Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rsteagall (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 28 May 2014 (→‎Serama). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.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:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    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:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:GoToGate
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    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:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nuffield Trust
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    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:TowerBrook Capital Partners
    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

    Banc De Binary

    First and foremost I would like to make it known that I am an employee of Banc De Binary and thus have my own COI. However I feel that user HistorianofRecenttimes also has some sort of personal attachment to the subject of the article Banc De Binary, and may actually be a shill for NADEX.

    As evidence I would like to provide the following:

    The contributions of this user show that it is a Single Purpose Account. All of the user's edits are related to Banc De Binary, even those which are not on the article Banc De Binary.

    See the following links:

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snell_%26_Wilmer&diff=prev&oldid=605631425
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GeorgeBarnick&diff=prev&oldid=605323940
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GeorgeBarnick&diff=prev&oldid=605321950
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snell_%26_Wilmer&diff=prev&oldid=600167565
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snell_%26_Wilmer&diff=prev&oldid=600167495
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snell_%26_Wilmer&diff=prev&oldid=600167374
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pinkbeast&diff=prev&oldid=577697372
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rybec&diff=prev&oldid=577696564
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pinkbeast&diff=prev&oldid=577729842
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiDan61&diff=prev&oldid=577590635
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pinkbeast&diff=prev&oldid=577423888
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=577425019
    The user attemps to delete the AfD tag on the page stating in the talk page:

    BTW, I checked the CYSEC list of regulated companies, why is it that Banc de Binary do not give a telephone number like all the others, surely this is pevidence that they're not really in Cyprus other than with a virtual office.

    Which is another example of "unsourced allegations and synthesis" (User:Pinkbeast - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistorianofRecenttimes - 15:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) )[reply]
    There are several warnings by various users about the user's editing habits.

    Please take care with your editing on Banc De Binary. I have reverted your edits, which appeared to consist of a fair amount of original research with a decidedly non-neutral tone about the history and nature of the bank.

    (sic)
    WikiDan61 - 13:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

    You're right back where you started, with unsourced allegations and synthesis. Please confine yourself to cited facts.

    (sic)
    Pinkbeast - 15:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

    Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Banc De Binary.

    (sic)
    GorillaWarfare - 22:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    User has made several attempts to enter content about one of the subject's competators into the article

    (correction of grammar errors and NADEX detail)

    (added cited sourced to for indictment, nadex and origin of company clarified, removed unsourced section saying bdb were in talks with us regulators as that was incorrect and unsourced.)

    User is attempting to use unreliable sources ( in this case blacklisted sources ) to try to use the article to insinuate that the subject is hiding information.
    User is attempting to use an unreliable source to try to use the article to insinuate that the subject is "Blacklisted".
    Adds information relevant to a competator of the article's subject/
    Adds information relevant to a competator of the article's subject/

    BDBJack (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have watched the BDB page for some time - IIRC, since when the Morning277 socks were starting to be exposed.

    I think the idea that HistorianofRecentTimes is a shill for NADEX does not stand up to any examination. Such a shill would have edits on multiple pages about how wonderful NADEX is, not a lot of edits on one page, one or two of which mention NADEX in passing without being particularly adulatory.

    That they have some sort of gripe against BDB is indisputable. However, this causes them to dig up a lot of material, and other editors seem to do a reasonably good job of removing synthesis from it. Of course, one could argue that this gives undue weight to the regulatory difficulties - but given that the page was deleted by AFD before those difficulties, it seems to me that that is what makes the company notable.

    Historian is not totally adept at editing and I can well believe the removal of the AFD notice was in good faith, believing it to be no more legitimate than the repeated attempts by socks to whitewash the page. (The AFD was made by and largely contributed to by a mass of SPA socks). Of course, that doesn't make it appropriate.

    I would certainly appreciate it if Historian clarified the nature of their gripe, of course, but it seems to me they are probably, in the words of the header, "biased without additionally having a COI".

    I have no affiliation whatsoever to any part of the financial services industry. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree completely with what Pinkbeast has said. Per the evidence above, it looks like HistorianofRecenttimes has something against Banc De Binary, but that only demonstrates a problem following WP:NPOV. It doesn't indicate a COI of any kind, and there is no evidence of a connection to NADEX. It's a logical fallacy to say that if BDB has a competitor, and someone seems biased against BDB, they must work for that competitor. Maybe HistorianofRecenttimes has a personal grudge, maybe they work for a different competitor, maybe they simply have some kind of focus on this particular article. (I know that there are some articles that I've spent more time on than others, and I have no COI with them, but then again I'm no SPA.)
    In any case, no, there seems to be no COI unless and until HistorianofRecenttimes alludes to or admits a connection to BDB or a competitor. But that doesn't mean there is no concern. An editor with a COI who follows all of our guidelines and policies at most warrants extra scrutiny. An editor without a COI who violates our NPOV policy, or other policies and guidelines, can be subject to sanctions including blocks and/or bans. Though that would be a discussion for another place (WP:POVN or WP:ANI perhaps). -- Atama頭 15:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Suzannah Lipscomb

    This user has admitted here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:This_is_Paul#Suzannah_Lipscomb that they are related to the subject of the article. 82.18.156.67 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    They kept removing details of the subjects marriage, saying that Ms. Lipscomb was getting divorced. However there is no Reliable Source for this. The user also keeps attacking another editor who disagrees with them.82.18.156.67 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is the above contributor, if s/he knows so much a bout Wikipedia's processes, not giving their name? If the whole history of this page is looked at it can be seen that it the other editor referred to is called a WP:Bludgeon by User_talk:This_is_Paul. Many other things have been removed from the subject's pages and the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzannah_Lipscomb has comments from people stating that e.g. 'Most of her achievements have been removed from her page'. Whilst I admitted a relationship to the subject, Wiki states that that is not always a problem, and now that I know that changes and additions should be passed through another editor I intend to do that in the future and User_talk:This_is_Paul has said he is happy to do this. Any changes I have made to the page in the past have been strictly factual, except to remove the constantly inserted reference to her marriage, as (as I have stated) the marriage is over. The current situation is that she has been separated for 15 months and is seeking a divorce. How can one prove this to Wiki's satisfaction? The other editor though has sought to 'attack and demean' the subject. These words are, at this time 22.56 on 19/5/14, taken from the final pages at the above link that discusses the possibility of deleting the page. The final comment on the page says 'If the article is not to more honestly be allowed to report her actual status then please move to deletion. Can you not see how demeaning and attacking it is to create a story about someone so qualified and yet only report such trivialities?'MdeBohun (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    while having a relationship with the subject about whom you are editing is not always a problem, it IS a problem when your edits are serving only to skew the article in a promotional manner and its clear from your edits to the article that that is what is happening here. You can solve that issue by following the recommended procedures for those with conflict of interest by not editing the article directly and rather making suggestions on the talk page. You would also do well to read and follow WP:CIV and WP:NPA an stop casting aspersions at other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely explained by TRPoD. There is no need of any more evidences that the user is related to the subject, the bigger fact is that the user has registered only for editing this particular article. OccultZone (Talk) 12:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    I have examined the history of the article, and while I am convinced that POV editing has damaged the article, I do not see much reason to think that MdeBohun is much to be faulted. At present, a number of editors appear to be engaged in obscurantism, insisting on sources for matters on which there is very little doubt and edit-warring on trivia such as whether the lede must carry her married name since one source, from a secondary-school dinner, mentions it. The article is currently at AfD, where it appears headed for a WP:SNOW keep. There is bad blood here, and there may be bad faith, but I'm not convinced that MdeBohun deserves censure -- especially since WP:BITE applies. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In cases like this, I think that it can be a fine line between treating a COI editor respectfully and letting them control the content of the article to favor the subject. That is, unless the COI editor proves to be disruptive. I don't see that MdeBohun has been, not excessively so at least, aside from an outing attempt that I already warned her for previously (and that I don't think was malicious). -- Atama頭 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Erento

    This article describes erento, a notable company that has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. As per the references, there has been coverage of considerable depth in multiple and highly reputable press including international, national and regional media. The article is based purely on material from independent sources and has been written in such a way as to make it as objective and informative as possible. I cannot see any evidence that the article is advertisment.MeikeFedermann (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You created a new account today just to post this? Why? And what is your association with the company, or with the user account Eddaline? ~Amatulić (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly, that message is basically a quote from the initial posting to Talk:erento from 2009... which was by a user whose conflict is suggested by the fact that his user page, User:Tobiasmelrius, is a redirect to the Erento page. (And if you look at the Erento page, it certainly has some POV phrasing and unsourced claims introduce by Eddaline.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Meike Federmann is an author at Erento News. I believe that Meike is self-disclosing the COI by posting here. As to the tags on the page, the article should just be cleaned up to our standards and they can be removed. -- Atama頭 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    TV Tropes

    User @Speededdie: is the cofounder of website TV Tropes (as he self-identified here) and primary contributor to our article about it, which is written mainly from primary sources. He has repeatedly removed the {{COI}} and {{Primary sources}} templates that warn readers about the problematic content. What is the expected course of action in this situation? Diego (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, reporting it here is the best course of action, currently. Ping the user (and notify them as that's what you're required to do) and let's see where it takes us. However, a COI should not be editing the article directly. I've restored the maintence tags.Tutelary (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am indeed one of the 375,000 editors of the TV Tropes wiki, as well as one of the co-founders. I contest the idea that all of us have some conflict of interest with Wikipedia and its intention to have accurate, sourced information. This maintenance tag makes it looks like the article has dubious information. Which it does not.Speededdie (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no problem with the other 374,998 editors who are not co-founders. If you bother to read the policies linked from the tag you'll see why it's not enough to have sourced content; as I explained to you in the talk page, it's important that most of the article is referenced by independent sources that can provide a perspective of the relative importance of the various aspects of the site. Being too close to the site, you can't provide such perspective. Diego (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Speededdie: Please consider reading WP:PSCOI, it should help explain some of our concerns and advice in it might also help you avoid coming into dispute with other editors. -- Atama頭 22:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration

    It seems we have a person inside the facilities of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration editing that article. No idea if it's an employee or not but it seems highly suspicious. The person is already reverting edits to make the article look like a WP:PROMOTION.

    IP address resolves to 39.2904, -76.6122 which are the geocoordinates of the agency.

    Can another set of eyes and an administrator get involved on this please?

    —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yandex

    I want to propose changes to the article on Yandex, which is my employer. I intend to use edit requests. The recommended procedure includes: “Propose a specific change on the talk page, and get consensus for it”. My experience with Wikipedia suggests that if I simply start a new section on the Talk:Yandex page, I’m unlikely to get any responses within a few months. Would this lack of responses indicate a consensus? Would it be appropriate to post edit requests without prior consensus? Should I seek consensus elsewhere? Vasiliy Faronov (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vasiliy Faronov:, you're fine for coming here. You can use edit requests to request edits, and you're strongly discouraged from editing the article yourself. If you want something changed, you can use the talk page to request that the edit be made. If it's something about the history of the company, back it up with a reliable source. If you want to remove any controversies, you should get consensus for that. If it's something minor like fixing a typo (and not changing the meaning of a sentence), you can edit it to fix that. Tutelary (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tutelary: Thank you for your reply, but I’m afraid it doesn’t answer my questions. I’ve been on Wikipedia for years and I’m comfortable with the main principles. I’m seeking guidance on a specific point: is it a good idea to post edit requests without establishing prior consensus, and if not, how to establish it. --Vasiliy Faronov (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is no need to have consensus to make edit requests. In fact, WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to be gained by persuasion on why your edit should go through, whether that's removing content or adding it, and if there's a conflict, you're supposed to explain why you think it should go through. So in short, no. You don't need consensus to make edit requests. Tutelary (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on what Tutelary said (which was all 100% correct), generally the process would be that you make an edit request, and if it is accepted them it would be implemented in the article. If it's rejected, then you can either accept the rejection if you agree with the reason for declining your request, or you can try to convince the person to accept the request with good, policy-based (and/or common sense-based) reasons. If you can't come to an agreement, there are dispute resolution options available. As long as you aren't overly disruptive with your requests (harassing people, filling up the talk page with endless arguments, discussing off-topic issues, and so on) then you shouldn't have any problem in making those requests. -- Atama頭 17:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think folks are missing what the editor is putting forth; it's not that his requested edits get accepted or rejected, it's that there are not enough eyes on the article, so the request simply gets ignored. He's not asking if it's okay to make edit requests, he is asking if, when they are ignored, it is okay for him to assume consensus due to lack of objection, and insert the edit himself. (If no, we should find someone willing to put eyes on the article, so that his requests are not just ignored.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaza Flotilla Raid and Greta Berlin

    User:Tecspk@aol.com has been heavily editing the Gaza Flotilla Raid article, as well as the Greta Berlin article. Since May 20, 2014 the Gaza Flotilla Raid article and Greta Berlin article have been dominated by User:Tecspk@aol.com who has a clear conflict of interest [[1]]Drsmoo (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Is this not exactly what User Drsmoo has just done? It's not who an editor is but the quality of the edits that should always be the focus. --Akayani (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The "quality of the edits" has already resulted in the editor being criticized for blatantly POV editing. [[2]]
    By the standards you describe, no conflicts of interest would ever be namedDrsmoo (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have deleted the WP:OUTING per policy; however, the conflict is readily discernable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nat Gertler I don't see how the WP:OUTING has been deleted, as nothing appears to have changed. It wasn't my intention to harass anyone or contradict policy. Please feel free to remove anything that's in violation or let me know if I should remove anything. Drsmoo (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, must've hit an extra undo when undoing something. Have now really deleted, I think. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only did Drsmoo 'break a Wikipedia rule, but he also stretched the truth about editing the page called Greta Berlin, suggesting that the article has been 'dominated by user, Tecspk since May 20, 2014." There is one posting, the death of Greta Berlin's second husband. I don't expect an apology, but I do expect Drsmoo to be more careful in his/her accusations. They do not bode well for any of us. Tecspk@aol.com (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been more clear. It is the Gaza Flotilla Raid article that has been dominated by User:Tecspk@aol.com since May 20,2014. The Greta Berlin article has been dominated by User:Tecspk@aol.com since January 23,2014. Since then, of the 33 edits to the article, 24 have been by User:Tecspk@aol.com.
    Some edits that reflect possible POV are:
    [[3]] - POV
    [[4]] - inserting a hate video as a reference in a wikipedia article
    [[5]] - POV
    [[6]] - POV

    Drsmoo (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Internet telephony service provider

    Single-purpose account repeatedly adding WP:COI links promoting one voice-over-IP company. K7L (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked them indefinitely for a username policy violation. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Serama

    This article has improbably become the ridiculous target of at least two competing sock farms, in a dispute which has lasted years, with the two 'sides' fighting over content under various guises. Mostly it's been IPs, but a long time ago it became semi'd indefinitely due to this. I've no idea what exactly the sides are/represent and the precise affiliation of either editor listed above (although some deductions are obvious, see below), but they popped up after the last time article protection expired, and there's clearly far too much attachment to the subject. Rsteagall I think must have been a sleeper, so may not be a sock per se, but NCOCEO even did the whole 10 random edit thing to get past semi-protection.

    • NCOCEO's edits are clearly observable in their short and focused contribution history, but the oddest edits are ones like this one where they claim two really really obviously photoshopped images are not photoshopped, and despite these having text as part of the images they've removed another image claiming that the name was promotional (presumably anti Jerry Schenxnayder. They also say that "We ARE the consensus" and "Consensus of editors was that these pictures WERE credible" when there hasn't been any editors other than those two and myself, suggesting to me that it's either a group of people on an account or an account representing a group of people.
    • Resteagall is I assume a representative of or member of the Serama Council of North America, an article they created. They were the ones who added the picture that NCOCEO removes claiming it's promotional, with the edit summary "This picture represents current progress in America of the type serama we have". Their edits are more spread out over a few years, but 2014 ones include reverting NCOCEO, so I assume they're from the opposing group to NCOCEO, whatever they are. Resteagall also posted on my talk saying "I don't know who you are, but I'm most certain you know who I am. Would you like to meet on a forum other than here to discuss and iron out differences? possibly on the SCNA forum or elsewhere? I am close friends with Jerry Schexnayder whom is the largest importer of Serama to the United States. I have access directly to him as well ask Kimberly Theodore. I also have access to other top breeders knowledge such as Dianne Brewer."

    Being the only other editor on this page at the moment, I've been constantly accused by both sides on being whatever the other side is at some point or another, and it's quite tiring. Sadly the semi-protection expires later this year, so it'll be back to IPs again. CMD (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Chipmunkdavis keeps removing pictures that I see no evidence of what is "photoshopped" as he puts it. Chipmunkdavis obviously has some kind of agenda of his own that I'm not certain of yet. I do not know who this person is in real life. The only inaccuracies I'm seeing posted and reverted consistently are from Chipmunkdavis. I'm not seeing much problem in other edits. Only by Chipmunkdavis are the problems arising from.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteagall (talk • contribs)
    "no evidence of what is "photoshopped" as he puts it"
    The image to the right is the one which is apparently not photoshopped. Apparently. CMD (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    • Chipmunkdavis that image is definitely NOT photoshopped. That image was taken by John Benoot as you can see. This image was taken while he was in Malaysia visiting. I have first hand knowledge of this. I have also seen many other pictures from breeders in Malaysia displaying these extremities. There are many videos also showing these extremities. You really need to join a couple facebook groups and witness these videos and pictures. You will come to realize that these are not photoshopped and they are indeed real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteagall (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    here is a video example of an extreme bird. It is also not "photoshopped" or "videoshopped" if that is even possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kEYUc4t6xc
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=610501054"