of interest is very visible and is degrading the quality of the other articles. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. User is obviously the subject of the Andrea Rodgers article, from which I removed multiple words to avoid from, as well as hiding a potentially defamatory statement about another living person that had no source. User was ~~warned~~ notified about COI ~~twice~~, and does not respond to any attempts to discuss issues on their talk pages, but continues to edit the article(s). User also removes COI tags and CSD tags (placed by someone else) on the articles they have created. (This is not a judgment of whether the deletions should occur, but simply that one should not remove CSD tags from articles one created themselves.) User's history shows they are also inserting themselves into a multitude of other articles, back-linking to the new autobiographical article, and giving themselves undue weight in those other articles. It would be much more helpful if the person were open to dialog, rather than continuing to edit articles about themselves. It also appears there may be another editor with COI involved, or more likely, the same person with another name, judging from the edit that was made. Ariel♥Gold 11:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AskMissA has continued to edit articles despite requests to discuss the COI here. Andrea Rodgers is now at AfD here. Smartse (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AskMissA has been blocked for having a promotional username by Orange Mike. Smartse (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Courage Cup is now also at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Courage_Cup Smartse (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute in Yeng Constantino

Yeng Constantino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iloveyengconstantino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Had to report this one, as there is an incident of COI in that article, with at least one user, User:Iloveyengconstantino, along with several IPs, adding point-of-view content on the page. He/she was warned recently but he/she seems to have ignored it. Username suggests a possible COI/single-purpose fan account. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Climate Chaos

Stopclimatechaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Timystic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few weeks ago User:Stopclimatechaos started spamming links to www.stopclimatechaos.org into the articles of numerous organizations said to be members of the campaiging group Stop Climate Chaos Coalition (over 100 members). The user was blocked as a role account and spammer, and an unblock declined here. They seem to be back with a rather more subtle approach: new user User:Timystic has created Category:Stop climate chaos and is busy adding that to dozens of articles. I'm in two minds whether this is spamming in contravention of WP:COI and WP:NOTSOAP or just about acceptable - what do others think? JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to explain my actions. I am not trying to spam at all, just trying to create a category (similar to that of Greenpeace) to show the members of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition. I will halt if you prefer. Timystic (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the real issue is whether you have a COI with regard to Stop Climate Chaos. I can see that creating this category is perhaps sensible but the organisations are already listed on Stop Climate Chaos so having a separate category does seem a little unnecessary. Links between Stop Climate Chaos and other organisations should probably only be added to the organisations' articles if there is a notable reason to do so (i.e. more than just being a member). It would help if Timysticcould reveal whether they have a COI. Smartse (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of one its many subsidary organisations, People and Planet. I was researching campaigning organisations, and found that the Stop Climate Chaos page little reflected what I have understood of it. I created a category because I was looking at Greenpeace earlier this morning. If this counts as COI, which I am uncertain it is, then by all means, my edits are removable. I was using the www.stopclimatechaos.org.uk as my source of information on editing and creating a category. Timystic (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dana smk

Dana smk (talk · contribs) - see above: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:62.117.66.228. This is the same person, and admits to be. --RCS (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STATISTICA / StatSoft

Resolved

– User has shown good faith and any missteps are out of ignorance to guidelines . --R.Vinson (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STATISTICA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Employee(s) of StatSoft have been contributing to their products and companies page. Several efforts have been made to help correct the NPOV nature of the articles. The user REDACTED is open to some discourse. However, after two years of being informed of the article's contradictions to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines sufficient changes still have not been made. For a clear example of the NPOV nature see Importing data with Statistica. R.Vinson (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note: I do not have experience in dealing with WP:COI or WP:NPOV issues. So, I did not want to take any actions with COI/NPOV tags. R.Vinson (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a db-spam template to the page. While it's possible this software package really is notable, I see no assertion of notability, no references, and no doubt that it "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." I did not look at the COI issue, which is a separate problem. Rees11 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy was declined - I agree a google news search doesn't exactly reveal notability but a scholar search of StatSoft STATISTICA does at least show that scientists use it - I guess newspapers aren't too interested in stats! R.Vinson, what evidence do you have that these editors are employees? Please provide any WP:diffs that show that they have admitted being employees. Please be aware of WP:OUTING if they have not said so directly. Alternatively provide diffs of blatant edits that could only be known by employees. Cheers Smartse (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, after re-reading the outing policy the editor in question did not specifically state their employment with Statsoft. I'm not sure I can provide diff's... this would lead to the implication the person is question is an employee of the company. I'm kind of at a blank here and not sure how to proceed. I redacted the editor's Name in the original comment.R.Vinson (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it would be more effective to pursue this as POV, advert, and maybe even AfD than as COI. Also check for copyright violations, as much of the text looks like it might have been copied from a sales brochure. I would certainly start with an advert tag. Rees11 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Outing hypothetical question

there is a user who apparently is the lead developer of a certain type of software, but develops under an obvious pseudonym, and not a real name. this user also edits the wikipedia article about the software under the same pseudonym. would it be outing the user to point out this direct COI? As far as I can tell, no real names or real identification is being being revealed, just a link between the same distinct pseudonyms. this user is also using sockpuppetry, which I'm going to file a SPI report about, but i am not sure if the details of the COI should be mentioned. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to argue that there's a COI without having to name names. If the editor disputes that he is involved then it gets harder. I suggest discussing the COI guidelines on his talk page as a first step. Will Beback talk 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i sent a COI notice to his talk page, and he reverted it as vandalism, then reverse warned me for false warnings... he really shouldn't be edit warring and making personal attacks on an article about a product that he's the lead developer, but i have no idea how to approach this further. Theserialcomma (talk)

I agree with Will, you can probably show it without using this evidence. That being said, often here, people may point out that googling the username and article may provide some interesting information. I can't see what is wrong with this. Why not tell us what the article is so that more people can take a look? Smartse (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your contributions list and I only see a sock puppet notice. Regardless, the reason we have a COI policy is that COI editors tend to have problems following core WP policies, like NPOV and V. If an editor has been briefed on the COI guidelines and then edits in an exemplary manner then there's little reason to pursue it further. However if they use improper sources, engage in original research, or fail to present information in a neutral manner then those problems can be dealt with in the usual ways. [PS: I've left a notice on his talk page about COI.] Will Beback talk 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article is Eggdrop and the user is User:Tothwolf. I believe that he is using improper sources, and edit warring to include a wiki as a source. after i attempted to remove the wiki as a source, he called me vandal. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki might be used as a convenience link. It could be tolerated as a source for 'what they say they do', but not for controversial assertions. Was someone trying to use the wiki for more than that? EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

I checked the wiki in question and it appears to be open. There is no apparent restriction on creating an account or editing. Depedning on the type of information being sourced, it's conceivable that it could be usable, such as the circumstance that EdJohnston mentions. Separately, the user in question is making a cross complaint that Theserialcomma is harassing him, so I suggest that for the time being Theserialcomma refrain from dealing with the COI issue directly. Will Beback talk 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the editor directly if he had a conflict of interest but he dodged the question, which I take to be an implicit acknowledgement. I've asked him to stop editing the article directly, per WP:COI, and to use the talk page to propose changes instead. The edit warring over a dubious source is of particular concern. Will Beback talk 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article Eggdrop, I have to admit - looking from a real-world, Planet Earth, point of view - I can't imagine why this thing is viewed as worthy of an article. Looks like a product of systemic bias: over-representation on Wikipedia of people who think internetwank is notable. Worth an AFD?Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar finds 55 references so a AFD would likely fail.[16] More reliance on scholarly sources may resolve the editorial dispute. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search Google Scholar for "eggdrop" "IRC" instead of "eggdrop" "internet relay chat" you'll get a lot more hits [17] Outside of Wikipedia, "IRC" is usually the preferred name. Tothwolf (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)
I would ask that the people who have been commenting here check the now closed SPI that User:Theserialcomma opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tothwolf shortly before posting on COI/N. Specifically see the links I provided. User:Theserialcomma opened a false SPI and posted here after the discussion on Talk:Eggdrop did not go in their favor. User:Theserialcomma has been targeting articles I've worked on and this one just happened to be at the top of User:X!'s edit counter on toolserver [18]. Multiple admins are aware of the disruption User:Theserialcomma has been causing after I called them out on their pointy nominations at AfD. See the links I provided on the SPI page, User:Theserialcomma's contrib history and my contrib history. No edit warring took place on Eggdrop, the history link will clear that right up. I made one revert and also added references for the section of text User:Theserialcomma had removed in an attempt to be disruptive that User:MuZemike had restored.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf: the COI issue has nothing to do with the sockpuppet issue or the activities of Theserialcomma. You clearly have a conflict of interest with the Eggdrop article, which you have failed to acknowledge, as strongly encouraged by the WP:COI guideline that you've said you're familiar with. Can you give a reason why you need to continue editing the article, despite being strongly discouraged by Wikipedia guideline? Will Beback talk 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, Actually it has everything to do with the SPI and Theserialcomma. I've contributed to 100s of open source software projects over the years, including a huge number related to IRC. As I've already mentioned, my edits when dealing with Wikipedia articles are always from neutral point of view and I'm very much aware of how important reliable sources are. My intentions are to write accurate articles, I have no reason to write "junk" as it would serve no purpose. As I've also mentioned previously, Theserialcomma has been an instigator here as no one previously had any issues with edits I've made to any of these articles. You might want to check out WP:WPIRC as well. The "wiki" Theserialcomma took issue with is not even related to Eggdrop, although Theserialcomma certainly implied that it was. Talk:Eggdrop and the history link on the Eggdrop article are both quite telling. I certainly did not edit war with anyone as Theserialcomma also claimed. Check the history on the article for yourself. Also, Theserialcomma has been attempting to locate my personal info online and yesterday hit a number of webservers including my personal site and I have the apache webserver logs from those activities. In their first post to COI/N Theserialcomma made it quite clear they had been attempting to dig into my personal matters, including my name, which as far as I'm concerned was highly inappropriate. I don't think I've actually added too much text to the Eggdrop article either. The main thing I've done is add references and refactor much of the existing text. At some point it would be good to expand it, but as the article would easily survive AfD as it is, I'm more motivated to fix some of the more neglected articles right now. You can clearly see this from the edit history on the Eggdrop article itself as well since I've not done anything substantial to it in quite some time. All that said, again I'm well aware that I need to be cautious when editing articles and I always attempt to do so from a NPOV.
And Will, the way in which you approached me was not very welcoming and I can only assume you did not first check into my full contrib history and took what Theserialcomma was claiming at face value.
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

liar. i never ever tried to track down your personal info, nor would i ever care to do so. have you even read the thread? i posted this thread for the purposes of showing how i did not want to do come anywhere near violating WP:Outing. at first, i didn't even mention your wikipedia username name in this coi report, but an admin said it would be ok to do so. i honestly couldn't care less about your real name, your fake name, or anything about you. no need to be so paranoid. i've only googled 'tothwolf eggdrop' to discover that you have a COI and took it no further. everything else you're claiming about me trying to find you is a lie or a delusion. back off. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article link to assist readers of this COI report:

Theserialcomma seems to be a relative newcomer to the Eggdrop article (first edit 26 May) but that shouldn't prevent him from pointing out problems with an article and getting them discussed in a calm manner. The situation seems to have gone into red alert very quickly, and one suspects that these editors didn't like each other even before they interacted on the Eggdrop article. The eggdrop.org wiki seems to fulfill the role that a company website might occupy for commercial software products. Generally we allow just one link to a company website in the article about the company, unless there is something of great interest that needs to be called out specifically. I'd suggest that Eggdrop would be a better article if all the links into eggdrop.org were reduced to one. The items that are 'referenced' to eggdrop.org probably are of minor importance to an encyclopedia article, and they are so detailed they would be better placed on a website dedicated to the product. There is a section of regular third-party references in the article that is useful and should be kept and expanded. I agree with Walter Siegmund that additional references should be sought using Google Scholar. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, there is no eggdrop.org wiki or "Eggdrop company". Eggdrop is an open source software program supported by community members who volunteer their time to write code, bugfixes, and documentation using an open model not too unlike a Wiki (the main difference being patches and changes do get peer reviewed). There is no commercial activity by this project whatsoever. Also, the ref that Theserialcomma complained about is to the Tcl wiki, which is an officlal wiki for the Tcl developers. It is unrelated to Eggdrop. See the discussion on Talk:Eggdrop for the details. Theserialcomma popped up in that article simply to be disruptive after checking my contribution history. I hadn't actually done any substantial editing on it in quite some time. The last thing I did looking at the history was fix something minor in the infobox. Tothwolf (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. I modify my suggestion: eliminate all the items in the current 'Reference' section, since there are no reliable sources there. Then, take what's currently in the 'Books and publications' section and make those be the references. Provide convenience links (under External Links) to one or two well-known forums or places where Eggdrop help or information is often provided. Regarding what you say is your limited current role in the Eggdrop article, if you are willing to take a holiday from editing the article, this COI complaint can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the inline citations in the References section should be just fine, those are not external links. When dealing with software articles in general it is very much accepted to cite the official documentation for details and information about the software itself, see Mozilla Firefox. Of course addtional independent sources are generally still needed for an article to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In the case of Eggdrop, it has been covered substantially in print and other reliable sources so WP:N is certainly not a problem here. As for the current External links section, the links it contains are very much on-topic and are pertinent to the subject of the article. That article really hasn't had too much trouble with link spammers, most likely because there would be little gain from spamming commercial links there. As for my role with that article, right now I'm waiting for the situation with Theserialcomma to be resolved. I see no reason why I can not work on that article, as long as my edits are in keeping with WP:NPOV. Also, I forgot to mention above that the reason Theserialcomma seemed to be calling me "the lead developer" is due to a sarcastic comment someone made on one of the websites that they scoured yesterday. A number of people would very much like me to be a "lead developer", but the truth is right now I spend most of my free time improving articles on Wikipedia. The way this played out with Theserialcomma's trolling and disruption is certainly causing me question my original goal of improving articles on Wikipedia though. Tothwolf (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI "strongly discourages" editing by editors with a conflict. Is there a reason why Tothwolf needs to edit the article despite the guideline? Will Beback talk 04:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it strongly discourages editing to "promote your own interests". Writing about what you know isn't automatically a conflict.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, in a nutshell: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount."(emphasis mine) If Tothwolf can confidently make that assertion, there's no issue here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, WP:COI does not prohibit editors from writing about subjects with which they are familiar and I have made no controversial edits. It has been recommended by another editor that I add something to my User/Talk page (I may add a template box to the top of my talk page as I do not wish to have a user page) noting that I've worked substantially with open source software and IRC related topics. WP:COI also states "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I think it is quite clear given what I said above in that my goal is to improve Wikipedia. Heck, I've been spending all my free time improving articles vs other projects that I might otherwise devote my free time to ;)
Now, Theserialcomma has absolutely violated the Harassment policy. This is very much apparent to anyone looking at their contribution history surrounding these articles, the SPI and COI/N report. Tothwolf (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

filing a SPI against a suspected sockpuppet is not harassment. filing a COI against someone with a COI is not harassment either. however, a contributor/developer for eggdrop, editing the eggdrop article, and calling another user a [vandal] for removing a link to a wiki, which is an unreliable source, is inappropriate editing behavior. furthermore, you claiming harassment without providing diffs, is a personal attack. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that editors avoid making unnecessary personal remarks about each other. This thread is just about managing a COI situation. Will Beback talk 06:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i'm here to verify that i'm fully disengaged from this argument. i do ask that if anyone is going to make claims about others, that they provide diffs. otherwise, such claims really serve no purpose other than to incite more unnecessarily uncivil discourse. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to clear up one thing here. I did not call Theserialcomma a "vandal" in that reply, I said: "Please stop vandalizing this article." [19]
Which I believe was right on target given these edits, [20] [21] [22] [23] particularly when multiple editors and admins had requested that they take to the talk page instead of removing text.
--Tothwolf (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, there is no COI situation here. No conflict of interest exists between my Wikipedia editing and the numerous projects I've contributed to over the years. Tothwolf (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the good faith removal of an improper source "vandalism" is an indication of a lack of neutrality. Please see WP:VANDAL before accusing another editor of vandalism. There are over 2 million articles on topics and project that Tothwolf hasn't worked on, so there's no lack of things for him to work on. Will Beback talk 06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the trolling, wiki-hounding, and other outright disruption unrelated to this article, [24] as well as the edit summaries used for this article, WP:COMMON indicates that the complete removal of text was not meant to be constructive, it was meant to WP:HARASS. Tothwolf (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If harassment is a problem then bring a complaint about harassment. We're here to deal with the complaint of conflict of interest. In my short dealings with you I've seen that you've failed to disclose your interest in Eggdrop, that you've dodged questions about your invovlement, and that you've asserted that there's no conflict. Looking over the history I see that you've edited the article aggressively, including a self-described rewrite of the whole thing. If you'll commit to stop editing the article directly and using the talk page instead, per WP:COI, then we can close this thread. Will Beback talk 08:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If harassment is a problem then bring a complaint about harassment." Sounds like a good idea to me, that's the next step then.
"We're here to deal with the complaint of conflict of interest." No, we are here because Theserialcomma intended to cause disruption.
"If you'll commit to stop editing the article directly and using the talk page instead, per WP:COI, then we can close this thread." Absolutely not, there is no actual COI in any of my edits both for this subject or others. That said however, I have no intentions of edit warring with someone who wishes to cause disruption, so I'm not going to touch this particular article until after the issue of Theserialcomma's disruption is dealt with, which as you are aware, now includes another removal from the article which is a WP:RS (Wired Magazine), See [25] and Talk:Eggdrop#Valis. The talk section actually does need to be refactored as a footnote, but for now that can wait.
--Tothwolf (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf: Would there be any problem with your placing a note on the eggdrop talk page explaining your exact role with that project, and inviting any editor who thinks there may be a non-neutral COI problem with a specific article entry of yours to bring it to that talk section for further discussion? I think that would respect your professionalism and WP’s COI requirements, and this overly drawn-out COI report could be closed. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's an option. I don't really have a defined roll within that project, it has a completely open development model and people are encouraged to contribute however they can. I do intend to add something to my user talk page, although I'm not exactly sure what just yet. I've contributed to a lot of projects so to help head off any future "OMG COI" drama I think that is probably a good idea anyway. If I'd had a User: page something of that nature would have gone on it long ago, but for a number of reasons I just don't wish to have a user page. Honestly, I don't think this would have been nearly as big of a deal had someone such as Will Beback approached me without all the drama and presupposition of wrongdoing too. Tothwolf (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)
Here is a summary of what has transpired with Theserialcomma:

Theserialcomma was very uphappy with my comments about a couple of pointy/disruptive AfD nominations. [26]
They Googled my username and/or checked the contrib graphs [27] and came up with Eggdrop.
About 5 minutes after the AfD comment above they made this edit [28] to Eggdrop in an attempt to be disruptive (which was the only small section of text without some sort of inline citation).
They then checked my recent contribs and saw that I'd added refs to Internet Relay Chat flood and made these edits to that article: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
They then left these comments on TenPoundHammer's talk page [34] [35] [36]
They then made this edit [37] to Internet Relay Chat flood with the edit summary "before nominating this article for deletion, hopefully some real sources can be added" knowing full well that TenPoundHammer had just withdrawn an AfD nomination.
They then made a threat of a block against me on TenPoundHammer's talk page [38]
They argued some more on one of the AfDs (If you read nothing else I've linked here, read these diffs) [39] [40] [41]
(Note that I was very much aware of what they are attempting to do on Eggdrop and Internet Relay Chat flood and had decided not to touch either at that point because I knew they were attempting to be disruptive as this is Theserialcomma's typical MO, check their past contribs and you'll find much more of this. [42])
MuZemike restored the section of text Theserialcomma removed from Eggdrop [43] and said to discuss it on the talk page.
I attempted to add refs (which used in this specific context were in fact perfectly acceptable) [44]
Theserialcomma removed my changes [45] and still refused to take it to the talk page.
I then attempted to move this to the talk page [46] and I undid Theserialcomma's removal of the refs I'd added [47] and said in the edit summary to discuss it on the talk page.
Theserialcomma made this reply on the talk page (which included a veiled COI threat), [48] removed the refs from the article again, [49] ...and then removed the entire section from the article [50]
It is at this point where Theserialcomma begins attacking me with "COI" [51]
When the discussion on Talk:Eggdrop#References didn't go the way Theserialcomma wanted, they opened a COI/N [52] and SPI [53] against me [54] which I believe may also have been in retaliation for my proper use of a uw-tempabuse1 [55] for their earlier "COI" template abuse on my talk page [56]
(Note that I was not previously aware of the COI/N against me until I began investigating where this message [57] that Will Beback left on my talk page had originated from.)
...and even after all this and after having been told to "disengage" by Will Beback, [58] a day later Theserialcomma removed another reference and the html comments that referred to the article's Talk page [59] from Eggdrop [60]

Now, would someone more neutral than myself please start an AN/I thread for Theserialcomma's obvious disruption? This is not the first time they've done this exact sort of thing to other editors. They've done this at least twice before, all of which can be seen in their contribs. [61] Note that this is just the on-wiki stuff.
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please start your own ANI thread. And in the mean time, please answer the question that's been asked repeatedly, as to whether you are personally associated with Eggdrop. After all, this is the COI noticeboard, and that's what we care about here. If you decline to answer, you could just say that directly. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I already said much earlier in this thread, I've contributed to this project and many, many other open source and IRC related projects. I've also already said I'm not a "lead developer" as Theserialcomma claimed, and in fact there is no lead developer for this particular project due to its development model. (I'm also not "Robey Pointer" so whichever of you three folks who have been digging around on my personal website with Google referrers that include my username and his name who are attempting to make some sort of connection between him and myself can find something better to do.) Tothwolf (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Kinsella

216.191.220.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
99.231.137.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Warren Kinsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been an issue with Warren Kinsella's article again, though it's a different one this time: now, two different anonymous IPs which have both claimed to be Kinsella himself are repeatedly removing sourced content from the article without explanation. I'd like to request that a neutral party — having been indirectly involved in this article's edit disputes in the past, that isn't me — take a look at the situation. Note that I've also posted a request to WP:BLP/N for review of whether the article as it stands is valid or needs to be revised. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the IPs to this. Smartse (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casale Media

Resolved

– No evidence of COI; several editors have worked to fix other problems; see talk page. Rees11 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casale Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Casale Media is the company that plants pop-unders on computer screens nationwide. They themselves claim they reach half the U.S. population every month. (I believe they are basically legalized spammers, but that's beside the point).

Anonymous users systematically delete all negative information, links, and references from this article within a few hours of its being put up. The article looks like one big ad for Casale Media.

Today a named user, Mendaliv, deleted my negative references with a possibly valid argument: "v content sourced to unreliable sources, see WP:V". My own argument is that there is no possible way to show that a company irritates people without using references from subjective sources. However I will defer to the Wiki experts.

I am not associated with Casale Media or any of its rivals. I just hate having unasked-for popups on my computer screen, like most people. The irritation caused by popups is similar to the annoyance of spam, but worse because harder to get rid of. The information that Casale Media irritates people is just as important as "facts" the company has planted in the article.

HELP PLEASE! I don't want to get into an edit war, this is far from my field, but I also don't want to let this company get away with advertising its annoying products on Wikipedia with no countering information. Evangeline (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To note, the contentious sentence in question was being sourced simply to forums. I made a good faith effort to find any RS to back up the claim being made. If what I did was wrong, then I apologize, but my general understanding has always been that web fourms are in almost no cases acceptable sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the irritation, but I would leave the article as it is after Mendaliv's edits. The reader will recognize the company for what it is easily enough, and adding negative statements without proper sources would only serve to cloud that. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this report is inappropriate. I have reviewed the history, and it appears that Evangeline is assuming bad faith and accusing a conflict of interest about every editor who removes poorly sourced statements. Evangeline, I suggest that you assume good faith in the future, and further suggest backing away from this article which you obviously feel strongly about. Gigs (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of COI. Suggest marking this "resolved." Rees11 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marcpage

Marcpage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Promotional account that is promoting the Mindful Awareness Research Center (MARC). Likely sock of blocked User:UCLAMARC Gigs (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor's only contributions are to an article called Mindful Awareness Research Center (now deleted as a G11). I don't see a big deal here, and I don't see the need for a block, unless he tries to recreate the same thing. That Center is a unit of UCLA, and the article could have been potentially interesting if trimmed. If this editor had been willing to discuss their plan, we might have coached them towards an acceptable article. My suggestion is to take no action for now. Spam is not trivial, but this editor may just be inexperienced. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Submarine Limited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blatant COI account used to edit Mr. Sub article. They posted their address, menu contact information and other stuff in the article. Haven't Edited since December but account is still valid. --Jeremy (blah blah) 00:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder Golf

Ladder Golf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Laddergolf (talk · contribs)
72.197.188.57 (talk · contribs)

I think we have a good faith contributor here, but I am concerned about the direction of events.

Backstory: There was previously an article about the generic version of this game under "ladder golf." This contributor objected and overwrote it with content about his trademarked version of the game. (See the history in Ladder toss) The question of how to handle this was raised at WT:COI, here, and I recommended moving it to a generic version of the title. The trademarked version was mentioned in the new location, and the old title became a redirect. The contributor objected, creating an article about his company and leaving me a note at my talk page. Research suggested to me that the game might be notable, if not the company, so I altered the article to be about it, but the more I looked the more I discovered that the name "ladder golf" is frequently used in reliable sources generically. I have included that information in the article Ladder Golf. I'm also not sure about some of the sources for the trademarked title I found, and I have a question out about that at RSN.

I'd be grateful for extra review. My sense is that it would be inappropriate to omit reference to the generic use of this name, but I can understand this contributor's concern about genericizing his trademark. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What change are you suggesting? Since the current version of the Ladder Golf article is by you, I assume you are happy with it. Are you just asking for a change of title? This sentence seems fair: Although the title is a registered trademark in the United States and should only be used to refer to the specific game produced by Ladder Golf, LLC., the term is also sometimes used generally to describe the game.[4][5][6][7]. Can you say if the contributor User:Laddergolf objects to this wording? Although he is blocked, and is talking about his lawyer, he seems rather cooperative. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnegat Fund Management and User:Djbarnes

Barnegat Fund Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Djbarnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article was created by User:Djbarnes, who, according to http://www.linkedin.com/in/derekbarnes, is the head trader for this company. Article currently under AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnegat Fund Management), where there have been several WP:SPA accounts who have showed up to support retention of the article. However, I am not convinced of the users' relations to this company, so I have not posted them. MuZemike 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charliekingham

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

User:Charliekingham has regularly uploaded photographs whose copyright belongs to Graham Thomas. In addition he seems to have created (now deleted articles) on (i) Graham Thomas, (ii) a vanity-published book written by Graham Thomas, (Extremes…), (iii) a Tokyo art gallery opened by Graham Thomas (The Gallery Saatchi & Saatchi), (iv) an arts festival of which Graham Thomas is (or was) a trustee (CIAO!) as well as a still existing article (Selsley) which is essentially original research copied from http://www.grahamthomas.com/history2.html. Further, he listed Graham Thomas’s birthday (“leading advertising guru”) in the entry for 1954. 194.202.130.3 appears to be a sockpuppet. There is a high correlation in subject matter and (now-deleted) entries have been posted for (i) Graham Thomas’s (“leading ad-man”) childhood address in Risinghurst, (ii) ABM – an advertising agency where Graham Thomas worked http://www.grahamthomas.com/biography2.html and (iii) abusive comments about a Mark Evans – an employee of Dunnhumby, where Graham Thomas works or worked - http://www.naymz.com/search/peter/gleason/1421722.119.73.250.67 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:64.75.165.244 and Dressed to Kill (book)

Dressed to Kill (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
64.75.165.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This anonymous editor has repeatedly made edits to the Dressed to Kill (book) article. Research into the IP address indicates the editor is from Hawaii, the same state of the authors of the book [62]. This anon editor has only edited this article and has focused on minimizing critiques of the books underlying theory. Moreover, this editor editorial comments in the article critical of its content [63], [64] and [65]. Overall, a scan of this editor's contributions are consistent and speak for themselves. Repeated warnings have failed to change this editors focus. Perhaps a permanent block is warranted given this editor has only one purposes.Mattnad (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this and this edit, which constitute vandalism, I think AN/I would be the more appropriate venue for dealing with this SPA. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has been warned that he may be blocked for disruptive editing if he continues to change the article with no regard for consensus. If he is willing to stay on the talk page then there is no problem. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May want to bring it up on The Fringe Theories noticeboard as well? There may very well be slanted POV regarding the subject that they might have more experience handling... Arakunem^Talk 00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 481: / Line 481: @@
 Now, would someone more neutral than myself please start an AN/I thread for [[User:Theserialcomma|Theserialcomma]]'s obvious disruption? This is not the first time they've done this exact sort of thing to other editors. They've done this at least twice before, all of which can be seen in their contribs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Theserialcomma] Note that this is ''just'' the on-wiki stuff.<br />--[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 :Please start your own ANI thread. And in the mean time, please answer the question that's been asked repeatedly, as to whether you are personally associated with [[Eggdrop]]. After all, this is the COI noticeboard, and that's what we care about here. If you decline to answer, you could just say that directly. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
+::Ed, I already said much earlier in this thread, I've contributed to this project and many, many other open source and IRC related projects. I've also already said I'm not a "lead developer" as [[User:Theserialcomma|Theserialcomma]] claimed, and in fact there is no lead developer for this particular project due to its development model. ''(I'm also not "Robey Pointer" so whichever of you three folks who have been digging around on my personal website with Google referrers that include my username and his name who are attempting to make some sort of connection between him and myself can find something better to do.)'' [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 == Warren Kinsella ==

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