Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
| Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
|
| ||||
| 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:
|
Delta Epsilon Iota
- Delta Epsilon Iota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- DEINationalOffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I stumbled across the article Delta Epsilon Iota. Something very strange seems to be going on there that should probably be looked in to (see the page history). Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- You mean because it's being heavily edited by "DEINationalOffice"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- DEINationalOffice looks like a role account - both from the name itself and repeated use of "we". LadyofShalott 00:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- User name reported to WP:UAA as a clear violation of WP:ORGNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- DEINationalOffice looks like a role account - both from the name itself and repeated use of "we". LadyofShalott 00:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Consumer Priority Service
- Consumer Priority Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Davidbond1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This article was mainly written by one editor and all of that editor's contributions involve this company. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I took a look, I'd say it's an AfD candidate. The article is highly promotional. Only one real source, and I couldn't find any others in a short search. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- I will support AfD. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumer Priority Service. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Mbunda Kingdom - editor is spokesperson for Mbunda tribal association, edits on behalf of the tribal authority
Dear Colleagues. I am extremely concerned about the article Mbunda Kingdom. Besides the general poor quality of the article, (example: 1-4 under the historic foundation of the kingdom)
- Firstly, it is almost single-handedly the work of one editor, User:Ndandulalibingi (formerly User:Libingi), who identifies himself as the "National Chairman of Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association".
- Editor also claims to be writing the article "with full authority from the current Mbunda Monarch on the Throne".
- The article is based on the content of a book written by the said association; the book is the result of "indigenous Mbunda Writers Association who have interviewed, the Mbunda forefathers, some of whom were there in Mbundaland which is now part of Angola". As you can se here questions have been raised about the editor's methods and his claims about the validity of oral tradition as history.
- The material is ultimately ascribed to the "The Mbunda Kingdom Research and Advisory Council"
- Large part of the material is in fact copy-pasted from the Mbunda site, as pointed out here
- In reference to the book by this association that speaks for the Mbunda people, the usar says "However, there are so many sources who agree with this research on google books, some of whom have been blacklisted on your [Wikipedia] web pages, for whatever reasons you may know better. Libingi (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)"
- The article makes some claims that I find nowhere else, starting with the fact the Mbunda people migrated from the Sudan, as per this map
- The said Kingdom started off somewhere near a place called Kola, in the DRC, near the Luba and Lunda states shown here
- The kingdom was founded in early 1400s, "interacting with the Luba and Lunda Kingdoms"
- The Luba Kingdom did not come into being until the late 1500s and the Lunda Kingdom not until the mid-1600s.
- Then the kingdom moved - please not that it does not say that the people migrated, but that the kingdom moved north-east, and was "was re-established" here
- Later the kingdom moved again and "was re-established here
- The maps used to indicate the various places where the kingdom was established were uploaded by the editor and attributed to the site of the Mbunda kingdom website,
- The elephant image used as the symbol of the monarch is copyrighted material taken from here, although the editor says "Own drawing to depict the eulogizes Mbunda Kingdom monarch symbol"
- The pictures of one of the Mbunda kings appears to be a user's avatar on Answers.com, though is attibuted to the editor.
- A drawing that the editor claims as his owned work is signed as "Kavela Arts"
- By the looks of it, other images from the article also appear to be avatars on Answers.com
- Many of the names of people and even places mentioned do not appear in the WP with the exception of on pages related to Mbunda. This includes the supposed birthpalce of the kingdom, Kola, which as such would certainly merit mention in a number of places. By contrast, any reference on an article of Hereros, or Shangaans or Zulus will appear on countless pages.
- I am equally skeptical of other articles created single-handedly by editor such as this one this one and numerous others.
- The editor hijacks language articles and fills them with the history of the Mbunda people as can be seen here and here. On at least two talkpages I saw two editors warning him to stop this practice.
- If you google, you will soon find out that the so called association is nothing more than an organisation driving a political agenda, advocating for recognition of political rights for the Mbunda people and Wikipedia is now being used to create 'bulk' content to exaggerate the size and importance of the population. Examples:
- The article on Zambia - a lenghty well structured article had no mention of Mbunda until the editor introduced mention thereof in October 2013. This is most odd, for an article that was already well-rounded in 2006 How could the existence of the Mbunda escape hundreds of editors over a decade and only since this editor came along are these references being inserted - and only by this editor?
- Mavinga, also had no mention of Mbunda before the editor's edits. Editor also added 6 entries to Mbunda-related articles under "See also". The same is true of a duplicate article on Mavinga.
- An extremely visible article such as History of Angola, had no mention of Mbunda before the arrival of the editor in 2013, making numerous edits on Mbunda
- The same article in Portuguese does not mention Mbunda (or Bunda(s) once.
- Google will also show you that the editor, in his capacity as National Chair of the association, is in fact the de facto spokesperson for the Cheke Cha Mbunda, described on their information site, The Missing Link, as the "information wing" of the Mbunda people.
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) I quote your unfortunate statement which exposes your motive: "If you google, you will soon find out that the so called association is nothing more than an organisation driving a political agenda, advocating for recognition of political rights for the Mbunda people and Wikipedia is now being used to create 'bulk' content to exaggerate the size and importance of the population". This is total harassment. If you do not know an ethnic group called Mbunda and the Mbunda Kingdom, please ask the Angolan authorities. History is about continuous research. If a group was never covered in a research you know and it is brought out in a later research, why should you question it if reliable sources are cited? You mention that "questions have been raised about the editor's methods and his claims about the validity of oral tradition as history". Yes these questions were raised because of mixing Mbunda language and Mbunda people and the issues were strange to them as they seem strange to you. These issues were argued and agreed upon which resulted in working together with those scholar editors and came up with polished articles. For your interest's sake get hold of the Mbunda History book, you will notice that it contains oral research without much source references. However, my articles give many reliable source references to validate the oral history as urged with other editors. The pictures or drawings you are referring to of the Kings are our photographs and drawings which other websites have copied from us through Wiki Commons. We have proof of original drawings we scanned from if you are interested to see them. You should be mindful that a lot of ethnic groups in Angola are not researched and the door to research them is not closed. You should also be mindful that the history of Angola is far from being complete. The Portuguese wrote very little about Angola and mainly along the coastline. Copied to: ukexpat (talk) Ndandulalibingi (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I have a motive, as you say. And that motive is to fight against what I see as the Wikipedia being being used. I believe my heart is in the right place. You on the other hand, are rewriting history, which is why you yourself found out that most of the sources you are trying to use are taken down because they are blacklisted as fringe. I still need to take the time to see what is going on, for I have seen some things about replacing mentions of Nganguela with Mbunda. I am not making any accusations, as I first need to see exactly what the nature of these changes is. But perhaps you could could comment on that. As for knowing or not knowing about the Mbundas, I have no need to ask the Angolan authorities, I KNOW about Mbunda people. But they are a tiny minority of a few hundred thousand people, which does not justify you flooding various articles with extremely lenghty sections about the Mbundas, while bigger groups are described in a few lines, in accordance with their weight and the size of the article. You seem to lack a sense of measure. In one article about a town, what you included on the Mbundas makes up 85% of the text, and worst of all, IT IS A REPETITION of what you have already pasted in three or four other pages. Seeing that you mention the Angolan authorities, I work with them regularly - to them, what you refer to as king of the Mbundas, is treated by the Angolan authorities as a soba (traditional chief), as you can see here and elsewhere in Angolan documentation. Most of what you add to articles are fabrications and exaggerations. As an Angolan, you cannot tell me about Angola, you don't even speak Portuguese. Most of your lenghty diatribes about the Mbundas in Angola cannot be found in anything written in Angola and when you do find, this is in fact a translation of material put out by your association, the result of the interviews conducted by your association, based on memory of elders, as you yourself say elsewhere. You have no sources - the article on the Mbunda kingdom appears to have 18 sources, while in fact it cites the SAME book by Papstein 8 times and cites publications by your association a number of times. And speaking of sources, in at least two places you deleted a source in an article and replaced it with your source, more favourable to your point of view. In brief, you, as an office-bearer of the Cheke cha Mbunda, should be limiting yourself to small non-controversial edits, not driving a campaign to promote the Mbunda cause, which anyway has no place in the WP. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) I repeat, this is harassment see. I am not going to sink so low to the level of your biased thinking and your masters (the Portuguese colonialists). Yes you are an Angolan by deceit, speaking Portuguese does not make you an Angolan. I speak more Angolan languages than you; Mbunda, Chokwe, Luchazi, Luvale, Umbundu, Yauma, Nkangala, etc. That sounds more Angolan than one who speaks foreign languages only. I have my roots in Angola and come there often to visit my relatives, I am only a Zambian by birth and the Zambian law restrict me from having two citizenships like you do. You have taken time to fabricate issues in your report to Wikipedia to the extent of even falsifying the pictures and drawings, shame on you. You should be mindful that the picture in the publication you have shown does not even show King (Rei) Mbandu. Check on AGOP reports here, you will find the proper interpretation. Why did The President of Angola, His Excellency José Eduardo dos Santos authorize Government financial resources to fund Rei Mbandu's coronation on 16th August 2008 here, and continue to fund his ceremony every year with Government officials representation, if he is a soba like you claim. You don't seem to be qualified to comment on these issues. If you are qualified enough, please check the numerous sources we have used in the articles and prove that they are false. I am not going to comment on Ngangela and Mbunda. You know nothing about these issues. You go to the Ngangela language, Mbunda language and Mbunda people articles, you will find numerous sources and debates we had with sociolinguistic scholars, learn or prove the sources wrong. I will not stop here, His Majesty King Mbandu III Lifuti and the Angolan authorities will be informed about your insults on the King and the Mbunda people in general. You are the type that are confusing the history of Angola, mind you history of Angola did not start in 1975. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Colleagues, there are two issues, only one of which is of relevance to this forum. One is the question of COI, the other the general issues with the article, especially sources, verification etc. Right now, this discussion is going in the wrong direction and I am partly to blame for it. In fact, I don’t even know if this is the place for a discussion or merely a place to bring to the attention of others pssible COI issues. The discussion has now taken a “who is the fraud here” direction, which – like everything else on the Wikipedia – can be settled only on the strength of sources.
Like I said, there are two issues and I would seek guidance as to where I can take up the other issues to ensure maximum exposure. Understandably, the talk pages of the Mbunda articles will not get the attention they deserve, so I would the matter discussed at a bigger forum in the interest of a diversity of voices, transparency and academic rigour in a peer environment. Having said that, it behoves that I point out a few deatils on sources: The point about speaking Portuguese is not about being Angolan, as the editor understood, but about being able to consult what is out there (sources) on the Mbunda people, written in Portuguese. Unfortunately there is a negligible amount of written material in the local languages, and I share that sentiment with my fellow Angolan editors.
I fully agree with the editor on the need to use our own sources, but not at the expense of the truth or by resorting to sources that tell a one-sided version of history. Is it on record that I argued with colleagues about the preponderant use of foreign sources in the Portuguese article on Brazil.
The scholars who have helped him referred to by the editor are two editors (whom I know) who have the same issues with the editor as I do in as far as sources are concerned. There are numerous talkpage discussions where these two editors tried their best to get the editor to conform to the WP policies, one going as far as asking to be allowed for time for him to try and salvage the Mbunda article when it was tagged for speedy deletion. Both express in discussions concern with the direction the articles are taking, especially sources and the disproportionate amount of text afforded the Mbundas, while other more numerous people get a two-liner and how the editor always portrays the Mbunda as above all others, even superior, in a number of places claiming that all other tribes were defeated, with the exception of the Mbunda because of their suprior fighting skills. The editor cites the superiority of the Mbunda in at least four place that I have come across so far. As I said, this is not new, it has been pointed out by one of the two "scholar editors" that helped improve the Mbunda articles.
The editor has the following to say about sources:
- “I do not rely on second class information or foreign anthropologists, who may distort our history to serve their own endeavours”.
- “we believe that, History is stories or narrations given by forefathers down the line”
- “The history and life of the Mbunda Speaking People is well researched and published in 1994, by Cheke Cultural Writers Association, now called Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association”
- “This is an indeginious Mbunda writers Association who have interviewed, the Mbunda forefathers”"
- “there are so many sources who agree with this research on google books, some of whom have been blacklisted on your web pages [Wikipedia]”
- “when I tried to post some references from google books, they were rejected that, "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist"”
- When another editor pointed out that reliable sources indicated that a group called Mbunda in the DRC was unrelated to the Mbunda people in Angola-Zambia, the editor’s reply was “these are misconcerptions of foreigners trying to document history or particulars of an ethenic group without consulting them”
As I pointed out before, the sources used on the Mbunda people are the book commissioned by the editor’s association (a collection of material collected in interviews with Mbunda forefathers) and edited by Robert J Papstein and some works by Muḥammad Zuhdī Yakan. If you do an internal search on Wikipedia, these two names appear only in relation to the edits by editor on the Mbunda people. Have these works ever been peer-reviewed? All that I have pointed out here has already been pointed out before by the two editors that tried their best to help turn the Mbunda articles into quality Wikipedia articles.
Other than the COI issue, any assistance will be appreciated in guiding me in taking the matter to the appropriate forum. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) I totally agree, this is now the right way to go about it. However some corrections:
- The issue was not about a group called Mbunda in the DRC being unrelated to the Mbunda people in Angola-Zambia. The argument was that the Mbunda language in DRC is classified as different from the one spoken in Angola Zambia and Namibia. This was at the time I was mixing Mbunda people's input into Mbunda language article. I was therefore encouraged to write the Mbunda people article, which I did. Most of this was at the time I was new and still learning to edit on Wikipedia.
- The sources used on the Mbunda people are not only Mbunda history book edited by Dr. Robert J Papstein and some works by Muḥammad Zuhdī Yakan. Other sources used which can be verified in the same context are:
- * Historical Dictionary of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, By Emizet Francois Kisangani, Scott F. Bobb, page 336, 2009 - History, Published by Scarecrow Press, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8108-5761-2
- * Bantu-Languages.com, citing Maniacky 1997
- * Terms of trade and terms of trust: the history and contexts of pre-colonial pages 133...By Achim von Oppen, LIT Verlag Münster Publishers, 1993, ISBN 3-89473-246-6, ISBN 978-3-89473-246-2
- * René Pélissier, La révolte des Bunda (1916–1917), pp. 408 - 412 (French for "the Mbunda revolt"), section footnotes citing sources: Luís Figueira, Princesa Negra: O preço da civilização em África, Coimbra Edição do autor, 1932
- * The Bantu in Ancient Egypt, citing sources: Alfred M M'Imanyara 'The Restatement of Bantu Origin and Meru History' published by Longman Kenya, 1992 - Social Science - 170 pages, ISBN 9966-49-832-X
- * The elites of Barotseland, 1878-1969: a political history of Zambia's Western Province: a. Gerald L. Caplan ISBN 0-900966-38-6 Publisher: C. Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd, 1970
- * Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and Middle East, Facts On File library of world history, Facts On File, Incorporated, Social Science, Infobase Publishing, 2009, ISBN 1-4381-2676-X, ISBN 978-1-4381-2676-0
- * Mupatu, Y. Mulambwa Santulu Uamuhela Bo Mwene, London, 1954
- * White, C.M.N. Notes on the Political Organization of the Kabompo District and its Inhabitants, African Studies, IX, (1950), pp. 185-93
- * Franz-Wilhelm Heimer, Der Entkolonisierungskonflikt in Angola, Munich: Weltforum Verlag, 1979 ISBN 3-8039-0179-0
- * Billy Graham Center Archives: Collection 252, Robert Wesley Brain, T1 Transcript
- * Ministério da Administração do Território
- * A.W, July 1, 1917, A Comparative Vocabulary of Sikololo-Silui-Simbunda, African Affairs, Oxford University Press
- * Tusona: Luchazi Ideographs : a Graphic Tradition of West-Central Africa By Gerhard Kubik, pages 291, 292, 300
Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
- Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Danh108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
If an editor works as a volunteer for a religious group and (according to their user page) was first motivated to edit Wikipedia by "how this 'real life experience' as a volunteer didn’t match the portrait presented on Wiki", should it be considered a conflict of interest when they edit that article directly? The editor has been blanket reverting other editors' work on the article and removing COI/advert tags. McGeddon (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Update regarding Full Sail University and Los Angeles Film School
I have previously introduced myself here, but felt that I should update my conflict of interest. I am here on behalf of my employer Full Sail University, where I am the Social Media Manager, and their sister school The Los Angeles Film School. I'm aware of Wikipedia's WP:COI policy, and in cases where I am discussing content related to the Full Sail University or Los Angeles Film School articles, I will limit myself to proposing changes as opposed to making the changes myself. I've made this declaration on my user page as well.
I want others to know of this conflict of interest up front, and would like the community's feedback on if this is a sound approach to participate.
Thank you. --Tylergarner (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
User mstoneham SPA used for self-promotion on Game Genie
- Game_Genie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mstoneham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Single-purpose account exists only for self-promotion on the Game Genie article. Insists on maintaining references to himself in the article, even returning after a 7-year hiatus to restore his name to the article. Appears non-notable from a quick Google search. Some guy (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Academy of Art University
- Academy of Art University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- AdamNisbet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Academy of Art University has had a good deal of trouble with less-than-neutral editing in the past, by employees as well as critics. A new editor, AdamNisbet, has recently appeared, and is determinedly adding material to the article. Some of the edits are OK, others are rank promotion. On one edit, AdamNisbet left the summary "This is a minor edit to include Tom Bertino with 3 citations and linking to his wikipedia page which already links to us", which prompted me to ask if he/she was connected to the school in any way, and whether he/she is editing here for financial reward. Those questions elicited no reply, but the editor continues to make changes. I'm concerned that the Terms of Use are perhaps being ignored. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Fernando Fischmann
- Fernando Fischmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fernando Meza Albornoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This s.p.a. is constantly tinkering with the article, trying to make the subject look better and more important than he really is. Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Jewelry Television
- Jewelry Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fredrockjtv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
For years this article has been a major source of COI's, with IPs and editors with a close connection to the network editing the article to make it overly promotional and not meeting the basic guidelines of WP:TV; it got to the point where 207.106.153.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (which leads to the network's headquarters city) had to be permanently blocked for making tenuous edits to the article and those of the network's competitors.
The named user has resumed this same behavior, and I came upon the article last night to remove claims that the network is on every cable system in the United States (considering The Weather Channel and C-SPAN with near 100 million homes outrank this network's 80 million, this is impossible), updated the broadcast affiliate list to remove stations that no longer carry it, and removed claims which led to 404 pages. Above editor then restored everything, claiming viewers searching for the network would not find anything about the network based on my removals of promotional items and trying to redirect to the network's channel guide, which is inappropriate via WP:ELNO. The user then made claims on my talkpage that I was holding back viewers from finding their channel number and claimed I was hurting people by removing promotional content (hardly the case at all; I was just updating and neutralizing the article). The username makes it clear their COI and I'm asking for some kind of action to restore neutrality to the article. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 01:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)
- Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ruthjhendry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The Senior Wrangler is a title given to the highest-scoring undergraduate mathematics student at the University of Cambridge. The user listed above claims to have been given the title in 1992, but there is no proper evidence other than self-assertion. Her account is a single-purpose account with the intention of including her name on the article. Here are the two main edits where she has tried to push her name onto the article against consensus and commonsense [1], [2]. She has only provided two 'sources': the first a link to her Linkedin page [3][4] and the second a self-published and completely unverified letter [5][6] supposedly from a Cambridge fellow that is hosted on the website of her workplace. Quite simply, something this obscure and dubious does not deserve a place in the article, as she has been told on the talk page here [7] and here [8] and on her user page here [9], all of which she has ignored. The lady is not here to 'build an encyclopedia' but only to push her name onto this article, something that falls well below Wikipedia's standards. Since she has repeatedly ignored the guidelines that have been brought up and continued to force her name onto the article, complete with aggressive language and numerous capital letters(!), I can only suggest some kind of block or final warning here. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This is my response: I am not a regular Wikipedia user, and I only wish that the fact that I am Senior Wrangler 1992 be recognised on the page. I believe the editor who has stripped a long list of names post 1909 has been too prescriptive in doing so. I am aware from discussion with another editor (who has taken the time to email me personally to discuss the matter in a helpful and pleasant manner) that there are many who prefer the approach of marking names as 'citation needed' rather than deleting them. In deleting the list, this editor has lost potentially valuable information, which could be the source of research to obtain the citations. It would perhaps be an alternative to create a separate section on the article entitled 'suggested Senior Wranglers' explaining that these names have been put forward and are subject to further verification. Does the editor who deleted the long list still have them, or has this accumulated data been lost permanently?
I am not clear as to why this editor is so intent to have me removed from the list, and what particular interest they have in this matter. I am the 1992 Senior Wrangler, and I have provided a copy of the letter which was sent to me by my Director of Studies (Dr Richard Weber, now Professor Richard Weber, Churchill Professor of Mathematics for Operational Research) confirming this. It is identical in format to the two letters from the previous two years, where I was placed 6th (part IA) and 2nd (part IB). I uploaded it to my husband's website so that it is in the public domain. It is inherent in the non-public nature of Senior Wranglers since 1910 that evidence is hard to obtain, and the fact I have the original letter is something that others have not offered. (If the links are followed to the citations given for many of the other Senior Wranglers, the link is to a profile page on a university website or similar, which it is very likely the person has written for themselves, as I know we wrote our own profiles when I was a doctoral student at Warwick University.) It is very upsetting that this editor is taking this aggressive approach and their accusations above are very hurtful. I will admit I stated firmly on my edit - including using capital letters - that their approach to editing is unacceptable, because I was very keen that they stop making these changes. I think that it is the editor above who should be asked not to approach the editing of this page in this way. In the meanwhile I would invite the editor, as they are clearly very keen to have an accurate list of Senior Wranglers, to email Professor Weber (see http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~rrw1/ for his profile and contact details) to ask him to verify that the letter is genuine. I do wonder, as this editor seems so interested in the subject, whether they would like to look at the list of suggested names (if they have kept it) and contact the colleges listed, which I am sure will be able to verify their own alumni's achievements. A single contact with Trinity College would probably produce a long list.
To the people at Wikipedia considering the above: I am sorry if what I have written above is not written in the proper format, or expressed in the proper way. I have not edited anything on Wikipedia before, and I cannot compete with the editor above who seems intent on removing my one achievement in life from Wikipedia, even though I have provided adequate proof that I have this achievement. I am feeling harassed by this person and very upset by it all and would appreciate your help in stopping them doing this any further, and allowing my edits to remain. Thank you.
Ruth Juliet Hendry.
- 'I only wish that the fact that I am Senior Wrangler 1992 be recognised on the page.'
- I am sorry, but that is simply not how Wikipedia works. You have a conflict of interest, which is defined here as 'an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor'. Your role as an editor is to edit the encyclopedia neutrally, not to include your name in an article.
- 'There are many who prefer the approach of marking names as 'citation needed' rather than deleting them. In deleting the list, this editor has lost potentially valuable information, which could be the source of research to obtain the citations.'
- Whilst this might be appropriate on a personal website of someone who is interested in senior wranglers, it does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. A hugely important principle of Wikipedia is verifiability: an unsourced and unverified list of names cannot be included in the article. Further, we have to be even more careful when considering naming living people.
- 'Does the editor who deleted the long list still have them, or has this accumulated data been lost permanently?'
- Previous versions of the page can be found in the article history (look at the tab at the top of the page).
- 'I am the 1992 Senior Wrangler, and I have provided a copy of the letter which was sent to me by my Director of Studies (Dr Richard Weber, now Professor Richard Weber, Churchill Professor of Mathematics for Operational Research) confirming this.'
- We simply cannot take your word for this, sorry. In order be part of Wikipedia, the information must come from reliable sources. If reliable sources cannot be found, it indicates the information is not appropriate or notable enough for Wikipedia.
- 'If the links are followed to the citations given for many of the other Senior Wranglers, the link is to a profile page on a university website or similar, which it is very likely the person has written for themselves.'
- If this is a concern for you, make a note on the talk page discussing whether these names should also be deleted.
- 'In the meanwhile I would invite the editor, as they are clearly very keen to have an accurate list of Senior Wranglers, to email Professor Weber to ask him to verify that the letter is genuine.'
- This is absolutely unacceptable, sorry. All editors must follow the rule of no original research. If the information is to be included in the article, it should be documented in a reliable source: 'to demonstrate that you are not adding OR [original research], you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.' The unverified and unsupported letter does not constitute a reliable source.
- 'I cannot compete with the editor above who seems intent on removing my one achievement in life from Wikipedia, even though I have provided adequate proof that I have this achievement.'
- I am sorry to read this. Becoming senior wrangler is a proud achievement for many. It is not your role to provide proof for the article, however. It is the role of reliable sources. If no sources exist, then there is no place in the article.
- 'I am feeling harassed by this person and very upset by it all and would appreciate your help in stopping them doing this any further, and allowing my edits to remain.'
- I am also sorry to read this. My intentions are not to harrass you but to prevent Wikipedia from falling below important standards. I have removed numerous names, not only yours: it just happens that you are the only editor who has made an account to restore your name to the article. Because of the seriousness of a harassment claim, I have made a note of this at the administrators' noticeboard.
- I strongly suggest you avoid further attempts to push your name into the article. I have explained quite clearly why it is completely inappropriate. I would welcome you, though, to begin editing Wikipedia generally, without a conflict of interest, in topics that interest you. This means having a neutral point of view and following verifiability. If you would like to learn more about this, feel free to visit the teahouse. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Being "Senior Wrangler" is not notable enough on its own. Unless Ms. Hendry is currently notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, she has no need to be mentioned anywhere on the project. Besides, Ms Hendry agreed not to write about herself when she signed up. None of this is harassment, and making such claims is definitely inappropriate the panda ₯’ 15:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- If being a Senior Wrangler isn't notable, why do we have an article on the subject which lists every one that we have a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms) for? As for what Ms Hendry 'signed up' for, I very much doubt that anyone reads through the entire bureaucratic labyrinth of Wikipedia policies and guidelines before signing up - and I suspect that were people to do so, we'd have substantially less contributors. The facts of the matter here are that Ms Hendry has seen a list which she considers she has a legitimate claim to be included on, and she has offered what she considers to be a reasonable means to verify this. Failing to understand the intricacies of Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing does not constitute a 'conflict of interest' by any stretch of the imagination, and accordingly this should never have been brought up here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- A conflict of interest is defined at WP:COI as an 'incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor'. Miss Hendry has added inappropriate references against consensus and without discussion, thereby disrupting the aim of Wikipedia, in order to satisfy her individual aims (as she has described above, 'I ... wish that the fact that I am Senior Wrangler 1992 be recognised on the page'). Advice has been provided on multiple pages, but her attempts to force through her edits have not stopped. This edit [10] suggests she is unwilling to consider this and is instead focused on her underlying aim, which is not an aim that benefits the encyclopedia. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Panda, the frequently grumpy Andy has spoken wisely above. And in fact the Terms of Service item that you may be referring to is only about paid promotional editing. Nothing like that appears to be going on here. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 Ruth - you can find all earlier versions of the article in the article history, here (or just click the "history" tab at the top of the article). I personally find the letter from Richard Weber to be fairly persuasive and would be inclined to accept it if someone confirmed it with him by email or if he posted it on his own site (we could then possibly use it per WP:SPS). 86.158.181.1, please try to be less confrontational and more understanding. That said, Ruth: according to the article, the institution of publicly fêting the Senior Wrangler was done away with in 1910, so it comes across as unseemly for someone to promote themselves in this manner. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SPS is certainly not possible at all here: it states to 'never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer'. I apologise if I have come across as confrontational: it was not intended in any way. I gave a lot of detail above and directed Miss Hendry to relevant pages that give further information. I explained that being Senior Wwrangler is a big achievement, but also on what is necessary when contributing to a Wikipedia article. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Now you're wikilawyering. This is not a contentious BLP issue and there is no need to treat it as one. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- WP:SPS is certainly not possible at all here: it states to 'never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer'. I apologise if I have come across as confrontational: it was not intended in any way. I gave a lot of detail above and directed Miss Hendry to relevant pages that give further information. I explained that being Senior Wwrangler is a big achievement, but also on what is necessary when contributing to a Wikipedia article. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Please refer back to AndyTheGrump's excellent analysis of this situation:
- Ms Hendry has seen a list which she considers she has a legitimate claim to be included on, and she has offered what she considers to be a reasonable means to verify this.
- If being a Senior Wrangler isn't notable, why do we have an article on the subject which lists every one that we have a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms) for?
- Failing to understand the intricacies of Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing does not constitute a 'conflict of interest' by any stretch of the imagination, and accordingly this should never have been brought up here.
The IP's comment here is unfortunate, unfair and sadly sounds too much like the kind of comment leveled at women in 1909.
- so it comes across as unseemly for someone to promote themselves in this manner
If there is, what is considered by agreement to be a reliable source, and that is the real issue concerning this content, then content should be readded . That is the only appropriate discussion, in my opinion. Further, that discussion belongs on the article talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC))
- Just to clarify, the IP that made the comment about promoting oneself is a different IP to me. On a somewhat related note, I wholeheartedly insist this discussion is solely about an academic title: editors should be very careful not to let issues of sex, which are entirely unrelated to the matter at hand, to disrupt the discussion. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- About reliable sources, yes, the problem is that no reliable source exists and Miss Hendry has repeatedly attempted to place her name in the article despite this. Discussion has been attempted at Talk:Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) and User talk:Ruthjhendry, amongst other places, but Miss Hendry has not participated in any of these. This note at WP:COIN was made simply because the edits have continued. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)