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:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Vishal Amin Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Benchmark Mineral Intelligence Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive) Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Ecolego Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Snowflake (software) Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Grey Knight Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Parkinson%27s_UK

• Parkinson's_UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ParkinsonsUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Though initally this user expanded the article and it seemed balanced they now are sourcing pretty much all of the article to the charities own website and the article is reading like little more than an advert. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It still looks *reasonably* balanced to me (there has been no changes to the animal testing section for example) and there seams to be some effort to avoid marketing language ( [1] for example) my feeling is 'new editor doing best to make sure Wikipedia has the right information about their organisation in it' more than 'editor promoting their organisation against best interest of Wikipedia' - but I do think that the username is a big red flag, and that the editor needs a bit of guidance. All that said - this is my first post to the noticeboard and I'm much more here to learn than offer opinion...Failedwizard (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now, I'm not seeing that the subject is establishing notability so the COI may be coming through as pushing for the creation of an article for a non-notable subject. For WP:ORG, I'm not seeing any independent coverage that would satisfy WP:NONPROFIT. As for WP:GNG, I see 3-4 independent sources but from a quick skim, the coverage is from local papers or not significant coverage (or some combination of both).

Ultimately, I don't see any overzealous editing so addressing notability is probably the highest priority. During that process, if there is a COI (I see a close connection but no pushing of goals that are contrary to WP's yet), it will most likely come out. OlYeller^Talktome 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited for a few days. I'll watch today for new edits as they might only edit from work. OlYeller^Talktome 12:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, it's a bank holiday in the UK today... so might be better watching tomorrow... :) Failedwizard (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Bank holiday?! Crazy UKians. OlYeller^Talktome 16:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Us Yanks get next Monday off, don't forget. ;) -- Atama頭 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally. Looking forward to the three day weekend.

Also, ParkinsonsUK added an {{underconstruction}} template to the article but never changed anything. Hasn't made an edit since. I'll continue to monitor. OlYeller^Talktome 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Optical Express

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

PKdundee has an admitted connection to the company and also has serious ownership issues - seems to think they have the right to transform the page into a promotional site run by the company. Possible sockpuppet of blocked user Beatthecyberhate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also tried to purge negative content about the company from the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion taking place on the talk page. Unless someone else gets to it first, I'll check out the talk page and report back. There's obviously a COI but we'll have to see if there's still COI type content on the page and whether or not the editor understands what's going on. OlYeller^Talktome 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted notification on Talk:Optical Express. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

PKdundee has, on my advice, declared his conflict of interest. He is an inexperienced editor who is doing his best to abide by policy while improving the article on the company he works for. In return, he has assumptions of bad faith made against him, he's been accused of trying to turn the article into a vanity piece, he's been bitten and generally subjected to the very worst treatment of an inexperienced editor. You, and the others who have done this, should be ashamed of yourself. It's disgraceful, and your conduct is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia. You should try helping him to understand and offering constructive criticism instead of trying to get rid of him—the article before he re-drafted it was a pile of shit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're not referring to me. I haven't looked deeply into the situation to know if such a strong opinion is warranted but if it is, I don't want to be lumped in. OlYeller^Talktome 18:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, to the OP and his baseless (and, for reasons the Privacy Policy prevents me as an OTRS agent from going into, incorrect) accusations of sockpuppetry on top of all the other biting the victim of this thread has suffered, and whom the OP hasn't even had the decency to inform that he's badmouthing him at a noticeboard. We treat petty vandals better than that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well on 11th August he vandalised my user page and has admitted it.. Also, he removed most of the talk page for Optical Express.Rotsmasher (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did PKdundee admit to being the IP that vandalized your user page? -- Atama頭 20:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Near the bottom of the "Assume Good Faith" section. He initially gave a slightly longer and more detailed apology and then edited it slightly.Rotsmasher (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's this edit made by PK in response to the edit before it by Rot. OlYeller^Talktome 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

May I first say, I am inexperienced to Wiki and I have made mistakes for which I have apologised publicly. I have recently created a user account and agreed to comply personally and on behalf of OE to Wiki policies. No doubt I have made, and will make, some more mistakes but these are not intentional. My replies in turn: PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In the very early days of my history, I ignorantly vandalised two pages of users whom I believed were vandalising the OE page. I have apologised publicly for this - they however have not apologised for vandalising the OE page and I guess still don't acknowledge their errors. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

When I deleted some of the OE talk page I was deleting older comments from one of my colleagues who was also pleading for help and being both ignored on talk and attacked elsewhere, and eventually blocked. I did say on the edit note that I was happy for that to be reinstated if I was making a mistake. MikeWazowski also deleted talk from his own page from beatthecyberhate, so I was unaware this was not allowed or bad in any way. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also observed users re-editing their own, and other's, edits for brevity, and again did not think that I was committing a crime to do this while I was adding the last comment on that thread, especially as nothing materially important had been removed, the discussion had taken place and apology accepted. To be honest I did not really think anything of it. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As a newbie, sticking to rules has been a challenge when the only examples to reference were similar actions of other more experience users - albeit in hindsight I should not have copied them. Going forward, I will continue to (or at least attempt to) vigorously defend wrongful and damaging edits made on the OE page, while complying with Wiki policies and guidelines. OE is not adverse to negative edits being made when these are fair and accurate and have a respective weighting. All we seek is a balanced article that is fair and written with good intention. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there are several editors and admins who have not only conducted themselves in biased editing but positively endorsed it with blocking and deletion of talk and edits they don't personally like...if not, I cannot imagine why the article was allowed to get so bad originally. Over the past few days I have observed the same pattern of picking away and watering down positive balanced copy from the same users (some of whom are experienced admins!); deleting factual copy on the basis of it being viewed as promotional material even though it is not; unneccessary and pointless citations being requested and eventually content removed (for being without citation) so that eventually there will be nothing but negative edits on the page. Thoroughly disgusted with some Wikipedians who give the good guys a bad name. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to a new editor. And I appreciate your candor in revealing your association with the article subject. But let's be clear here, your job is to improve the image of Optical Express, as the "Online Director" of the company. If you are feuding with long-established editors about content, it's pretty obvious that claims of bias against these people are without merit. I looked at what you're trying to put into the article, you're arguing over whether it mentions a commercial? And you're accusing them of vandalism, and trying to damage the page? You need to try harder to listen to others, and work with them, or you will be blocked, if not by me, then by someone else. I can pretty much guarantee that. I was initially expecting to try to help you out and defend your status as a newbie, but you're really making it difficult. -- Atama頭 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently OrangeMike and I are now corporate sabotagers in PKdundee's mind, and he wants us banned... let me offer a piece of advice - stop adding promotional fluff and unsupported statements to the article, and maybe people won't have a problem with your edits. Also, as a matter of record, PKdundee admits above that prior editors who were blocked for sockpuppeting were colleagues of his - which means there's at least been *some* meatpuppeting going on, if not outright socking. I think my original concerns were justified. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not able to agree with HJ Mitchell, who said, "He is an inexperienced editor who is doing his best to abide by policy while improving the article on the company he works for." I'm having trouble assuming good faith at this point, and I often bend over backwards for COI editors. But Pat seems bent on fighting tooth-and-nail to keep inappropriate promotional information in the article, and accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being biased vandals trying to damage the page. That's not going to fly. -- Atama頭 18:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama I hear your points, but it does not excuse the actions of supposedly experienced editors - and my comments of vandalism and corporate sabotage are of historic and not recent events. Both MikeWazowski and OrangeMike, along with other experienced editors/admins who should know better were responsible as key enablers of the previous version of the article as of 22/August - and blocking/editing OE representatives who were trying to make corrective edits to potentially libellous remarks. I am both shocked and dismayed that they are still allowed to edit OE pages, let alone other pages. Whatever your views you have to agree from an NPOV with HJ Mitchell that it was "a pile of shit" and that it was written (restored, edited and enabled by the aforementioned and others implicated in this matter) with sole purpose to be extremely damaging to OE, putting it very mildly. Regardless of my inexperience and actions which have caused such offence, my objective is not to score oneupmanship or "promotion" but to resolve amicably a potentially serious incident.PKdundee (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My recent edits, true to form of these supposed guardians of truth, were all systematically removed regardless of right or wrong - they were just removed. This has been the experience since before you became involved and I won't sit back and watch the same people systematically destruct and/or defend the destruction of the article, and re-introduction of inaccurate and damaging materials, as they did previously. As you point out, given my position that would be negligence given the history that is clearly catalogued. If you review even the recent change history you will see that a perfectly reasonable edit to the image caption was undone as was another significant edit in the opening paragraph to simply correct an obvious error that suggested that other UK high street Opticians provided laser eye surgery. You can see the comments from MikeWazowski which demonstrates his inability to judge/ comment on this subject - if he doesn't know the basics why doesn't he find out or refrain from vandalising/hijacking a perfectly reasonable statement which is backed up, or at the very least is true. He did not attempt to remove suggested "promotion" which was not intended, but simply hit the undo to restore an infactual statement. TeapotGeorge, another experienced but consistenet offender to the article, whose MO is to ask COI's to post requests on talk pages then proceed to ignore them (check the history!), removed clearly referenced citation that Optical Express was the biggest of the three main UK laser eye surgery providers because he did not fully read the referenced material or lost interest in the opening paragraphs that explained that on the last survey in 2001 Optimax was considered to have most clinics but went on later to state that Optical Express, in the most recent study, had the most clinics. Incompetence that he has systematically demonstrated throught this process...and unfortunately he is not alone. I admit I am pulling no punches on challenging culprits who have clearly beyond doubt demonstrated they are unable to make sensible edits to the article and have enabled and supported materials that were clearly intended to cause damage, and making it impossible for you to defend my corner, however what has occurred to date is plainly ridiculous and not defensible imho. PKdundee (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You referred to, "another significant edit in the opening paragraph to simply correct an obvious error that suggested that other UK high street Opticians provided laser eye surgery." No, that's false. You inserted a statement that other opticians don't provide laser eye surgery, and your only reference for that assertion said that Optical Express does. You're continuing to lodge personal attacks against other editors, such as false claims of vandalism. If you don't tone it down, I will block you as a promotional-only account that is harassing other editors. -- Atama頭 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to my reply to MikeWazowski on the OE talk page. The reference was a reputable industry source reporting a significant report on the industry and providing clear indication in writing that Optical Express is the only of the four major UK high street Opticians that provides laser eye surgery. Amazingly it is also actually true. As is the referenced fact that was removed by TeapotGeorge that Optical Express has the most clinics of all the three major UK providers of laser eye surgery! That last fact was inserted by one of the independent Wiki editors/admins, SimpleBob, to replace a piece of text, which was also true, that he obviously personally didn't like but was actually more factual of the reference. Had I been allowed to revert it, TeapotGeorge would not have become confused but possibly would have deleted it anyway. Atama, need I go on, this is obviously a joke. PKdundee (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, PKdundee (a name that I really like; it is so Scottish) from — well, I can't say, but it is on the other side of the world — I am totally neutral, haven't looked at the page yet but will do so. In the meantime, just have a nice cuppa and take a deep breath. Really, your customers don't give a rodent's patootie what Wikipedia says about your organization. If I were in London, I would drop by and take you out for some cheer myself. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Oh, sorry. Just checked the site. It is definitely of Scottish origin. OK, if I were in SCOTLAND I would take you out for some cheer. Regards, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

PKdundee, I do realize that you're new to Wikipedia and how it works. I'll give you some pointers that might make things easier for you. Personally, I don't have any opinion on what should or shouldn't be in that article, I'm not taking anyone's side on that (and my comment above about laser eye surgery was to point out the discrepancy between your claim and what Orange Mike's justification was for removing it). But here are some things to keep in mind:

• If you have complaints about the actions of other editors, discuss what they've done, not their motives, biases, or any perceived personal flaws you might believe they have. We have a policy against personal attacks and when you're "pulling no punches", you're weakening your own arguments. It's difficult to have a civil conversation with someone as you're punching them in the face. And as I said before, we don't tolerate personal attacks on people, it destroys the collaborative environment that is necessary to have when multiple editors are trying to work on an article. People who continue personal attacks are often blocked.
• We have a very specific definition of vandalism on Wikipedia. That word is one of the harshest labels that can be applied to a person. It means that they are literally trying to harm Wikipedia with their actions. You can read what is or isn't vandalism at the policy page. The actions you're calling vandalism most definitely are not, and false accusations of vandalism are very much frowned upon, and can lead to sanctions such as being blocked if they are repeated.
• Also be very, very, very careful to avoid terms like "libel" if you can, especially since you work for the article's subject. If you give the impression that you may be involved in any legal action against Wikipedia, or any other editors, you will be blocked until and unless you make it unambiguously clear that no legal action is forthcoming. That's a hard-and-fast rule, and necessary. Editors are not allowed to use threats of legal action as intimidation, no matter how subtly it is done. I don't feel that you've done that in any way, yet, but I did want you to be aware of this so that you don't say the wrong thing, spook people, and get blocked over a misunderstanding. Advice on avoiding such a problem can be read at WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats.
• We have a policy against edit-warring; that is, repeatedly reverting other people at an article (including restoring back material you had previously added that was reverted by someone else). The recommended way to edit an article is called "BRD"; be bold in adding information, but if you are reverted, then go to the article's talk page to discuss it. If the other person refuses to discuss matters at the article's talk page, you have a legitimate complaint, my advice is to seek assistance from a third person if that happens (just about anyone really).
• You may already know this by now, but I thought I'd reinforce that when there is a dispute about the validity of any information you wish to add to an article, the determining factor is whether or not you can verify the information using reliable sources. That doesn't guarantee that the information can or should be included, some information is trivia, or you may be adding too much undue weight by adding too much information about something of relative unimportance, even if everything you wish to add is backed up with quality sources.
• Above all else, try your best to get along with other editors. You are at a number of disadvantages, most especially because you are still learning how people do things here, and you're editing with a proclaimed conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you should always do what everyone else tells you to do, they may very well be wrong or might be misunderstanding you, but taking an adversarial position against most or all people who disagree with you will not work. If someone disagrees with you, ask them why in a civil manner, and counter their reasons with justifications of your own. Even though you're new, you're not at all a second-class contributor, everyone else has to follow the same guidelines so it's not necessary to be defensive if you are challenged. An administrator who has edited the site for 7 years may know the ropes better than you, but they don't have any more authority than you do regarding what can and can't be included in an article. The tools you'll need to use to convince other people are diplomacy, common sense, and a knowledge of our policies and guidelines (the latter will come in time, and don't hesitate to ask questions).

I hope some of that advice can help you. I'm not your adversary, but as an administrator I'm expected to enforce community standards when necessary, and I will step in if things get out of hand, one way or the other. -- Atama頭 00:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we put an end to this company's COI editing of its own article by blocking the accounts involved. The latest contributions on the article and the talk page show how the company is shamefully massaging references to promote their business and discredit its critics. As SPA's they have not contributed to Wikipedia in any other substantive way so it's no great loss if we lose their future contributions. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction, Bob: this is now just one person doing the COI edits, so "they" is not appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood. That one should be blocked. And either he or somebody else from the company posted on my talk page yesterday. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

SimpleBob. You and MikeWazowski were on the OE talk page under Recent Edits stating that COI text posted had no foundation to the references, where in fact the original text was verbatim of two very credible and independent sources - MINTEL and ASA. Both independent statements have been modified (massaged!) and/or deleted from the OE page by you and MW, and you have wrongly accused me of massaging references (as corrected by HJ Mitchell). You are obviously a very well respected contributor to Wiki, but I do not think that your edits on this page can be considered NPOV - you have adopted a negative approach to any COI edits. Please point out any edits I have attempted to add recently to the page that are not backed up by solid and accurate independent reference. I am able to highlight edits you have made that are based on only your personal preference - as these are/were backed up with credible references. You may not like what MINTEL, ASA and other positive references have said as much as I might not like negative references that have been used to slight OE, but you cannot adopt double standards by choosing what you do like and what you do not. Surely that is a key principle of Wiki.PKdundee (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

PK, sorry I accidentally reverted the comment off the page. I somehow missed that the edit did more than alter Orange Mike's signature. I should have only reverted the signature change. OlYeller^Talktome 22:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I thought I had done something wrong again.PKdundee (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume it was a mistake. Just in case, per WP:SIGCLEAN, you shouldn't alter the signature's of others without their permission. OlYeller^Talktome 23:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a mistake. Apologies.PKdundee (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

76.175.193.153 Edits

• With or Without You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brilliant Disguise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tunnel of Love (Bruce Springsteen song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• New Year's Day (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gloria (U2 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Flash mob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 76.175.193.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

76.175.193.153 an IP address user who clearly has a conflict of interest and he is clearly making edits to this page—and others—solely to promote himself and his work. Additionally he has made edits to replace valid sources with URLs to his self-promotional page on the web such as this one and this one and even this one. I came across this user while doing vandalism patrol of edits for the flash mob article, an article 76.175.193.153 is utterly obsessed with connecting to flash mobs even to the point to claim the video itself was the seminal source of all flash mobbing. --SpyMagician (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone gotten a chance to check this situation out? I haven't yet and won't be able to today. I'll check tomorrow if no one has. OlYeller^Talktome 22:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

According to what I have seen nobody has intervened, but someone really needs to come in and explain to 76.175.193.153 that one cannot just edit items because they “know” and not provide valid citation. Additionally, there seems to be an endless discussion on the Where the Streets Have No Name page where 76.175.193.153 is beating the same drum over and over and even when explained “Yes, one can make edits as long as they do not introduce uncited info…” 76.175.193.153 still doesn’t seem to get it. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the editor is open for discussion. That was their last edit. I'm leaving my computer right now but someone needs to go explain things to them if it hasn't been explained already (I only looked at their last few edits). OlYeller^Talktome 14:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

He has been “open for discussion” since the first editor saw this guy’s edits and reverted them. He’s simply a broken record asking for “clarification” to the point he’s clearly just being patronizing. Someone else not directly involved in this stuff needs to come in and basically explain what the deal is. Thanks in advance for the help! --SpyMagician (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne

• Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned about a possible breach of WP:COI on Ricardo Duchesne. User:Gun Powder Ma has included information about the subject that does not appear to be publicly available. This includes

1. the subject's place of birth
2. the year in which the subject was promoted to full professor
3. the subject's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

This could have been a minor issue, except that User:Gun Powder Ma is the principal contributor to the article and an unrelenting defender of its inclusion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne. I have asked User:Gun Powder Ma to state where s/he obtained this information. This request, however, was repeatedly ignored, which I found troubling. Given that s/he is the principal contributor to the article, and given that the second and third items were clearly included to build the subject's notability, I am concerned that User:Gun Powder Ma may have an undisclosed connection to the subject.--BlueonGray (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any connection to the subject? I ask because you do *nothing* on wiki that is not related to this bio, and invariably related in a negative way, up to and including vandalising it. It is difficult to believe that you just happen to be interested but have no connection William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If I had any connection to the subject, I would have disclosed it long ago. The contention that I do nothing on Wikipedia that is not related to the article is demonstrably false. For the time being, my main purpose here will be to evaluate the quality and integrity of academic biographies. My suspicion now, as from the beginning, is that the article on Duchesne is a promotion piece. If you can furnish the above three pieces of information from public sources, I would be grateful. Otherwise, I cannot help but interpret your appearance here as a partisan intervention on behalf of a friend.--BlueonGray (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As a monitoring/helping editor at COIN, I'm not seeing a COI here. First and most obviously, I don't see that the subject has admitted to a close connection or a goal that directly goes against WP's goals. Secondly, the evidence provided is vague as it links to a very large number of edits and possibly the largest AfD I've ever seen in almost three years on WP. I did find the diffs you provided in the COI discussion in the AfD and don't see a clear COI but that may be because I have no knowledge of the websites linked in a few edits. As you have taken this issue to several places that also don't see a clear COI, I don't see that anything can be done unless you provide some additional information/evidence that proves a COI or at the very least, strongly indicates a COI.

Also, if you're suggesting that arguing in an AfD, providing references/information that you can't find publicly, or disagreeing with your AfD constitutes a COI, then you're wrong. I don't know if WMC has a connection with the editor or subject in question but if he doesn't, you seem to be assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow linked to the subject or editor in question. While I don't see any evidence to prove WMC's claim, your actions are verging if not fully assuming bad faith. I usually follow the duck test here but I'm just not seeing a connection. Unless you have some clear evidence of a COI, I think continuing this conversation may be out of line. OlYeller^Talktome 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, even if the subject themselves logged on and provided the information you listed above, there isn't a COI. A COI consists of an editor having a close connection to the subject (or being the subject) and advancing outside interests is that directly compete with advancing the aims of Wikipedia. If they're just doing the latter, it's a problem but not a COI (or a problem for this noticeboard). As neither have been proven, I don't see a COI. OlYeller^Talktome 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. To clarify, I did not bring up the COI on the AfD. That was brought up by someone else. This is a separate case. I am merely raising an issue concerning three pieces of information on Ricardo Duchesne that have not been sourced and for which there appear to be no public sources. I asked User:Gun Powder Ma if he could share his sources for this information, but I was not given an answer. Given his role as a major contributor to the article, I therefore thought there should be some discussion about it. I'm not saying anything has been proven, but rather raising concern. I consulted with different pages and concluded, perhaps mistakenly, that the best course of action was to initiate a COI discussion. If this is not the place to have that discussion, I would be grateful if you could kindly advise where and how that discussion should proceed. Thank you,BlueonGray (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be the place to discuss it and I wouldn't say you've really done anything wrong. The issue we see here often is that content cases will be brought against someone when there only seems to be a content dispute. I'm not saying that there's only a content dispute because things do seem a little fishy but at this point, I don't see that any action can really be taken past continuing to monitor the situation. The one thing I'd like to make sure of is that we don't go around accusing editors of having a COI without and real evidence. Like I said before, there can be an overwhelming amount of "circumstantial" evidence which allows action to be taken (which is how I interpret WP:DUCK) but I'm just not seeing it right now. It's definitely strange when information is added that, it appears, only someone with a connection to the subject or the subject themselves would know but that in itself doesn't constitute a COI where action can be taken.

I'll try to keep an eye on things but as this case is quite large, it's almost impossible to catch everything so if you see any evidence that further substantiates a COI, be sure to post it here (diffs and a short explanation work best). OlYeller^Talktome 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice and helpful suggestions. I agree with everything you've written, and I've tried carefully to avoid any accusations, explicit or implicit, against another editor. I agree, the case is very large and rather complicated. To clarify, I'm not asking for any disciplinary action to be taken. I leave that entirely up to an admin to decide. In any case, if I find anything else, I will share it here. Once again, thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally you can't establish a COI without a direct admission or a clear "gotcha" from the editor. In this case, the unsourced information could simply be original research, or even falsified (though I'd rather not assume the latter). If I added info about Patrick Stewart's hat size, I could have gotten it from carefully examining the size of his hat in relation to objects of known size in a feature film, or just blindly guessing, it doesn't mean that I'm his personal milliner. -- Atama頭 18:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. It could indeed have been original research, and I made sure to leave that open as a possibility when I tried to discuss this with my fellow editor. My only concern is that, when asked about this research, the editor refused to say where s/he obtained crucial information about a biographical subject. It's not so much the inclusion of that information, but rather the persistent refusal to say where s/he obtained it. Still, your point is well taken and I appreciate it. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Any controversial information about a BLP must be sourced. Regardless of COI or any other factors. -- Atama頭 19:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The only possible COI I can see is this:

1. 03-01-2011: Ricardo Duchesne (RD) writes an article about the "racism industry" of Canada's academia in a national newspaper
2. 12-02-2011 5:28 PM: On a comments page a user named "Blue on Gray" gets pretty agitated about Duchesne article. Quotes:

For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM)

And, why not do this all *without* the resentment and foaming at the mouth? That would be a genuinely interesting research project. For that, of course, you would actually need to think and speak like a mature, civil, and intellectually responsible social scientist. (Apr 24, 2011 10:55 PM)

1. 21-02-2011: BlueonGray registered on Wikipedia and...
2. became until August 2011 a WP:single-purpose account (1) only devoted
3. ...to vandalize the article on RD repeatedly: 1, 2 and...
4. ...initiated two AfDs misusing WP as his personal battleground and...
5. refuses to answer a simple question whether he is identical with this BlueonGray even though I was gracious enough to tell him that I am not RD (I am not)...

So, if someone misuses WP as a platform for his/her personal antipathy, then it is BlueonGray who comes here to wage his personal crusade. I am concerned that User:BlueonGray may have an undisclosed connection to one of the Canadian academics mentioned less flatteringly in RD's article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of a COI, please be explicit about it and kindly follow the established procedure for initiating an investigation. This discussion is not about me. It is about how three crucial pieces of information in Ricardo Duchesne, the second two of which were included to elevate the subject's notability, managed to be included without public sources. Since you are finally here, I would be grateful if you could kindly share how you managed to obtain those three pieces of information. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The section is not entitled "Gun Powder Ma", but "Ricardo Duchesne", hence the investigation is just as much about you and your questionable edit pattern. Now that we have established that COI does not apply to me, the question arises, whether it does to you. I can also open up a new section if formal need arises, but why not hear first what others here have to say about it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you suspect me of a COI, please make that explicit and kindly follow the appropriate steps to initiate an investigation. In the meantime, I am merely asking how you were able to obtain the following pieces of information in Ricardo Duchesne:

1. the subject's place of birth
2. the year in which the subject was promoted to full professor
3. the subject's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Again, this information does not appear to be publicly available. I would therefore be grateful if you could kindly share your sources, so that this discussion can come to a quick and graceful end. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: the discussion needs to be postponed for 24 hours. BlueonGray has been blocked for being disruptive on "Ricardo Duchesne". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So is there anything at this point that proves that this is more than just a content dispute? As several people seem to be involved in the AfD, I don't see that they'll be able to change the outcome of the AfD even if there was a proven COI. Perhaps this is better dealt with after the AfD concludes? OlYeller^Talktome 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat what it says at the top of this page, in bold text: accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you. Both of you have been doing this, but I don't feel like blocking both of you, so why don't you just move this dispute somewhere else? -- Atama頭 17:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi: to be clear, I have not accused another editor of a COI. I initiated the discussion here precisely to avoid making any accusation and merely to discuss the issue I raised above. In any case, you can close this discussion if you'd like, as the original problem seems to be taking care of itself. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

So why haven't you closed the debate when you don't see a COI? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

List of all-female bands

• List of all-female bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Claudia Diez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Claudia Diez replaced a large portion of the "C" section of List of all-female bands with what appeared to be cut-and-paste material from [2]. The edit was reverted as removal of material from the article without explanation. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan. It's the account's first edit and, I would guess, the editor's first edit. Since you've handled it all (reverted and warned), it doesn't look like there's anything to be done but watch for more problem edits. I'll keep an eye out and report back here if I see anything. OlYeller^Talktome 17:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling that this may be a WP:REALNAME problem as well, but that's difficult to judge based on one edit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon an article (Claudia Diez and The Tropical Symphony Concert that I nominated for deletion that was a copyvio of the same website. I didn't put it together until a few seconds ago. It was created by Bibiana Fricke (talk · contribs). As for REALNAME, we'll have to ask over in their talk page then take it to UAA. I'll start checking around for more pasting of that website. OlYeller^Talktome 18:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Claudia Diez was already declined at WP:UAA. That's why I brought it here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ya, having the name isn't a problem in itself unless they're pretending to be Claudia Diez. If we ask and they're not that person, they're violating UAA which they would care about at UAA. Ultimately, that's unrelated to a COI though unless they picked the name to defame the person or push other goals that are contrary to WP's goals. They probably should have mentioned that but they tend to work through things very fast over there. OlYeller^Talktome 18:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been searching WP with this and this for more usage but haven't found anything. I'll check and report until this section is archived. I'll also talk to the editor about REALNAME if someone hasn't already. OlYeller^Talktome 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Evolution

• Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Evolutionary history of life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sciencenews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Sciencenews is editing a number of articles where their main interest seems to be the inclusion of this and other articles by the same group of authors. Now, the articles are probably fine and acceptable, but this is a bit of a coincidence. I have reverted on two occasions also because the quality of the writing wasn't great (and Evolution is an FA). I am interested in hearing other editors' opinions. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of random insertion of sources--Guerillero | My Talk 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking through their contributions, it looks like all they have done is add links to papers by the same set of authors - particularly, papers by Sahney. There's nothing inherently wrong with adding sources without much else, even if they are sources you were involved in creating, as long as it is done in a way that adds to the quality of the article. However, many of Sciencenews' additions don't seem to add to the quality of the article. Some of them, like this one, don't even really seem to make any sense. Given that sciencenews made more than five dozen contributions over six months that look like they are entirely geared towards promoting a particular person's work rather than improving the quality of the encyclopedia.. I think we have a problem.

Coincidentally, sciencesnews also wrote Sarda Sahney's article here. If I was feeling a little bit more delete-y today I'd try to kill it since there's no way she meets our notability guidelines. Kevin (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarda Sahney is a Ph.D. student in Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol (started 2005 [3]). <redacted> I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Enough said? Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:OUTING prohibit us from suggesting an editor's real life identity even if it seems kind of obvious? That said, I would agree a prod is warranted. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Textbook Outing. OlYeller^Talktome 21:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I used the word "probably", so it was just a guess, so it is not outing since there is no joining-of-the dots. (OlYeller21, please try to be more careful what you write.) It is very hard to explain the edits in any other way (extreme puffery in the BLP and the undue insertions prominently in a high-level article). Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, guy. You're certainly walking a thin line. Given your history here, I doubt it will go over well but if you feel that you "probably" weren't outing then more power to you. OlYeller^Talktome 21:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please cease these unsubstantiated personal attacks: ("your history here" is a smearing and baseless remark which you should please redact): you are likely to be blocked if you continue. Please also do not address me as "guy". That is just rude and uncivil. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended by a colloquialism I use often. Perhaps it's used differently where you're from. Any derogatory connotation you have read into the word was unintended. It wasn't a personal attack, just stating an opinion that I believe you have outed someone when in your opinion you have not. I didn't call you names or post in bold to tell you to stop or anything. Whether or not there's outing is up to an admin, not you or me. If I had to guess, if you remove the information now, any problem would be averted. Regulars can asses your history of bringing content disputes here as a COI. That's not an opinion. I can see from the rapid edits and changing of your comment that this discussion isn't going to go well so I'm stepping out for now. We can address this later if you'd like. OlYeller^Talktome 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) Yeah, that's a violation of WP:OUTING. I just redacted it and had to delete a dozen revisions (ugh, that's why I hate outing, especially on a noticeboard). Mathsci, Rule #1 of the COI noticeboard is to be extra super-duper careful about outing, which includes speculation of an editor's identity. We have reason to believe there's a COI, based on information on-wiki, but anything further that's even a guess is a violation. Outing is grounds for an immediate block but I'm not going to do that at this time, just remember, and I mean this in the strongest terms, be careful. -- Atama頭 22:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It was not even joining-the dots and certainly there was no intention of WP:OUTING. In the meantime an A.K.Nole ipsock (already known to ArbCom) just posted a trolling comment which I have removed. (See for example Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole and the blocked account A.B.C.Hawkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).) thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had another go at the speedy delete, taking into account Atama's advice. Sorry about the confusion. Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to stir the pot but the comment removed pointed out that what I was referring to by "your history" was based on Mathsci being blocked for WP:OUTING in the past. This no longer has a bearing on the matter at hand but I don't wish for others to think that my claim was truly baseless as has been suggested. It was overturned later on but I don't feel that such an event should have been completely ignored. Adding this to other content disputes held here, I felt that the history was notable in this case. OlYeller^Talktome 22:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think that Mathsci intended to out anyone, hence I just gave a warning. :) I had to decline the speedy deletion request, unfortunately, because it didn't belong to any of the proper criteria. However, I checked with Kevin, and he didn't mean to decline the proposed deletion itself, he just objected to some of the information in it. So I restored the tag, minus that info, and kept the same timestamp that it had, so the proposed deletion should continue as if it was never interrupted based on the initial time that Mathsci started it. -- Atama頭 22:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Atama, for clearing this up. I'm left totally confused about the status of this COI, though. Have we established that there's an issue here that needs to be dealt with besides the PROD issue? OlYeller^Talktome 22:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question has made like 60 unproductive edits that in some cases were actively detrimental to article quality in order to promote research done by a particular author. I'm not sure what normally is done in such a situation, but do think something should be. If this were a business or something doing it, we would've blocked 'em ages ago, but I'm not sure how academic COI's are normally handled. Kevin (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

<--Good point, Kevin. BTW, I didn't come here to out anyone; I hadn't even looked for a real person. In my opinion, the COI is blatant, and the comparison with a business plugging itself is evident. Any admin walking by here could block, IMO, or I could just take this to AN/ANI. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The same COI seems to have occurred with Sleeppointer (talk · contribs), an account active only in 2009, and 173.181.39.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we may be being more than a little bit overzealous here in our reading of WP:OUTING, and just plain silly in the enforcement of it. When we have a discussion

• on the conflict of interest noticeboard,
• about article edits by a single editor,
• that all relate to a single real-life person's published works,
• including the creation of that person's biography on Wikipedia,
• which we clearly identify in the discussion,

then it seems disingenuous to the point of absurdity to suggest that we can have the discussion about a possible conflict of interest, but that no one is allowed to explicitly suggest that maybe – just maybe – the real person and the Wikipedia editor are one and the same without getting a threatening slap on the wrist, followed by reflexive deletion of several page revisions.

I mean, come on, guys. It's not like it's difficult to guess what the deleted sentence said from the content of the discussion remaining after redaction. We're talking about a conflict of interest in the context of biographical material; censoring any explicit suggestion that the real person and the editor might be related while leaving such an enormous implicit suggestion in place is a pointlessly legalistic reading of WP:OUTING. Either this discussion is legitimate and permitted by policy, or it is not. The figleaf of revision deleting the explicit acknowledgement of what we're really talking about is counterproductive, and the subsequent warnings directed at Mathsci are unwarranted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It was more than a "maybe". The allegation was that the editor was "most probably" a particular person, and the main basis of the proposed deletion of the article was the identity of the editor. That went farther than some speculation about who the editor might be. -- Atama頭 21:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to make a disclosure. When I first read the outing complaint here, I had initially planned to dismiss the complaint. I was thinking much along the same lines you were. But then I had a change of heart and decided that especially on this page which is so prone to outing problems I'd better err on the side of caution. And that is also why I only gave a warning to be careful rather than a formal warning (let alone a block). I know that this wasn't an egregious violation. -- Atama頭 22:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama is absolutely right about his warning to be careful. Although no outing was intended, discussing matters like this is fairly delicate and it was quite hard to know in which terms to couch the discussion. In a sense, matters like this might be best discussed off-wiki. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

When a complaint arrives here about an editor writing a biographical puff piece and linking heavily to that individual's works, the suggestion that the editor is the biography's subject (for individuals of limited means and notability) or their agent/PR firm (acting at the subject's behest, or at least with their approval) is implicit. If the complainant did not strongly suspect such a link between the editor and the real life individual, then they wouldn't have brought the matter to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

When we say that "Editor Foo may have a conflict of interest regarding article John Doe, and seems to be addding references only to Doe's work" we're implicitly saying that Foo is Doe, or Doe's agent—and in the case of an article about a graduate student, it seems unlikely that a public relations firm is involved. Either WP:OUTING is violated by that implication, or it isn't. If it isn't, then explicitly stating the assumption that everyone is already making doesn't violate WP:OUTING either. If WP:OUTING is violated by that implication, then this entire thread violates WP:OUTING, and some sort of winking semantic contortion where we censor any mention of what is being assumed – while still acting on that assumption and carrying on the discussion – violates the spirit and probably the letter of the policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming that the person is obviously using the account which is why Atama has mentioned in the past that in most cases, a COI isn't a sure COI unless the editor intentionally or mistakenly outs themselves. The main issue is the assumed part that you're referring to. The only time I ever see that it's OK take action in a COI where a person doesn't intentionally or accidentally out themselves is when it's incredibly obvious and the user is not cooperating (no talk page comments at all) but even then, action is usually taken because some other policy has been violated (3RR, copyvio, etc.). Just my two cents. Probably a better discussion for WP:COI instead of WP:COIN but it's definitely an interesting thought that seemed to often be misunderstood. OlYeller^Talktome 22:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, TenOfAllTrades. We don't act on the assumption that an editor is the article subject unless there is a clear reason to think so (for example, they edit a biographical article with an edit summary saying "fixing my age"). You're conflating a discussion of COI with a discussion of the actual identity of an editor. Do you suggest we do away with the outing warnings on this page then? -- Atama頭 00:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but feel you're playing a game of semantics here. If the editor is not the article subject (or an employee or agent of the article subject), then there is no conflict of interest to discuss. A discussion about whether or not a Wikipedia editor has a conflict of interest with respect to biographical article content necessarily impinges on the question of whether or not the Wikipedia editor and article subject are one and the same. It would be nonsensical for us to conclude that an editor with no relation to the subject has a conflict of interest; if we are discussing whether or not a conflict of interest exists, we are necessarily discussing the likely identity of an account holder. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Or a relative, or a friend, or someone else with a close connection. We don't need to establish the person's actual identity, however. 9 times out of 10 we can establish a COI without it. I'm having trouble believing that you would flippantly dismiss such differences as "semantics". You should know how serious outing is, it's one of the few ways that one editor can actually harm another editor on Wikipedia. If you think that it's impossible to determine a COI without actually naming someone, look on this page for the "Intercultural Open University Foundation" section, where a COI is established for an editor because they claim to represent an organization, without going into any other specifics. I don't know that person's name, place of residence, email address, gender, favorite flavor of ice cream, etc. Nor is any of that speculated, or necessary to establish the conflict of interest. The COI noticeboard isn't a place to try to discover and reveal an editor's identity, especially using guesswork and/or off-Wiki sleuthing. If it was, this board would and should be shut down. -- Atama頭 22:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that it would be perfectly all right had Mathsci used a magic formulation akin to "The editor is most likely Sahney or someone very closely connected" but writing something like "The editor is most likely Sahney" warrants a reflexive warning and redaction? You're splitting some very fine hairs, I think. Discussion of a COI involves considering the identity of the account holder—whether we single out an individual, or simply consider them part of some small, narrowly-circumscribed group close to that individual. When we're considering a single person of relatively low importance and limited resources, the distinction is virtually irrelevant; we're not talking about one employee out of a million working for a multinational corportation. If you want to talk about whether or not an editor is editing on a given topic in a biased manner without considering their identity or possible relatedness to the topic (and without potential conflicts with the strictures of WP:OUTING) then WP:COIN isn't the place to do it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a very good reason to not try to name an editor here who has not named themselves, even if you think you know who they are - being named here can have real-life consequences. Additionally, cases like this could very easily be (and often are) someone's lab assistant, TA, friend, etc, who is trying to edit to make their associate look good. Since we can evaluate the editor's behavior solely on the basis of their edits, there is no reason to speculate (especially not firmly speculate, e.g., "seems to be person X") on their real life identity. Doing so presents no benefit to us, and can potentially cause significant real life harm if we are incorrect. Outing causes potentially serious harm and represents no benefit, so there's no need to do it. Established policy agrees with me here as far as I know. Kevin (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an actual issue here. Can someone else (preferably someone with a block button) take a look over sciencenews edits? If not, is there another appropriate venue to raise this? I don't want to have to follow this person around reverting their coi spam. Kevin (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone would like to continue a discussion about COIs, feel free to start up a RfC or section on the COI talk page. If you invite me, I'll happily participate. For now, this discussion is detracting from the point of this noticeboard.

Kgorman, I would also hit the POV noticeboard WP:NPOVN. I'd help if I was an admin but if no one has come over to help yet, going to WP:NPOVN is the only other way (besides tapping individual admins) to get some help. OlYeller^Talktome 14:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors who refuse to communicate should, in my opinion, normally be blocked. I see this editor only edits intermittently so that could be the reason they haven't responded here, although it seems possible they saw the notice. I guess I could post a strongly worded request that the editor starts talking. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Harold Baim

• Harold Baim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Richard Jeffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Raised here recently; but the involved editor is still removing content and failing to engage on his own talk page. I've reverted his latest, clearly good-faith, but inappropriate edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama, it looks like you dealt with this situation a bit but Pigs has reverted some more problematic edits today. I don't know the history of the discussion to know how flagrantly the editor is dismissing COI concerns but I thought you might want to take a look at it. OlYeller^Talktome 22:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Intercultural Open University Foundation

• Intercultural Open University Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Seahorse7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thomanq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above users seem to be insiders of the non-accredited university (at least they express themselves as acting on behalf of it in the discussion page) and repeatedly remove information based upon reliable sources which does not advance the interests of their university. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I've spent about 10 minutes trying to find where they are acting on behalf of the subject of the article and can't find anything explicit. The talk page is quite large and is poorly formatted (looks like there's a lot of new editors commenting) so I definitely haven't read every word. Can you please provide a link to where they're claiming to be working/editing on behalf of the foundation? I'm seeing a lot of strange claims (such as, even though the university is not accredited, "the IOUF has the legal right of a Foundation to award a PhD degree and in countries other than the Netherlands, the Foundation's PhD gives graduates the privilege of being addressed as Dr.") that may be part of a problem. To prove a COI, we're going to have to show admins that the editors you mentioned have a close connection to the subject. They certainly seem to be defending at this point but I'm not seeing a clear connection. OlYeller^Talktome 22:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

About Thomanq, see [4] and [5], wherein he/she is pleading in favor of the IOUF. He/she does not say that he/she represents the foundation, but he/she promotes the notable graduates of the foundation, deletes information which he/she considers derogatory for the foundation and removes at [6] the claim that NVAO accreditation is relevant for Dutch educational foundations. About Seahorse7 see

30 August 2011

• 00:5100:51, 30 August 2011 diff hist −881‎ Intercultural Open University Foundation ‎ foundation only offers PhD and post PhD degrees~~~~ Tag: references removed

27 August 2011

• 01:0401:04, 27 August 2011 diff hist −200‎ Intercultural Open University Foundation ‎ removed sentence to maintain clarity of the Dutch (Dr/dr) issue ~~~~

26 August 2011

• 23:1423:14, 26 August 2011 diff hist −569‎ Intercultural Open University Foundation ‎ removed references since none of these degrees are awarded by this foundation ```` Tag: references removed

25 August 2011

• 21:1021:10, 25 August 2011 diff hist −156‎ Intercultural Open University Foundation ‎ Deleted sentence which duplicated earlier information.~~~~
• 21:0521:05, 25 August 2011 diff hist +428‎ Intercultural Open University Foundation ‎ Clarified language around IOUF and NVAO.~~~~ Tag: references removed

(he/she is an one-issue editor); what counts in respect to him/her is the behavior, i.e. undoing edits supported by what are imho reliable sources and introducing claims like international foundations have the right to grant PhDs, see the last paragraph of [7]. Perhaps I should replace above "act on the behalf of the foundation" with "plead on the behalf of the foundation", since this more accurately renders their behavior. Now, if for me the motivation is blowing the whistle or the watchdog must bite, what is their motivation for promoting this foundation? Since they only promote it through their edits, they try to minimize the importance of its lack of accreditation/recognition, they believe that a protest reaction published on the CIMEA site would be evidence that the CIMEA paper on diploma mills would be unreliable, they say that Nanninga (head editor of the review of the Dutch skeptics association) is unable to detect a fake university since he is no expert in education. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Without a clear connection to the IOUF we can't make a credible claim of conflict of interest. They still may be violating our neutral point of view policy but that doesn't in itself constitute a conflict of interest. The POV noticeboard might be of more assistance. -- Atama頭 00:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The article does have some bias problems. However, it's likely that these editors, if they have a connection to the organization, are merely badly informed (i.e., believed everything the sales department told them) rather than maliciously trying to spread misinformation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, those users have no provable affiliation with IOUF. But this user has outed himself/herself in that respect: [8]. He/she has recently removed from the article information based upon reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

When establishing a COI, edits like that are exactly what I was talking about. Stretch call explicitly claimed to be "at" the IOU Foundation, and kept referring to the foundation as "we", which is a clear acknowledgement. That doesn't mean that the other editors have a COI, but this editor certainly does.

I'll also point out that disclosing a COI in such a way is a credit to the editor. It's much more difficult to deal with people who have undisclosed conflicts of interest, and it's generally appreciated when a person is forthright about it. -- Atama頭 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a broader disclosure by the same user: [9] Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Hopfensperger

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

I caught this out of the new article filter. There's a claim of notability and A7 was declined. Since then, the editor has continued editing and adding information. I can't keep up with all the edits and could use some help. As for a COI, I see at least a few weasel words. There's also a lot of unreferenced claims. He has claimed to be the subject of the article and his userpage is currently another version of the article with a lot of external links that surprisingly seems less spammy. So far, I think all of their edits have been in good faith and that they're simply unaware of the issues that surround creating an autobiography. OlYeller^Talktome 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I blanked the user page as a fake article, and will nominate the article for deletion--I don't see much of a claim of notability, frankly, but more importantly I don't see any evidence of notability. In other words, I'm taking a detour around the COI, for more or less pragmatic reasons. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't argue with that. I saw the claims on the FINA Open Water Grand Prix accomplishments as a claim but don't know if they satisfy any portion of WP:ATHLETE (but that's irrelevant for this board). The COI is obvious but I don't see that there's any additional action that needs to be taken against the author at this time. I'll report back if we need an admin to step in. OlYeller^Talktome 17:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin H. Bratton‎

• Benjamin H. Bratton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MuchoSandwich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has admitted to being a student of the subject's. The editor seems very interested, is open to suggestion from others, and is attempting to learn the relating inclusion guidelines. I've tagged the article with the appropriate improvement templates. There's definitely some problems with the article but I think they can be worked on with the editor. I haven't contacted them but if someone else does, I hope we can be as un-bitey as possible as we may get a great editor out of the situation. OlYeller^Talktome 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Merely being a student of the subject is not a violation of the COI guideline, and this article looks no different from any of the similar WP:PROF articles.

I recommend that you halve the number of tags you've spammed on that article (at least). Fewer tags means a much greater likelihood of the new person figuring out how to address the issues, and tags are perceived by new users as being very bite-y. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you there. That in itself is not a violation. I do think it requires some attention but no blocks, etc. I probably shouldn't have put so many tags on the article either. I sift through so many new articles that sometimes it's easy to seem like a robot. Whatever the case, I'll do my best to make sure the editor feels welcome and not offended/turned off by the tags. If telling him that I was overzealous or wrong will help the situation, feel free. OlYeller^Talktome 01:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OlYeller, your ability to reassess and adjust your position is appreciated and a sign of strong character. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kevin A. Ross

• Nate Holden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kevin A. Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 3BAAS Media Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a public relations agency (you can find its name by doing a search on the Internet). It went into Nate Holden and changed the info taken from a Source. Apparently it is doing publicity for a judge, Kevin A. Ross, who has a TV show.GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nate_Holden&action=historysubmit&diff=447459649&oldid=433665933 GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reported the user at UAA for a username violation. They'll most likely be blocked soon. I'll keep an eye on the articles to see if they persist after a warning. OlYeller^Talktome 11:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through every edit they made on Kevin A. Ross. They're extensive and mostly confusing. An admin from UAA is attempting to speak with them. I feel that if any editing continues, an admin will need to use their toolbox to assure that this editor understands that they can't alter article's of people their firm represents. OlYeller^Talktome 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Health

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

User's name (and edit) indicate a COI. I left a Template:Uw-coi-username on their user page. Jesanj (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They may be blocked soon for a username violation as they've been reported on UAA. They only have one edit which you have taken care of. I'll watch the account and the page to see if they reappear in another form. If they're attempting to promote the publisher's products, it's going to be difficult or more likely impossible to catch them under a different username on other articles as it's a self-publishing company that's publishing a "predicted" 100k titles a year. Hopefully they were just on to promote that single book. I'd be willing to bet they're done given that they picked such a broad subject like "health" to add their advert to. Regardless, I'll keep an eye out. OlYeller^Talktome 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked. I'll report back if there's any new... news. OlYeller^Talktome 14:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Clinical pathology

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

User's name (and edit history of spamming external links, of which all are currently reverted) indicates a COI. Jesanj (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The username and editing pattern would be blockable per WP:ORGNAME as a promotional account, but the editor has been warned about both and hasn't edited since. I've put their user page on a watchlist, and if they continue again without making any attempt to change their name, or change their edits, I will indefinitely block them. -- Atama頭 17:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Charreada

• Charreada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rmj8757 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to running a single purpose account and to promote the articles subject and rubbish criticism. They also seem to be many of the Ips editing the article with similar aims. It is mostly like a tennis match between them and one other user but I think it bears looking at here. RafikiSykes (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely some bizarre behavior going on. Is there any evidence that shows a connection between the editors involved and the subject? OlYeller^Talktome 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the user ether knows or is the owner of of one of the pro sites that is being inserted often with attacking titles. The user also posts whever the safety stats on a site are updates so it seems like they are involved there.RafikiSykes (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"I think" sounds like a speculation without evidence. Disruptive editing needs to be addressed but we have to be careful about drawing unsupported conclusions about someones real life activities or motivations.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking quickly at Rmj8757's edit history I see, yes its an SPA, but I don't see any signs of edit warring. Did I miss it? Also the editor seems to have made some worthwhile edits including adding sourced content. Can you point to specific issue(s) and give diffs? Right now I don't see the problem. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont want to out anyone but it is not purely speculation. Compare the contact page of the legalise site with the single purpose account. The wording on that problem site was tweaked to match in with how the user wanted to title the link in the external links section.RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The sacharro site being used to cite the injury would seem to share the creator and familiar details. Given it also seems to be self published I am concerned they are being used as reliable sources to push the pov. http://damacharra.com/ as well. They all share the same website kit format and seem to share the same creator. Also the legalise site is yet again inserted despite multiple editors removing it.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Luke Ravenstahl

• Luke Ravenstahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 205.141.129.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Username7891 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

205.141.129.33 (talk · contribs), which is an IP address belonging to the government of the city of Pittsburgh, has been chastised a few times in the past for editing the mayor's article, Luke Ravenstahl. On 31 August, this editor began editing Luke Ravenstahl again, accompanied by the WP:SPA Username7891 (talk · contribs). I suspect Username7891's efforts to be coordinated with 205.141.129.33's. I cautioned both editors that they might be in violation of WP:COI, suggested they both read WP:ORGFAQ, and invited them both to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I also restored the article to its prior state. Username7891 simply reverted my edit and resumed editing, and 205.141.129.33 has not responded. I alerted WP:WikiProject Pittsburgh of the issue, then came here to seek advice. (My writeup on the article's talk page goes into more detail than this one does.) —Bill Price (nyb) 20:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My first suspicion would be that they are the same person, but after looking into the editing patterns of the IP and the account I don't think that's the case. There's enough of an overlap in editing between the two (where the IP and the named account are editing at similar times) to cast doubt on that. When I see a named account edit, then an IP, then a named acount, then an IP, back and forth, it usually means there are two different people. There's enough of a gap between such edits (10 minutes or more) to make it possible that this is one person on two computers, or using two browsers, or logging out and back in on the same browser, but Occam's razor would suggest that these are two different people. It's likely that they are coordinating their edits, however, which is strongly frowned upon.

Regardless of any off-Wiki coordination or conflicts of interest, the (presumably) two editors are making disruptive edits, including the removal of sourced information without explanation and at least in the case of the named account, copyright violations. Considering that the editors have never responded to warnings, altered their behavior, or otherwise attempted to communicate or comply with others' concerns, if they continue with these edits I'm inclined to block both of them simply for disruption (temporarily for the IP, indefinitely for the named account). -- Atama頭 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Email

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

Single purpose account User:Vashiva continue to insert himself into the Email article, regarding an email system he developed and copyrighted. I'm not finding any sources indicating how this system is notable (most mentions of it online are sourced to his own sites). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked by Materialscientist for 31 hours for edit warring. — Satori Son 13:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jon Hinck

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

Likewise, Hinck recently posted this on Facebook "An old friend posted this "wiki-art" for me. Now its time to get corrections and revisions from others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Hinck".[10] Definitely worth watching for bias.TM 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The FB page isn't public and I don't particularly feel like trolling around someone's FB page. Regardless, the user has claimed to be the subject of the article. I'll check now but is the article currently damaged because of their edits? OlYeller^Talktome 23:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I went through every edit the account has made. Only the addition of the two photos could really be considered controversial (at least in my opinion). I removed the photos and the COI tag which basically leaves a few caption improvements and names of family members in the infobox as far as the account's edits go. I've left a message for the editor on their talk page and I'll report back here if the editing continues. As of now, the situation seems under control. OlYeller^Talktome 23:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthony S Adams

• Anthony S Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A2adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 209.119.75.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't remember why this page is on my watchlist but it has been recreated today. An single purpose IP editor has removed the COI tag another editor placed and changed a few words around. In the edit summary they say, "Added Memberships, Cleaned Copy and removed {{ROI}} as I'm (JS) the author, article was just posted under a2adams account." An SPA named a2adams (talk · contribs) created the page. Can an admin shed some light on the situation from the previous version, please? Σ (talk · contribs) has added the COI tag twice and I'm not particularly sure why. The non-IP's userpage was deleted and may also help shed some light on the situation. It seems as though something weird is going on and that the answers may have been deleted for one reason or another. OlYeller^Talktome 23:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony S Adams and the ip has been reported as a possible sock of user:A2adams. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A2adams. Phearson (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Selena Cuffe

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

Edits the extremely favorable article about herself, originally created by an s.p.a. whose userpage simply says, "a Chicago-based editor." Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the user has claimed to be the subject of the article. OlYeller^Talktome 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This may also be of note. The SPA you referred to created the article in their userspace. An admin, DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs), moved it to mainspace after only the original edit. I'm not suggesting any foul editing or anything like that. Just thought it might be useful information at some point.

Lastly, it looks like all she has done is add some photos and remove an orphan tag (which has been appropriately replaced). The photos don't look advertorial or promblematic to me but I won't remove the COI tag.

It looks like Orange Mike has warned the editor on their talk page. We should remove the COI tag soon if no one objects to the photos on the page and Selena does not continue editing. I'll report back if there's any change. OlYeller^Talktome 23:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Jespah

• Enough Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Prendergast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ryan Gosling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Satellite Sentinel Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Unlikely Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• George Clooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jespah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User either works for or is in cahoots with The Enough Project, its founder, and/or various persons involved in these projects and other related ones: "I was asked by The Enough Project to add the information about George and SSP. I edit Enough's wiki pages. As you can see, George works with John Prendergast, the co-founder of Enough.". Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The user is an SPA, focusing on human rights issues in Sudan & Africa, and has exhibited serious advocacy issues in the past. Previously she had denied any affiliation with the subjects of her articles, see this prior COI discussion, but the recent quoted remark suggests that things may have changed. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Or I could be wrong: she may, as has been claimed, simply be a true believer who is in contact with the various projects, Prendergast, etc., and relied on by them to push their POV; in which case it's an NPOV issue, not a COI one. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Whichever it turns out to be, the fact that the issue caught your eye indicates that the NPOV / advocacy issues persist (albeit in less prolific fashion than in previous months) and should be addressed. For those who may care to dive into this, in addition to the COI Noticeboard link I included above, the John Prendergast Talk page (beginning about here) reflects more of the prior discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I know who Jespah is, and though I won't reveal her name here on Wikipedia, if you just put her username in Google it's not hard to see it. She's quite vocal in many places on the Web about her admiration of and support for Prendergast, but nowhere do I see her claim any actual affiliation with him or his organization. If she did have some affiliation it would almost certainly come out in one of the many forums or blogs that she has participated in, or her Twitter page. -- Atama頭 17:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So I guess this would be something for WP:NPOVN. I've never really thought about it but I guess there's a bit of a grey area between a COI and POV pushing when an editor isn't technically connected with the subject. I guess that's something for a topic ban discussion to decide, right? OlYeller^Talktome 18:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yes. That possibility was raised previously but Jespah's editing intensity fell off shortly thereafter and the need for a solution became less urgent. JohnInDC (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am so sick of all of the policing here when I am trying to insert some valuable information for Wikipedia readers. Please step back and take a look at all of it. I thought I was enhancing Ryan's wiki page and, again, providing important information for his followers, who might be inspired to involve themselves in the work he cherishes. Isn't that a worthy aim for Wikipedia! Rhetorical, please! Good God! --Jespah 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)--Jespah 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I do think this has reached harassment levels. If you don't, please reconsider! --Jespah 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it is not a worthy aim for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an advocacy organization, it is a neutral encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jespah, I think your aims, well-intentioned or not, are directly in conflict with the aims of Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 00:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this so many times that we have an entire article on this very subject: NO: Wikipedia is not here to promote your noble cause!!!! (And asking you to abide by our rules, or leave, does not constitute harassment.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jespah, we've been over this same ground again and again - at Talk:John Prendergast, on your Talk page, and at the COI Noticeboard to name just three venues. If after all of that, your response here is simply to complain about mistreatment at the hands of other editors, it's hard to escape the conclusion that you are unwilling, or unable, ever to understand or abide by the basic policies that underlie the encyclopedia. JohnInDC (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow you feel it is okay for Wiki to appear 'Tabloid' by stating who Ryan Gosling is dating, yet find it in opposition to Wiki's aims to indicate why Ryan travels to and is concerned with what is going on in the DRC. I don't get that. I was trying to state facts. I wasn't suggesting an agenda. When people are being raped, mutilated, in other ways tortured and murdered, I think it is smart for Wiki to indicate that. I don't see that as being biased; it is documented, you know? --Jespah 12:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

i don't know what the issue is here. my editing was changed and remains as changed by, probably, JohnInDC, who, by the way, really has an issue with me. Each time I add or change anything on Wiki, he is there, which is rather like stalking and extremely uncomfortable. There was no need for you to insert your comments above, JohnInDC! In the real world, some wiki editors have a reputation of being religous zealots, robots. You come at me as though I should be burned at the stake. I have a problem with my memory, which accounts for some of my misunderstandings of wiki protocol. Orange Mike - you have never dealt with me before and come at me spitting fire! Well, spit away. --Jespah 18:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jespah, it's nothing personal. And I'm only one of maybe ten editors who have expressed serious concerns about your persistent - and until recently, unremitting - advocacy issues. I'm sorry you don't understand the issue. It is not for lack of patient explanation, that I know.

Now a broader question for the other editors - OrangeMike opened this discussion out of concern for a possible COI. Jespah hasn't denied the COI here, but she has denied it in the past and as Atama notes above, if she did have an actual, formal connection to the various advocacy organizations, it would likely have emerged in one or another forum. So there's probably no COI but there remain persistent POV / Soapbox issues (albeit at lesser velocity than in the past). Jespah has given no indication that she appreciates the problem (rather, has stated the contrary) and has given no indication that she intends to do things differently in the future. So my question is, what next? A topic ban seems harsh for someone who seems well-intentioned and well-informed; but good intentions aside, the problem is chronic is likely to continue for as long as Jespah continues to edit in this subject area (which, I would note, is the only subject matter area in which she contributes). Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, if it's okay with Orange Mike, I suggest that the COI template be removed from Satellite Sentinel Project. I don't think Jespah has an actual COI, and, for the time being the article seems clear of NPOV issues. JohnInDC (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been involved in previous discussions (COIN archive and article talk), and it is disappointing that the problem persists. One trivial issue illustrates the problem for me: a number of editors have advised Jespah that their signature should be fixed (here and other places), and the signature was fixed last April, but above we see that it is broken again. I looked at Jespah's contributions in an attempt to establish whether the user had sought assistance (apparently not), but I did find this talk section where yet again Jespah demonstrates an inability to grasp the procedures used at Wikipedia: the issue at that talk is minor (incorrect claims that replies to Jespah were "offensive"), but the amount of disruption cannot be ignored. Given the persistence after all the civil and lengthy explanations that have been offered to Jespah, I would support a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard regarding a possible topic ban or an indefinite block per WP:CIR (indefinite until the user provides convincing evidence on their talk page that they understand the previous problems and how to avoid them in the future). Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Jespah has a direct conflict of interest, it has been clear to me for a while that she prioritizes getting Enough's message out over following Wikipedia's rules. This is advocacy. Comments on Talk:John Prendergast show a strong disdain towards collaborative editing, and recent edits show that she continues to either ignore or not understand our copyright regs. I would support a topic ban. As is evident in this thread, Jespah has no problem personally attacking those who attempt to clean up after her, and has developed a very adversarial position towards the WP community. We would not tolerate this sort of behaviour if it this was a SPA for a corporation. I firmly believe that if action is not taken this time, these issues will repeat themselves indefinitely. Jespah has been "Enough's wiki editor" since 2008, and shows no indication of giving up that role. The Interior (Talk) 13:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as aside, the first article at least is full of copyvios. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Jespah has in some instances obtained licenses from these organizations to republish their material here. See Talk:John_Prendergast for an example. I would have thought she'd done the same for Enough Project but apparently not. Perhaps the license described at John Prendergast is broad enough to cover Enough Project, but I don't know; and it's not on the Enough Project Talk page anyhow. Wholly apart from copyright issues, one of the continuing POV issues has been the propriety of importing an organization's own words about itself wholesale into the article here. (E.g., here and here.) They are hardly neutral sources. JohnInDC (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually scratch that, pretty much every bit I've google has been lifted from copyright sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would, by the way, support a topic ban proposal, but Jespah seems to think I have it in for her (see above for one instance). It would be better, I think - certainly less likely to open the door to collateral issues - if the proposal were drafted by another editor. JohnInDC (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I also should recuse myself from drafting the proposal, as with JohnInDC, because of extensive unpleasant past interactions. The Interior (Talk) 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I can write a report but I won't really know if I support a topic ban or any sort of sanctions until I'm done with it. It may take me a week to write up as I try to be as thorough as possible about these sorts of things. OlYeller^Talktome 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, OlYeller. I think most of the pertinent links are in the posts above, but if you would like additional diffs to clarify any of the claims made, I've a few. My talk page and its archives have more than a few examples of ownership, civility, etc. The Interior (Talk) 15:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on the thanks and on the offer of diffs and links. Much, but not all, of the history is linked above. JohnInDC (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've started the report here. If while I'm writing it, you see I've missed something or misinterpreted something, please mention it on the talk page. I'd like the report to all be done by me so that it can be as independent as possible. I don't own it and can't stop anyone else from editing it but my opinions and statements will all be signed by me and nothing else. OlYeller^Talktome 15:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I consider myself too involved at this point to use my tools against Jespah in this matter, after the extensive time I spent on the article's talk page months ago. Not that I think it would be warranted, not yet, but even if I did I wouldn't feel comfortable blocking her or taking any other official administrator action. -- Atama頭 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I too am involved and wouldn't want to use my tools to enforce a topic ban, but I do think we have reached that point. I've just blanked most of the Enough Project as it was copied directly from their website. This kind of behavior is not a net benefit to the project and Jespah's continued inability to change her pattern has reached the breaking point. We are not helped by single topic advocates whose only goal is promotion. --Daniel 18:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally forgot that Jespah disclosed at least part of real name multiple times; she used to sign her comments as "Nell" and you can still see that a number of times on her user talk page. This is getting back to my earlier comment about discovering her real identity. -- Atama頭 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel that I have found an admission of a conflict of interest. Jespah has uploaded several files and often uses words like "we" or "our" when stating that the Enough Project gives permission (examples here and here). While this would only indicated a COI with the Enough Project, I believe the connection along with the claimed history of POV pushing (I haven't gotten that far yet) indicates that there's a bigger problem here than just a COI with one subject. Also, has anyone asked OTRS about a connection? Obviously we're not looking to out someone (although it sounds like they've outed themselves) but mabye OTRS could shed some light on the issue. OlYeller^Talktome 20:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've requested some feedback from User:OlEnglish, as he is an OTRS volunteer and familiar with this situation. The Interior (Talk) 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, she outed herself more exactly a while ago. It's in my report. As Atama has done, I've done a lot of searching and can find no direct connection. I think she feels so strongly about the subject that she often says, "we" and "our". OlYeller^Talktome 23:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The report isn't done yet. I've finished going through all non article or article talk page edits. Starting the article and article talk page edits now. OlYeller^Talktome 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To Atama頭 : Why would you reference my name? If you 'know' me, please contact me. The article about Enough states what they do. It isn't bias; it is factual. It has been on Wiki for years now. Why would you suddenly delete copy? To Orange Mike | Talk: You look like a hippie; however, you clearly are not. If a person says they feel harassed, best to look at it from their point of view, don't you think? McCarthyism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talk • contribs)

Jespah, your name has been used on WP by you. To state that it isn't biased is to state your opinion as fact. Your opinion is that it's not bias while other editors disagree and have disagreed with you for quite some time (about a year now). It having been on WP for a year has nothing to do with anything, really. That it was overlooked doesn't mean that it's somehow acceptable. I'm not sure what harassment you're talking about but it seems hypocritical to judge others (your comments about OrangeMike) then ask others to see things your way.

The issue is and has been that you have been in a content dispute or in other words, your opinion about something varies from that of others. As you obviously have a deep interest in the subjects that you edit (which is very admirable), it's not hard to image that those feelings might cloud your judgement regarding your opinions. Several editors have repeatedly tried to explain this to you and, from what I've seen, you take it as a personal attack and sometimes attack back. This gets us no where; not you, the organizations you care about, WP or any other editor. Does this make sense to you? I don't know how I can put it more plainly.

This is something you need to try an understand as several editors are suggesting that you be banned from editing certain topics; the topics you care about. If you don't change the way you're acting, I can almost assure you that you will be banned from editing these articles.

No one thinks you're a bad person and in fact, it seems that several editors want to try and help you become a productive editor of WP. There's plenty of people here that would like to help you but you but you never seem truly open to help and/or ignore the valid policies and guidelines they show you. OlYeller^Talktome 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Jespah, I count the name "Nell" 20 times on your user talk page. And outside of your user talk page, you've mentioned your full name, see here for an example. I didn't realize you've already given people your full identity on Wikipedia, so there is no violation of policy to mention it. You even gave your email address (or at least what it was two years ago). -- Atama頭 01:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Atama頭 I am aware that I have used my name. I don't care if you know my name. I wondered why you would go out of your way to show my name. What difference does it make? I also don't understand how stating what an organization does can be viewed as biased. I am not making a judgment, simply stating what they do, as in Ford makes cars. --Jespah 01:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Jespah, I can assure you that if a Wikipedia editor with a particular fondness for Fords began to reproduce marketing copy from Ford's website at Ford Motor Company, it would be removed within minutes. Even if they had managed to gain permission to reprint it, and no matter how much they believed it to be true. JohnInDC (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sterling EQ

Resolved

 – Undergoing AfD and author blocked. Phearson (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sterling EQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Five Seasons Music is a major contributor to this article, Sterling EQ member/flautist Carina Bruwer is Director of Five Seasons Music and there is a definite conflict of interest. Article is biased, sources cited are to personal social networking pages and cd sales sites, search engine results display only minor sites. 41.28.147.170 (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• The article in question is currently under Afd review, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling EQ Phearson (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• User:fiveseasons blocked per username vio. Phearson (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bukit Kepong Incident

• Bukit Kepong Incident
• Hezery99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hezery99 is undoing all my changes which involve adding "Citation needed" tags as well as removing dead External links, allowed as per the Wikipedia:External links guideline, while accusing me of being a "pro-communist terrorist sympthiser" in one of his undo summary descriptions. The page is currently lacking any citation except for one link. The other link is a dead link. Furthermore, most of the dead links in the External links section which I have removed as allowed by Wikipedia guidelines for External links sections were links to the Royal Malaysian Police website which is obviously biased due to the subject matter of the article. - kriskhaira (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This incident looks like it's being handled. I'll keep my hands off of it unless more help is needed. They appear to have only ever made two edits to the page. Calling you a terrorist is certainly seems out of line but otherwise, they seem to be talking. Regardless, I can only help to address content and not the actions of an editor as I'm not an admin. Any admin want to make a comment/take action regarding the Hezery99's comment? OlYeller^Talktome 14:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)