Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Collodion process Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Rebekah Dawson Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Drama Juniors Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Fastly Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Hempel Group Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Infillion Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Orit Ishay Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Chris Kubecka Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nordea Talk:Oasis Management Talk:OneHope Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:Squishmallows Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yahoo! Finance Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability 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.

Middle 8

Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Note that all his contributions of late are to acupuncture
• Warning about COI
• Claims that COI doesn't apply to him again
• Accuses, hypocritically, me of edit warring
• Claims protection for acupuncture under the umbrella of psychoanalysis
• Denies the sources that have been provided showing the general consensus skepticism toward qi fantasies

Basically, this user is flouting our policy in attempting to whitewash the acupuncture page of any points that might cost him clientele or legitimacy in his acupuncture practice.

While it is true that professionals in a subject are not necessarily acting inappropriately according to WP:COI, unequivocally this is what is going on here with his single-purpose account campaign. His User page proudly proclaims,

People who make those accusations probably haven't read this, from WP:COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." So, STFU about COI.

Shall I ask for a ban of this individual from acupuncture pages? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Here we have more of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT violations from User:ScienceApologist (block log) that have gotten him banned, blocked and otherwise censured ad nauseum for several years. I see no reason to dignify his childish behavior with a response. The only question I have is for other Wikipedians: why do we continue to put up with this editor's puerile disruption? --Middle 8 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Harassment & WP:OUTING: ScienceApologist crossed a line when he posted what he believed to be a link to my personal webpage(see first link in list; I've removed it from this page). My WP account is pseudonymous, and I've been very clear that I want it to remain that way. I ask for oversight of the above diff and that ScienceApologist be sanctioned for this childish harassment as per WP:OUTING. If an admin here cannot handle an outing complaint, I'd be grateful if someone could point me to the proper venue. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much to VSmith for oversighting the edits in question. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've filed a notice regarding what I consider to be ScienceApologist's harassment at WP:AN (diff; link to subheader). --Middle 8 (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support such a ban. This editor is clearly here to promote acupuncture, and does have a conflict of interest. A topic ban from the area from some time would stop the immediate problems and should hopefully cause the editor to realise this isn't acceptable in future. Verbal chat 09:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Note that all his contributions of late are to acupuncture." Wrong. [1]
• "Claims that COI doesn't apply to him again." It doesn't, unless you want to ban oncologists from editing Chemotherapy or Christian ministers from editing Christ myth theory.
• "Accuses, hypocritically, me of edit warring." How dare he.
• "Claims protection for acupuncture under the umbrella of psychoanalysis." A perfect analogy.
• "Denies the sources that have been provided showing the general consensus skepticism toward qi fantasies." Just find the sources.

What a foolish waste of time this is. Anthony (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We, being members of the project, would ban oncologists from the oncology articles if they were promoting fringe theories or otherwise harming the good of the project. Verbal chat

Except I'm not promoting fringe anything -- only challenging attempts to portray aspects of acupuncture as more fringe than sources indicate. The sin I committed was to ask for sources supporting its alleged fringe-ness[2], and that pissed ScienceApologist off since he has no adequate answer. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"We? On whose behalf are you speaking? Anthony (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, don't change your statements after others have commented on them without making it clear in the text. [3] It makes the thread unintelligible. Anthony (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Calmness, people, please. Looking at the Acupuncture article, which appears to have kicked this off, I see a lot of reverting in the last few days over "there is/is-no reviewed science", but shockingly little discussion on the talk page regarding that subject. Then SA posts here, M8 posts on ANI, both argue about just those postings on user-talk and article talk. Here's an idea: Everyone go out and have a Sunday picnic, then come back calmly and discuss what appears to be a controversial piece of text on the article's talk page. That is, and should be, the way we solve disputes like this, and not run posting accusations and attacks everywhere. Arakunem^Talk 16:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thought, but there's been a flurry of discussion at Talk:Acupuncture over the last several days relative to its baseline. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yet you edit the article to your preferred version despite the relevant discussion on the talk page going against you. Verbal chat 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• @Verbal: at the moment I've got a grand total of 7 article namespace edits in the last two months, all to acupuncture. One of which was a reference tweak (subtract 1) and the other of which was a self-revert (so subtract another 2). That leaves 4 edits today as my entire contribution to a low-level edit war on that page, in which you and others have also participated (and I am not alone on the talk page; see Anthony's comment, for example. It's pretty disingenuous to make a big deal, or even any kind of deal at all, out of my recent edits. And similarly with my earlier ones. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)I see much discussion over the Pseudoscience infobox. I also see that such discussion has not prevented it from being added then reverted, both sides claiming consensus/no-consensus to add/remove. I see no discussion over the "there is/is-no reviewed science" add/revert/revert/revert war. That seems to be separate from the infobox issue, so should be discussed separately.
• You are correct that the COI policy does not prohibit Subject Matter Experts, or even those with acknowledged COIs (or suspected COIs as seems to be the inference from ANI.... not asking to confirm that; I don't want to know) from editing in the conflicted area. However, the COI policy also says that a COI-affected editor should always discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them. To me undo's and reverts fall into that category.
• And per the discussion above, the Outing question is being handled at ANI (and curses for making me go there again :P ). I am hesitant to discuss a topic ban for either side here, as in general I am in favor of SMEs editing based from their expertise. Controversial or contentious edits must be thoroughly discussed, though, before going live. Arakunem^Talk 16:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note that the edits I have made have not been about the infobox, and Middle8 is going against the discussion and RS in that case. Verbal chat 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• @Verbal - that's just not true. As I explained, we need a source meeting WP:RS#Academic_consensus, such as a statement from a mainstream scientific body. I've asked for one for acupuncture, but ScienceApologist prefers to just cite Discover Magazine, bypass the RS issue, and use magic bullets like "COI" to justify bypassing any substantive debate[4]. I think my position is more encyclopedic, and with only 4 edits in the last two months reverting others, I don't believe I've been unduly contentious in expressing my views in mainspace edits. All of this just supports what I said initially about this case being WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT nonsense. You don't flatter yourself by supporting SA and mischaracterizing my edits. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has made it clear on his personal website what his opinions are. They are decidedly slanted towards accepting acupuncture theorizing and taking at face-value the pseudoscientific claims of his "profession". If Middle 8 were a snake oil salesman deleting critical material from snake oil, that would essentially be the same thing. His protestations to the contrary are made based on some perceived protection for his chosen line of work that he just doesn't get to claim. Acupuncture is an alternative medicine field that has been heavily criticized as being based on superstition, shoddy post-hoc theorizing, and an almost complete lack of honesty within the field. We have impeccable sources to that effect, but this editor who makes his living off of doing the very things being criticized in the sourced text he continually attacks and tries to downplay. Eventually the single-purpose nature of his campaign to paint acupuncture as legitimized needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. I have no problem with him being part of the discussion, but the heavy-handed manner in which he is censoring material at acupuncture needs to be dealt with promptly. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Utterly misleading, and my personal website isn't the issue: conduct on this site is. The large majority of editors who have dealt with me, except you and your acolytes, have found me to be reasonable (see old talk page, as a mediocre but accessible example). I "write for the enemy"; I add systematic reviews no matter what their conclusions are. I was the original author of the "Criticisms" section, at acupuncture, much of which has remained stable over several years. You, on the other hand, add mediocre sources (Discover Magazine doesn't quite meet WP:MEDRS or RS#Academic_consensus). You focus mainly on hot-button, WP:POINT-y issues like whether to plaster a PSEUDOSCIENCE infobox all over the article[5][6]. Your M.O. is to create heat, not light, and to pester and harass your opponents rather than engage anything resembling WP:DR. There's a reason why our respectives block logs looks a lot different. Admins, I mention all this simply to illustrate that ScienceApologist's complaints are meritless wikidrama, not to mention a stunning case of WP:KETTLE. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your personal website indicates that you take a lot of pseudoscience as truth, and your actions on this wiki show that you want to censor attempts to clearly explain that certain aspects of acupuncture, to which we can verify from your personal website that you are an adherent, are pseudoscientific. You can continue to praise yourself, but the fact of the matter is you are a single-purpose account who advocates almost exclusively for your profession to be treated differently than other pseudosciences. You reject extremely good sources for showing the pseudoscientific nature of your discipline and then want sources that are heavily criticized by relevant scientists and medical professionals to be treated as gold-standards. And you make money off this quackery. Enough is enough. The arbitration committee banned Dana Ullman for the same sort of behavior. You have been given a wide berth to show that you can abide by our policies and guidelines with respect to pseudoscience, but you continue to act in ways that prevent neutral editors from moving forward in explaining basic facts about your chosen profession. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your obsession with my life off-wiki is getting creepy. As I said, it's my edits and not my website that matter. But let's look at the supposed COI here. The idea is that I stand to make money because of a Wikipedia article about my profession. This greatly overestimates WP's importance. WP been widely mocked in the media for pervasive errors and lack of oversight; Colbert summed it up perfectly with "wikiality", and then there are self-inflicted problems like Essjay. Anyone dumb enough to rely solely on WP is likely to accept any advertising claim uncritically, and deserves a Darwin award when they're hospitalized after trying colon cleansing with laundry balls.

But for the sake of argument, let's accept your premise on COI. Any healthcare practitioners editing acupuncture also need to declare a potential COI, since casting acupuncture in a poor light might send patients to them, to their financial benefit. And the same goes for any scientist supported by grants, since grant money is scarce and skewing the article for/against acupuncture might influence some grant evaluator, somewhere, maybe. And librarians, too, since including references to texts you carry will help keep your employer open. Yes, there's no doubt: practically anyone editing this article should get hung up on bullshit COI issues as opposed to spending time on substantial matters. Reductio ad absurdum much? Gosh, WP:COI really should clarify this point. Oh, wait, it already did: what part of "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest" (link) don't you understand? --Middle 8 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the promotional nature of your edits and advocacy, tied in with your COI, and partly your previous account making scrutiny difficult, that cause this problem. Trying to hide your COI by saying everyone has one doesn't help. Verbal chat 08:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Verbal - this would be the third time on this page that you've made sweeping, pejorative generalizations without evidence. [7] [8] Same applies to this case in general and ScienceApologist's comments: long on accusation, short on diffs. I think the situation speaks for itself -- this case is just harassment, with the small caveat that SA can produce no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Every last one of your previous 50 contributions to talk space (do a special filter) seems to me to indicate a distinct POV-pushing mentality where you adopt a new stricture for sources, attempt to excise text which disagrees with your perspective, and generally attack any editor who dares to question your ownership of the acupuncture article. You are a hardline promoter of acupuncture which probably is good for business but is bad for Wikipedia. Your protestations that you include studies regardless of their results strikes me as disingenuous at best. Any attempt to summarize the facts regarding the pseudoscientific nature of qi and meridians is meant with outright indignation. You tend to knee-jerk revert and have yet to engage with the fundamental issues WLU and I are hashing out on the talkpage. Again, I ask, if this isn't evidence for a COI in the sense of Dana Ullman, what would be evidence? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Middle 8 doesn't think it's a problem that he derives an income from promoting himself in ways that are contradicted by a variety of sources that he impugns while keeping text based on those sources out of Wikipedia. If this isn't a conflict-of-interest, what is? The "in itself" rejoinder in the Middle 8's favorite sentence of COI seems to him to excuse his behavior in entirety. "Oh, I'm only acting in the sense of being a professional or having academic expertise," he seems to be saying. "I can't possibly have a conflict of interest with regards to critiques of my pet subject being included in Wikipedia. Oh yeah, and that's also the only thing I'm really interested in keeping an eye on here, by the way." ScienceApologist (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I know. Why don't you try winning some arguments instead of destroying your opponents? Anthony (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI exists for a reason. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as a matter of record, we should note that WP:HARASS should be given priority over WP:COI. As the lead section of the latter says: "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest." That said, I now doubt that SA meant to harass or "out" me by posting the aforesaid personal information, and indeed he has made a good-faith offer which I've accepted to help keep the material off WP. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of COI then? Should it be marked "historical"? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeating what I said at WP:AN (for the record), COI has its purpose, but it is (very obviously, per above) subservient to WP:HARASS. This is analogous to the way that WP:BLP trumps other policies. I agree with II that COI is a poor way to pursue a content dispute, and the evidence is thin anyway -- why don't you pull the case if we're now in good-faith mode? I really don't think it's going anywhere, but if you want to see what they say, fine. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Note - I won't be on wiki for a few days but can be reached via email if anyone needs to ask me a question. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on COI as it pertains to myself and others, pasted in by Middle 8

Since this case is still open, I am adding some comments from an old page version of WP:AN that are directly germaine. They may be unnecessary, but because I want to get a fair shake, I believe they should be considered here if anyone still believes my editing has been inappropriate. (The AN case was amicably resolved between myself and ScienceApologist.) These comments are specifically about COI and, in part, whether it exists in my case.

(begin comments from WP:AN)

• I'm reluctant to comment because I don't want to stir a pot which has already settled, but I do agree with Hans Adler completely, and I just wanted to say that particularly because several people expressed the opinion that Middle 8 is the problem. Middle 8 is polite, reasonable, well-educated, and was originally forthright enough to edit under his name. His greatest fault is that his posts are not as concise as they could be. Is there any evidence of him adding unreliable sources to promote acupuncture? The current content dispute is over whether acupuncture can be added to the pseudoscience category, despite current reviews which find it to be efficacious for certain conditions. As far as WP:COI and outing, the guideline says:

  Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this...

  Clearly, the guideline says the right thing. I think the best practice is to pretend there's no conflict of interest. So rather than jumping to the personal attack of WP:COI/N, try WP:NPOV/N or WP:RS/N. Conflict of interests and ad hominen attacks are a dirty way to engage in a content dispute. It's also helpful that Middle 8's COI is relatively narrow; we have an editor who suspiciously deletes scholarly material from Western academics if it is critical to China (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PCPP), which spans hundreds or even thousands of articles, yet he got a pass on the RfC/U. II | (t - c) 06:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Again, II, WP:COI must exist for a reason. Taking your rationalizations to their logical conclusions would have us mark COI and COI/N as "historical". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@SA: To clarify, it's merely about one policy taking priority over another. The lead section of WP:COI says:

"When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest."

So what II is pointing out is a simple matter of priority, as with WP:BLP's taking precedence over certain other policies. That said, I now doubt that SA meant to harass or "out" me by posting the aforesaid personal information, and indeed he has made a good-faith offer which I've accepted to help keep the material off WP. Bottom line, as far as I am concerned, this case needs no admin action and I look forward to SA and I "turning a new page" in our editing. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On the question of whether COI is historical, I don't think so. COI is a legitimate thing to keep in mind, but I would parallel it to an aggravating circumstance. You can't build a case around it but its existence in a case could be relevant. SA can perhaps understand - if SA was a tendentious, uncivil pseudoscience promoter rather than a pseudoscience critic, he would likely have been treated more harshly. Since he's critical of pseudoscience, he is probably treated more gently - it's an mitigating circumstance. Basically, if you want to pursue something against Middle 8, build the case around something substantive and then cite the conflict of interest as evidence that there's no hope for the future. Incidentally, I tend to hold rational people to a higher standard of understanding policy, using high-quality sources, and writing neutrally since I expect more of smart people. Meaning that I have a habit of treating intelligence as an aggravating circumstance. II | (t - c) 03:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(end comments from old page version of WP:AN)

thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest the following as a ruling:

A conflict-of-interest may exist when a user is editing in an area in Wikipedia of significant personal interest to the user. The existence of a conflict-of-interest need not disqualify a user from discussing or editing Wikipedia content, but in conjunction with other problematic behavior can be used as evidence that the user is being inappropriately disruptive.

This should be added to COI.

Middle 8 has a potential conflict-of-interest. I think he should acknowledge this or at least acknowledge that others feel this is a strong possibility considering his chosen profession and the field itself. I'm not sure whether COI/N should exist anymore. Perhaps DE/N should exist instead.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SA, your wording is fine but it adds nothing to WP:COI's lead section.

Yes, I have a potential COI in the same sense that I have a potential DUI, but as long as I edit neutrally and drive while sober, I won't have an actual version of either.

Have you seen my user page? I edited and expanded my comments about COI there several days ago, and even created a specific subsection User:Middle_8#About_me_and_Wikipedia.27s_conflict_of_interest_guideline.

If others believe that there "is a strong possibility" I have COI, that's their issue; it's not my responsibility to cover their views on my user page. Rather, such editors should follow WP:DR, i.e. first discuss substantively with me rather than issue a couple of threats and then head to this noticeboard.

The key point is whether or not my edits to acupuncture and related articles are within the spectrum of mainstream views, and thus within the range of NPOV. There will always be content disputes whether I edit that article or not, and just because I don't take the "acupuncture is pseudoscience and quackery! so let's unambiguously depict it as such with category:pseudoscience!" side doesn't mean I'm POV-pushing, let alone in violation of COI.

What would be refreshing is seeing other editors not pushing wedge issues that are then used as fodder for WP:COI or other editorial conduct guidelines and policies. I believe this has has happened in the past; I trust it won't in a more AGF-type future. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

An acknowledgment that your POV may have something to do with your chosen profession would be nice. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, please check my userpage and the particular section where I note that I have "professional or academic expertise" in acupuncture, explain that this in itself isn't a COI, note that I strive to edit neutrally (thereby avoiding COI), and invite any editor who has concerns to the first step of WP:DR: discussing with me. All that is straight from what WP:COI recommends. I can't reasonably be expected to do more than that -- e.g., I'm not going to frame it in exactly the way you might want it, any more than you should be expected to edit your user page to put a spin on it that I might prefer. I think we'll have to be satisfied with (a) my transparent disclosure (within the bounds of pseudonymity) and (b) perhaps agreeing to disagree on how I frame the issue. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:WKTU

Discussion continued from here

If User talk:WKTU was truly concerned about correct sources, you have to wonder why he deleted a source which says 75% here and changed it to a source which says 90%.

He has been a hampering my efforts to get FA status for Islam page and you can see our discussions here. Its almost certain he's a Sunni as you can see he is also boosting Sunni Islam proportions while deleting well sourced material. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• In April 2010, a now banned editor User:Jigglyfidders changed the original 85% to 70% [9] and then I came and began correcting these specific numbers [10] but Iwanttoeditthissh thinks I'm boosting Sunni proportions.
• A demographic study conducted by the Pew Research Center (an American think tank organization based in Washington, D.C.) in October 2009 determined that Sunnis are 87-90% [11]
• This information is backed by the Encyclopædia Britannica which states that Sunnis are nine-tenth (90%) of all the Muslims. [12]
• The University of Oxford (or The Oxford Dictionary of Islam) claims that Sunnis are at least 85%.[13]
• The CIA World Factbook states that Sunnis are over 75%. [14]
• Islam#Demographics mentions that Sunnis are 87-90% so why should another section in the same article give 70% for Sunnis? You expect this article to get FA status with such a major contradiction?

There are many more sources that agree with the 87-90% PRC figure and if you believe this is wrong it's your duty to provide a reliable source that is more stronger than PRC and Britannica. I'm being fair like a judge here, and I personally like to insert Sunnis 85-90% but that will create conflict with the PRC source and editors will constantly try to change it or edit-war over it. These are all realistic guesses and not the precise numbers. Please don't label me as a Sunni or anything else, and don't get personal with me.--WKTU (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am quite positive User:WKTU is a Sunni who is overrepresenting unfairly and unproportionately in favor of boosting figures for his own denomination, for example ;

- He has boosted Sunni proportions on the Sunni Islam article here with obviously bizarre figures where he bundled Shia, Ibadi, and Ahmadiyya altogether make up 10% and Sunni are 90%. (without such reference)

- Here is another instance where he boosts figures for Sunnis while simultaneously DELETING reliable sources giving lower stats.

- User:WKTU this time undermines a wellsourced Shia source here in order to undermine non-Sunni sects.

- He doesn't even leave the map comments alone here and again mentions the superiority of Sunnis with the term 'overwhelming'

- In this edit User:WKTU is showing obvious signs of emotion (with an exclamation mark), whilst falsely proclaiming there are only 2 denominations within Islam in the edit summary.

- Despite the fact this user makes controversial edits, in the edit summary he says here that there is no need for consensus (in his case), even though here he's asking me to do exactly that 1 day later.

Islam is undergoing article review for FA status and i'm contributing. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Iwanttoeditthissh is unable to refute my sources but instead calling me names and other nonsense, and I think now it's getting cleared that he is a Shia. I have been watching many Shia editors go around falsifying Wikipedia information, especially relating to Islam. This is why I decided to edit the Islam page, to fix the falsification that was made by a banned editor User:Jigglyfidders who lowered the Sunni numbers [15], and after he was blocked the next day Iwanttoeditthissh created an account and is editing the same articles where Jigglyfidders left off with the same POV.--WKTU (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• First, please stop slinging accusations at each other. I know articles on religion can be the most conducive to heated discussion, but this issue can be solved if everyone stays calm. It appears that both sides here have a reliable source to back their edits, but those sources disagree, or at best are too vague ("over 75%" could be 76% or 99%, for example). Why not add them both for now, and seek some other opinions on how to handle the disagreeing sources. The article could say in the meantime something like "Sunnis make up between 75% (cite 1) and 87-90% (cite 2)". That will bring peace to the article for now, and then you can seek further editor assistance from areas such as Third Opinions, a Request for Comments, or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
• But please don't go into those venues with a combative tone. Go in as 2 editors having a disagreement and who both are genuinely interested in making the article as accurate as possible, whatever the outcome may be. Arakunem^Talk 17:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• After spending some time digging deeper, the preponderance of sources do support the number near 90%. The confusing nature of the CIA factbook's "over 75%" seems to be an outlier when compared to many other sources. Just my $0.02. Arakunem^Talk 01:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What you recommended has been done but was reverted, and I guess putting "Sunnis make up between 75% (cite 1) and 87-90% (cite 2)" is confusing because the CIA says over 75% and that is just their way of trying to stay on the safe side. I've done alot of reading concerning the numbers of each side and noticed that PRC crew are trying to determine this specific figure using all sources, including the CIA. In their site it says they will come up with 2010 figure soon "These findings on the world Muslim population lay the foundation for a forthcoming study by the Pew Forum, scheduled to be released in 2010...". I think everyone will agree that we follow what they tell us, unless there is a better source.--WKTU (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That certainly seems a reasonable approach. The CIA's number just seems too vague and out of sync with numerous other reliable sources. Arakunem^Talk 15:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way is this a COI issue? Hundreds of millions of people (and probably a fair share of Wikipedians) are Sunnis, and belonging to a certain religious community cannot be grounds from hindering people to edit of COI grounds. By that logic Christians shouldn't be allowed to edit Christianity related articles, Jews not allowed to edit Judaism-related article, etc.. --Soman (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Also a valid name for a radio station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Regatta dog

Regatta dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regatta dog is an SPA who edits the Reid Stowe article. He contributed to a tabloid article via interview and was named as a source by journalist Adam Nichols in his article. [16] Soon after, Nichols published a related article which included unmistakable material that had been published 9 days earlier by Regatta dog on his blog. [17] (The blog is blacklisted - unable to link) Regatta dog then inserted material from both tabloid articles into the Wikipedia Reid Stowe article [18] [[19]] and repeatedly inserted links to those articles and material from them into the discussion pages [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]] stating that he hopes readers will "trip over this Wiki discussion page" [[25]] Other problems include edit waring. The article is now locked as a result. --Zanthorp (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article discussion page [[26]] for more detail. --Zanthorp (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any connection between a blog and the article written by the NY Daily News about the subject's back child support. The article in the NY Daily News was well sourced and contained quotes from a NY official and a member of the subject's support team. I have never inserted any information into the article of which I was the source. A number of editors are trying very hard to prevent a balanced BLP. Regatta dog (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The disruption from this single purpose editors has been endless, please see his edit history. Multiple discussions have resulted in the rejection of child benefit non payment claim and a drug conviction from over ten years ago. This editor has been involved in the propagation of these claims at other locations of wiki and has also been involved in interviews that he has attempted to insert into the article, constant disruption of a BLP and when the article is locked as a result of the edit pattern then the disruption moves terminally to the talkpage. I would request some kind of resolution and end this disruption, please look at the users edit history which alone imo rings all the bells needed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You have made a blatantly false statement - I have never tried to insert any interview I had into the article. Multiple discussions have resulted in the rejection of overdue child support claims and drug conviction by a few editors. Other editors have supported it's inclusion. A couple editors who oppose inclusion have done so based on what they consider to be unreliable source, particularly the NY Daily News. However, these same editors are completely content to leave NY Daily News content in the article as long as it places the subject of the BLP in a positive light.

I would suggest that without vigilant monitoring of all editing of this article, it is likely to become even more of a marketing tool for the subject than it already is. I believe that a number of editors of the article are more interested in promoting the subject than creating a neutral article. I support balance and the truth. Regatta dog (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already discussed the direct personal connections between Regatta Dog and the sources he has tried to insert into the Reid Stowe article: please see Talk Pages at [27] and at [28].

Regatta Dog uses the same handle wherever he posts on the internet, which is not a secret. The following posts show his strong bias against Reid Stowe.
Postings of Regatta Dog:
1. [29] Cruisers Forum
2. [30] Sailing Anarchy Forum (starting in Oct. 2008)
3. [31] Weekend America (Oct. 25, 2008; Comments Section)
4. ...1000daysreality.blogspot.com
Reid Stowe and 1000 Days at Sea - Reality Check (blog run by Regatta Dog)
5. ...1000daysofhell.blogspot.com
1000 Days of Hell website (blog run by Regatta Dog; parody of Reid Stowe)

A recent article by Charles Doane of "Sail" magazine includes a telling portrait of this self-avowed critic of Reid Stowe, namely Regatta Dog, not to be confused with a different alias on Sailing Anarchy by the name of "regattadog"... COMPREHENDING REID STOWE: Crucified on the Internet

Regatta Dog has shown clear intent to harm the reputation of Reid Stowe, spreading falsehoods and defamatory remarks about Reid Stowe, using tainted sources as references in Wikipedia. He has a clear Conflict of Interest. Skol fir (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

When an editor contributes (via interview) to a press article, then adds material from that article to the related Wikipedia article and cites the press article as a source, they are, in effect, citing themselves. In this case, after citing themselves (in effect) the same editor used Wikipedia talk pages to promote the original press article, and a related article by the same journalist. Clearly, a conflict of interest has been demonstrated. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Zanthrop, they are not citing themselves unless they cite themselves. I appreciate your using the term (in effect). You have negated your own claim. There is no clear conflict of interest.

Very telling that in the Doane article cited above, the reporter unequivocally confirms the claims about the subject of the article's drug conviction and back child support with the word - "True".

I am very tired of unsubstantiated claims about me. I would like you to cite, specifically, anywhere where I have spread a single falsehood about Reid Stowe or made defamatory remarks. On the contrary, I have been an advocate for the truth about the subject and have put to rest many unsubstantiated rumors. When you respond please keep to the true definition of "defamatory" and not drag in opinions I may have posted - they are hugely different. I eagerly await either the proof to back up your statements or your apology for making completely unfounded accusations about another Wiki editor. This is outrageous and insulting.

The Doane article vindicates me and confirms what I have presented as facts. I'd be interested to know what handles the other editors here use when they post on line about Reid Stowe. Regatta dog (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is not Doane or his article. It is your COI. Myself and two other editors agree that a COI exists. We have expressed our opinions; you have expressed yours. --Zanthorp (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We editors here at Wikipedia do not appreciate editors who are closely associated with the subject of an article editing said article. The COI rules are very clear on that. Simply claiming no association, while at the same time sharing intimate knowledge of the subject of the BLP and a blatant bias towards him, is the kind of COI that the COI rules were written for. Please re-read the COI section again, tone down the rhetoric, and avoid any attempts to edit this article in a a non-neutral way. Your COI will be noted again in your attempts to aggrandize the subject of this BLP. Regatta dog (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I only got a chuckle out of that. Can't you come up with some sanctimonious bunkum that's really good for a laugh? --Zanthorp (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Katy Butler

It appears that journalist Katy Butler (offered to compensate another user, who has exercised the right to vanish - edited by Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)) to edit Wikipedia for her. Could some folks here please keep an eye on things? The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not good.... Its not just a paid article, but an article to be used in support of an upcoming NY Times article. Need eyes on this to keep it fully BLP/NPOV/V compliant. This could have some implications for Wikipedia if a published article is saying something along the lines of "Look what her Wikipedia article says..." Arakunem^Talk 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be unreasonable to aggressively remove all unsourced content? I suspect that if she is planning to use us to support her story, she may be falsifying its content. SPS shouldn't be trusted for this article. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Katybutler9 has edited the article herself. Netalarm^talk 22:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the following actions as a courtesy: The user who created the article has exercised his/her right to vanish. The account has been renamed and will not be used again. User states that the job posting was for another person (her web designer) who built and updated her website, not for the Wikipedia article. Vanished User was not paid to edit the Wikipedia article, s/he did it as a courtesy for a colleague before being informed of the website's standards. Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User PATdiane

PATdiane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a an employee of Bill Moyers and she had been making mostly noncontroversial edits to the Bill Moyers article. Yesterday, she made an edit [32] which casts an opponent of Moyers, Kenneth Tomlinson, in a worse light and omits his side of the story. I reverted the edits, but Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted me, ignoring the obvious conflict of interest in this situation. Please revert the edits, warn PATdiane (she has already been warned about making COI edits on her user Talk page), and require her to disclose whether she is performing such edits directly at the behest of Bill Moyers. Drrll (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion on the same editor here.

I'd like to see PATdiane be less bold with her editing to articles, and instead use article talk pages much, much more. That said, I'm unclear if there are any problems with the content added.

"and require her to disclose whether she is performing such edits directly at the behest of Bill Moyers" I'm unaware of any justification for such action. Seems like it would violate WP:AGF, WP:HARASS, and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That would likely fall under WP:OUTING which trumps WP:COI. We can't force the issue of real-world relationships beyond what is voluntarily offered on-wiki. In this case, that relationship isn't really relevant as these edits are to a BLP, and so must conform to those standards regardless of who is making the edits or why. My feeling on the specific edit in question is that the addition doesn't really seem to fit where it is in the article, except to take a jab at someone who criticized Moyers. It essentially says "This person criticized him for a long time about x and y, but then it was revealed that he violated X laws himself." There's no relationship between the 2 items, and it appears to me to only be there to vilify an opponent. I would lean towards removal of that bit per BLP in context to Tomlinson. In any case the applicable part of COI here is that someone with a COI (an admitted connection in this case) should not be making controversial edits in the COI area. That her edits were reverted and then re-reverted, to me, indicates this edit falls under the Controversial Edits clause. Arakunem^Talk 17:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Her specific relationship with Moyers is not the issue here. What matters in my view is that the COI would be more egregious if Moyers himself was directing such changes to his own BLP. Drrll (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but we're simply not allowed to force that issue. Arakunem^Talk 17:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Most editors appear to agree that the edits improve the article. There is no COI problem. TFD (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when has questions about COI been determined by whether editors like the COI edits? Drrll (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides the violation of the COI guideline against making edits of controversial material, there is a violation of the COI guidelines that states "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests." Clearly, the edits are designed to promote her own interests (Bill Moyers) in denigrating an opponent of Moyers (Kenneth Tomlinson). Drrll (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin please look over this section? Drrll (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Paid editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28policy%29

Prohibited activities...

• An editor advertises article creation or maintenance of articles about a corporation for a fee, even if disclosure of this arrangement is made and no guarantee of outcomes is made.
• An editor is obliged to make edits in the article namespace on behalf of his or her employer as part of his or her job description or duties.
• An editor responds to a freelance jobs board posting to write and submit content on Wikipedia.
• A political consulting firm hires an editor to edit Wikipedia articles to promote a particular point of view.

It would appear that number three above prohibits Missylisa153 from editing. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the fact that it's only a proposed policy (see the header at the top). It has no force. It seems to be stalled, as it hasn't moved forward since November 2009. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a discussion going on paid editing again? I believe we need a policy (or at least a guideline) for paid editing, as such issues are becoming more prevalent. Netalarm^talk 11:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Missylisa153 should be prohibited from editing, but I do think that she should stop doing paid editing. I would be happy for her to continue as a volunteer editing on the same unpaid basis as any other wikipedian. ϢereSpielChequers 11:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• An RFC on Paid Editing was run last summer. The responses were vocal and ran the gamut of opinions on the topic. There was no consensus on how Paid Editing should be handled/allowed/banned. I suspect restarting a discussion would end up with similar results. Arakunem^Talk 19:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's because there are too many differing views toward paid editing. The RfC had several good reasons on why paid editing should and should not be allowed, but that doesn't help editors respond to incidents to paid editing. Maybe we can look at this issue when it gets more serious... -.- Netalarm^talk 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

British Museum partnership

 Done

There is an interesting partnership developing with the British Museum at Wikipedia:GLAM/BM. It would be appreciated if uninvolved eyes from this page were to have a look and comment - whether to reassure us at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#COI_/_paid_editing that we are on the right lines or suggest any additional safeguards that might be needed. ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys. ϢereSpielChequers 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

First party sources at AFD

Bsanders246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has been vehemently pushing that press-releases and PR material from PRISM (Project Management Software) and Megafoo qualify as independent coverage. When attempts are made to show him established Wikipedia policies stating that this type of coverage does not satisfy WP:N, he gets very defensive (and in one case accused me of sock-puppetry and threatened to request a checkuser). Not sure whether we're dealing with a conflict of interest, paid editing, a difficult contributor or a combination of the three, but this should be monitored, .02 from a neutral third party would also be helpful. 2 says you, says two 04:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

LarkinToad2010

• LarkinToad2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Created the promotional Larkin 25 article, created the promotional Larkin 25 Festival section at Kingston upon Hull with this edit (since removed) as suspected sockpuppet WilberforceHope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (per this discussion and this admission); finally, this edit and accompanying edit summary. After multiple invitations on the Kingston upon Hull talk page to engage positively, we're thinking it's not worth the bother either. Northumbrian (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sstoltz

• Sstoltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Edited the article United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 – complete list to include a link to an election campaign site. The combination of the edit and the username warrants examination for conflict of interest. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your spam link warning and COI warning are sufficient at this point. I agree that the user probably has a COI with the topic, so I'll watch the user. Netalarm^talk 21:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Suhas Gopinath

User talk:Globals media

According to the file permissions page for the picture on the above article, this user is the subject of the article. The history shows they have added unreferenced content to the article in the past. I have left a COI notice on their talkpage.

This user has been blocked as a promotional only account. The image still exists though. Netalarm^talk 13:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Naveenk1

This user has in three years of being a Wikipedian edited only this article, and the deleted article School Management System - which according to Google is marketed by a company set up in 2000 by the subject of this article. An analysis of Image:Passport pic.jpg may help in establishing the possibility of COI. I have left a COI template on their talkpage. Weakopedia (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mtbrown8

I'm not sure what to do with this. I stumbled across User:Mtbrown8 who has been editing Emergy and Emergy synthesis. It appears to be a conflict of interest because Mtrown8 recently completely rewrote Emergy synthesis including reference to a researcher named M. T. Brown. The userpage may be inappropriate too. Can someone else please take a look? Peacock (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

• Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Johnadonovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Johnadonovan, who according to his user page is "a long term critic of senior management of the Royal Dutch Shell Group" made two edits to the above article here and here. I reverted the edits on both occasions because I feel they fail WP:UNDUE as I do not feel the "indecent" is a Controversy.

There has been some discussion on the talk page and on my talk page about it, the upshot being that Johnadonovan feels he would like an admin to look at it.

So hence the post here.

Codf1977 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:Replied on article talk page. Yes this is a conflict of interest, but the addition is in line with the other entries on the main page. Netalarm^talk 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Said user is a major contributor to the article, so the article itself would need to be examined. Right now I'd suggest leaving the entry out until more discussions establish a consensus. Netalarm^talk 23:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the whole page needs to be assessed. Codf1977 (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It may help to set out the issues.

1. Should there be an article of this kind focusing on controversies surrounding RDS?
2. If the answer is yes, was the section I added appropriate for inclusion in the article?
3. If the answer is yes, was the content in line with Wikipedia requirements in terms of impartiality and being sourced from verifiable, independent, reputable publishers?
4. Being an openly declared critic of Shell management from the outset, should I be banned or restricted from making any contributions to Wikipedia articles relating to RDS?

The only article authored by me which was deleted after referral here, was on the grounds that it was impartial in favour of RDS. I originated the article in response to a request from another contributor for a "positives" article. I did so in good faith because I could see the merit in a counter-balancing article. The collective view was that this was inappropriate, which I accept.

If Wikipedia bans or restricts contributions from individuals who openly declare their background and abide by Wikipedia requirements, this will encourage those wishing to conceal their identities and any conflicts of interest. Is it in the public interest to know as much about the track record of companies like Shell and BP as possible, provided the information is accurate and impartial? Oil exploration is an extremely risky enterprise as has become very clear.

RDS does closely monitor at the highest level my contributions to Wikipedia articles relating to the company. I know this because I have under a Subject Access Request, obtained Shell internal documents and communications over a number of years covering the matter. Shell carefully considered if it could surreptitiously edit the information, but was concerned about being caught doing so. Wikiscanners did discover editing of the RDS related articles from Shell offices. --Johnadonovan (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My issue with you editing ANY Shell related artical (or non-Shell article on a matter relating to Shell) is one of appearance, you have been involved in a legal dispute with Shell, and run a website dedicated to reporting on Shell issues, the majority of them reflect badly on them. You have a classic conflict of interest in relation to this company. (For the record, my only connection to the company is from time to time I fill my car at a Shell petrol station.)

As for the section in question, I have seen nothing to suggest that the issue is a controversy - please not WP is not here to report on every little bit of news but only items that are significant, this is just not one of any significance.

In answer to your questions -

1. No, bescase WP is not here to host attack pages, however I think consensus is probably not with me on this so will let it slide to Yes.

2. No as it has not been shown that the issue is of any real significance.

3. n/a (answer to 2 is NO).

4. Banned - no, restricted - Yes. I think you should list all proposed Shell related edits on the respective Talk pages and wait till a consensus has developed before making them.

Codf1977 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not for one moment accept your description of "attack pages". Someone else, not me, devised the heading "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. If I recall correctly, it was agreed on a consensus basis. Since then, I have added content appropriate to this heading. All factually based, unbiased and supported by verifiable independent reputable sources. The weight of such content must be distressing to Shell PR, but the events and related information have been generated by Shell's actions, not by me. The content is highly informative for the public, researchers, the media and investors, providing numerous links to supporting detailed evidence.

I have not been involved in any litigation with Shell for over a decade. No litigation is pending. I am a Shell shareholder and have been so for many years. I campaign for Shell management to uphold and abide with Shell's much proclaimed ethical code, the Statement of General Business Principles. Does that make me anti-Shell? Is it proper for all individuals openly campaigning for companies or organisations to act in accordance with legal statutes and their own advertised principles to be restricted from adding content to Wikipedia when done so openly and in accordance with Wikipedia requirements mentioned above. Others less scrupulous - I am not referring to you - will continue to make contributions without declaring an interest, hiding behind an alias which allows them to be rude, blatantly biased, make false allegations and be generally unpleasant to those who are completely open. If they attract too much attention, they can simply start again under a new alias. Returning to where this started, the Tony Blair letter, I think your position is completely wrong and indefensible. You claim that the matter is not controversial. Why then did The Times and The Daily Mail newspapers both publish major articles on the subject, both supplied as verifiable evidence in the section you deleted? I think your bias is showing.

With regard to your suggestion that I should list all proposed edits on the talk page, I did exactly that on the article Royaldutchshellplc.com. They remain waiting approval nearly a year later. There is a conflict of interest in respect of that article because it is about our website and my father and me. The Royal Dutch Shell articles are not about us or our website and I should have as much right as anyone else to edit providing I do so within Wikipedia rules. Please point out any example of my editing on the article in question, which displayed an anti-Shell bias on my part?--Johnadonovan (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not dispute the items listed happened, my dispute is with this item and it's encyclopaedic relevance. I have no wish to get into a point-counter-point debate, however I do not know why the papers published the reports, I can make a good guess but that would be speculation, what is clear is that it did not turn into a controversy, it was a news item for one day. You have a Conflict of interest with relation to Shell, and I think it is best that you avoid editing articles on matters regarding Shell that you should do as you do with Royaldutchshellplc.com that is post in the talk page and obtain a consensus about each and every edit, remember WP is not working to a deadline and if takes a while for other editors to come to a consensus then you can always post a request here for advice. Codf1977 (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So you do not dispute that the other items listed within the article "happened". This item happened as well and has not been denied by Shell or Tony Blair. The journalists involved clearly considered the matter to be sufficiently controversial to write major articles. Their editors self-evidently took the same view. I strongly recommend that you read the item and relevant cited newspaper articles again. The content and issues could hardly be more controversial. For you to take such an unfounded view and escalate it in the way you have, suggests that you are biased in favour of Shell and/or against me. I accept and understand the restrictions in relation to an article about me and my activities. I do not accept that I should be restricted in my editing of articles relating to Royal Dutch Shell which are not about me or anything to do with me. This is an important issue because it potentially affects a large number of other Wikipedia contributors who are completely open, abide by requirements and will probably not want to be treated as second class contributors by people who hide their identities, and possible conflicts of interest, and are in a position to get up to all kinds of tricks to meet undisclosed objectives. Again this is a general comment and not directed at you. If what you are proposing is adopted, it will encourage more people to enjoy the freedom of being anonymous, when aliases can be ditched and new ones adopted overnight. Personally, I would like to see the privilege of editing restricted solely to individuals who are prepared to edit under their real names and openly declare any possible conflict of interest. That would result in a more honest, trustworthy and polite Wikipedia community. --Johnadonovan (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never disputed it happened - but just becasuse something happens does not mean a WP artical should mention it, if, as is in this case it was a one day story - I think that you only have to consider the timing of the stories, the papers they were published in to see other possible reasons for publication. The story is not notable.

I disagree with the picture you paint about my suggestion - I avoid editing subjects relating to my profession and other subjects I have a very close interest in, so do the vast majority of WP editors. You have a very close interest in Shell and should avoid editing in that field. Codf1977 (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying to discredit the articles in the Daily Mail and The Times, under cover of your alias, you cast further aspersions on the relevant publishing companies. Just how far will you go to censor the inclusion of legitimate information within the controversies section? The Daily Mail article was a follow-up to a previous Daily Mail article entitled: "Tony Blair our very special adviser by dictator Gaddafi's son". There are numerous reports on the Internet of the Shell/Blair/Gaddafi connection. Do I need to supply more articles? I have them available from multiple sources including BBC News in an article published in 2004. You really ought to agree in the light of the overall facts, that the section should be reinstated, and without the need for overkill on verification sources. Turning to your insistence that I must restrict my editing because of a "very close interest in Shell", it follows that you are saying that anyone with a very close interest in Shell, over 177,000 employees of Shell and associated companies, plus a huge number of Shell shareholders around the globe dependent on the company for income, are all restricted on the same basis. Unlike those parties, I have no financial interest in Shell other than owning the minimum number of shares needed to gain entry to the AGM. I have never banked the dividends accruing from the shares. I still have all of the cheques. In the absence of any consensus view to the contrary, I will continue on the current basis openly adding content to RDS articles in line with Wikipedia requirements and subject to scrutiny and editing as always. --Johnadonovan (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xanderliptak

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor appears to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. There is a discussion at Talk:Irish people#Coat of arms where he is arguing for the inclusion of a fictional (as it bears no resemblance to any known coat of arms) image (File:Coat of arms of the Uí Néills, Princes of Tyrone by Alexander Liptak.png). Note the image includes his name, and his easily found website (as it has his name) shows he sells images such as these. My concern is that he has no interest in producing accurate depictions of the actual coats of arms (accurate ones can be see at O'Neill dynasty#Coats of Arms) only producing highly jazzed up ones that bear little resemblance to the actual coats of arms in order to promote himself. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources which show the coat of arms needs to be a left hand are here, here and at Baronet#The_left_hand. Also, please note that the article O'Neill dynasty uses the image concerned in the article's lead. This image is new, but replaces an older image in the lead I likewise also produced; it was was approved by those editors concerned with the O'Neill dynasty article and accepted as correct based on sources. Also, the images he directs you to at O'Neill dynasty#Coats of Arms are also produced by me. This user is unfamiliar with heraldry, clearly by his statements, and he is making the common mistake of associating a single coat of arms to a surname, and that it is the shield shape that is most important to a coat of arms and not its symbols. These are grossly erroneous, and if this is brought up at WikiProject Heraldry, which I have tried twice for the user to do already, it will be seen that I am correct on this matter. As for my name in images, I require attribution to my work because it does take quite a bit of time to complete them; placing my name in the file name ensures that there will be no error in attribution. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please everyone look at the O'Neill images on this page and this page (and ignore this irrelevant link also provided) and see how little resemblance those images have to the image linked in my post. The image is a purposefully jazzed up version that bears little resemblance to the actual coats of arms used by sources, and is designed solely for self-promotion in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That "irrelevant link" shows that a red right hand is the coat of arms of the City of Ulster, not the arms of O'Neill. That is why it is an important link, it clearly tells that changing something as small as left or right hand alters the arms drastically, form being the arms of a city to being the arms of a royal family.

And, you do realize you are trying to refute my claims by claiming me an expert? And if I am correct those three other times, wouldn't it be safe to assume I am correct this fourth time, too? Before you argue against that, please note you did cite me as your source for correct heraldic practice three times now. :-P [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For the eighteenth time the left hand and right hand are irrelevant, it is a red herring you keep going on about as you cannot refute any of my points. The history of the article shows I did not revert to the existing image once it was shown to be incorrect, I removed it entirely. That is wholly irrelevant to your proposed replacement bearing no resemblance to the images used by reliable sources. O Fenian (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A herring gules? That would be even more incorrect a blazon than a dexter hand gules couped at the wrist. :-D Ya know, this would be amusing to you if you knew anything about blazon. Alas, my humour is lost on you. Which would be an abatement, not that you'd laugh at that either. :-( [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Humour is not appropriate here, and showing off your knowledge of heraldry isn't either. The question being asked is whether the placing of a fanciful coat of arms designed and drawn by you on pages where they do not belong is self-promotion and therefore conflict of interest. You are using technical jargon to avoid answering that question. Scolaire (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. I may bring up the original research and/or verifiability issues at the relevant noticeboard tomorrow, since this post implies that he can draw whatever the coat of arms any way he likes providing he sticks to the basic design, this seems completely at odds with policy to me. O Fenian (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

From Escutcheon (heraldry), which shows the many different shapes that a shield has been represented. Escutcheon is the proper term for the shield, derived from French. Shield shapes were dictated by both region and time period, and one coat of arms would be seen on numerous different styles of shield over the centuries.

A 19th century drawing of the arms of Tyrol, by Hugo Gerhard Ströhl. Note the excessive amount of ornature, but that the central design is still the time-old crowned red eagle.

The modern depiction of the arms of Tyrol. See how the modern depiction dropped the ornature for simplicity, yet kept the crowned red eagle? That is because that is the coat of arms and must remain the same, despite whatever style it is depicted in.

Scolaire, If you read my posts, you will notice I answered the questions already. How many times must I show the O'Neills need to have a left hand, and the City of Ulster uses a right? How is me showing my knowledge of heraldry a ill placed here? This is a heraldry question, after all. And yes, as long as the symbols and colours on the shield are set to the basic design, you can make the shield any shape you wish; in fact, that is the whole idea behind heraldry. :-O You may use a lozenge, cartouche, heater shield, horse-headed shield, buckler, Norman shield and so forth.

And why can't I have humour in this all? This is insane. O Fenian wanted people to look at O'Neill dynasty to see the expert arms there, which I made. The disputed image is also there, shown in the lead. My work has been used for almost a year on that page because no editor familiar with the O'Neills can find fault. And, somehow, O Fenian thought this expertise on three images could be used as evidence against me concerning the lead image. So his argument is something like, "See how right he is? He must be wrong." That is hilarious. :-D

Hmm, original research notice board, despite my showing you numerous sources? Interesting plan; throw any and everything at me and hope that there are enough people online at a given time that don't know about heraldry that will err on your side to be safe? I mean, eventually you will find a notice board for that purpose, right? It is statistics, just you need persistent patience to pull it off. You could always go to the appropriate WikiProject and ask those familiar on the subject. The WikiProject Heraldry, I mean, that is why is exists. For these issues. But you won't, because you are aware I am active there. Not only active, you probably see that I am knowledgeable there, and have conversations about minute details there and might actually know what I am talking about. That other editors there are as knowledgeable as me, and will know I am correct, as well. That I actually get approached to create coats of arms, and I answer requests for new creations, because I am both knowledgeable and capable. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have posted on WikiProject Heraldry, as you suggest. Please do not replace the image on any page until you get a consensus there. Also, please remove the plethora of images that are cluttering up this section and the one below. Scolaire (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Jazz

• Jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user RepublicanJacobite is reverting my edits to the article. My edits are referenced from a reputable source and provide a lot more detail; clearly written, and without writing a large paragraph. Including that jazz originated from the "melting pot" of Louisiana's numerous ethnic groups living in close proximity, and not the "African American communities" of "Southern United States". Which is highly contentious and not referenced. The information I added is what is taught in universities and music colleges.

The article itself is quite prejudice, and lacks a lot of details on the other ethnic groups that created jazz. To the point, where it seems like the article is trying to remove these people from jazz history, and trying to state that jazz is a creation of "African-American" people. I added a small paragraph with two references about Papa Jack Laine, who is one of the most important figures in jazz development. As it didn't appear to even be in the article! and it provides some detail on the other ethnic groups who contributed to jazz formation. This was also removed by the same user.

RepublicanJacobite has provided no valid reason for the removal of my edits; claiming I have "muddled" it up and that it was better before. Then claiming I have not made an improvement to the article, and that "I am no position to talk". The users talk page is semi-protected, but I don't have a lot of time to sit around discussing concerns on the wikepedia. I am not sure if the "noticeboard" is the correct place to find help in resolving this matter, but it would be appreciated. As I do not believe I am in the wrong, and that removing a citation from a government sourced reference in favor of a personal statement is wrong!

I was going to report this matter to the 3RR board, however after creating a new topic, I learnt this required 4 reverts to be considered. Thus I came to this board, as it looked like the next best thing. The user recently warned me on my talk page, claiming I am edit warring, and that I should discuss the matter first because it is controversial. Even though the information I am replacing is not referenced, and that the information I am providing is almost the same, just referenced from a reputable source and in more detail. I don't see that is a valid remark given that users reasons for removal of the content, especially when I stated in the revision log that he/she should use the talk page before removing cited material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.46.229 (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for posting. Unfortunately, this isn't really the right spot for this either. This board deals primarily with Conflicts of Interest, that is, when an editor may have a real-world interest (financial, self-promotional, etc) in an article appearing a certain way. Your disagreement with this user is what we term a Content Dispute. if you click HERE it will link you to the page that outlines the usual steps to be taken in a content dispute, how to bring in other opinions, and so on. Hope this helps! Arakunem^Talk 13:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)