Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

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

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

Charles Taze Russell

Charles Taze Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related
Pastorrussell (talk · contribs)

There may be no problem - I admit I don't know the topic well enough - but there seems to be considerable risk of COI. A major contributor to the article describes himself as "the webmaster of Pastor-Russell.com, the official Charles Taze Russell website". Could someone take a look at the article history? 86.148.154.23 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no problem

I think there is. The article itself currently looks reasonably even-handed (for instance, not glossing over controversies). However, the above user is making a lot of uncited reversions with no explanation or unhelpful summaries like improper edit, and a couple of years back was the subject of a user RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell) for WP:OWN problems. Things look a lot quieter now, but JW vs Bible Students is very a partisan situation, and being official webmaster for one camp looks far too close a relationship to the subject for comfort. I've added a COI tag. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Pastorrussell just removed the COI tag as misunderstanding. I've asked for explanation here. Gordonofcartoon 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC) (sorry - working from crappy filtered account that won't let me log in). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.221.34 (talk) [reply]

Comment. The editor whose actions are being questioned is *not* in reality someone named Pastor Russell; he just operates a website about Charles Taze Russell who was a pastor. We need a proposal for what to do in this case. It could be COI if you argue:

That the article's citing of the pastor-russell.com web site is the violation, or
That this editor's affiliation with the Bible Students is leading to partisan editing in defence of that group's position, and against the neutrality of the article. (I think Gordon is arguing this above, but it needs details in my view).

The article appears carefully written, and it relies to a degree on online copies of scanned documents about 19th-century events that are hosted on the pastor-russell.com website. Someone who has patience could go through the history looking for any reverts of valid criticism. The article is fairly neutral in tone and heavily documented, though perhaps based to an excessive degree on documents hosted at the pastor-russell.com site. Does anyone have the patience to study the article history? As Gordonofcartoon points out, there was an WP:RFC/U on this editor back in 2005, claiming violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, that must not have led to any official action. You could still read it for background, since it mentions this article. I notice that this editor has frequently reverted the work of other editors over at Bible Student movement, and I don't see him participating on the talk page there. Bible Student movement is a weaker article than Charles Taze Russell, and contains more unsourced material. It might be a better target of reform.

The most questionable recent edit by User:Pastorrussell is probably this one, where he accused another editor of vandalism for changing the picture on an article. A discussion with this editor is desirable. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the concern for neutrality. This was brought up when the article was being about two years ago, and the issues were dealt with in an appropriate manner which satisfied all concerned. I added the "Criticisms" section in order to make the article as unbiased as possible, and have attempted to make sure there is no bias of any kind. Others who have attempted to remove "Criticisms" section, or to add inappropriate material has been undone by me. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. On his User page, User:Gordonofcartoon (who I was counting on for further research) has indicated he won't be able to follow up on this issue. Since only Gordon and I, besides the original IP and Pastorrussell, have commented here, I think it is reasonable to close this, without prejudice to reopening if anyone has time to investigate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reopening this for discussion as I still think this article needs some revision and input to be COI free. I don't know how much time I will have to research the issues but I will do my best.Shaneroosky (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article content, I can see some evidence of COI editing. It must be remembered that (according to their own WP articles) the Jehovah's Witnesses have 17 million adherents, while "there are still thousands of Bible Students worldwide". The fact that the Bible student navbox is listed above the JW navbox in Russell's article, and that Bible students are mentioned before JWs in the description of groups he founded, are clear violations of WP:Undue weight. Also, "best known as Pastor Russell" in the first sentence needs to be sourced; if, as I suspect, only non-JW Bible Students call him that (it is, if course, the username and website name of the editor in question here), it should not be in the Intro.

Here is the current version of the page, to which I am referring. I am now going to fix the issues I just described. If Gordonofcartoon or Shareroosky want to identify specific issues that I can helpfully comment on, please let me know on my talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think there is a problem here. Here is User:Pastorrussell's response to my changes (and others too, mine are only in the lead paragraph). He insists on downplaying Jehovah's Witnesses, who make up 99.9% of Russell's present-day followers (however imperfectly they may follow him), and insists on the appellation "Pastor Russell", which strikes me as very non-encyclopedic. Note also that the user's website is the first listed at Charles Taze Russell#External links, and is identified as the "official CT Russell website". Declared official by whom? On his website, the user says one of his motivations is to "separate [Russell] from Jehovah's Witnesses," raising WP:SOAP concerns. The user's motivations are clearly to attract people to his website as well as to his small sect, which (in words that he added and I removed at the Bible Student movement page) has "had increased visibility and influence in recent years due to the formation and growth of the world wide web."

It seems to me that User:Pastorrussell should be counseled to cease placing undue weight on his minority viewpoint and to cease promoting his website and his sect. If he cannot comply, then he should be enjoined from editing on topics related to C.T. Russell. I will leave a message on his talk page requesting his comment. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Pastor Russell" is the most frequent name used for this man, and you can find that in nearly any encyclopedia. This isn't my preference, it is a matter of historical fact. The reference to the "increased visibility" et.al. was simply a poor wording on my part, and should clearly have been removed. The "Official site" is under the direction of Bible Students and his remaining family members. There is no attempt to downplay the Jehovah's Witnesses at all. The issue is one of balance. Both groups should be mentioned as they spring from the same movement. No one group should be marked out. I take offense to the direct matter-of-fact statements made as to my motives. How can you know my motives without asking me? Obviously there is some confusion as to the historical facts regarding Russell, Bible Students, and the JWs. The reference from the website that you quoted is not related to the article in any way, and has no impact upon the way the article is written. I have worked tirelessly with others over the past two years to make the article as neutral and unbiased as possible in every conceivable way, but have often been attacked by those who support JWs and wish to make the article more pro JW which is in violation of wikipedia policies. We need to have balance. Of course, nobody is perfect, but it really isn't fair to characterize me in such a negative light when you are making assumptions based on statements taken out of context. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need balance, but that does not mean giving all views equal weight; per WP:NPOV, it means views should be described with a weight "in proportion to the prominence of each". JWs (which, btw, I do not support in any way) are by far Russell's most prominent followers and should be most prominently mentioned. Some of the problems can be helped by inline citations, which currently are very sparse in this article. Claims such as that he is generally known as "Pastor Russell" by more than just certain of his followers, or that the majority of his followers left the Watchtower Society in the schism, need to be sourced. I looked at this JW source (hosted on your website, actually), which calls him "Brother Russell" and claims that the majority of his adherents remained faithful to the WTS. At External Links, I would list your website after Watchtower.org, and would not describe it as "official". In general, Wikipedia's job is to reflect the body of primary and secondary sources that we draw on, not to correct its errors.

I am willing to assume good faith on your part, and I hope to see better. I hope that you have carefully read WP:COI, because you clearly have a major potential conflict and need to be careful to keep your edits encyclopedic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the CTR entry is about the man and his life, history, theology, etc... and neither about JWs nor Bible Students. This means that nothing in the entry should seem to support either group, but simply mention the minimal yet pertinent historical facts of these two groups in relation to him. Unfortunately, it appears that much of the controversy here comes from an innocent ignorance of the history. JWs are NOT his followers, and that seems to be the major misunderstanding here. The Bible Student movement emerged as a result of Russell's ministry. When he died the majority (nearly three-quarters - documented in dozens of places) left the organization that he founded and formed several fellowships, all of whom remain in close contact and are called Bible Students. They still follow the teachings espoused by Russell, study his books, and hold to his views. The JWs on the other hand were the minority and were not founded by Russell, but by Rutherford his successor, in the year 1931, nearly fifteen years after Russell's death. Their theological viewpoints are significantly and radically different from Russell's, and they neither study nor encourage reading of his writings. All that they do is claim him as their founder which is not strictly correct as he didn't found their movement he simply founded the legal corporation they currently control. Anyhow, the CTR entry shouldn't have anything to do with JWs or Bible Students in terms of the historical information, but simply be restricted to the details of his life, while any details regarding the two mentioned groups be limited in scope in this article with the greater details kept within their own primary entries. Incidentally, the navbox on Bible Students and the one on JWs were both added by someone else, and I had nothing to do with either the creation or placement. The "official website" is through those who still study his writings and of those who are his remaining family, and is thus entirely official. JWs have NOTHING to do with the man, don't study his material, in fact going so far as to call his writings "old light" and their members are strongly discouraged from reading his works. Bible Students were in the majority, but now are the minority. JWs were the minority but now are the majority, and very rarely refer to themselves as Bible Students in order to not be confused with the other group. So, such info should be balanced, unbiased, but most importantly limited insofar as THIS article is concerned. Because of these misunderstandings my attempts to keep the article balanced and as unbiased as possible have been misconstrued and are being interpreted in completely the opposite way, which is unfortunate and very stressful. Pastorrussell (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I'll say that citing sources will go a long way towards fixing a lot of the problems around here. Don't just tell me that a certain claim is "documented in dozens of places," cite one or two of those sources when that statement is made in the article! I'll also note that third-party sources (i.e., with no vested interest in either JWs or BSs) will be ten times more valuable in convincing people of your claims. As for your opinion that Russell is not properly a founder of the JWs, I don't actually care whether you're right or wrong, because Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. What is relevant here is that this opinion of yours is hardly a consensus (which means it should not be stated as unqualified fact), and I don't know that it's even a majority view (if it's not, then it shouldn't be most prominently mentioned). Again, impartial third-party sources will be by far the most valuable here. Finally, I still have a problem with "official." C.T. Russell is not still around to give his endorsement, and there are multiple conflicting groups that claim his legacy. You need to qualify that claim about your website.

I'm not going to say more about the details here, basically because I have a passing interest in the topic but not enough to dig deeply into it. I think at this point you're aware of your potential conflicts, and I trust you'll be careful. If, in the future, I can be useful as a mediator, I'd be glad to help. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. The way I worded my last comment was simply a brief outline for you so you could see what the matter is about. I am currently working on an exhaustive list of third-party references for the said entry. My hope is to have them all finished in about a week or two. As for the official website there are only two groups that are "conflicting" -JWs and Bible Students. Again, exhaustive references from all appropriate sources is being compiled. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay, I'm back. Sorry about the absence. I agree with much of what has been said: specifically the need for third-party citation (I don't really trust sources from the minutes of a church to be sufficiently objective about its own history). Also Pastorrussell should avoid edits - unless trivially obvious - that simply assert without proof that a change is wrong. (Note also that you can't defame or libel [1] [2] someone who has been dead since 1916).

That said, I'm still uneasy about what relationship the operator of its "official website" has to the subject. If it's promotional and/or protective toward the subject, there's a conflict of interest. This "official" status still hasn't been satisfactorily explained, and discussion is ongoing at Talk:Charles Taze Russell#"Official" Website. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Majken schultz

Majken schultz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new editor, whose username is the same as an author of two books that this editor has been adding as references
Brand management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - editor added two paragraphs, apparently sourced from a book by Schultz that will be published in March 2008.
Corporate branding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - editor added content sourced again by same March 2008 book, as well as a 2001 book also by Schultz.

I've placed a coi notice on the editor's talk page, but there's no indication that this new editor has seen it yet. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An independent editor has restored the content to Corporate branding. I've removed it, as this is a very strange situation. The book has not been published yet, so how can it possibly meet WP:V and how is including it not promotional? I'd appreciate suggestions on how to handle this. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems blatant. I agree that Majken schultz shouldn't be adding links to his own book to articles. Let's see if your {{uw-coi}} notice will get his attention, and persuade him to join this discussion. He has not edited since your notice on 28 January. I also invited the independent editor to participate here. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the 2001 reference was just an article in the harvard business review. Obviously, we need some other way to verify the contents of the 2008 book;; we may just have to wait until march. Although, maybe Majken can provide us with references from this book to substantiate his contribution. --BE TA 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all. Thanks very much for all your comments. I sincerely appologize for these misunderstandings, and for being this slow at replying. I am only beginning to understand the Wiki Media. I thought I could add perspectives on the article on Corporate Branding. I understand now that references to an upcoming book is inappropriate. The figure I have uploaded is a new rendering of a figure used in several other publications. I will proceed with caution to broaden the Corporate Branding article with references to the published research of myself and others, adhering to wikipedias NPOV principles. I will keep an eye on this talk-page for your comments. Thanks again. Best, Majken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majken schultz (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering, Majken Schultz. On a general note: Using ones own publications as references is fine, as it shows a deep understanding of the subject at hand. The main problem was WP:V of an upcoming book. As long as you, and others, keep it useful, self-references are fine if not avoidable without complications. Poeloq (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaz Simmons

Resolved

– Article deleted. MER-C 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaz Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Creating editor's userid is Kazsjazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the tone of the article seems to be more self promotional/autobiographical. No sources. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for deletion. Article does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Resolved

– Not a COI. MER-C 08:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Michael Lucas (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor David Shankbone has made an edit seen here [3], to the Michael Lucas (porn star) page. This is a reversal of his earlier statement of intent seen here [4], where he said "prostitute is too well-documented." It also reverses his earlier edits seen here [5], and here [6], and here [7], where each time he re-inserted the text on Lucas being a prostitute after that specific text had been deleted by editor Lucasent. Lucasent has been blocked from editing, evidenced here [8].

That Michael Lucas was a prostitute is well-documented on the internet:
(1) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/02/16/law-blog-law-graduate-of-the-day-porn-king-michael-lucas/,
(2) http://nymag.com/movies/features/23146/index1.html,
(3) http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=255.

Previously, when the text about Lucas being a prostitute was deleted, the matter was discussed by other editors, as seen here [9], and here [10]. One of those editors noted: "The reference stating he was a prostitute comes from the Yale Daily News. I think we can consider that a highly reliable source."

That source is the current source cited in the text of the article -- it supports the fact that Michael Lucas was a prostitute. The source does not state that Lucas worked as an escort, as Shankbone has edited the text to read. --72.68.122.138 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any evidence of a conflict of interest on the part of the parties involved? MER-C 13:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is found in the citations above. In summary, Michael Lucas or somebody purporting to be him wrote on the talk page of his bio expressing dissatisfaction with its content, including the reference to his being a prostitute. David Shankbone replied specifically to the prostitute reference saying, "...if information is well-sourced, you will have a difficult time asking it be removed, and the prostitute mention is in the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and at least several others" and "But we'll work with you..." and "Unless someone reverts me, I will make a few of the minor changes." Shankbone also admitted to corresponding with Lucas outside of Wikipedia. Prior to this exchange, Shankbone had three times restored the prostitute reference after it had been deleted by the banned editor Lucasent. Subsequent to the talk page exchange, Shankbone removed the prostitute reference and inserted the comparatively benign term "escort." The source cited for the text does not say Lucas was an escort, it says Lucas was a prostitute. Other reputable sources say Lucas was a prostitute, as Shankbone himself noted, yet Shankbone removed the prostitute reference knowing full well that it is well-documented fact.--71.127.235.96 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been invited to comment on this thread. To reply only to the conflict of interest aspect, I see nothing improper about David Shankbone's involvement. If Mr. Lucas was indeed the person who protested, then leaving a comment on the talk page was one of the appropriate ways to express it. So is corresponding with experienced and uninvolved editors. Mr. Shankbone has wide-ranging experience on several Wikimedia projects. I suggest moving this discussion to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, since the serious issue is about the degree of sourcing that would be necessary to support a biography statement about prostitution in a living person's biography. Durova^Charge! 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not about sourcing, totally reliable sources say Lucas was a prostitute. The serious issue here is Shankbone's conflict of interest in the edits he made. Lucas didn't like that his bio had him as a prostitute. Shankbone took out reliably sourced info, that Lucas was a prostitute, and put in unsourced info, that he was an escort, even though the source says Lucas was a prostitute. "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor." Shankbone put it original research, there's a conflict of interest. Lucas wanted prostitute out of his bio, and Shankbone took it out, so Shankbone promoted the interests of Lucas, there's another conflict of interest. Shankbone knew what he was doing, otherwise why would he take out prostitute and put in escort when he previously restored prostitute three times after Lucasent deleted it? Anybody can take this to BLPN and maybe it should be in both places, but it belongs here mostly because Shankbone has clear conflict of interest with this article: planting OR and doing it for Lucas.--71.127.233.107 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, myself and other editors have been watching and sourcing the article as that's what we do here and I haven't seen any issue with Shankbone's edits except where they and I disagree on content issues which have never been COI-inspired. His work on wikinews has only benefited wikipedia and correctly calling Lucas a male escort, which is the industry term for prostitute, to me, is a non-issue. This isn't central or notable to his bio and as Shankbone has stated the information will be in there one way or another. If Lucas is charged with prostitution or the term otherwise becomes notable we can certainly re-add it but it seems quite minor in the scheme of things. Benji boi 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been at WP:COIN before. The article on Michael Lucas (porn star) is now in a rather neutral state after being slanted either for or against Lucas at various times in the past. The issue that has been presented to us this time doesn't seem of enough moment to get concerned about. I agree with User:Benjiboi's diagnosis. Since the submitter of this complaint, 72.68.122.138 is an IP who has not edited WP before, it would be good to hear if there are any other editors who are concerned that Shankbone's edits represent a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see not conflict of interest in David Shankbone's involvement; merely a conservative interpretation of WP:BLP. Durova^Charge! 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree so far with the above, esp. Durova. I don't see COI here, this case could be relisted at BLP or at NPOV boards however. If the specific intent is to promote "prostitute" over "escort" I'd suggest first going to the BLP page for further discussion. COI is only for situations where, say, Shankbone is Lucas' roommate, or publisher, or brother or wrote a book about him or something.Wjhonson (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several points made in response to the nomination: (1) To characterize this substitution of terms as WP:OR is an unreasonable and unsupported attempt to apply the concepts of OR. Escort means prostitute (as does hustler, rent boy, and several other terms, depending on the genders of the provider and client), and escort is the term generally used in the industry, so it's simply not OR to use that term instead of the legalistic term prostitute. For example, escorts is the only listing category used for that profession in newspapers, magazines, and on-line. If the cited sources support Lucas being a prostitute, they necessarily support his being an escort, as the terms mean the same, so there is no evidence of "planting" OR. (2) Further, in terms of labeling, we routinely use, for example, gay instead of the legalistic term homosexual, African-American instead of Colored or Negro, and other preferred terms of identity, per WP:MOS, unless in direct quotations. Why pick on the world's oldest profession? (3) Also, the actual label used in one source above, Yale Daily News, is "hustler", not "prostitute", as in: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution to open up his own porn production company in New York City." The term prostitution in this citation is used in the sense of source of income, not a label for a person and the actual word "prostitute" was not used. (4) I don't see this as WP:COI either. Claiming that there is a COI because Shankbone removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content at Lucas's behest is also unreasonable and unsupported, since it remains fully sourced, as explained above, and there was absolutely no material change in the content or slant as a result of this word substitution. (5) Endorse closure as not supported. — Becksguy (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will only privately quiver at the intimate knowledge that Becksguy has of rent boys (titter titter). Benji boi 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AutoSimSport Magazine

Resolved

– Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoSimSport Magazine. MER-C 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoSimSport Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Per this thread User_talk:DGG#AutoSimSport_Magazine the article creator and main editor is the employee of the magazine whose job description [11] is "Marketing/Contributing Editor/Merchandising/Advertising" MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ljmagyar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would be the editor in question. Pairadox (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buniverse

Buniverse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been adding links to various articles pointing at the website which may be appropriate, but probably isn't a reliable source since its user created. MBisanz ^talk 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BUniverse (the website) is the Boston University Today's Media Archives, and seems to be run by the University. A random sampling of the actual links show them to be videos of lectures or talks conducted at Boston University by various departments featuring the subject of the article in question. While this may technically be a COI, I think Wikipedia readers would be better served by informing this editor how to place their links. I've left a welcome note on the talk page, since nobody has even greeted them yet. Pairadox (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should've sampled. I saw the "Submitting Videos" link and thought "O great another youtube on a college network". MBisanz ^talk 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're doing a great job just reporting them here. Pairadox (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I think we regard the action of a publisher or a library in trying to post links to its content in articles about people on whom it has published or about whom it holds material as spam. Such items are best added by editors working on the subject in question. if there is relevant material held by BU, it should be mentioned on the article talk page for discussion. There is no particular reason I can see to post such a link as "*Watch Chuck Close and Robert Storr in Conversation on http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=153 BUniverse" on the Robert Storr article. Staightforward spam links, in my opinion, though not COI.DGG (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Tanz

Larry Tanz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Larrytanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User name = article title. Article is a personal bio MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor given an autobiography warning by User:JohnCD, one pass at reducing resume qualities for the article. Could still use more work. Pairadox (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Youens

Resolved

– Article deleted. MER-C 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Youens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RyanYouens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User name = article title. Article is a personal bio with some spammy external links. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copyvio, so tagged. MER-C 07:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Autopsy

Resolved

– Article deleted. MER-C 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Autopsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beat autopsy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User name = article title. Article is links to external sites. MBisanz ^talk 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brook

Resolved

– Deleted and salted. MER-C 01:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) picture release credit from author of page says he's with Paul's "team" and the article looks like an advert. MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - is an article about a machine that is variously claimed as either the answer to mankinds energy needs or a perpetual motion machine (and therefore pseudoscience/fringe-theory).
ESoule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be Evan Soule'. On this page: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis19.html Evan Soule' identifies himself as: "Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS". It would appear to me then that his continual efforts to rewrite the article in order to support the claim that it truly does produce energy from nowhere (essentially) is a severe conflict of interest. I have asked him to cease working on the article both on his own talk page and on Talk:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman - but without success. In his latest post to Talk:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman he does not exactly deny his relationship with the company...but claims that he merely worked as a volunteer. Personally, I don't see how that makes a difference from a WP:COI perspective. What can and should be done about this? SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Baker: Never have I written that the energy machine "produce(s) energy from nowhere." Certainly Joseph Newman -- the inventor of the technology -- has never said such a thing. On the contrary. Newman has repeatedly described the source of the energy produced by his technology: the kinetic energy contained within the (electro)magnetic fields produced by the invention. And those (electro)magnetic fields originate from the atomic domains comprising the conductor and permanent magnets used in Newman's system.

Mr. Baker: I am a Director of Information for Newman Energy Products. I literally "direct information" about the energy machine technology. Who hired me? No one. Who asked me to be a Director of Information? No one. Am I paid to direct information about the Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? No. Have I ever been paid to direct information about Newman's technology? No. Am I in business with Joseph Newman? No. Having voluntarily helped Joseph Newman disseminate information about the technology for nearly 25 years, I have direct, first-hand knowledge about the technology and its history as well as supporting documentation. That is precisely why I have corrected errors in statements made by others on the Wikipedia page, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Example: Someone had previously posted on Wikipedia that Newman "rented" the Superdome in New Orleans. That is a false statement. I know for a fact that Newman was invited by two gentlemen in New Orleans to present his technology at the Louisiana Superdome for a week. Those two gentlemen had previously heard his free presentation to more than 2,000 people at the New Orleans Hilton Hotel, liked what they heard, and they wanted to provide Joseph Newman with a larger and longer venue at the Louisiana Superdome. Thus, of their own initiative, they personally contracted with the Louisiana Superdome and invited Joseph Newman to come and present his technology to a larger audience. Before that presentation, Joseph Newman requested that the event at the Superdome be free and open to the public. However, Superdome officials required a minimum $1.00 entrance fee to the event. Joseph Newman subsequently agreed to the presentation on the stipulation that all entrance fee monies be paid directly to the Superdome and retained by the Superdome. Joseph Newman publicly announced at the Superdome event that he "would not accept any entrance fee monies" since he had originally requested the event to be free and open to everyone. Since there have been factual errors posted by others on Wikipedia, I have endeavored to correct such errors. 206.255.88.80 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate about facts and non-facts in the article. This is about your personal involvement in the article. You clearly ADMIT your involvement with the inventor of the machine and his business. That's a conflict of interest and it's not allowed. You are now adding to the problem by admitting that your editing is Original research...precisely the kind of problem that arises when people with conflicted interests are permitted to edit. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I just reviewed User:ESoule's edit history - and aside from edits to The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, the editor also edited Executive Order 6102 in order to add his own name into the article, and aside from a handful of edits to Andrew Joseph Galambos, those are the only edits this user has made. I would point out that WP:COI states: Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. - I submit that User:ESoule is indeed such an account. He has been repeatedly warned - and is still editing The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman - so perhaps a block should be considered. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the entire history of this case, but my opinion is that, notwithstanding of SteveBaker's assertions, if the involved parties refrain from engaging in contentious or disruptive editing, then suggesting factual corrections (backed by reliable sources) to be made to articles should be encouraged. Unfortunately, some errors can only be brought to light by individuals who were directly involved, and it's counter-productive to condone such errors on grounds of avoiding COI. Maybe the editor should be asked to redirect his efforts to the article's talk page, and have another uninvolved editor perform the changes after verifying that the information checks out against the sources. CounterFX (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with ESoule discussing edits on the talk page, explaining where we're going wrong or suggesting other avenues of investigation. My problem is with his direct introduction of new "facts", backed up largely by references to Newman's web site - which he, himself (as 'Director of Information') may very well have written! Far from doing this with the cooperation and agreement of independent editors - he's making changes that directly conflict with the proper disposition of the article. At the very least, this is a conflict of interest of the worst possible kind. This effectively gives ESoule carte blanche to put any information he likes into the article - and then to provide his own reference to make it 'legal' per WP:V. If this person were merely a technician or machinist at the organisation, that would be much less of an issue (although I'd still be uncomfortable with it) - but to have the "Director of Information" pushing information into Wikipedia is quite intolerable! SteveBaker (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from COI, ESoule’s contributions raise some other interesting policy issues. Let’s take Wikipedia:NOR for starters. — NRen2k5 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m an idiot. ^_^ I see SteveBaker has already brought up the OR too. — NRen2k5 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI.

I think there is a possible COI with user:CzekMate and the article Ray Robson. (1) the user only edits that article, (2) the user acts as if he "owns" the article, and (3) the user refused to answer my question about any connection to the person and deleted the question from his talk page. I'm not sure if this is a COI, and even if it is a problem, but I would like to get some input. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd that such a young (14 years old by my math) chess prodigy would have such an ardent fan. And of course the user name is a strong chess references. And the external links seem rather details for what is a minor honor of being the youngest grand master in a particular US state. Can't really prove COI though, since he hasn't used the first person or brought in non-public material (family, etc). Although an edit like this, does provide an extreme level of detail [12]. A comment like this [13] concerns me though, as how do you know where his dad works? MBisanz ^talk 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the city in which his father works with a Google search. I assumed that he lives in that area - maybe that is wrong. Notice the edit history - always changing what I and another editor put in there. Even when one was a copyedit (but that was allowed to stand this time). As I said, even if there is a COI, I'm not sure how big of a problem it is. I do appreciate you looking into it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the third external link in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the answer I was hoping for (as opposed to something less honorable). My suggestion might be to take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess, which would be able to help more with style and fact-vetting. That or WP:BLPN which would handle the standards to which an article on a living person must be vetted to. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an active member of that project. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Then I guess just keep a watch and if you see first-person or personal details, feel free to drop the {{COI}} template on the page and come back here. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a uw-coi on the user's talk page a couple of hours ago. Bubba73 (talk), 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that is good, and if it proves very likely that he is a COI, you can tag the actual article with a warning box. MBisanz ^talk 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ducey

Resolved

– Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ducey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Ducey1337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username and article name are similar, its a bio written from a personal perspective MBisanz ^talk 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City of SeaTac Fire Department

City of SeaTac Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
SeatacTraining (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Admits on user talk page to being the creator of it MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged as a copyright vio. Pairadox (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Embroidery

Resolved

– Redirected to Embroidery. Pairadox (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Embroidery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Sewdragondesigns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Only external link is to same name as creator username MBisanz ^talk 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I turned the stub into a redirect to Embroidery since the exact same paragraph was in the parent article also and reported the username to WP:UAA. Pairadox (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity parish

Resolved

– Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nativity parish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Page admits that this is a class project of students at the school. Don't know policy re: this. MBisanz ^talk 05:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeros 40D Sky Dragon

Resolved

– Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeros 40D Sky Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Aerosml (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Advertisment for product from a username that looks like its a corporate name MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Bristow

Resolved

– Article deleted. MER-C 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Bristow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Nedbcfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Personal career bio MBisanz ^talk 05:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA.Direct Magazine

Resolved

– Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA.Direct Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Ladirectmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Org name = username. MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muris Varajic

Resolved

– Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muris Varajic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Muris Varajic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Org name = username. Personal bio MBisanz ^talk 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annandale United FC

Resolved

– Article deleted MBisanz ^talk 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annandale United FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Annantown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Org name and user name are similar and it appears to promote the team. ~~

Central Asian Shepherd Dog

Central Asian Shepherd Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did a long needed cleanup for this article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Shepherd_Dog in September, 2007 and did not check it until today.

I found out that 4 days after the article was edited by another user, UKC CASSA, with defamatory and libelous statement about me. I asked to remove the statement, thanks a lot to Pairadox for help and a useful advise.--Afru (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Still unsolved--Afru (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still two issues that need to be resolved. First is that the information about this breed of dogs is very limited in English. I did my best to translate and publish the most current, accurate and reliable verifiable information while I was in the country of origin for the breed as per September, 2007. It was replaced by way outdated, and way less informative article of very questionable accuracy.

I placed links to the registry in the country of origin and the most complete breed pictures gallery. Those were changed into links to UKC CASSA user's own US based kennel club (she is DBA for) and a US kennel, advertising dogs of this breed for sale.

I do realize that the article may need editing, but in my opinion this is not the sort of editing any given Wikipedia article will ever need. What would be the best way to prevent this sort of interruptions?

Second issue is that user UKC CASSA has years of history of online harassment me and other people involved with purebred dogs, especially of this breed. She did have lawsuits against her, numerous complaints for cyber stalking and such.

What is the best way to permanently stop as well as prevent future personal attacks at Wikipedia site? And who can remove a false and libelous statement about me in the history section ?Afru (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)AFRU[reply]

To find out how to have items removed from the history of a page, go to Wikipedia:Oversight. Pairadox (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Dog breed wars. While libels can't be tolerated, Afru's edits are problematical too.

This breed overview is the most accurate. Further editions of this page contain wrong, incomplete and/or outdated information [14]

Wrote a true and correct breed overview based on modern population analysis. [15]

Sources? I don't see any. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will add sources and more links. And will do my best to provide relevant materials. I do not pretend that my edit is perfect, but it was replaced with a sort of breed commercial based on 1994 materials. The issue with this breed is that there are working lines and fighting lines under the same breed name. At the very same time, there are traditional dog fights in the place of origin, that differ from modern dog fights. Now, there is a major difference between aboriginal dogs that are normally not dog aggressive within the same pack, and modern time pit and bandog mixes used for "modern" fights. Any given breed description must contain a disclosure and ideally help people unfamiliar with the breed to determine how to differ one from another. --Afru (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon All-Stars 2000s doesn't exist!

Resolved

– Not a COI Pairadox (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.245.194.183 (talk · contribs)

Despite repeated warnings User:66.245.194.183 keeps adding credits for a non-exsistant animated special called "Cartoon All-Stars 2000s" and unsourced information about various animated caharacters.--Hailey 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit here [16] , it looks like its an unsourced future prediction. I'd say point him at WP:RS and it that doesn't work, keep warning/teaching through the WP:WARN system. Once he hits 4, take it to WP:ANI and they'll take care of it. Or he'll get the message and not add speculative stuff. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the IP linked to Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue, a 1990 work. I don't see how this is a Conflict of interest. Pairadox (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greensburger / Ziusudra / Eridu Genesis

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

I would like to express serious concerns about agenda pushing on the part of User:Greensburger.

I am trying to create an article on a famous archaeological artifact, known as the "Eridu Genesis", which inexplicably has not had it's own article at all until now, but was tucked away under the Ziusudra article. This led to a conversation with User:Greensburger: Eridu Genesis, and I really didn't grasp what he was trying to propose.

When I tried to make the move that I said I would, he reverted it, calling it vandalism [17]. So I then put a "split section" tag on the page, which he changed [18]. The ensuing discussion on the article's talk page is here: [19]. When I perused his talk page, trying to figure out where he was coming from, I noticed a discussion (Genesis 5 article) about the book Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic by Robert Best, which appears as a reference on a number of Ancient Near East pages. The theories listed on the back cover of the book ([20]), that Noah was Ziusudra and was the king of Shuruppak in 2900 BC when the Sumerian river flood occurred, are obscure to say the least, and very fringe theories. Fringe books get published too, and simply the fact that somebody published it shouldn't give it credibility. More information about these theories is on its website [21]

The problem is that archaeological facts need to be "adjusted" to make these theories work at all. Two areas of original research which I see repeatedly all over the Ancient Near East articles are:

1) Attempts to link the "Eridu Genesis" Flood myth to the mention of a historic flood on the "Sumerian king list". The way to do this is to insert Ziusudra, the hero of the Flood myth, into the king list, right before the flood. (see the discussion mentioned above on the Ziusudra talk page).

2) And attempts to "re-interpret" the very long lives and reigns that ancient literature gives to ancient kings ([22] and [23]). This is entirely original research.

I also have to say I can't help thinking that this could be the author of the book himself, as his other editing seems to be in line with having a BS degree in Physics (about the author), and he's created and edited articles about other people with the same last name.

I hope I'm submitting this in the right place, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the above sounds like an ordinary content dispute. I do not see evidence of any conflict of interest. "He sounds like he might know some physics; ergo he must be the person who wrote this book, who is also a physicist" is the weakest link to a CoI I've seen proposed here in a long time. Even if this editor pushes a fringe theory (which I'm taking your word for, for the purpose of the discussion), is there any good reason to think that he does so for a reason other than a perceived wish to spread the truth? –Henning Makholm 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the physics degree because that and the other circumstances I mentioned suggested to me that he might be the author of this book and that he might be quoting himself, and I thought that was against the rules.

The big problem is his persistently promulgating original research and fringe theories, which I also thought was against the rules. Sumerophile (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that the article which Sumerophile is nominating for COI investigation is Ziusudra, so I formatted the header of this COI complaint accordingly. Greensburger has not edited Sumerian origin legend at all, so there is no reason to include that in this complaint. I don't perceive that a Talk page consensus was reached anywhere on Sumerophile's idea of splitting the Ziusudra article. There may be WP:FRINGE stuff floating around, but I don't believe that S. followed due process with G. on the issue of splitting the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was nominating the User:Greensburger, if that can be done. The problem is this fringe agenda has been spread all over the Ancient Near East articles, and possibly on Genesis and Noah-related articles as well. I'm vetting it in the Ancient Near East section, and came up unexpectedly against Greensburger again in the Sumerian king list article [24], in what appears to be another fringe agenda he's pushing - about when the Ubaid and Sumerian Dynastic periods occurred. Sumerophile (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Ziusudra and Eridu Genesis should be two articles or a single article is open to debate, and can be discussed calmly on talk. This is a perfectly pragmatic question. I have misgivings about Greenburger's attempts to portray any of these floods as "historical", but looking at the debate, it appears clear that Greenburger is perfectly willing to base his argument on academic literature, while Sumerophiles behaviour is much more erratic. Perhaps Greenburger is pushing an outdated academic view, but the way to counter this is by citing more recent academic literature, not by removing his material. This is entirely the wrong noticeboard for this. If Greenburger presents a lop-sided argument, set the score right by citing academic literature, not by wikilawyering about it. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that a fringe theory [25] using outdated sources for its base is very different from an outdated academic view. Just because somebody cites academic literature doesn't mean he's an academic or that his theories are sound, and his selective use of older material is a good example of what citing academic literature should not be.

And I do not appreciate being labled "erratic" for getting to the bottom of this, or for reporting concerns about this matter here. Sumerophile (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Just because somebody cites academic literature doesn't mean he's an academic" -- nobody claims that, but in case you have missed it, this is precisely how Wikipedia works. Please review WP:5P, and specifically WP:RS. I wouldn't dream of using http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ as a source, nor do any of the diffs you provide show that Greensburger is touting that website. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dab, above you suggested Greensburger was pushing an outdated academic view. And no, he has not cited the website, merely the book that it is based on. Sumerophile (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paste Magazine

Maryrobbins06 (talk · contribs) was posting a large number of links in the "Professional reviews" section of album articles, all of them linking to Paste Magazine's website. She disclosed that she is indeed affiliated with the magazine so I informed her of our COI policy. She stopped editing, but then 72.16.210.162 (talk · contribs) was adding links, so I gave the same warning. Interestingly, this anon then removed Maryrobbins06's message on my Talk page, and added this. My inclination would be to remove all of these links to Paste Magazine due to the likely COI, but I would like others' input. Thanks in advance. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt its spamming. I've opened a case here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.pastemagazine.com, and will look into it more. --Hu12 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The updated link for the WPSPAM posting is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Paste Media Group. I agree that someone affiliated with Paste Magazine should not have been posting these links, per the COI rules, but I'm uncertain whether regular editors should be allowed to post the same ones. Note the following language from Wikipedia:ALBUM#Professional reviews:

Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at WP:ALBUM#Review sites.

This seems to open the possibility that Paste Magazine could be a valid source of professional reviews. (Our definition of 'professional' seems to be 'written by a member of the editorial staff of a reliable source'). I noticed that a review that appeared in Paste was included by Metacritic for an album that I spot-checked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have received major awards both as general and specialized media from good sources. Removingthese links is counterproductive in terms of establishing notability. It's not my subject, but it appears from the evidence that they are a RS for popular music. this was not the right way to put in the links, but we are here to build content and source it. It should be explained to them how to cooperate properly by suggesting them on the talk pages. DGG (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jossi and Prem Rawat

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I see no purpose in prolonging this discussion at this stage. What mainly seems to have happened here is that The Register and a few other editors have discovered OMG Jossi is a follower of Prem, which he disclosed 3-1/2 years ago. After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools. The Conflict of Interest guidelines do not prohibit COI editing; they advise against it because editing with a COI can sometimes lead to disruptive behavior, edit-warring, failure to follow consensus, and so forth. If you think the article is a "whitewash", then fix it. If, during the process of fixing it, you get into disputes with Jossi that can not be solved by dispute resolution (RFC or mediation), then it would be time to consider article or topical bans. However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites. As far as discussion of policy is concerned, and whether appearance of a conflict is actionable in the absence of actual disruptive editing, that policy discussion should be held at WT:COI. Thatcher 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Further note, if you will read the archives at this page, you will see that this board mainly issues warnings and recruits editors interested in fixing articles. This board is merely a first step is the dispute resolution process and does not substitute for article content RFC, mediation, or user-conduct RFC. Fix the articles, consistent with editorial policies, and bring currently active disputes to mediation or RFC. Thatcher 12:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi (talk · contribs)
Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An article [26] in The Register had just presented strong evidence that Jossi has serious COI issues with Prem Rawat articles. I've formally requested [27] on his talk page that he stay away from Rawat-related articles and away from issues, such as policy changes, that appear to be intended to assist in pushing POV in or protecting Rawat articles. The article also mentions that User:Momento and User:Rumiton may have COI issues with Rawat as well, but doesn't present as clear evidence of it so I'll leave that for further discussion and observation for now. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can read my comment in my user page about this, as well as my request for advice placed at the Village Pump on January 15. I intend to continue editing Wikipedia, and at the same time submit myself to the community's review on these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I made some comments challenging The Register as a source for the Criticism of Wikipedia article, a few days before I was contacted by that journalist. See: diff and diff. Not sure if the attack piece was a retaliatory action on their part, or not. When I asked the journalist about this, he did not respond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, the article presents evidence from people using their real names in stating that you worked personally for Rawat, even "sitting at his desk". That's as strong a COI as I think as it can get without actually being Rawat himself. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have acted transparently about my affiliation and I have adopted a behavior to disclose COI and contribute via talk page discussions, offering sources and insight for others to consider, and ensure that statements are accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a conflict of interest is not reason to pre-emtively and completely prohibit an editor from editing an article or topic. Do you have any actual diffs or discussion threads to back your claim that Jossi is pushing a POV? Because I just went and searched all of Jossi's edits to Prem Rawat in the last half a year and didn't see anything to suggest that. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people named in the article, I feel I should comment. The Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat is a whitewash of the Prem Rawat described in all independent press articles. My website has a collection of those articles at the press room [28], and if Jossi was as neutral as he claims the article would reflect the views expressed in those articles. Instead, Jossi, and his associates (Momento and Rumiton) reject the entire 4th estate as 'tabloid'. Unfortunately, even if Jossi is prevented from editing Rawat related articles, other Rawat cult members would take his place. If editors here care about the integrity of Wikipedia they must address this gaping flaw in the Wikipedia project. --John Brauns (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been problems in other areas of Wikipedia in which "tag teams" of editors combine their efforts to push a particular POV or squash criticism in all the articles related to a specific subject and which appears to be the case here. If these editors refuse to correct their behavior, and Jossi has already stated on his talk page in response to this that he'll edit wherever and however he wants to, then further, formal action may be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is an issue that has been examined over and over again. Jossi is periodically reported for a conflict of interest, leading to his actions being repeatedly put under scrutiny. I think if this were an actual issue of concern, something would have come of it by now. I'm also a bit concerned about the source of this round of scrutiny. The Register is hardly unbiased or entirely accurate when it comes to reporting on Wikipedia. Similarly, when it pertains to matters dealing with Prem Rawat, John Brauns and Mike Finch are no more reliable than Ed Decker in matters dealing with the Latter-Day Saints. Certainly, if it is felt necessary, Jossi's contributions should be reviewed yet again. However, I would recommend treading carefully before seizing onto the claims of such clearly antagonistic sources. Vassyana (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm new enough here to not know that Jossi created the COIN, but after reading the Register article, I'd say there are enough exaggerations and questionable interpretations to make me not trust this specific article. If anyone insists, I will go through and identity these, but quite frankly, I'd want to see some specific diffs of Jossi inserting or deleting material to which COI would apply before I'd consider a full out investigation. MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody wants to take claims uncritically, especially from a source with such a flair for the dramatic. On the other hand, given that Wikipedia's value to the public is based in large part on a perception that we are trustworthy, I think it's worth taking the time to carefully look into the questions raised and put together a page detailing the facts as we see it.

However, I'm certainly concerned that Jossi has made over 1000 edits to the Prem Rawat page alone, more than any other editor. Given his admitted conflict of interest, that can't help but look suspicious to an outsider. Combine that with Jossi's Jossi's early dedication to these topics, and I think a reasonable outside observer could be concerned. William Pietri (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perusing the article and article talk page and history shows some of the well-known tactics used to push POV: frequent archiving of the discussion threads, tag-team reverts, delaying tactics in discussions on the merits of sources, attacking the supposed motivations of the authors of the sources, etc. To be fair, if Jossi hadn't somewhat declared his COI (and the Register article gives evidence that he may have misrepresented his COI) on the subject, he would only be guilty (arguably, of course) of POV pushing. But, POV pushing plus evidence of COI equals serious COI, as in serious enough that action has to be taken to protect the article from it. Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone starts believing "The Lord of the Universe owns Wiki", here is a incomplete list of people who edit Prem Rawat related material who regularly contribute to the anti-Rawat forum- User:Wowest,User:John Brauns, User:Andries,User:Sylviecyn and User:Nik Wright2. And let's not forget the anon editors like User:24.98.132.123, User:137.222.107.32 and User:84.9.48.220 who burst on to the scene in the last week to edit without discussion. Prem Rawat articles have often been a battle ground of opinion but thanks to editors like Jossi, Vassyana and others, it has been transformed from a bloated, editing warring, quote fight into one of the most meticulously researched articles in Wiki. The PR article is almost entirely composed of the indisputable facts of Rawat's life as gleaned from independent sociologists and religious scholars. It has very little opinion pro or con as to the efficacy of Rawat's teachings and that's as it should be, Wiki is here to present the facts. If you want opinion read The Register. Momento (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momento, attributed scholarly opinions about Rawat and his teachings do have a place in wikipedia. You have repeatedly and systematically removed many scholarly sourced critical statements. Andries (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, diffs of any bad behavior? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I get the feeling this is more about appearances (Caesar's wife and all that) rather than any evidence of concrete wrongdoing - so far anyway. There's no real doubt that Jossi has a significant COI here, but that's not the same as saying that he's edited abusively. To quote an unnamed Wikipedian cited in the article, "So long as you divulge a conflict and you edit appropriately in light of that conflict, then it's OK to continue editing." If people want to make the case that Jossi has edited inappropriately, there needs to be hard evidence of that. Otherwise this matter relies more on suspicions and innuendo than anything concrete. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Does that include re-writing COI policy so you yourself are not in violation of COI? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main culprit is revert warrior Momento. I think all people who were heavily involved in this conflict have sometimes edited inappropriately in the past (incl. me and Jossi). Diffs are easy to give. Andries (talk)

Actually, if you look at anything ever called a "cult," "large group awareness training," "Landmark Education (and anything remotely related)" any and all things remotely called a "cult," or anything possibly related to it, you'll find Jossi's trail. We're talking films, television programs (episodes of 'The Simpsons' for chrissakes) that reference cults. You admins have let this guy pretty much do whatever, including rewriting the COI policy to allow for his actions. It's the admin clique and backscratching that goes on here that got everyone caught with their pants down. All some of us had to do was sit, sift through the edits, sit back...and watch. It was assumed other admins would come to his defense to try to quickly remedy the situation, just not sure exactly how long it will last (and given this is Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if it was hidden in the basement like a deformed sibling). There's no real definitive action on editors who have jeopardized Wikipedia (or rewritten it to suit their POV) as long as they're admins who will back you up in a jam, scratch your back when you happen to need it, vote for you, and keep silent on issues such as the topic of that Register article and damning things related to it. I'm willing to bet a large sum of money there is only a symbolic wrist-slapping followed by sweeping the whole issue under the rug. Any takers? Seriously. Every edit Jossi made is in question now. And I'm ducking the bullets now because I've already been given veiled threats by an admin for even discussing any of this. --Pax Arcane 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What admin threatened for discussing this? That is highly inappropriate. Lawrence § t/e 14:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AuburnPilot on my talk page. Threatening to block me. I have had no interaction with this guy previously. ≈ jossi ≈ has had a pattern of harrassing behavior on any critical edits concerning anything New Age/New Religious Movement/Cult/Large Group Awareness Training/Landmark Education (and probably EST/Werner Erhard)...as he acts as "the police" on these subjects and acts on behalf of anyone who who is sympathetic to these orgs and stopping any and all criticism through some of the loopholes he's helped write (appropriate sources) or just trying to help others erase criticism of their controversial orgs, from day ONE since I began bumbling about editing on Wikipedia.--Pax Arcane 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That would be me. Of course, I didn't make veiled threats to block Pax Arcane for discussing this, but for incivility and personal attacks after seeing this and this. See here where I'm accused of "veiled threats". - auburnpilot talk 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Thoughts:

The Reg is not always a neutral source for such things. It's a useful "heads up" to look at an area, but a source that makes exaggerations of the kind The Reg often produces, and prefers misrepresentative "hype" to reality checking, is not (for me) a reliable source for interpretation, and its claims of facts often need double checking for good faith, fairness, balance/selectivity, and validity before any conclusions are drawn. Jossi may be respected as an admin, but the mind boggles to see him described as "ruling clique" or "inner circle" as The Reg wants to present it; no more than any other of 1000 admins and an additional 4 - 6 RFA'ed every week. He gets overturned or disagreed as easily as any other admin on project page discussions, in my experience (I haven't edited on articles he's edited on so can't comment there). A number of previous Register articles on Wikipedia have problematically sought to "find some drama element" in an issue, creating, distorting, or enhancing it to do so, if needed.
Cases on Wikipedia are based on evidence from diffs. I've prepared many of these myself in disputes or for misconduct; they can take time to do well, but to make a case that's what is needed. Not just impressions with no cites provided. The nearest we have to these above are a couple of statements above saying that the history shows "some of the well-known tactics used to push POV", and that in any cult related article one will "find Jossi's trail". It is not unreasonable that an editor with an interest in such things may edit on these topics. The issue for COI/N is more, whether the editing was partial and agenda driven. For that we need to see evidence and discussion of evidence.
I would therefore support those above who say that we need diffs from (say) the last year, showing manipulation of prem or cult related articles.
Note well the common problem with unpopular topics: they often have strong detractors (many more detractors than supporters) and these detractors often are non neutral also. Accordingly a user who is genuinely seeking neutrality must at times rather often add "pro" material more than "anti", and at other times add "anti" as well as "pro", or refactor wordings... this can sometimes cause problems of interpreting intent. Which is why COI can be such a problem.

If anyone wishes to put together a Wikipedia case that Jossi has misedited, in any recent time interval (communally we don't tend to dredge up distant issues from years ago that seem long dead) -- say in the last 6-12 months -- then that'd be more to the point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether or not Jossi has edited inappropriately, and take no position on this subject. However, I think that the Prem Rawat article needs significant work to be compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:V. In its current state, it relies very heavily on a single hagiography (Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat) and not nearly enough on mainstream media and scholarly sources. It concerns me that Rawat (a.k.a Maharaji)'s repeated early claims of being "God" or "Lord of the Universe" or something similar are not included in the introduction. Whether or not he's embarrassed by such claims now, they were an important part of his public persona in the 1970s. *** Crotalus *** 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A review may be no bad thing. And although I haven't read the article on Prem, no bio should rely overly on one source or viewpoint (especially if painted by the subject or connected parties) without making it very clear this weakness, and seeking to rectify it via other reliable sources. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You are welcome to read the article which is based on 72 citations, mostly from scholarly sources, with only but a few sourced to the Cagan book, and these mainly for things like the name of members of his family and other non-disputed facts. I have always welcomed reputable sources, and created holding page for all these at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As my name has been invoked as an "editor" of the Prem Rawat article I would like to put on record that virtually nothing in the current article meets with my understanding of what is Encyclopaedic or unbiased. Every balanced, constructive and intelligent attempt at creating an honest article has, in my view, been resisted by pro Rawat editors. The scale of deceit can be easily established by reference to http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/falsity.htm and http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/sources.htm It is not necessary to go down the route of ploughing through the minutae of diffs to see what is wrong - it's simply a matter of recognising that there are numerous viable sources which are excluded from the current article(s).

That said I do not believe that the Rawat related articles provide the greatest area of concern. What ought to be a fundamental worry to Wikipedia is that Jossi has had a significant influence not only on BLP policy but incredibly on Wikipedia's very own Conflict of Interest policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136159823

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135156880

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135157157

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=109821402

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104271006

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=101182863

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99553349

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=88586627

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=87213909

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86449604

An administrator who is conflicted over a BLP and associated articles, is CONFLICTED over BLP policy and Conflict of Interest policy.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, and www.prem-rawat-critique.org is obviously a neutral, non-biased site that meets reliable source guidelines? All I see here is a group of anti-Prem editors accusing a pro-Prem editor of "whitewashing" or whatever. Well guess what will happen if we decide to ban all editors with a demonstrated conflict of interest from the article. Evidence speaks louder than agitated hand wringing and finger pointing. Go get some actual evidence. Thatcher 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time that someone has named Jossi in a COI complaint regarding the Prem Rawat articles. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 12, "Jossi (talk · contribs) Conflict of interest on Prem Rawat related articles." Marked as Resolved by Marskell on 30 May 2007 due to lack of specific evidence of wrongdoing. Google for 'Prem Rawat wikipedia' and you'll find plenty of evidence that the Rawat articles have been a vortex of disagreement over the years. In Jossi's RfA back in October 2005 there was a support voter and and an oppose voter who mentioned his work on Prem Rawat. Through his contributions at WP:BLP/N Jossi has been helpful in a number of contested areas and I'd be surprised if his judgment is as bad as some have portrayed above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor who is not given to flights of drama and who had, at this time yesterday, no particular opinions on Prem Rawat (although I'd heard of him, obviously), and I am actually stunned at how blatant a whitewash the article is right now. I haven't looked into the history enough to know whether this is due to a COI by Jossi (in recent history, it seems to be mostly non-Jossi editors who are the problem), but the article needs substantial work. I'm not even saying that where there's smoke, there's fire - just that where there's smoke, NPOV requires you to report smoke. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Jossi has not been the one involved in the whitewashing. From what I can piece together In jan 07, it was decided to merge Criticism of Prem Rawat into the main article since it was a POV fork. Yet, currently there is no criticism section due to several whitewashing reversions by Momento (talk · contribs). These attempts at removing the criticism, rather than trying to reach a consensus version, started shortly after the merge was completed in Jan 07. The reversions from Momento has been occurring since then, as in this example from June 2007. In Sept 07 there was a removal of NPOV tags from a user wondering why there was no criticism and two recent reverts from feb 3, 08 and feb 6, 08.

I see no evidence that Jossi participated in this type of editing but he must have been aware it was occurring since he was a constant presence on the page along with Rumiton (talk · contribs). Judging from the page history since the POV fork was merged into the article all three users (Jossi, Momento and Rumiton) have worked closely to create the current version of the article. David D. (Talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing Wikipedia isn't a governmental agency [29] or an organisation existing in the real world [30]. In the real world, even the appearance of COI is problematic at best. Here we try to find reasons why something couldn't possibly rise to the level of COI. "But so-and-so edited neutrally", is a common defence and yet a spurious one. Alleged neutrality (in this case the neutrality is certainly in question) is one of the most hotly contested concepts on WP. It's interesting that the Prem Rawat article has not one word of criticism -- I suppose he must be the Perfect Being, or perhaps criticism is kept out. Whatever the case, we know that Jossi has had a hand in the presentation of the Prem Rawat article, which, given that he is employed by Prem Rawat is a definite COI. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't propose that someone sanction or warn Jossi nor am I going to spend hours looking at every edit to see if they really were neutral -- I see no need to. The situation is very simple: Jossi should not edit Prem Rawat-related articles. That's true whether he's neutral in his editing or not. I'm not going to wikilawyer over current or past versions of our Conflict of Interest Guideline -- we all know in our hearts that Jossi editing this article is very inappropriate, whatever fine print might be squeezed into the conversation to allow it. It's just incompatible with our culture. Not only that, but it's especially important that admins set a good example.

I think a promise from Jossi not to edit this or related articles going into the future should be sufficient. There's no need to flog him or cast aspersions on him.

Jossi, can you agree with this? --A. B. ^(talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to acknowledge the other types of articles I mentioned above. Otherwise, this is going to pop up yet again. I don't see him agreeing to either scenario. I see it being played out as he advises people on talk pages or offsite on editing that article, and in essence, he'll still be editing it. You take the cult-related topics away from him, he'll have no reason to be here anymore, no paying day job. --Pax Arcane 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Jossi truly was a neutral editor in the Rawat and associated articles, then the articles wouldn't have as much of a skewed POV as they have now because Jossi would have helped fix that. He's been editing Wikipedia for almost three years now (or is it longer) and should know by now how to edit a neutral article. Since it appears that he's either unable or unwilling to edit the Rawat articles neutrally, I again state a formal request that he stay away from all Rawat-related articles. Cla68 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within the last 250 edits to the article, jossi has made 6 by my count, and these are the diffs"

Is someone really suggesting that he is introducing POV to the article? If so, then they need to provide such diffs. A COI only applies if the person is a POV editor. Where is the evidence? The very closest I see see above is that he's made a lot of edits to the article. What you need to show now is that they, or a significant number of them, were POV edits. This, unless I'm mistaken, has not been done. If it has, please point me to the analysis. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one other thing: any expert has a COI. Do we really want, as -A. B. said above, to restrict expert editing? There is a reason that the rules are written as they are: we need the experts, as long as they edit neutrally. Here is what the ArbCom had to say on it [36]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note well the common problem with unpopular topics: they often have strong detractors (many more detractors than supporters) and these detractors often are non neutral also. Accordingly a user who is genuinely seeking neutrality must at times rather often add "pro" material more than "anti", and at other times add "anti" as well as "pro", or refactor wordings... this can sometimes cause problems of interpreting intent. Which is why COI can be such a problem. This, from a previous contributor, sums up a key issue. There are enough editors in Wikipedia whose only interest in articles on New Religious Movements is to add derogatory, often poorly sourced information. Truly neutral and knowledgeable editors taking a committed interest in these articles are few and far between. Leaving these articles to the detractors, who have their own POV issues, will not result in neutral articles either. Note that no one would seriously want to suggest

that muslims should be prohibited from editing the article on Islam,
that the article on Hillary Rodham Clinton should only be edited by Republicans and/or supporters of Barack Obama,
that women who have aborted should be barred from editing the article on abortion, or
that gay editors should stay away from the article on homosexuality.

Even if followers of Prem Rawat should prove to have been somewhat too successful in eliminating criticism from the Prem Rawat article, this is preferable to what would result if none of his followers were allowed to edit the article. Such problems as there may be present can be solved with community involvement. There are important principles at stake here; let's not chuck the baby out with the bath water. -- 172.189.198.112 (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where he removed a criticism section concerning an organization that his been called a cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=103890457 I'll keep adding to this as he's the "whitewash" admin for editors on that page. --Pax Arcane 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where he removed a criticism section concerning an organization that his been called a cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=103890457 I'll keep adding to this as he's the "whitewash" admin for editors on that page. --Pax Arcane 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, all he did was move the critisism to a different section, not remove it. He also would have been right to remove it if he had, as the section was completely unreferenced. All your link shows is his own self-restraint. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where he removed a criticism section concerning an organization that has been called a cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=103890457

I'll keep adding to this as he's the "whitewash" admin for editors on that page. --Pax Arcane 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since all jossi did was move the section to a new heading, you are doing a good job of creating evidence that this is merely an attack, without any basis in fact. And you're being disruptive and not listening to other editors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

The article does appear to be a bit positive at present, with a lack of criticism. Jossi linked to the collected scholars page, but there is no reason to not use additional sourcing from maintstream international media. For example, it's a fact that Rawat billed himself in deity-like terms, was called "Lord of the Universe", or still is, and his followers lined up to kiss his feet. Why is there no mention of this? A ten-second Google news trip turns up media coverage of this. Considerably more sourcing by searching for "Maharaji" instead of his current non de plume. Why isn't there critical or "negative" coverage of him, when it seems to exist? Articles are never limited to just "scholarly" sources. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unusual to me that a COI is filed because of something outside of the Wikipedia community, especially given the obvious bias of the article, and the request of the editor in question for assistance in dealing with the ever sensationalist press.

"The Register had just presented strong evidence that Jossi has serious COI issues with Prem Rawat articles."

The Register has presented...? If there are concerns with an article, there are procedures in place so that the editors of the article can deal with the problems, like discussion as an obvious example. If those editors cannot deal with the problems, then there is another procedure, and then another. Filing a COI because of the press is a slippery slope. Where does that stop? Do Wikipedia editors really want to be tossed around like so many leaves in the wind. That's what we are looking at if the press starts to influence the business of this encyclopedia.(olive (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In a word, yes. I grant completely that the Register is sensationalizing things, and it could all be bunk. But anybody should be able to call our attention to a potential problem. And if they have an audience of a half-million people, that's all the more reason for us to look into their concerns. We are only as effective as we are trusted. William Pietri (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ec::Like wow, maybe no one noticed the connexion until it was pointed out. Like, did you know about Abu Ghraib and waterbording before it was pointed out? When I saw Jossi's "disclaimer" the other day I wasn't happy about it, but I was too lazy to check it out. There's a reason that a Pullet Surprise is awarded for investigative reporting. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ec::Yes, the press does "influence this encyclopedia" otherwise we wouldn't require sources. The fact is, the Register piece has brought to light mis-doings on Wikipedia. Should we just ignore it? Seriously? I think not. There's no denieing a "good ole boy club" exists on Wikipedia between some Admins. I would urge everyone to take this matter seriously and to do what is right, whatever that may be. However, ignoring it or slaps on the wrist is not doing "what is right". - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The press is alleging misdoings. If its all bunk we are putting a well respected admin. and editor through a lot to find out that it was all bunk. We have ways of dealing in the community with problem articles . If there is a problem deal with it. If the editor in question indicates at that point that he is not capable of NPOV editing, then go to the next level.(olive (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, there have been no mis-doings. I'll state it like that. Now, it is your job, as the prosecution, to present evidence of POV editing. If you don't, then this is all merely noise- and attack noise at that. If jossi has not edited in a POV manner, he can consider it a non-issue, a tempest in a coin pot. Give some evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Better. Innocent until proven guilty.(olive (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Register article is bad editorial

Disclaimer: I skimmed through the above, but read The Register article in its entirety.[37] I wanted to comment on the editorial. I have to say, it's a pretty bad editorial. First off, it's titled "Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'", which is your first red flag. It's extremely sensational. It assumes that Wikipedia is ruled by someone, that this someone is the "Lord of the Universe", and then goes on to suggest that this Lord of the Universe is actually Prem Rawat, and that Jossi is his proxy. What a load of garbage. Not even Jimbo himself runs this place, and to suggest that Jossi is somehow all powerful ruler in charge of Wikipedia is complete BS. It's all innuendo. What's more is that this innuendo conflates one topic, the topic of Prem Rawat, as representative of all of Wikipedia. It's meant to demonstrate that Wikipedia is a cult, ran by an obscure cult, when we all know that Wikipedia is a huge community representing all manner of interests and can't be pinned on one topic, or one editor. To suggest that one editor rules it all is complete horseshit. I normally enjoy reading The Register for IT trivia, but this load of garbage is worse than supermarket tabloids. It is purely written to cater to people's fear of cults and should not be considered reliable at all. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nixonites raised the same crit of the Washington Post. Nixon resigned. The WP still exists. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to be a metaphorical Nixonite here? There's a huge reliability difference between the Washington Post and The Register, and this editorial tries to demonstrate that 1) Wikipedia is ran by a cult 2) The cult is The Prem Rawat Foundation and that 3) All of Wikipedia's checks and balances rely on this very noticeboard (It makes the claim that the COI Noticeboard is the central hub of WP's policing). I mean, come on, in the second paragraph of the editorial it says:

But there's a catch. One of the site’s leading administrators bears an extreme conflict of interest, but you can’t expose him from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. He created the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.

Obviously that's BS, because here we are. It's an editorial meant to cater to the fear of cults, and undermine the reliability of Wikipedia, but presented with a gross misrepresentation of how Wikipedia actually works. The checks and balances Wikipedia afford are not dependent on this noticeboard, and no one is immune from this noticeboard. If the writer at The Register even bothered, he could have even posted his gripes about Jossi here. It's pure sensational rubbish. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is ran by a cult" run, run, the word is run. "but you can’t expose him from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard" huh?

As for the rest, it's very difficult to have a discussion when the points are poorly presented. Knee-jerk defence is as bad as knee-jerk condemnation. I prefer to look at the facts. Jim62sch^dissera! 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously suggesting that the Register editorial should be taken as reliable because of my grammar? The second part about the COI noticeboard is a direct quote. So I'm a metaphorical Nixonite with bad grammar, great, the editorial is still rubbish. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and when you've done that, present the evidence of jossi behaving badly here, so we can all look and decide if he has made POV edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If anyone doubts that the editorial was written just as a sensational piece, catering to people's fear of cults, and meant to discredit Wikipedia as "controlled" by cult religious freaks, just read the comments posted about the editorial.[38] It's exactly the message readers got out of it as well: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia controlled by cults. That was the author's intent, and that's what readers got out of it. Unfortunately it's a poor assessment of Wikipedia's checks and balances. Jossi doesn't control this COI board, for example, as the article claims. The readers there don't know the difference and assumes he does. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And at Digg it's been reframed [39] as:

One of Wikipedia's top 3 editors is a longtime student of Prem Rawat, the India-born spiritual leader who is largely considered to be a cult leader. This leads to an extreme conflict of interest because he maintains and edits the guru's page. But you can ’t report a Conflict of Interest because he's the head of that council too.

LOL. Of course that was the author's intent, to discredit Wikipedia and make it look like it's being run by a cult. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On conflicts of interest

Above there are some notions about conflicts of interest above that I'd like to address, as I think they are not just mistaken, but dangerously so.

First, it is suggested if Jossi's edits are all good ones, then there is no conflict of interest. That's incorrect. As an admin and editor on Wikipedia, Jossi has an interest in Wikipedia doing well. As "a proud student of Maharaji, which I have known for more than 20 years," he has an interest in his teacher being seen in a positive light. These interests will unavoidably conflict, even if he manages the conflict well.

Second, someone expressed the notion that forbidding conflicted edits would mean ruling out expert contributions. That's not so; people with conflicts of interest are invited to contribute through discussion. Further, participants are not the only experts, and are rarely the best ones. For example, if a member of the Clinton administration were to start rewriting Bill Clinton's page, I'd be horrified, no matter how much expertise they might have.

Third, there's an implication that no bad edits mean there's no problem. That's dangerously wrong. Even if the article were perfectly balanced (and some suggest otherwise), we still have an issue of appearance. Consider another analogy. People in the US are widely suspicious that Haliburton has been helped unduly by its former CEO, Vice President Cheney. Even though no improper behavior has been proved, the relationship still has reduced the credibility of the Bush administration.

That's not to say that Jossi has done anything wrong. I haven't had a chance to dig in enough to have an opinion, and from seeing him around I have favorable impression of him. But because Wikipedia only matters to the extent people trust us, I think it's worth taking the questions raised very seriously. William Pietri (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a point to looking into this further. Jossi has admitted to having a COI, and the only things that can actually be done about a COI are blocks and topic bans to prevent bad behavior. And to disagree with your third point, the lack of bad behavior (or the lack of evidence thereof) is a pretty good indicator that there's no bad behavior to prevent, except some completely hypothetical one. Issues with the article should be handled by bold action, discussion, and dispute resolution; they should not be dealt with by suggesting that Jossi is responsible for them. And what's really feeding this thread are a few editors screaming "POV-pushing" without providing any diffs of such behavior, which to me is just further suggestion that no bad behavior exists. And while action can be taken merely to preserve Wikipedia's image, I think it would be a bad idea to give the Register article any more weight in that sense than your run-of-the-mill Wiki-bashing news story. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That there are no codified options doesn't mean that there are no options, and it certainly doesn't mean that there's no point to discussion or further investigation. We could jointly put together an examination of the Register's claims, for example. If we think they are meritless, we can say so. And if people feel there's a problem, we could, as Cla68 has, ask Jossi to stay away from those articles where he has a conflict of interest.

My current feeling is that even if we throw out the Register article entirely, I'm still concerned. That an admin has made thousands of edits to a topic where they have a deep and multi-decade conflict of interest strikes me as a big image problem, no matter who the admin or what the topic. William Pietri (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is all about edits. Nothing else.

People with possible COI are invited to edit the article, as long as the do so carefully and follow NPOV [40].

Actually, your horror at possible COI is fine- it's yours, and you have a right to it. But it isn't WP.

No bad edits mean there is not a problem. It isn't an implication, it is a fact. We aren't about appearance, we are about content.

Someguy is correct: no bad behavior means no problem. Further, it means that jossi's expertise is applied in the proper way, the way that WP should hope all experts will edit: toward the creation of an NPOV article without letting personal bias interfere. The more experts, AKA "people with COI problems" who edit that way the better.

Either present some evidence, or quit harassing jossi. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I deeply resent your claim that I am harassing anybody. If you'd like to suggest ways that I can raise my concerns more politely, feel free. But telling me not to raise them is inappropriate. Second, conflating expertise with a conflict of interest is, as I said above, bad thinking. Third, conflicts of interest harm credibility, which is why real-world institutions take them so seriously. This is important to us because our mission requires not just that we write articles, but that people trust them. William Pietri (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about this whole claim. Lack of evidence = harassment. And I've seen this often: claims of COI without evidence of POV editing. It just adds up to a way to harass editors. "conflating expertise with a conflict of interest is, as I said above, bad thinking" Right, and that is why we need evidence. Which we don't have. We aren't a political institution- if we do a good job, and people say "ah, they're just COI" then that's just what happens. All you do otherwise is encourage people not to use their real names. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, are you seriously suggesting that he doesn't have a conflict of interest? It seems pretty obvious to me that he has a huge one. From that, I think there are three reasonable questions: Have his edits been good ones? Is the article balanced? And, setting aside the edits and the article, does the conflict of interest harm Wikipedia's reputation? Of those three questions, only one of them can be decided by looking at his edits. Which we should certainly do, but the discussion must not stop there.

I also disagree utterly that our reputation does not matter. It may not matter to you, but credibility is vital to our mission. William Pietri (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that puts it well. I would say:

1. A COI is not a potential COI. Whether or not a person has a real as opposed to potential COI is determined by their edits. So it is yet to be determined whether or not he has a COI, see nutshell quotation on the COI page.

2. Whether or not the article is balanced is not relevant, unless it is determined it is jossi's fault that it is not balanced.

3. If we are going to determine COI on whether the editors have the potential for COI, WP won't work. Jimbo can't edit policy, and no one can edit anything they know anything about. It simply won't work. No, we cannot determine whether a person has a real COI on who they are or what they do, only on their edits. Think of the results otherwise- if nothing else, as I said above, it merely gives an advantage to the less honest, who don't use their real names. What you want is to treat people fairly- which means judging them only on their edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem. Take a look at our mainspace article, conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists not when somebody has behaved badly, but just when their interests conflict. Jossi has many roles, including editor, admin, devotee, and employee. In those roles, he has different interests. When he edits Wikipedia articles on his guru or his employer, those interests conflict. Whether he handles the conflict well or poorly does not affect the existence of that conflict. What you call a potential COI is just a conflict of interest. Is that clearer?

On point 2, Jossi, especially as an admin, has an obligation to work toward a balanced article. Doubly so given his vast activity on the topic.

Regarding point 3, expertise does not automatically create conflicts of interest, and having conflicted interests does not make you an expert. An expert should be able to write broadly and neutrally about a topic. Being a partisan may give you a fair bit of information, but does not make you an expert. I agree we should avoid advantaging the dishonest, but that doesn't mean we should ignore problems with honest editors, either.

Hoping that makes things clearer, William Pietri (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, that's just not true. The article begins "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Emphasis added.

Well, that means if he has been an NPOV editor, he has only a potential COI, not one which WP is concerned about. Thus, evidence of POV editing is necessary to determine if his COI is anything real or not.

The rest of what you say I agree with. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Martin, when I say "conflict of interest", I do not mean "Wikipedia conflict of interest as defined at WP:COI". I am talking about the thing that the rest of the English-speaking world calls a conflict of interest, where one's interests conflict. It is defined in our main-space article on the topic, and any number of other reference works. Jossi has a major conflict of interest on these articles and on the COI policy itself, even if he has not edited in violation of our WP:COI guideline.

I understand that you are saying that he has not violated that guideline as written. I agree that if people want to accuse him of that, they should provide evidence in the form of diffs. However, there are other important issues here, and it is mainly those that concern me. William Pietri (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With that explanation, then, we agree on things, and Durova's advice below would be good. As usually defined, he has a COI, and should be open and highly circumspect with relation to the articles -as I'm sure knowing him that he has been all along. The COI as defined outside Wikipedia shouldn't entirly keep him from editing and participating in the articles though. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William, if you'll notice, Martin has no confusion over what a COI is, merely over what wording to use and when. His point is quite on the ball that COI doesn't promote sanctions against NPOV editors, and Martin prefers to call these "potential COIs." You can call them actual COIs if you want, but that change of wording doesn't translate into a need for action. You say that investigation is warrented, so please, go ahead. If you look up through this discussion, you'll notice that Martin and I have searched for problem edits and didn't find any. Others claim they exist but won't provide actual diffs. If you see something bad in Jossi's contribs (ie, an actual reason to believe he can't be trusted to edit under his COI), please let us all know. But until then, there's nothing here to warrant any action. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a person's interests conflict, that is a conflict of interest, not a potential one. This is not a quibble over definitions; actual conflicts of interest have real-world implications, and Jossi has a major conflict of interest. As I've said several times in this section, the issues that concern me exist whether or not any individual edit is in violation of the WP:COI guideline. I've explained it several ways and don't know how to be clearer. If there's some way I can aid you in understanding my concerns, please let me know what that would be. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get you guys to see the gravity, tonight and tomorrow, I will list each article Jossi has a COI with so you can see the totality and severity of the situation. It's not _just_ Prem Rewat article. It is many articles. I'll start with the one from an episode of 'The Simpsons' and owrk on down. My example above was a poor one, but I'll be damned if anyone claims there's a COI with Jossi on ONE article. --Pax Arcane 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are a lot. But it won't matter a whit unless you find some POV diffs. Here is what COI is:

This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.

Unless you show where jossi violated this, rather than where he might violate it if he were going to violate it, you really show nothing at all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to take a moment to get the articles. There are many. The Reg article took a considerable amount of time to write because it included specific instances. I know where they are, but I'm not an admin, this isn't my day job like it is Jossi's, and it will take time. But each separate article is going to get a COI listing on this page NOT this section. Too much slippery room for it to get swept under the table listing them here. 'The Joy of Sect,' a Simpsons episode is going up first. If parody and humor of a cult leader needs a pro-cult POV, something is horribly wrong at Wikipedia, and with turn-the-blind-eye admins. --Pax Arcane 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the situation is: a sensationalist article written by someone who probably has very little knowledge of how Wikipedia operates has decided that one of the editors here has a COI. Therefore, all of the articles this editor has worked on will now be posted. Rather all of the articles will be posted as chosen by another editor who independently decides these are COI articles. Then, the assumption will be that every article will undergo careful scrutiny by multiple editors to see if there are COI edits. Rather than Dirova's suggestion "My recommendation to Jossi is to continue monitoring any article of interest, but exercise greater use of noticeboards and ask for impartial intervention when there's a problem, if direct intervention might be construed as improper."If we can be sure that every single article is carefully scrutinized by every single editor who comments than this might be practical, otherwise I would suggest that Durova's recommendation would be less wieldy. Wikipedia itself must provide the internal checks and balances that keep the encyclopedia neutral without the interference of the non-neutral press.(olive (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Olive, if it's gotten to the point where other admins have to hold another admin's hand like a child, that person (and the enablers) have no business being admins or ever editors at Wikipedia. Jossi is a 50-something year old grown-ass man. Hand holding and gently scolding are for 5-year olds. Is this turning into Wikipedia Daycare for Admins? --Pax Arcane 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pax. Let me be perfectly clear here. I personally find Jossi to be an excellent admin and editor from all that I've seen of him . I don't think he needs his hand held or slapped , and I see no evidence that he has edited in a way that is non-neutral . I am however invoking the internal structures of Wikipedia to deal with the questions that some editors are asking rather than begin to look outside of ourselves for suggested evidence of wrongdoing.(olive (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Arbitrary section break

The central point of of our onsite mechanisms has been to manage Wikipedia internally so that the free press doesn't manage it for us. The free press is in the business of selling eyeballs to advertisers; this does not incline them to be kind. I have always advised people who had a conflict of interest to manage their own actions so that they minimize the appearance of impropriety. WP:COI and WP:COIN are minor things compared to an actual public relations disaster. It remains to be seen whether other press outlets will pick up on the Register story. Most reporters have very little idea how this site actually operates, and that affects the quality of their coverage. My recommendation to Jossi is to continue monitoring any article of interest, but exercise greater use of noticeboards and ask for impartial interention when there's a problem, if direct intervention might be construed as improper. The particular way the Prem Rawat article looks on some given day isn't very important, compared to the embarrassment of negative media coverage. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people who've turned a blind eye and essentially colluded need to have the hell embarassed out of them. The world doesn't doesn't have to understand the inner workings of Wikipedia. They don't and won't, but if they smell a rat and impropriety, take your licks as admins and editors. You ALL had the power to prevent this article for happening. You've edited with him and watched him edit. The public has a need to know the end result, and if the behind-the-scenes stuff is something they won't understand, be prepared to explain why what happened, happened.--Pax Arcane 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, your repeated injection of drama into this is not helping us toward clarity. Punishment, through embarrassment or otherwise, is not Wikipedia's way. If people make mistakes, we assume they do so in the best of faith. When we discover the mistakes, we try to correct them and learn from them. When people are unavoidably disruptive, the most we do is disallow their participation, as to do otherwise would hopelessly impede our work.

In this case, I see no evidence that anybody has acted other than with the best of intentions. From everything I've seen, Jossi seems like a skilled, energetic, and affable participant. Everybody else involved seems to be working in equally good faith. If you are having trouble treating your fellow editors with the respect and generosity that is their due, I'd suggest you take a long walk. It does wonders for me. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, please have the good faith to suppose my attentions were elsewhere. Wikipedia has 1500 administrators and millions of articles. It simply isn't possible to keep on top of everything. COIN needs more volunteers; I've implored the community to prioritize it. Please join that effort. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it good-faith, gullability, or complete lack of concern? That's where the distinctions have to be made. You voted this guy on RfA, is this correct? I've watched you congratulate him on his talk page, correct me if I'm wrong. You can't say you didn't know something was up. I just got here and saw what he was doing deep into my second month. It was/is so brazen. COIN does need more volunteers, I agree. I think, however, no one but Admins are taken seriously, and if one follows that to the end result, when one of your brothers and sisters fall...you all fall. I admit to being uncivil, headstrong, and stubborn while editing articles who have cult-apologists hovering over them. I'm in the medical field, mental health...believes in science. I'm also a former journalist. I take both seriously. My behavior at Wikipedia has very much been like heated debated in the press room when we all had deadlines and had to get the facts straight with confirmation. I've had difficulty adjusting to this new environment. But I've worked with biased writers who have ruined rags I've worked for, and ruined the good, ethical work we all did. Wikipedia shall not take that direction. I think the RfA process should take a lot longer than it does, be more lengthy, and I agree more people need to volunteer at COIN. But I think a middle ground of 'tween Admins needs to exist between editors and Admins. And maybe this will prevent the ballot stuffing in the RfA process and will make 'tween Admins earn their Admin status. Just my honest thoughts. --Pax Arcane 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Jossi's RFA. As you can see, it closed on October 15, 2005. My first edit to Wikipedia was on October 22, 2005. To pharaphrase your choice selection of words, is it bad faith, gullibility, or complete lack of concern that led you to pose such a loaded question over a speculation you could have disproven in less time than it took to type the post? Durova^Charge! 04:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a speculation solely aimed at you, it's why I asked if you voted for his RfA...couldn't remember, didn't want to accuse you. I'm tired and not swift at seraching Wikipedia for those kinds of edits on the spot. Please bear with me. I'm exhausted. Do my suggestions make sense, though? --Pax Arcane 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've quite a few thoughts along those lines. It isn't easy to counsel someone about how to protect himself or herself from a major PR liability while the person doesn't understand anything more than Wikipedia is a top Google return and I'm the one saying "no" to them. Those people are often rude, difficult, you name it. And I worry if there's an unfavorable appearance regarding a respective editor. Bear in mind, though, that it's very easy to work in different areas and simply trust the people whose reputations are well established. And once the press gets into a story it's out of our hands. Durova^Charge! 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi COI diffs

Jossi disclosed his conflict of interest on October 15, 2006, if not earlier. The disclosure is deeply buried and the link is in small type. We don't know when the conflict actually started. It predates his editing on Wikipedia according to the Register article. Either way his activities since declaring his COI are relevant. Also, Jossi isn't just a follower. According to the Register article he's been an employee in the office of Rawat. So this isn't like a Muslim writing about Islam - this is like a statesman's press secretary writing about his boss.

Jossi's conflict of interest has been a sticking point for a long time: [41][42][43][44][45][46][47]

Jossi said:

"I am not editing this article besides making no-contentious edits, making minor edits, and applying BLP as advised by this guideline and the WP:::BLP policy."
"I am not participating in deletion discussions"

Here are edits to Prem Rawat that aren't minor, that impact the POV of the article and that don't comply with WP:COIC. [48] [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] [59][60][61][62][63][64] [65][66][67][68][69][70] [71][72][73][74][75][76] [77][78][79][80][81][82] [83][84][85]

He's made significant edits to every article in category:Prem Rawat. Having a conflict of interest regarding Rawat means also having one regarding the Prem Rawat Foundation, Rawat's family, books about Rawat and other closely related topics. These are just the edits from 2007. He made even far more before that.

Jossi's conflict of interest editing isn't limited to the English language. He's made significant edits to PR articles in other languages. Whilst that isn't an enforcement issue for EN.WP it shows his approach to editing with a conflict of interest. [123][124] He also promotes Rawat on sister projects.[125][126]

Jossi says he does not participate in deletion discussions though that hasn't been the case. [127][128][129][130] (a list that includes Prem Rawat)

Jossi has even used his admin tools to block related usernames (the blocks were alright although he should have foundunconflicted admininstrators to do them). [131][132]

He's worked with a tag team of user:Momento and user:Rumiton as can be seen throughout the edit history plus these pages: [133][134][135][136][137][138]

He's come to the defence of members of the tag team [139]

He's pursued action against those who's edits aren't favourable to his POV: [140][141][142]

Jossi looks like a neutral editor and administrator on other topics. On this topic he does not. Jossi has declared his COI and now he needs to follow through by not editing in any way the articles related to Prem Rawat. COIN tosser (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — COIN tosser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Jossi first disclosed his conflict of interest on 1 September 2004, so I don't think it's right to imply he was hiding anything. Thanks for posting the links; I will look through them when I get the chance. Could you say why you started a new account to post this? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through about half your diffs before I decided to stop, failing to see a single act of POV pushing. In case this was your point, simply failing to ever add negative material (actually, he did add a teeny bit of that) is not the same as POV pushing. As for the deletion discussions, even SPAs are permitted to participate in those, so even if there's a general reason to be concerned there, I just don't see anything to get worked up over. As for the "tag-teaming", there's nothing wrong with users having similar interests, unless you're going to accuse them of sock/meatpuppetry, or gaming the 3RR system. And as for "pursu[ing] action against those who's edits aren't favourable to his POV," all I see is constructive discussion and one 3RR post that didn't go his way. In fact, pursing action in the appropriate forums in the form of candid discussion shows all the more his ability to restrain himself from abusing his administrative powers, and thus is even more reason to trust him to edit within policy. If I am to go even further, the fact that you're an obvious scrutiny-evading sockpuppet (the log shows you created your account today) is just further evidence to me that this thread exists only to make insubstantive complaints about Jossi. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you skim a few and bury your head in the sand for the rest? I'm not getting it. What purpose does this serve and what's your interest in beating the "Jossi's innocent" drum? What's the payoff? --Pax Arcane 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by "a few" you mean 25 of his 90 diffs and links. This serves the purpose of weeding out frivolous complaints. As I said above, if you have a substantive complaint to make, if you have a diff that shows bad behavior, show it to the world. If you're only here to whine about Jossi's COI, nothing is going to come of it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone sort the above into questionable edits and mundane edits? There are 102 (I think) and if someone can sort them into ones that might be POV and ones that clearly aren't, it would help. I know it's been said before, but COI isn't just editing the article (interest), it's editing the article to push a POV (conflict). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, his interests conflict whether or not he has made bad edits. As an admin, he a responsibility to work in Wikipedia's interests. As an employee and follower, he has an interest in people thinking well of Prem Rawat. Those interests conflict when he edits articles related to Prem Rawat. That's not to say he has done anything wrong, and his early declaration of his conflict of interest suggests he's trying to handle the conflict responsibly. But still, the conflict of interest exists and is a major one. William Pietri (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually right. If Jossie...

Has a responsibility to Wikipedia's interests (admin), and
Has an interest in people thinking well of Prem Rawat (employee),

then it's only a conflict if either

Prem Rawat is against Wikipedia's interests (admin), or
Wikipedia has an interest in people thinking poorly of Prem Rawat (employee).

Otherwise the two "occupations" and interests are not conflicting. If Wikipedia's interest is NPOV concerning Prem Rawat (policy establishes this), then it can only be a conflict if Prem Rawat's interests regarding Wikipedia are established as non-NPOV. In other words, the conflict of interest is established only through a demonstration of Prem Rawat's interests (Jossi by proxy), and requires a POV push away from NPOV. If Jossi's edits are NPOV, then it is established that Prem Rawat's interests regarding Wikipedia are likewise NPOV, and therefore no conflict exists because the interests are the same: NPOV. So the "conflict" is actually edit-dependent.

Hypothetical example: A marketing representative from Microsoft wanting to make sure the features list on a software title published by them is factually correct is not a conflict of interest, even if their interest is purely financial. The reason it is not a COI is because the edit is factually neutral, and in accord with Wikipedia's NPOV interest. Thus, though their interest is financial, because the edit is factually neutral there's no conflicting interest; the financial motive is made irrelevant through the neutral edit and Wikipedia's NPOV interests are served. Maybe someone else can think of an example where COI isn't edit-dependent, but I can't. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is an important discussion of policy, not just about Jossi. In much of the world, people are required to avoid a potential conflict of interest. For instance, judges recuse themselves from cases. We're concerned if a judge has a conflict -- regardless of whether we personally deprecate the judgment, so likewise we should be concerned if an editor has a conflict, regardless of whether we personally deprecate the edits. Our current policy is quite lax, in my view, regarding potential conflicts of interest, which should be avoided to the extent feasible. Leaving Jossi aside, I would like to see us make progress in getting editors w/COI to avoid directly editing on their conflicted topics. This could greatly improve our articles and disputes, not to mention the appearance/reputation of Wikipedia (if such "exposes" have any effect). Thanks. HG | Talk 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi's failure to assume my good faith diff 9 Sept. 2007, "Just to remind you that you blew your previous three attempts at dispute resolution. You have zero credibility in this project as it pertains to any assumptions of good faith, Andries." diff 14 Oct. 2007 Andries (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no purpose in prolonging this discussion at this stage. What mainly seems to have happened here is that The Register and a few other editors have discovered OMG Jossi is a follower of Prem, which he disclosed 3-1/2 years ago. After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools. The Conflict of Interest guidelines do not prohibit COI editing; they advise against it because editing with a COI can sometimes lead to disruptive behavior, edit-warring, failure to follow consensus, and so forth. If you think the article is a "whitewash", then fix it. If, during the process of fixing it, you get into disputes with Jossi that can not be solved by dispute resolution (RFC or mediation), then it would be time to consider article or topical bans. However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites. As far as discussion of policy is concerned, and whether appearance of a conflict is actionable in the absence of actual disruptive editing, that policy discussion should be held at WT:COI. Thatcher 11:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Postlude, re. "If you think the article is a "whitewash", then fix it." (part of the closing editors' recommendation): I did. See [143] and [144]. Only I know, and feel bad about, that probably I overwrote some intermediate constructive edits in the process too. So, inviting others to further improve the Prem Rawat article. If however all criticism is whitewashed (again), I might get involved (again), notwithstanding my low interest in the subject of that article. Happy editing! --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, does this mean I can now start adding the other articles as this one was the only COI Jossi had listed and closed? Good. I start work in the evening.--Pax Arcane 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Thatcher, no Francis, your advice of fixing what is bad has not worked in the past. I tried to fix it incl. many attempts at diapute resolution and it did not work. Andries (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who put that "Resolved" tag at the top of this? Does that mean that Jossi has agreed to stay away from all Rawat-related articles? If so, then this really is resolved. I hope that those articles will now be neutral, although to be fair, it wasn't just Jossi that was keeping that from happening. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI actually relates to a core issue with wikipedia. I was formerly a highly active contributor to this site, but I have found that negative aspects of many topics entailing issues of faith or patriotism or simple allegiance are totally uneditable for "civilian" contributors as they are controlled by vested-interest editors who purposely employ their administrative muscle to restrict criticism of such issues of faith. Anyone who has tried to contribute e.g. in the field of Israel-Palestine knows exactly what I am talking about, these articles are tightly controlled by a couple of zionists, and the article is essentially entirely locked down by these revert-monsters. Its also entirely natural for a brainwashed cult fanatic to attempt to control the exact topic plus the global policy on permissions to control such topics in spite of a COI. Aren't there enough editors around? Shouldn't any COI upon statement or discovery lead to the editor becoming immediately ENTIRELY barred from that topic/subject area? I have actually given up and withdrawn from making contributions. I vastly enjoyed the register article for pointing out just one instance of this problem; nonetheless, this is a systemic issue. Theres been a lot of busting parties with vested interests via IP, which led to good press. When in comes to wikipedia-internal vested interests, the same or even higher standards ought to be applied. COI should be a lot stricter. Best regards 201.17.164.203 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Abbot actor

(Moved from WP:UAA)

Steve Abbott actor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Adding himself to articles.[145], [146] and [147]. Been warned. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader articles editor with serious personal grudge against Nader

user Griot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
article Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
article Ralph Nader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Griot has been heavily involved in the above two articles, as well as other Green Party related artciles (e.g., Matt Gonzalez]] for at least a year, consistently and belligerently pushing a hard-line, anti-Nader POV, ferociously battling against attempts at balance or neutrality. Elsewhere on Wikipedia he has described his own serious personal grudge against Ralph Nader, yet persists in attempting to make the articles show the subject in the most negative light, and disrupt efforts for balance. (see here for just the most recent example, and note that Sedlam in that discussion is a possible sock puppet of Griot). Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the above information supplied by User:Boodlesthecat is true. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay (Jeremy Camp song)

Jeremycamprox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has contributed articles on Jeremy Camp, not sure if its a direct or indirect COI. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought

Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Philosophicalfrontiers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username indicates relation to journal, possibly a "corporate" account. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Jurgensen

Eric Jurgensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Nikolausjurgensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Same last name, promotional tone. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California Women's Law Center

California Women's Law Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
CWLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username acronym of article title. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an important and notable organisation, but the article is incredibly self-promotional; first step would be to check for copyvio.I tagged it. DGG (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it comes verbatim from here and simialr pages on the CWLC website. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note for the contributor, CWLC, about this discussion. The organization appears worthwhile and probably notable, but if we can't get the creator to step in and fix it, reducing the article to a stub might be the best plan. As a first step, can we get a rewrite of the opening sentence? It now reads:

The California Women’s Law Center (CWLC) is a non-profit organization that advocates for justice for women and girls.

How about:

The California Women’s Law Center (CWLC) is a non-profit organization, based in Los Angeles, engaged in advocacy for the legal rights of women and girls. Areas of interest include employment law, reproductive rights, equal access for students to athletic facilities, domestic violence and gender discrimination. Founded in 1989, the organization has 11 employees.

Those words could be a minimal stub, and anyone who has time could expand it. It seems to be non-trivial to find references. Nothing about them in a newspaper showed up in the first two pages of search results. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with the second version to stubbify per copyvio and pov concerns. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NRG Recording Studios

NRG Recording Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Nrgstudios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Promotional article about studio, username indicates connection. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seems notable, contained two lists of everyone who has ever recorded there--I removed one of them. Needs attention from someone who knows the subject better than I.DGG (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Baldwin (musician)

Bob Baldwin (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Baldwin77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Promotional autobio. Admits being subject in edit summary. MBisanz ^talk 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond J. Brune

Resolved

– Article deleted by Roger Davies per CSD G12: Blatant copyright infringement of [148]. CounterFX (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond J. Brune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Rayjay2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username similar and in highly promotional tone. MBisanz ^talk 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poplar High School

Poplar High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Poplar High (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Username same, promotional tone. MBisanz ^talk 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

trivial, we get and fix articles like this routinely. DGG (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Benton

Dan Benton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
Danksank44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Media upload info + username indicates a connection. MBisanz ^talk 08:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz!

Buzz! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hi, I'm employed by a company called Sleepydog and we work on the Buzz! franchise of video games. I would like our company to be credited appropriately on this page and in accordance with your guidelines but would like your advice on how to do this. Sleepydog came up with the original concept for the buzz games (see http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=16290566&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=buzz-is-the-business--name_page.html), and since then we have wrote all the questions and supplied all the images, audio and video clips for the games (see http://www.thumbbandits.com/Buzz_Relentless_Q_and_A.asp). Sleepydog is also credited in all the instruction manuals which are shipped with the games. I’ve discussed this with another Wiki editor, who has highlighted the potential COI issue, and recommended I seek your advice on how best to implement these changes. Many thanks. Neal 2004 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a mention in this diff. Thanks for taking this route to raise the issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for your help, it's much appreciated. Would you be able to replicate this amend on the pages for: Buzz! The Big Quiz, Buzz! The Sports Quiz, Buzz! The Mega Quiz and Buzz! The Hollywood Quiz? These are all games which we have written the questions for and provided all the pictures, audio and video clips. We are credited for this work in the instruction manuals which are shipped with the game, so I would like us to have a mention of some kind on these pages if possible. Thanks again. Neal 2004 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ideasintoaction

Ideasintoaction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lean accounting‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
maskell.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
leanaccountingsummit.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The coi case isn't completely clear, but I thought it best to start here to see what others think. "Ideas Into Action" is the name of a consulting company (ideas2action.net) that offers "specialist organisational development support focussing on developing lean organisations through lean accounting and lean leaders." The company has a business relationship with BMA Inc. (maskell.com), as part of BMA Europe Ltd (bmaeurope.com).

User Ideasintoaction has been adding large amounts of unsourced material to Lean accounting that has included linkspam to maskell.com. This material appears to be copied directly from another source, because it included references to figures which an ip then removed [149] [150]. Ideasintoaction has since made some attempts to source the material, but other editors have been reverting these as original research and/or copyright violations. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddworld

Oddworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For some time now, an editor switching between two IPs, 217.150.112.45 and 82.5.133.228, has been edit warring with other editors to include a couple of fansites in the "External links" section of Oddworld. During a lengthy discuss taking place on the talk page, the editor stated that he/she is the owner of one of the sites they have been adding in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

User:Jossi and Prem Rawat 2

See Wikipedia:COI/N#User:Jossi_and_Prem_Rawat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Jossi's succesful recent attempt at stopping dispute resolution. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the dates? July 2007 isn't recent. This issue is CLOSED. MER-C 13:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not closed. This was a pivotal event that had long lasting consequences. How could I possibly have kept the article balanced when there were two editors active (user:Momento and user:Rumiton) who reverted nearly all my edits in combination with Jossi's succes at stopping dispute resolution. Clearly I could not. Andries (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will propose a policy change to WP:COI that it is inappropriate to assume bad faith esp. when having a conlict of interest and that is completely inappropriate to try to stop serious dispute resolution. Andries (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go file a user RFC if and only if you have evidence of recent - i.e. no more than a month old - disruptive editing by Jossi. There's nothing we can do until you provide such evidence. MER-C 09:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that Andries brings that diff. Hope editors go and read it, and see the kind of behavior I have had to deal with there. Some people do not seem to be able to get a clue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Policing Improvement Agency

National Policing Improvement Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Serious Organised Crime Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(See accounts and IP's below) is making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up recent changes and the page histories of National Policing Improvement Agency - (created by Amcluesent), List of Special Response Units, Serious Organised Crime Agency and others.

Claims he works for the NPIA, see [151][152][153][154]. All the accounts and IP's have similar edit patterns. --Hu12 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding all the IPs. Probably a nice notice about COI and maybe an intro to editing template would be good. If anyone is thinking of blocking any of these IPs, it would probably be nice to report them to Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses since these seem to link back to official UK national police departments. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not inconceivable that WP might need to work with the UK police on some occasion, so let's be a little bit nice.

The only currently-active logged-in user in this group is Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

We need to get the attention of Bamford, to persuade him to moderate this editing. I suggest semi-protecting both of the articles listed above and all the related UK police articles, to prevent the clogging up of recent changes. Bamford was recently blocked for six hours. Until we can abate the flood of changes, it will be hard to discuss article improvement. The usage of so many IPs is very peculiar by WP standards. My guess is that a number of police employees have been asked to add information, but only Bamford has created an account. I suggest we ask Bamford to agree to some conditions:

Ask all his colleagues to create an account before editing
Identify (by account name) all the other editors who have affiliations with his organization
Provide edit summaries for all changes
No editing under an IP address
No reversion of anyone else's edits without a Talk discussion
Participate in discussions in good faith, and listen to the responses
No more than 20 edits per day on UK police articles (per editor) until this COI item is resolved.

I suggest semi-protection until this is closed. I welcome your comments on this idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions. Although I might not list it as directly, say "If you could try avoid editing under an IP address". Also, edit summaries are important, but for many new users, I suspect their easy to forget. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't block or protect. "Clogging up recent changes" is not a reason to pull out the administrative tools. Leave messages for everybody and explain site standards to them. Coach them how to do things the right way. Jehochman ^Talk 12:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this point of view. Very strongly. Relata refero (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Editing in a manner that messes up the tracking infrastructure and confuses ongoing review of changes is a form of disruptive editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It means our systems haven't handled it properly. It isn't disruptive in and of itself. Relata refero (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, I don't see the difference. It's an edit pattern that's damaging the purpose of cooperatively creating an encyclopedia. It's academic whether this arises by directly impeding other editors or interacting badly with "the system". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexing situation, there has been multiple attempts at dialog with little or no results. The latest response is a bit concernining, "I find this all rather sad and so pathetic that I can't even be bothered to debate this any further".--Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. Have a look at the three edits that he was blocked for. (After scores of normal ones.) He's blanked the page twice, which is fine, he receives a warning. But in heaven's name, look at the third, which he was blocked for. Sheesh! Relata refero (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarfication as some editors seem to be confused about this - the NPOA is an govt administration and advisory body set up to assist and give direction to Police forces in a number of areas - they are [i]not[/i] connected to operational policing as carried out by UK police forces. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess he's decided against any communication. --Hu12 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk vandalism [155][156]..--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More:
204.245.42.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I've protected the page due to the Anon switching IP's to remove the COI tag--Hu12 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[157] [158] removed the COI tag, and added 5 links to npia.police.uk.--Hu12 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More [159][160] COI tag removal.--Hu12 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Maintenance_tag_vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to MusicBrainz

Before I start: I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, so if there is a better place please just point me to it.

Now the problem: Maybe some of you know MusicBrainz, an online database for music metadata (artist and album information etc.). It provides an unique ID for every artist, album and track. Many artist and album pages here on Wikipedia link to the corresponding MusicBrainz entry, allowing the user to get further information on that particular artist or album. There are quite a lot artists and [albums and a few songs that already include those links. There is a MusicBrainz WikiProject that tries to improve on this and cross link more artists and albums.

Now I edited some artist pages here on Wikipedia and added the links to the corresponding MusicBrainz page. For doing this I was, in quite a rude way, accused of spaming by the user John. That surprises me, as for me it seemed common practice to link to MusicBrainz and similar databases like Discogs and IMDB. Those links provide the user with more information on the artists or albums. Is there already some concensus on those links? OutsideContext (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New College of California Editing Its Own Page

New College of California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
63.89.115.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An anonymous user with the IP address 63.89.115.10 has edited the page 5 times, usually removing information. According to Wikiscanner, this address is a New College computer. Is there any way to stop this from happening? Thanks. Berkeleysappho (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that a student at New College could not edit the article on the school? If so that would be a great expansion of COI. We should be focusing on whether you can show evidence that this IP is actually being used by some kind of administrator of the college. Not just a computer at the college. Wjhonson (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors familiar with our WP:BLP policy might want to look at this article. Some of the sources, while offering information that may well be correct, don't appear reliable. For instance http://www.stopsilence.net indicates a policy of accepting reader-submitted information. If this were removed as a source, we would lose refs 16, 19 and 20 plus the statements they are supporting. References 11 though 15 are cited to to paper publications such as Pipsqueak! that might be informal student productions, unsuitable as sources. These might have to go as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Students don't have access to New College computers unless they are work study students, which makes them employees. Regarding stopsilence.net and pipsqueak!, have you read the documents in question? Pipspeak!'s publications are part of the historical record and are supported by the Bay Guardian article from the 90s. While pipspeak! and ASAP were student groups, their documents are primary sources which detail past student activism. Stop Silence is participatory journalism, however the links are not to user-generated articles. The SF Bay Guardian, Journal of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, SF Chronicle and SF Weekly all use Stop Silence as a source of information. I think if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for Wikipedia.24.7.73.28 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Berkeleysappho (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR firm caught editing Wikipedia

Moorepr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
American Lung Association of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Florida Academy of Family Physicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Alliance to Save Florida's Trauma Care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This post on the official blog of Moore Consulting Group gives this away. (Even though the edits predate the blog post, it is plausible that the charities had a business relationship before then). What fate awaits these "articles"? MER-C 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks like a COI. First, a COI warning needs to go on the user page. Then we need to check the articles for copy vio (looks like there could from the formatting), and then a cleanup/stubbify pass needs to be taken. For some reason I remember that state chapters of orgs aren't notable, so probably an AFD of American Lung Association of Florida. The Alliance to Save Florida's Trauma Care could be notable, but I'll have to look into it. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert O'Connor

And related articles are mostly written by User:Robertoconnor and IPs possibly also him. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rather extensive COI tag chat. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touchstone Technologies

Touchstone Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Markstacy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Chaiman/CEO, CTO: Mark A. Stacy; President--Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Way Campus

Great Northern Way Campus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gnwc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's a clear conflict of interest at Great Northern Way Campus: said article, which previously was simply cut and pasted from the organization's website, was then (subsequent to my deleting this wholesale repetition, which at the time I thought was merely plagiarism) replaced by PR blurb written by a user named Gnwc. See also the article talk page. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted editor has recognized conflict and has requested an edit be made onthe article talk page. I suggest a POV-clearing swing be taken and that the user's content be incorporated as best as possible, moving from the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. POV-clearing swing has been taken. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI on Mehmet_Oz

Mehmet Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mehmetoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Mehmetoz has edited extensively on the Mehmet_Oz page today. The user originally tried to remove a section on animal cruelty, but kept getting reverted. I agreed that the sourcing of that section was questionable, so I removed it, put a note on the article talk page, and left the user a note about BLP and COI. Now the user is significantly editing the rest of the article. No response to the note I left - the user may not even know about the talk page. Xymmax (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any edits after the COI warning was left (although I may be converting time wrong). So I suggest a POV-cleanup and monitoring. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Ferreira

Jorge Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Ogre (talk · contribs) posted to the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jorge_Ferreira about this article. Basically it would seem that this is a very positive article written by a very small group of editors. Would it be possible for someone more experienced in this field to have a look at it? --RicDod (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! My previous addition of the complaint header was wrong. User:The Ogre is not an editor claimed by RicDod to have a COI. He is a regular editor who happened to notice the peculiar content of this article and posted about it at WP:BLPN. The true source of the promotional edits remains to be figured out from the article's edit history. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored my original comments after they were altered by EdJohnston. I think that it is patently clear that I did not accuse The Ogre of having a conflict of interest. --RicDod (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake when trying to restore the previous complaint header, and not double-checking. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the edits concerned have come from:

81.65.196.240 (talk · contribs)
81.65.197.182 (talk · contribs)

Both track to accounts with Numericable, Champs sur Marne, Paris: about 10 miles from Vitry-sur-Seine, Paris, location of Nicky Lemos Production, Ferreira's European agent. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gnelson1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article is being edited by the "commuications officer" for the foundation, and these edits made the article into something resembling a non-neutral press release, full of corporate gobbledygook. The text exactly resembles the "about" section of the foundation's website. [161] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is "communications officer" for the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and therefore has an apparent COI in editing the aforementioned article. Regarding my reversion of their edits, User:Gnelson1234 asked me to "Please contact me if you'd like to discuss. Otherwise, the info I post is correct, current, and needs to remain intact" [162] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree that the version Gareth reverted to is less-POV than the version Gnelson puts foward. Some of Gnelson's things are so minor as to not be includible. Others need sources to back them up. I suspect the age of the foundation can be cleared up with a simple guidestar.com search for its Form 990. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media properties of the Unification Church

I think this is a pretty familiar topic here, so I will return later to post whatever diffs necessary, and assume for now that the admins here are familiar enough with this perennially problematic issue.

Briefly, at News World Communications related websites, particularly The Washington Times and Insight magazine, it "tis the season" (election year) in which the combination of tendentious editing by Unification Church members is joined by a few editors with nearly single-issue tendentious-looking edit histories in support of the political views of the media properties owned and subsidized by Rev Moon's church.

I have tagged the Washington Times page with coi and coatrack tags, will return at my earliest oppty to check in and provide requested details. WNDL42 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the BLP of Moon critic and former Insight Magazine employee David Brock is being repeatedly vandalzed by what look like pro-Moon IP editors. WNDL42 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...this will provide some context until I can assemble the diffs, see here WNDL42 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iTalkBB

While patrolling recent changes, I came across and reverted this edit, deleting the Controversy section from the iTalkBB page. It appears that all the edits made from this IP address (216.141.201.178) in the last year have been to remove this section from this article. I left a COI message on its talk page and reverted the edit. Is there anything else to be done? —BradV 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A problem, though: however likely it may be, COI in this instance is speculative, as there doesn't appear to be proof - via disclosed identity / geographical location - that these IP edits are from anyone related to ITalkBB. That just leaves it as tendentious editing, and I'm not sure there's any mechanism with teeth for dealing with that. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI edit requests

I recently discovered the category Category:Requested edits. Does anyone watch this? I know unblocks and editprotected requests are watched well by admins, but I think this category should be encouraged to prevent COI abuses. Maybe even merging it with editprotected requests. Any ideas? MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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