Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Deepak Chopra: Chopra's researcher and copyeditor = Vivekachudamani
Line 472: Line 472:
:"I've contacted the Chopra Center and told them the situation with the page and advised Dr. Chopra to have the page taken down immediately. He called me back today and said he didn't even know removal was possible, then said, "Okay, have them take it down right away." I've sent an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org and I'm just waiting to hear back from them. Is there any other channel that is faster? [[User:Vivekachudamani|Vivekachudamani]] ([[User talk:Vivekachudamani|talk]]) 00:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
:"I've contacted the Chopra Center and told them the situation with the page and advised Dr. Chopra to have the page taken down immediately. He called me back today and said he didn't even know removal was possible, then said, "Okay, have them take it down right away." I've sent an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org and I'm just waiting to hear back from them. Is there any other channel that is faster? [[User:Vivekachudamani|Vivekachudamani]] ([[User talk:Vivekachudamani|talk]]) 00:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
As the ticket activity moved forward Chopra, his office, Matthew, and I were copied in on emails, And this contact is my hidden "connection" everyone is so intrigued about. My motivation on editing the page comes from my knowledge of the material. I kept Matthew informed of my WP activity and that was the email I sent Matthew that was for some bizarre reason put underneath Chopra's letter to Matthew. Honest to God, I only saw that when someone at WP informed me this morning. I was dumbfounded that my letter was there and that Matthew was named. I emailed the office to immediately remove it. I explained to them that regardless of their frustration over these months, that this did not help their case, and probably just burned me as an editor. So there it is. The "COI" is an email of the material from the discussion page sent to Matthew and copied into Chopra and his office. Here is the shiny diversion from the COI issue at hand, coming from a direction I could not have predicted. [[User:Vivekachudamani|Vivekachudamani]] ([[User talk:Vivekachudamani|talk]]) 00:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
As the ticket activity moved forward Chopra, his office, Matthew, and I were copied in on emails, And this contact is my hidden "connection" everyone is so intrigued about. My motivation on editing the page comes from my knowledge of the material. I kept Matthew informed of my WP activity and that was the email I sent Matthew that was for some bizarre reason put underneath Chopra's letter to Matthew. Honest to God, I only saw that when someone at WP informed me this morning. I was dumbfounded that my letter was there and that Matthew was named. I emailed the office to immediately remove it. I explained to them that regardless of their frustration over these months, that this did not help their case, and probably just burned me as an editor. So there it is. The "COI" is an email of the material from the discussion page sent to Matthew and copied into Chopra and his office. Here is the shiny diversion from the COI issue at hand, coming from a direction I could not have predicted. [[User:Vivekachudamani|Vivekachudamani]] ([[User talk:Vivekachudamani|talk]]) 00:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
::Vivekachudamani's letter allowed me to hunt around the interwebs to see if there was a stronger connection between him and Chopra. I found that there was: I saw a web page that described Vivekachudamani as having worked with Chopra for 15 years as a researcher and copy editor responsible for polishing Chopra's writings on the subjects of mind-body medicine and consciousness/spirituality development. That's a lot closer to Chopra than he lets on. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 00:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


:There is no 'COI issue at hand', other than possibly yours. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that anyone has done anything beyond ensure that an article on a purveyor of pseudoscientific fringe claims is accurately described as such in Wikipedia. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
:There is no 'COI issue at hand', other than possibly yours. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that anyone has done anything beyond ensure that an article on a purveyor of pseudoscientific fringe claims is accurately described as such in Wikipedia. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:57, 8 November 2013

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
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:David Adjaye
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Bastion Collective
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:Boku, Inc.
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Bruce D. Broussard
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Martin Casado
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Cyberattack
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Derby della Lanterna
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:EMarketer
    Talk:End-user license agreement
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Foster and Partners
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:Gibson Dunn
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:Roy Hamilton III
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Michael Meldman
    Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Norwest Venture Partners
    Talk:Obama Foundation
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Open Source Initiative
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pacific Equity Partners
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Quarter Pounder
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Marc Rowan
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Software
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation
    Talk:Stikeman Elliott
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:The Inter Faith Network
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:Union Pacific Railroad
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Bulat Utemuratov
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Wasserman (company)
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Andy Wright (music producer)
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Gediminas Žiemelis
    Talk:Alice Zorn

    Editor Johnmoor

    Possibly related editor
    Articles (lists are likely incomplete)
    Deleted articles
    Process

    Johnmoor (talk · contribs) is a paid editor likely a paid editor. He appears unable to understand and follow WP:COI.

    I'm not sure how much evidence we need to make it clear that he's a paid editor versus calling on WP:DUCK and being done with the situation.

    Currently the deleted edits counter is not working, but it's pretty apparent that much of his editing is deleted because it's fit's speedy deletion criteria or is similarly poor.

    The first encounter where I noticed his poor editing was when I came across Grammarly. It was little more than advertising though salvageable [3]. I've worked on the article since then (May), and have found Johnmoor to be an extremely inexperienced editor when it comes to working with others and understanding relevant policies and guidelines. His WP:OWN problems alone should be sufficient for a block. However, since I recently learned that he's a paid editor he may be a paid editor, I think it best to hold off on documenting the WP:OWN problems. Nevertheless, the problems found in Grammarly, the use of poor sources to create highly promotional content, appears typical of most if not all of Johnmoor's editing problems, and directly violate WP:NOT and WP:NPOV.

    Recently I saw this discussion on the possibility he might be a paid editor. I noted that I'd not seen any evidence he was a paid editor, but his behavior is that of a paid editor. I followed up with the editor that started the discussion here, when I realized that there was indeed evidence he was a paid editor. As noted in that discussion, Johnmoor's ability to obtain images and permission to download images indicates he's been in very close contact with the people and organizations he has written articles for. I also noticed relationships between some of the individuals for which he's written.

    Is there an easy way to get a list of articles he's created? His current edit count (with deleted edits currently not working) is 774, so there's not much to go through. That is, if we actually want further evidence... --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnmoor is not hiding his identity, as his user page links to Facebook pages with his name, which link back to his Wikipedia userpage. I don't see any links to the ODesk account under the exact same name. Someone with an ODesk account might have access to information linking this together better. Is this enough to say he has a clear COI here? --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Facebook page doesn't appear to use his real name, or at least not the same name as on ODesk. So I'm not able to post a link to the ODesk account here because of the risk of outing. - Bilby (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, when I first went to the Facebook page it just said "Johnmoor", but looking again I realise that he provides his full name in the profile. As he has linked to that from his userpage, and the profile is public, I don't regard it as outing to link to the ODesk account, which is under the same name as the Facebook account. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm the one that started the discussion on his talk page. I think at this point it is clear that A) he's a paid editor (both from on and off Wikipedia evidence) and B) he's more disruptive than helpful. I'm also worried about the fact he apparently lied about being a paid editor on his talk page. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnmoor posted "No, I am not being paid to edit here."[4] @Johnmoor:, do you have a connection external to Wikipedia to any of the topics of the article pages you have edited? If so, please explain. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The addition of membership sections to articles on Cloud Security Alliance and Software and Information Industry Association in order to list the single company PerspecSys as a member is not reasonable editing, and as clear an example of COI as I have ever seen. The manner of defense of the article on Randy Gage at Del Rev. The recreation of the previously deleted article Pod Property, containing an section with the contents: "they arranged a co-ownership agreement for two friends who pooled their deposits to buy an apartment in Surry Hills, New South Wales in 2008. The company also assisted a brother and sister in 2008 to buy an apartment in Sydney's North Bondi and helped them to look for a second one too. In 2013, PodProperty drew up a co-ownership agreement for the sales of a five-bedroom house in Cottage Point, New South Wales waterfront on Sydney's Pittwater." The range of topics would seem more compatible with paid editing than COI, but for editing such as this, the distinction hardly matters. I think it justifies at the least a long block, but I have too much involvement to do it personally. FWIW, looking at the editor's many deleted articles, I notice some editing on articles also edited by Morning277 DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnmoor works through ODesk, and doesn't appear to be directly connected to Morning277. Morning277 may have subcontracted through ODesk, as there was evidence of another ODesk-based paid editor being subcontracted by Morning277 in the past, but I'd regard it as equally likely that a client tried ODesk after being unsuccessful with Morning277. The article Grammarly was originally created by Elance-based MooshiePorkFace, and my guess was that Johnmoor was hired by the same client, although it is also possible that Johnmoor was subcontracted. - Bilby (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that it is very common to see crossovers between freelance paid editors on articles - the client doesn't have an ongoing relationship with the contractors, as they would if they were working through a firm, so they will often hire a different person to make updates or recreate the article, and sometimes two or three people are hired for the one job. It makes it difficult to tell if it is a case of collusion between two people, or if two people were hired independently by the one client. - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the activity revolves around removal of concern tags in articles is interesting - we've received quite a few queries via OTRS in the past week from people asking if someone at Wikipedia is responsible for contacting them and offering to remove ugly tags from their articles, for a price. Seems the Morning277 monkeys are getting desperate since we've blocked them from creating new articles. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Morning277&co are also responsible for the placement of many of the concern tags in the first place. They uglify articles and then approach the subjects of the articles offering to de-uglify them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have anything to support that? If not, I think that is too strong a claim to make. - Bilby (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea was originally suggested to me by one of their former clients. I was able to 100% confirm it via a chain of evidence that I can't post on-wiki without violating WP:OUTING and half a dozen other rules. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough - just being cautious. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Defence

    We all have various reasons or aims and skills which determine how we contribute as Wikipedians. Mine is to write articles, particularly, to rescue articles that were poorly contributed or deleted. Once in awhile, I improve on existing articles, especially, those tagged—inappropriately or appropriately—for improvement.

    As for this COI investigation, I will highlight the following:

    1. The title itself does not suggest an investigation into my activities, it has rather condemned me already.
    2. The initiator of this investigation, Ronz has a sole aim to stop me from further disputing the contents of Grammarly with him; see Talk:Grammarly.
    3. It is noteworthy that the dispute on Grammarly began with the tagging of the article by Ronz, and I am not the first contributor to dispute his tag.
    4. It is also noteworthy that this is not the first time that DGG would be suspecting me for sock-puppetry, no courtesy notice was given to me when he initiated an investigation on 04 November 2012 (see here), and I was aware of his suspicion when I asked him recently to remove protection from Randy Gage; see here and here
    5. My user page is linked to my Facebook page, which then links to my Facebook profile; I do not own the oDesk account being linked to me, and I believe that Bilby is not unaware that there are persons in the world and on the internet who bear exactly the same name—either fake or genuine.

    I will like to repeat part of what I said to Hobit on my talk page, "I think you should judge the contents of my works and not the motive; after all, assuming good faith is a good virtue here. I save articles of notable subjects which have been in trouble due to poor work or un-encyclopaedic tone of previous contributors. I understand that many people would want to spam Wikipedia and many Wikipedia advanced users are often sceptical about the motive of articles concerning commercially inclined subjects, but I also believe that subjects which deserve a Wikipedia article should have one; after all, knowledge is golden, everyone should have it, and Wikipedia is a good knowledge resource." (see here). And I will conclude by borrowing the words of Jehochman as he response to Hobit's investigation of him for COI, "This is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Let's keep it loose and not subject people to inquests. Just look at the edits. The editors are all mysteries." (see here). Thank you.
    —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So you say you are not the ODesk editor. Fine. I've changed the title of this report from "Paid editor..." to "Editor...".
    Could you please address the other evidence? --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you also answer the question given previously, "do you have a connection external to Wikipedia to any of the topics of the article pages you have edited?" --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    oDesk

    His "moorcoop" facebook page used to link to and quote the oDesk account in question. The entry is dated November 28, 2011 and titled, "Make Money Legally Online!" The information is still available in Google's cache. I think we're done here. Anyone think he shouldn't be blocked? --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleanup

    I'm assuming by the deleted facebook entries and his lack of any further editing, that Johnmoor has retired from Wikipedia. If he returns, he should be blocked. Meanwhile, all articles he's edited should be reviewed for WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:SOAP, WP:PSTS, etc problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Flickr

    Beginning on May 20th, 2013, there was a major redesign of the website Flickr. I began a section under Flickr's "Controversies" section pertaining to this major redesign of a website that purportedly has 10's of millions of users. The discussion about the redesign began here: [5]. After months of criticism to remove the content from actual users of Flickr, as well as major removal edits, an RfC [6] resulted in the removal of the entire section. One of the contentious discussions/issues related to an article by a 'journalist' named David Pogue [7]. Recent news has confirmed Pogue is now an employee of Yahoo (owner of Flickr) [8] and considering an article by [[Vice magazine] about COI on WP due to paid edits [9] I would like to open up a COI case on this contentious issue. Keep in mind, other Controversies such as "Censorship", a "Virgin Mobile Ad" and "DMCA copyright implementation" have had much less Wikipedia contention and discussion and remain in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay, this is turning into WP:HARASSMENT, WP:DISRUPT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and WP:BADFAITH. User:CaffeinAddict has a history of harassing people on Talk:Flickr who disagree with him, accusing them of conflicts of interest and being shills for Yahoo/Flickr. This has gone on long enough, and I'd like some sort of administrative action taken against him. These accusations show absolutely no good faith on his part at all. I have attempted to work with this user, but he has rejected all attempts at consensus, and, instead resorts to temper tantrums and bad faith accusations. As is evident on the talk page, I have raised issues of WP:UNDUE with the other controversies, but no one responded, which, in my opinion, established that there was no consensus and no interest in pruning them down, as we did with the Flickr redesign. I'm sick and tired of User:CaffeinAddict's behavior, and all attempts to work with him have failed. I have sought his input in determining a consensus-based resolution in this debate, but he instead insulted the closing admin, rejected attempts at reaching consensus, and announced that he was leaving Wikipedia forever. This kind of user is not here to make an encyclopedia, has no interest in reaching consensus, and is clearly a single purpose account dedicated to airing his grievances as a disgruntled Flickr user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have contacted the admin who closed the RfC that ignited these COI accusations, and I have requested that he comment here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all I can say so far is that what is presented here is a list of involved users and a description of a content dispute that one user doesn't seem to want to let go of. What I don't see is any evidence of or even a logical argument suggesting that any of the other users involved has a conflict. This looks as likely to be a WP:BOOMERANG as an indictment of the other participants. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC in question was an open straw poll which attracted nine users, six of whom felt that policy supported the removal of the material, with four of those users taking no other part in the discussion or the editing of the article. User:Jakerome did not participate in this RFC, having already abandoned the discussion (and perhaps Wikipedia) a month previously, after feeling "harassed" by User:Caffeinaddict over a possible COI. I myself have no professional or social connection to Yahoo, and have received no compensation for any of my edits to Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I should have stated that as well, but I think it should be pretty obvious that I too have no professional, social, or financial connection to Yahoo/Flickr, was unaware of any redesign at Flickr prior to the RfC, and was summoned to Talk:Flickr by RfCbot. I stuck around to make a few uncontroversial edits to the article when I decided it could use some copy editing, but that's it. I agree that Use:Jakerome was hounded off Wikipedia by Use:CaffeinAddict, and I doubt that he'll show up here to defend himself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have dredged up some diffs. RFCbot solicited me to comment on Talk:Flickr on June 20 (diff). My first edit to the page was also on June 20 (diff). My first edit to the mainspace article was on July 24 (diff). It is trivially easily to validate these statements, as seen in the article history and my own contribution log. My arguments in the RfC were rooted in a stated preference for minimalism, as seen on my user page and in other policy discussions. Is there anything else that really needs be said? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We should really stay on point. This forum is not about myself as an editor, it is about a possible COI in relation to the Flickr, Yahoo and the removal of a controversy on Flickr's wikipedia page. I would defend that I am not in any way harassing any user. User:Jakerome also used very strong language and accused users of various things during the debate. Again, this is not a case about Wiki-Bullying anyone (however you all have used WikiLawyering to some effect against me) - this is a case about a possible COI. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Any relevant behavioral issues may be discussed if you bring a case to one of Wikipedia's noticeboards. In this case, your behavior looks very disruptive. This discussion is likely to focus on what problems you are causing rather than on your accusations against others. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me - what disruptive editing? - I haven't edited the Flickr page since the RfC. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it really need to be pointed out in excruciating detail? Try reading WP:DIVA. You are strongly exhibiting several of the criteria: spurious, public threats to leave the project; rejection of consensus; bullying editors (Jakerome) over trivial disputes; keeping long-term grudges; and insisting that everyone else is being disruptive while presenting absolutely no evidence, which is disruptive in itself. I suggest you either start presenting some evidence in the form of diffs or you withdraw your accusations. Do you have anything to say about what I've already presented? Are you still pushing this ridiculous assertion that I have a CoI, after I've shown that RFC bot invited me to the discussion? The frustrating thing is that you knew that was the case, because McGeddon and I had discussed it during the RfC, when I suggested that we needed more input from uninvolved editors, and McGeddon pointed out that I myself had been summoned by RFC bot. Seriously? Would a shill actively solicit more uninvolved editors (diff)? I'm getting myself a bit worked up over this, because this case is so poorly thought-out and obviously based on WP:HARASSMENT. I think that I've conclusively demonstrated that my behavior has been the opposite of biased; that I was solicited to post on Talk:Flickr by a bot; and that User:CaffeinAddict knew these facts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say you've bullied me on the Talk page more than anyone. If you just want to WP:link to various things to try to wikilawyer me away from this forum, go ahead. The COI claim still stands. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? Wikilawyering? Have you presented one shred of evidence yet? Please read the instructions at the top of this page. Link to actual behavior indicative of a CoI in the form of diffs. You know why you haven't? Because you can't. There is none – only evidence to show my lack of a CoI. You've all but admitted in this previous post that you've done this because your feelings got hurt, more evidence of disruptive WP:DIVA behavior. Do you know why I keep linking to Wikipedia policies and providing diffs? It's because that's what you're supposed to do. All you've done so far is make baseless accusations with no evidence. Keep digging that hole, User:CaffeinAddict. This is going to come back and bite you in WP:ANI. If nobody is going to provide any evidence, I move that this discussion be closed and we move the proceedings to WP:ANI, where user behavior is more on-topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Just a quick comment here as I observed this conversation as well as look at the Flickr Talk Page, I would have to agree that maybe this should move forward to WP:ANI as there seems to be no resolution here at all. Jguard18 Critique Me 14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If some admins can verify/assure that there is no COI (my main suspicion being User:Jakerome ) then I'm perfectly satisfied and know we followed up properly. Moving to the ANI might just continue this small group of us bickering... but I would suggest an admin make that call. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    One elance bidder, at least two en.wiki accounts, many articles

    Hello all,
    I think I might have stumbled across quite a large WP:COI problem. The Muhammad Ali K. account on elance has won a large number of bids to write articles here; mostly BLPs and businesses. The exact identities of many elance bidders are unclear, so it's not always easy to make connections, but here's what I've found so far:

    The article described him in the lede as "an American engineer, consultant, author and speaker" and went on to repetitive elaboration, mostly of the speaking and consulting. (The only book of his I could find on Worldcat had exactly one library holding), I am extremely suspicious of articles that claim notability in multiple professions -- especially when two of them are as a speaker or consultant. A proper bio of someone who is actually notable in a specific field will list that field as the notability. Only promotional articles do otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly, there's an Elance ad here placed by somebody using a photo of Chip Eichelberger - one of Doug Lipp's colleagues.
    • Now it gets interesting. This elance advert is for an investment company in the UAE. Won by the same writer on elance; but on the same day a different account, Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk · contribs) created a promotional article on an investment company in the UAE, and another on its founder.
    • This elance bid to "put up an article" on Morris Waxler "that won't get deleted", won by the same account as all the others. One week later, Muhammad Ali Khalid created Morris Waxler, which has some fairly serious NPOV problems. There was also Dean Andrew Kantis; it was taken to AfD. I don't know who created the Kantis article but it seemed to suffer from serious WP:COATRACK on a medical topic, and its two main defenders at AfD were Muhammad Ali Khalid and Gibco65 (talk · contribs), an account that appeared for the sole purpose of !voting "keep".
    • This elance advert is for a musician in New York. The same day, Muhammad Ali Khalid put up a puff-piece on Eva León.
    • This elance advert for an article on an author and physician. The client lives in Rochester Hills, Michigan. On Elance, Muhammad Ali K. won the job on 13 September. Over on en.wikipedia the next day, Muhammad Ali Khalid wrote a spammy article about an author and physician living in Rochester Hills, Michigan.
    • This advert placed on 04 September by somebody in a small village outside Flitwick, in Bedfordshire, in the UK. Later that day, Muhammad Ali Khalid started a drastic overhaul of a BLP of somebody living in Flitwick, in Bedfordshire, in the UK. The article now looks wholly positive.
    • This elance advert placed by an attorney in Hawaii. The same day, Muhammad Ali Khalid created an article on an attorney in Hawaii; its main problems are high praise and low notability, and it's currently PRODded.
    • Looking through other articles created by Muhammad Ali Khalid, there are more problems. Innovative Investing Symposium was speedy-deleted by Malik Shabazz as G11. David Drake (venture capitalist) (and his business LDJ Capital), and Tim Bilecki all look like puff-pieces on low-notability subjects.

    So, I conclude that one person has been paid to write lots of problematic content, and they have used multiple accounts to cover their tracks. At no point did either of the main accounts declare any conflict of interest. Do we need to get SPI involved? I think it could be a good idea to flush out any other accounts. After I posted a COI warning on User talk:Muhammad Ali Khalid, something very strange happened; Muhammad Ali K's most recent bids changes status to "Job cancelled" and "pending cancellation". I think that this editor has realised he's been caught and is now covering his tracks. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I can confirm that Khalid was the primary editor of Dean Andrew Kantis (which I got involved with upon noting some severe BLP issues relating to someone with whom Kantis has differences), and will also note that the first AfD of Morris Waxler followed a pattern similar to the Kantis AfD, with the only concurrence with Khalid's keep being a new SPA, User:Rogerdavis101. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That's interesting. I wonder whether checkuser would be helpful (partly to flush out other accounts). bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note a SPI report has been filed here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for starting the SPI. Sorry for the long and hard-to-follow post; it took a lot of time to make a series of connections, and most of the posts on elance try to conceal the subject of the article they want written. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you have any reason to apologise. It looks to me as if you have done an outstanding piece of detective work, and highlighted why we urgently need an effective paid editor policy and code of practice for dealing with such behaviour. Mike Ghouse seems to me a perfect example of the appalling sort of article Wikipedia will end up hosting if we don't do something about this now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have the proper method--we just have to apply it. Examine articles more closely, list the dubious ones for deletion, and follow up all related articles. In any case, we can only prohibit what we can detect. Myself, I consider borderline notability plus borderline promotionalism a sufficient argument at AfD. Most of the articles have now been prodded; the only reason I'm not speedy deleting some of them is so more non-admins here can see the evidence first. But I well remember trying to delete two articles on borderline notable bands written for ridiculously trivial sums of money, only to find at AfD that those knowing the subject considered the bands clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for the update. If the deleted Ted Garrison was American, then (considering the dates) that article probably corresponds to this client of Muhammad Ali K which I hadn't been able to identify before. I haven't been able to identify all the articles associated with Muhammad Ali K. but we've got almost all the recent ones. bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point almost all the articles have been nominated for deletion as either Prod or AfD, either by myself or by other editors. There's one I'm still checking on, because it's in a field where if there is any notability , I might be wiling to rewrite, and there's one iI would appreciate an opinion on by someone who knows the standards for the subject field, Jerry Carroll (comedian). Some of the other people might conceivably be appropriate for articles also, but that will need to be done by someone who knows and respects our standards--and if so, the first step would be getting rid of the current material. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again.
    The SPI revealed another account, Jacob Pabst (talk · contribs). This account created seven new articles but also edited some existing articles (one of which, Emily VanCamp, overlaps with Just A Common Guy). bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What is your point exactly Bob?

    You have sent me a message stating "I have raised concerns about some of your edits" When I go to what you say I edited I see that you have smeared me by stating "an account that appeared for the sole purpose of voting "keep"." Really? Since you have no idea that this account has been on Wikipedia for 6 years basically what you are saying is I have no right to state my opinion. I find your statement "Gibco65 (talk · contribs), an account that appeared for the sole purpose of voting "keep"." extremely offensive. I don't know the author, I don't know Muhammad Ali K, I don't know Dean Andrew Kantis but I do live in Chicagoland and know of his story. It was among 60 others that were presented to The Illinois Department of Professional Regulation. A Doctor lost his license for basically blinding people. I state my opinion and have a far deeper knowledge of what happened then you and say keep. Then you just outright accuse me of creating an account to vote keep. I ask, What is your point exactly Bob? Are you seriously accusing me of sitting in wait for 6 years, then being some part of a conspiracy? You have some perceived notion that only people like yourselves have a say so in what or what should not be on Wikipedia and you know what? You are right. I have no time to defend myself or "edit" what you just proved is in reality just a very biased blog. I am too busy with life and teaching at a National Lab. You have basically attacked me for stating my opinion but yet you make no mention of the people who posted far more things then me against said article. It was an AfD and I stated my opinion which I later changed saying "I think it needs to be rewritten properly" and you question my right to comment? It would be like saying that your account appeared for the sole purpose of making false statements. This is why I want nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. Since TRUTH is not a requirement and your accusation just proves that, really what is the point? In a way I'm glad you had to message me. I looked up your account and you have many Wikipedia Awards. Good for you! Yet it is people like you that try and censor anyone who comments on Wikipedia. That is why in the Real World Wikipedia is taken with a grain of salt. It is a bunch of people who decide what is worthy or not of basically a blog. I don't have time for your wild theories on something that was settled a month ago. I have better things to do. I wanted to participate and then realized I would just be part of a fraud. Thanks for your outright attack on my right to comment. Basically commenting on anything is a COI. By the way I took the exclamation point out of your accusation against me. Sorry for the edit. Gibco65 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gibco65: It looks like you were caught up in a sockpuppet investigation by mistake (see discussion above and this). It happens sometimes, sorry. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I do appreciate the explanation and apology BUT I feel that a proper apology should come from the person who made wild wrongful accusations AND opened a sockpuppet investigation on me and another innocent person. That would be bobrayner . In his overzealousness he actually started a sockpuppet investigation on me and others and outright accused me of creating an account for the sole purpose of adding keep to an Article that was up for AfD. I'm glad he found his culprit, it really wasn't a big surprise since Muhammad Ali K was on elance advertising his services. Basically bobrayner will probably get another "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" but at what cost? A wild witch-hunt that smeared a couple people. How many people have been accused by him over the years and exonerated? To Wikipedia this is acceptable and encouraged behavior? I find having my integrity questioned by someone without a shred of proof to be unacceptable behavior. He has six Barnstars for being "The Defender of the Wiki" How many innocent people were accused of wrongdoing in his quest for those accolades? Basically I find people like him to be offensive. "I stumbled upon something and now I'm going to accuse a bunch of people of wrongdoing." To me it is borderline paranoia and yet he gets praise for his wild accusations. He had his man from the start but that wasn't good enough. This is the problem with Wikipedia. You want people to contribute and when they do they are accused of wrongdoing by someone whose sole purpose seems to be to start trouble with other people. That's my take on bobrayner and from reading his talk page I see I'm one of many who feel the same way. It's Bobs way whether he has a clue as to what he actually editing or not. The outcome of his big "investigation"? One week blocked for Muhammad Ali K. Was it worth smearing two people for this? Then on top of all of it he doesn't have the decency as a man to apologize for an outright mistake. Gibco65(talk)14:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A considerable wall of text. Gibco65 Could you explain what Bobs conflict of interest actually is supposed to be any time soon? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a response to the above thread. I'll bump it down a subheading level. --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a response to Free Range Frog. Unlike Bob I'm not stating that Bob has a conflict of interest. I'm merely stating that I find his accusation offensive and that I would think that if you are going to run around just accusing people of things, when they are proven to be unfounded it would be proper to apologize. Yes its a little long but it explains how I feel about the false statements and investigation that was initiated against me for making a simple comment on an AfD. You would be pretty insulted yourself Roxy the dog if it were you. No COI is implied, just rabid fanaticalness. Gibco65 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot, it was Bob himself who directed me to this page in his message. Gibco65 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were me, I'd figure out what was going on first before exploding into incandescent rage and making a total fool of myself, but that's just me. As it is, you've made a fool of yourself. Bob made a mistake in his analysis, but otherwise it seems as if he's done a rather good job. The checksummer thing (I actually have no idea at all what that is) appears to have identified you as an incidental casualty, and at that stage you should have shut up. You look quite foolish now. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the idea is to wait for the results of the SPI to come in before casting aspersions at editors. That's why there is no requirement to notify people of SPIs like there is for ANI, for example. In an ideal happy-happy flower world, Bob would have apologized by now, and Gibco65 could be doing something more fulfilling and less stressful than this. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime, I have looked at bobs Talk page, and he has apologised. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at Bobs talk page and have also apologized. I did go on a rant but I was accused of something over something that happened almost a month ago. I may look the fool, fair enough but when I found out that I was accused of being a sockpuppet in an official investigation I flew off the handle in defense of my account. I had done nothing wrong and yet was accused of making an account for an AfD disscusion, then I find out I'm on a list of suspected sockpuppets. My comments were made almost a month ago and I thought this was pretty much a done issue. Now it is. To anyone who was offended by my rant, I apologize. My comment on the British was out of line. My rant, justified or not was really just my defense of myself. I was getting sick of being called all these puppet names and an outright accusation of making up an account to vote on something. I have since calmed down, I realize that this is the way of Wikipedia and that Bob was just doing his job if you will. To anyone who was offended I apologize once again. I was pretty POed. Really from the day one I had to look up "meatpuppet" and the other day "sockpuppet". I hate puppets and clowns. I'll be quiet now. Gibco65 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.
    Can we turn this around and get something positive out of it? Are there any articles you'd like to improve? bobrayner (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Advanced Technology Investment Company

    After following up for several months to have amendments made to our page and closely following the COI guidelines, I have made edits to the page which are non-controversial, firmly backed up by news and academic articles from multiple sources, and core to the work of the organization and thus the relevance of the page. Given that I have a conflict of interest, which I have previously disclosed, I welcome the further edits and refinements of the community. Harrisonrice (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The entire article uses the firm name much too often, and is written in the short choppy sentences of a press release: use paragraphs for connected ideas. Of the material you added (1) the last sentence in History & Growth is speculation; all you can say is that the project was placed on hold. (2) "Within the first three years, ACE4S will seek to..." is also pure speculation--when you have done it, only then does it belong in the article DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I had replied to Harrisonrice on the talk page of that article per an earlier thread at this noticeboard. I missed his reply to my reply and had stopped watching the talk page—sorry! I agree with DGG and will try to take a closer look soon, if RL allows. Rivertorch (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Manoj Saxena

    Monothematic WP:SPA keeps on working on this article, which has already been deleted twice and is now nominated again. Manoj Saxena is head of Webify Solutions Inc.. Draw your own conclusions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, there seems to be something seriously wrong with the archive search on this page. I thought I had seen this here, so searched for it, both by article name and by username. When I didn't find it, I posted the above. I now find that it is already at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 67#Manoj Saxena. Apologies all round. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joemeservy

    • Joemeservy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Joe Meservy has a fairly obvious COI, and has routinely deleted comments about his COI on his talk page. Not all of his editing is problematic, but some of it is. I can't explicitly disclose the COI without violating outing, but... it's really obvious if you take a look around elsewhere. It's likely that he has links to Wiki-PR, but I'm not requesting that ban be applied here - but it would be fabulous if someone could take a look over his edits and take appropriate action, etc. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have NO links to Wiki-PR, whatever that is...Also, I am an American with a keen interest in rock groups. Accordingly, I regularly make updates regarding rock groups of which I am a big fan. I have NEVER once received payment for such an act in the last two plus years.--Joemeservy (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Please immediately refrain from making un-based accusations without evidence. Regarding COI, I am currently an unemployed law student--hopefully that alleviates your concerns.--Joemeservy (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to our WP:OUTING policy, I can't post my evidence on-wiki without your consent. I'm pretty confident I'm not making a baseless accusation however, and will gladly send evidence, via email, to any admin passerby who would like to see it who doesn't stumble upon it yourself. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, looking through old contributions, I found a way to make the connection apparent without violating outing. In this old diff of Joe's sandbox, he describes himself as a senior agent at a talent agency that represents Imagine Dragons. Joe made edits to Imagine Dragons, as well as a number of other bands he represented, while he was representing them. He's basically written most of the article for ID, a band he personally represented. This represents a rather large and rather obvious conflict of interest. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Imagine Dragons have been represented by APA since 2011. I patterned all of my edits off the pages of other bands of similar genres on wikipedia. Moreover, Imagine Dragons meet requirements for notability (they released a major label album which was certified for sales, they went on a publicized tour, they received a nationally recognized award, etc) as have the subjects of any wiki articles I have edited. Finally, I would underscore the incontrovertible fact that I am not nor was I ever paid to edit the wiki pages of any of these artists. The sole exception to this would be some edits I made to The Killers pages for a short period of time where I was on a salary. Those edits were done in accordance with the wikipedia rules of 2011, when they occurred.--Joemeservy (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The most important thing about conflicts of interest on Wikipedia is disclosure - and conflicts of interest don't necessarily have to be financial. If you represented a group, you presumably have a pretty close relationship to that group and have feelings about them that may bias your editing pattern in one way or another, even if you no longer have a direct financial tie to the group. If your CoI (and you do have one) is disclosed, then other editors can be aware of it, and can keep that in mind when looking at your edits. Would you mind adding a mention to your user page that you formerly ran a talent agency that represented artists whose Wikipedia pages you have since edited? I'm willing to take your word that none of your ID etc work has been financially compensated, but disclosure is still an important thing to help ensure neutrality. Sorry if I came off a bit harsh at first, I was expecting a bigger COI than apparently exists. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rpinkett and Randal Pinkett articles

    Not sure if this major enough, but for your review: I noticed a few edits on articles I watch where a new user, User:Rpinkett, has inserted references to "Randal Pinkett" and his career in articles about Randal Pinkett and institutions connected to Pinkett. Not sure if this is the actual Randal Pinkett, but this smacks of COI/Self-promotion if it is...while Pinkett is a notable person, I'm rather certain this is not entirely proper, but not knowing how y'all seem to go about it. User's contributions: [10] --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Rpinkett reached out to me via my talk page and stated they were his "public relations team"[11]. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Joel Hyatt

    User with same name as article removed unsavory tidbits [12]. Unclear if tidbits are true, but you know how it goes. Article subject is a TV lawyer. Blackguard 07:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    P.H. Yu

    This article is an obvious puff piece written by a team of single purpose accounts, most likely as part of a paid editing scheme by a PR firm. The question is, what to do with the article? I don't feel good about having volunteers put a ton of time into this article. Maybe it can be stubbed instead.

    The accounts appear to be throw away sock or meat puppets. There's no way to checkuser them because they are stale by now. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow that's an impressive list of socks. Is this more Wiki-PR work? Judging by this he might well be notable, but as that shows the article is far from being neutral. It seems like stubbing it is probably the best course of action. SmartSE (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsurprisingly the same editors have worked on the Chinese version. SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - Send it to AFD. There's no point in wasting editors' time with this. The subject may be notable, but his biography is a complete shill, with glowing inflated praise that does not match up to the references. Several of the editors named above have their names taken from US TV show Fairly Legal, it's clear that this is an advertising exercise. From the Chinese Wikipedia edits, you can also add the following users -
    We should not waste Wikipedians' time with this. Just delete it, and if the PR firm comes back with more hagiographic bullshit, delete it again - waste the PR firm's time and money until they come up with something neutral. Also, I don't think this is Wiki-PR, the operators here are much more competent and are multilingual. It's a shame that the IPs are too old to do anything about, I'm sure they have plenty of sleepers. - hahnchen 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    doual'art

    An external review of those articles would be really helpful. I have been in general accused of COI. The articles appears to me neutral and not promotional; furthermore I have been never being payed directly or indirectly by doual'art or any of the people and events related, and I have never received direct or indirect benefit from supporting their work (I have no COI related to those institutions). I have a bias because I really like their work and I do have an expertise in the field because I have been working in research in Douala. Iopensa (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is obviously not entirely an easy question, as Iolanda Pensa is, as she says, an expert in this field, and experts are sorely needed in this project and should not be discouraged from contributing. Nevertheless, my initial impression is that there is some degree of conflict of interest in relation to Doual'art. This page from Africa e Mediterraneo says that she "... collaborated with several magazines, ... with the art centre Doual’Art in Douala, Cameroon". Lettera27 says that "she is a freelance consultant for Doual'art". Would it be appropriate to suggest that Ms. Pensa contribute her expertise to the talkpage of that article rather than editing it directly? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Justlettersandnumbers. I see that it is not clear from my CVs or biography. To try to clarify it:
    1. my CVs and biographies do not differentiate clearly my volunteer and payed work. I have started introducing some differentiations when i thought they were relevant; for example all the work I have being doing in Esino Lario is not payed, it is completely pro bono and nobody asks me to do it; I have started explicitly saying it because the initiatives and projects have been growing through time and people might assume I get something out of it. In my CV and bios mentioning doual'art (and I have also mentioned other institutions I have being supporting) was rather meant to say that – even if I am a white Italian-Swiss art critic – I do have a specific knowledge of Africa (which is often not the case); those bios were meant for specific targets for which payed or unpaid work would not be specifically relevant and for which a clarification of potential COI was not necessary to be explicit (for example also in my publication list I do not differentiate the typology of relationship I have with the different publications). I believe word such as "consultant" and "collaborations" clarify that my work was not inscribed within the organization and that my judgment was independent (this is very different from internship, in which the work is often volunteer but the interns normally execute tasks). A certain degree of potential misunderstand are unfortunately common in biographies: it is like writing "I am an editor on Wikipedia"; for people within the movement this is clearly a volunteer work meant to support open knowledge, but for outsiders it can be ambiguous; people can assume you are paid to do it. Through time I become more aware of how my CV and bio can be read; the bio you are referring to date back 2006 and 2007. This for example is a more recent CV but it already contains a mistake (I am not correspondent for Africa for the magazine "Domus" any more); in this bio for example I do not say that my work as art director of the association Amici del Museo delle Grigne Onlus is volunteer because I trust is not relevant for the target; they might be more interested in knowing that I have experience in commissioning artworks.
    2. I have wrote a detailed information about my work and conflicts of interest within the discussion with ThurnerRupert. Just to focus on doual'art: in 2005 my travel costs to Douala have been covered by doual'art since I was an invited guest to the Ars&Urbis 2005 symposium; in 2007 my travel costs to Douala have been covered by Mondriaan Foundation and doual'art to contribute to the Ars&Urbis international workshop. Those are the only financial and professional benefits I received in my collaboration. I have been contributing to support doual'art by triggering financial grants from which I did not benefitted nor directly nor indirectly: notably Doen Foundation, Prince Claus Fund, Orange Foundation (WikiAfrica Cameroon project); doual'art has also been supported by lettera27; the iStrike Foundation I founded in 2005 also contributed to doual'art work by leverage fundings; I didn't receive payment or exchange of benefit from the work I did at iStrike neither. I am also currently applying to the IGE Individual Grant Engagement for a project involving doual'art; the project includes my travel costs to Wikimania 2014 London to participate in the project presentation; I contribute to the project as a volunteer and I do not receive from the potential grant any salary (not directly from the grant nor indirectly from doual'art or any person involved in the call).
    3. I do absolutely have a bias: I believe knowledge related to Africa has to be more documented on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects (which is not currently the case). I do not have personal interests or benefits in contributing to African content or doual'art and related articles. I do it because I trust it will make knowledge better for all of us. If I contribute to topics related to my research (on background knowledge which is indeed not the aim of research), it is because I believe research work has the moral duty to make sure people can understand what it is talking about. This is something which is not requested, nor encouraged and often not even understood (or simply discouraged). The reason why I am applying for a IEG grant which will provide some resources for doual'art (and a commission to two artists) is because I think Wikipedia in Africa needs to be triggered. The advantage I see for myself is that I think it can produce something cool and relevant for our movement; I have not been asked or commissioned to do it and this activity will only bring me more volunteer work: I really do not see any personal interest or benefit from doing it (indeed my husband and children made it very clear that it is rather a disadvantage).
    My background, my focus and my way of contributing to Wikipedia might be a little peculiar; but a conflict of interest presumes an incompatibility. According to WP:COI "the word interest is used here to refer to benefit or gain, not to something you are merely interested in, such as a hobby or area of expertise." I would really like to continue contributing to Wikipedia on topics I am merely interested in because it is what I like doing and what I trust I can do the best. --Iopensa (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carolmooredc

    Resolved
     – Carol has disclosed her past connection to Rothbard, and most users (including OP) have no interest in pursuing further discussion.

    Carol is the third most prolific editor to Murray Rothbard (1), a page she first edited in December 2008. However, she has never (to my knowledge) disclosed on WP that she had a relationship with Rothbard years ago, until I confronted her about old statements on her website (in which she described Rothbard as an "early co-conspirator" of hers) a few weeks ago. She then admitted that she and Rothbard had "collaborated on a couple events in 1980 and then just saw each other every few months at public events in NYC til I left in 1982 for LA" (2), and also stated that while she "knew" him back then, they had a "falling out" in the early 80s (3). WP:COS admonishes users not to edit the pages of those who they are connected to. The policy defines personal connection extremely broadly, as a category including "employee[s], family ties or some other relationship." Those with a personal connection are "advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." This extremely broad language ("Some other relationship") indicates that WP is wary about users with any personal connection to the subject of a WP article, even a relatively modest one, editing that person's page.

    Two questions for the community: Does Carol have a "personal connection" that should prevent her from editing the Rothbard page? Should she at least be required to disclose more about her connection to Rothbard, including the nature and extent of their political co-organizing in 1980, and the nature of their "falling out"? Steeletrap (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC) NOTE A bunch of users are completely ignoring the questions at hand and instead imputing bad-faith motives on to me. To clarify, I have no interest in subjecting Carol to sanctions or "blocks" for her alleged COI and do not call for this above. I simply asks for community input on two questions. It is very strange that people are insisting on going off-topic. Steeletrap (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to be having ongoing disagreements with this editor, so is this the real reason you're trying to stop her editing the article? Having some sort of professional connection over 30 years ago seems very tenuous. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fair for you to point out our past squabbles. But I think the charges are clear enough that they can be evaluated independent of such speculations. Steeletrap (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Steeletrap is well aware that WP guidelines about friendships. In fact, she made a modification to the guideline here [13], and wisely reverted it here [14], deciding to seek discussion. Shortly thereafter, User:Slim Virgin, who has quite a bit of WP experience, made another change here [15], so I'm not worried about any requirements that friendships be "close" or not. But I do wonder if any of Carolmooredc's edits indicate antipathy or favoritism toward Rothbard personally. I doubt it. And until such biased or undue edits appear, I think the best course of action is WP:AGF. This fundamental principle of WP certainly has priority over a broad guideline. The fourth introductory paragraph of WP:COI may apply as well. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people are over-thinking this. The question isn't: "What are steeletrap's motivations"? or "What sort of an editor is Carol"? The question is: Did Carol's relationship with Rothbard constitute a "personal connection" as defined by WP:COS? Good-faith is not sufficient, or there would be no need for any other policy. Steeletrap (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COI is quite clear on this. Carol does have a conflict of interest and she should have revealed it. The fact that she contributed prolifically without revealing this conflict is itself troubling. As for specific examples of bias, they're not hard to find, but they're also not required. The conflict of interest, in itself, is sufficient to justify asking Carol to limit her involvement in this article.
    All of this is true regardless of Steele's motives, so speculation on motives is counterproductive and likely to violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and related policies. This is about Carol, not Steele. MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a work connection with someone over 30 years ago and nothing since then is such a small detail that is over the top to ban someone from a topic. What is counterproductive is constantly looking for reasons to get people banned from working on Wikipedia.--NK (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree. There are better ways to deal with these editing disagreements. Even more worrying is Steeletrap's off-wiki investigations to try and uncover a reason to sanction someone they disagree with. Many of us edit articles related to our specialisms, work or college history and some sensible perspective needs to be taken on this. Sionk (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As we have the question brought up, and as we have a response from Carolmooredc, I do not think any further comments would help. Sooner or later a volunteer will come by and review the question. In the meantime, I see three courses of action: 1. OP can drop the issue and we then archive the thread as closed. 2. We do not make any additional posts, in which case either the thread is closed by a volunteer or it is automatically archived. Or, 3. we post a WP:ANRFC asking for admin action. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Srich32977 - Since "the community" is responding to this issue in a completely illogical manner -- somehow equating it to a personal insult as opposed to discussing whether her relationship with MR constitutes a "personal connection" under COS; falsely implying that I want to use it to get CMDC banned -- there may be little use continuing this discussion, and I wouldn't object to closing it. I think Carol has made clear the nature of the personal connection (and expands upon it below), and I am glad the thread served that purpose. Steeletrap (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am personally inclined to archive this discussion, I do not want to do so for the wrong reasons. So I will wait for another editor to do so, and do so (hopefully) with some sort of COI determination. I do note the page instructions for this board say "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." – S. Rich (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Carolmooredc

    • This issue has been alluded to before in this June 2013 3RR notice I did vs. Steeletrap's close collaborator User:SPECIFICO, to which Steeletrap responded. The closer notes on protecting the article that Carol observes on talk that she herself is mentioned in one of the references. She is described as a left-libertarian activist who opposed Rothbard at some Libertarian conventions in the 1980s. That link is no longer good, but the archived section is here, this being the relevant link.
    • I really don't think the following counts as a conflict of interest worth mentioning. I wrote on the article talk page at this diff after Steeletrap drilled me on it: Actually it belongs at WP:COIN. Of course, one can feel free to look for this new york times article or any current link on "Exchange on Gandhi between Carol Moore and Murray Rothbard", Libertarian Forum, July-August 1983. I think mises.org carries the whole thing. Didn't find in title search. Probably a jpg or something. FYI we collaborated on a couple events in 1980 and then just saw each other every few months at public events in NYC til I left in 1982 for LA. Then just a few more times at national events before he died in 1995.
    • Since this is not an article talk page, I'm not Soapboxing in saying that personal experience, others' revelations to me, and screeds he wrote in a minor offline libertarian publication show that Rothbard was very unhappy in 1983 with my promoting Gandhin nonviolence among libertarians; very unhappy with my being a leader in the opposition to Ron Paul for Prez. in the Libertarian Party 1988 (including publicizing a few early things written in the Ron Paul newsletters); annoyed that I kept going into the LP offices to get the (pre-internet) news clippings and advertised the couple things Paul said that were against the platform; and REALLY mad that my last minute vote change at the 1989 LP convention led to the first ballot defeat of his candidate for chair (after which he, Lew Rockwell, etc. quit the Party), etc.
    • Nevertheless, I still respect Rothbard for his early writings on some aspects of economics, political alternatives, American history, etc. circa 1960-85ish, which remain what he is most notable for. I believe he got frustrated and angry he couldn't make the revolution immediately and turned to a questionable strategy and some crack-pot writings to attract what really was a dying out constituency of older conservative white males. I think that's sad.
    • But it's not an excuse to create an article that tries to trash his earlier notable work by having the article emphasize every barely notable (except by self-published blogs and political opponents) stupid thing he ever wrote, while fighting to remove well-sourced neutral or positive information about him. Between having to spend so much time explaining which poorly sourced and/or WP:Undue material should be removed, fighting removal of WP:RS neutral info (for example removal of seven refs on his being an economist of the Austrian school), and fighting to put in neutral info that often gets reverted, I got disgusted and cut down my efforts on the article. However, the ongoing violations of policy, the fact other editors have entered the fray, and the new Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions have made me willing to deal with these problems a bit more the last week or so. (See discussion at the ANI that led to community sanctions on Austrian economics articles.)
    • I feel a little safer to try to deal with what I feel are extreme POV/WP:Undue problems with the article, though it may take months. But I know I'll have to continue dealing with this sort of dubious harassment, at least until some Admin decides it's time to enforce Austrian economics/General sanctions?? Sigh... User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 19:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:COI page, it defines COI as:

    "A conflict of interest is a situation in which some person P (whether an individual or corporate body) stands in a certain relation to one or more decisions. On the standard view, P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship."

    Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.

    I think this is an instance that requires common sense. And given all that Carolmooredc has voluntarily shared, I think that an association that ended before many Wikipedia Editors were even born is old news. She has self-disclosed at a level of detail that I find unusual so now everyone who follows this controversial topic area knows where she stands. The problem COI cases are those where relationships are not disclosed. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, but it goes further than that. There are immense flaws in Steeltrap's allegation of an issue. They ignored the main bolded definition of a COI in the lead of wp:coi and instead tried to gin up the categorizaiton section into an alternate definition that is not in the guideline. Next they tried to (incorrectly) imply that there is a requirement for disclose, and then improperly gin up a 30 year old acquaintanceship into something that supposedly needed disclosure under that non-existent rule. Then they tried to widen wp:COI by a factor of 10 by their personal broadening into "those you are connected to". North8000 (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Liz, I agree. Please note that before I raised these questions a few days ago, she had not disclosed these facts about the personal connection. Now that it has been disclosed, I'm perfectly ready to move on. I don't see why getting this stuff out does anything but help the community.Steeletrap (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000. Yeah, I'd say scratching around for things that were relevant in 1980-82 when I was associating with him is a bit much. I had more trouble when I asked Steeletrap about the faculty advisor who encouraged Steeletrap to research these Austrian economists, since it sounded like Steeletrap could be inserting all this problematic material to get an MBA (corrected Masters) thesis accepted or to get better grades or whatever. That would be a real conflict of interest. I remember just getting a nonspecific denial, but I still have to wonder. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 00:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I 1) Had no problem disclosing this at the time, and did not allege "harassment" when Carol asked me about it. 2) purged all the Austro-libertarian stuff from my thesis (which relates to fringe political movements) so as to not get "outed" by one of my "friends" in the "community". 3) I am not and never have been an "MBA" student. [User:Steeletrap|Steeletrap]] (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I got confused on what you are studying for from this uncontested post to you from SRich in April mentioning your being a "Masters candidate". Later: I see I wrote MBA - now corrected - when just mean "Masters" as in what Steeletrap wrote here: my independent research on the von Mises Institute (for the Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements)... (plus an admission of bias, but bias isn't necessarily COI). User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 02:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies

    Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns[16] I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Soura Pandey

    Autobiography, with both accounts copying the article to their user pages; do we need multiple copies of a promotional feature? JNW (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Aristides de Sousa Mendes

    Warned about COI, has continued to edit. Note User has requested a change of username. Mlpearc (powwow) 14:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lonnie Park

    Lonniepark2 is related to Park somehow, maybe he is him, he works with him, he is a member of his family, or he is a fan. The problem is that for many months Lonniepark2 has tried to included content to Park biography. I don't remember how I found this, but it was written like this. Ignoring the status of the text (it requires a clean-up), the text was totally unsourced, and included trivial information only Park or people related to him would know ("His father’s first words when Lonnie was born were “He is going to play piano”.", "Lonnie attended Brooktondale Baptist School from Kindergarten through completion of tenth grade. This school, now closed, was a private Christian school in upstate New York with a Bible based curriculum and emphasized the conservative GARBC Baptist lifestyle", etc.), and the removal of important categories like Category:Living people, being replaced with irrelevant categories like Category:Grammy Awards. I restored the previous version and cleaned-up the page. Lonniepark2 returned the following day with the same unsourced addition, I reverted him and continued with the clean-up. By that time I left this notification about issues with conflict of interests and a more detailed message about the situation. Today Lonniepark2 returned to add almost the same content but this time with two references that have nothing to do with Park and they never mention him[17][18]. Also in September he uploaded the image File:Lonnie Park.jpg, which was copied from Park's official website [19], which includes the note "Copyright © 2013 Lonnie Park." It was deleted due to the lack of evidence of free-license re-release, and again Lonniepark2 uploaded it without evidence of permission. In four years I only had contact with two people that are related to the subject of the article (Little Boots and a worker of the MPAA), in those cases the editors have been productive and have understood how WP:COI works, but in this case Lonniepark2 is not being conscient that the addition of unsourced content to a biographical article (even when the account is related to the subject) is against our WP:BLP and other policies. I (or him) need guideance about this. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Money Management International

    I have a conflict of interest in my usual role as a marketer.

    The article appears to reflect a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's role as it is either mostly, or all, original reporting. The body of the article contains about 20 external links to IRS forms. I have not vetted all 68 citations, but the ones I have looked at were court documents, citations that did not mention the company, broken links, other Wikipedia articles, press releases, and other weak or primary sources. Reviewing the edit-history and Talk page, I believe the edits were made in good-faith by a mix of COI and volunteer contributors.

    The article-subject appears to be borderline notable. I notice that they are frequently quoted in The New York Times and mentioned here as "one of the largest reverse mortgage counseling companies". Google Books also mentions them heavily as one of the places to go for free debt consulting. While a majority of their media coverage is for publishing surveys and providing advice on managing debt, there are some articles that cover them in depth.

    If I were to stumble on this article in my regular role, I would either cut it down to a stub, or nominate it for deletion as WP:NOT. As I have a COI in this case, I defer to the community's judgement on the best first-steps to whip this article into shape. CorporateM (Talk) 00:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeez what a notfest. Stub it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite apart from the properly declared COI of CorporateM, this article appears to have grave COI problems with editor TanishaWarner who either is or is pretending to be Tanisha Warner, communications manager at Money Management International. The edit history and talkpage history suggest both an intimate knowledge of the business and an intense desire to present it in a good light. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Deepak Chopra


    Hello, all!

    I have been asked to bring this article to COIN via OTRS. I am in contact with Vivekachudamani, who has accused Alexbrn and Binksternet of having a COI via email. He has asked a group of third party editors to comment, so here we are.

    According to Vivekachudamani, "Alexbrn’s aim as an individual editor is to defame and discredit the subject of the article by labeling the subject a pseudoscientist and creating a narrative that the subject’s views are fringe. This is the strategy the Guerrilla Skeptics are trained in to undermine the reputation of individuals they do not like such as Rupert Sheldrake. " He cites two sources for this claim: [20] and [21]. He also cites four comments as evidence:

    • We don't give Chopra's views weight here but instead follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE . Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC) diff
    • Chopra's fringe view are identified as such by juxtaposing them with real science. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff
    • Chopra's writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast;. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff
    • Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff

    Vivekachudamani has also accused Binksternet of being aligned with Alexbrn's views, due to the comments here, although no further evidence was provided.

    Vivekachudamani claims that there is a nebulous group of editors intending to "smear" the article, although no other names have been mentioned at this time.

    As the OTRS agent handling the case, I make no comment here as to the COI. I listed myself as a party because I am involved with the article, having made edits in the past and being accused of a COI myself (I brought it to BLPN) and cleared of the same.

    Thank you! ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 19:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. If anyone here has OTRS access, I encourage they look at ticket:2013071510009944, as it may have additional information that I'm not allowed to post publicly. The copy-paste above was explicitly permitted by Vivekachudamani. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 20:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Binksternet's real-life intersection with Chopra
    • I have said before that I have no particular interest in Chopra, that I have no conflict of interest. I am a professional sound engineer for large events, and I see a great many people who are famous. On several occasions I have had the pleasure of Chopra being included on the agenda of the event I am working. The closest I have been to Chopra is to clip a small microphone to his lapel and hang a radio-transmitting beltpack unit on his belt, though in most cases someone else does that job, leaving me with the task of bringing his volume up for the crowd and assessing whether the sound is optimal. I have to say that I consider Chopra an engaging public speaker. I look forward to each time I have the chance to amplify his voice.
      That said, I am a skeptic by nature and I prefer to see Wikipedia expanded with hard science as the basis. I think Chopra's views are more metaphysical than physical, and observers in the general sciences agree. Furthermore, I don't like to see Wikipedia used as a platform for promotion of the topic, nor do I like to see it used for attacks. What I see from Vivekachudamani at the Chopra biography is that promotion of Chopra is the only goal. This COIN discussion should result in a boomerang pointing back to Vivekachudamani, whose actions should be analyzed for net effect, and whose motives and connections should be clarified. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That hardly qualifies as COI. Binksternet should be removed from this investigation/discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Statement from Alexbrn
    • As I have stated before I have no COI. To be clear: no relationship with Chopra, Chopra's affiliates, or people or organizations connected to or interested in Chopra or Chopra-related things in any way. In order to clear this up I am happy to subject myself to scrutiny be a neutral third-party if necessary - but since I have chosen to make my real life identify completely discoverable from my User page it is tiresome that this accusation is being made by Vivekachudamani yet again.
    • Vivekachudamani's complaint looks a bit like forum shopping since this COI accusation has been incorrectly made before without effect [22] [23].
    • Chopra is currently waging a media campaign against what he calls 'militant skeptics' on Wikipedia (see here) and has recently contacted Wikipedia asking for criticism in his article to be removed (Matthewrbowker has the details). Is this in any way connected?
    • Since the glare of the COI splotlight is being turned on me, I hope it only seen as fair that a little reflects back on Vivekachudamani, who is a WP:SPA dedicated, in large part, to inserting puffery and watering-down criticism at the Chopra article: the edit history speaks for itself.
    • However this is resolved, it would be great to have the annoyance of continued unfounded accusations halted; quite apart from anything else, it is a huge waste of time. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Add) I am not involved in the "Guerrilla Skepticism" effort; I don't have that honour. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by vzaak
    • I had followed this earlier -- this is entirely frivolous, right? Vivekachudamani was asked to substantiate the COI claim,[24] and the response was that Alexbrn has "COI" in his signature.[25] Vivekachudamani saw the "COI" in the signature and thought it applied to the Deepak Chopra page, which it doesn't. vzaak (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For context I should mention the earlier conspiracy theories spread by Rupert Sheldrake, who recently went on BBC World Service to announce that there is a "systematic attempt to distort hundreds of pages on Wikipedia"[26] @ time 8:02. vzaak (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by LuckyLouie

    This report looks completely spurious. To establish a COI, you'd have to show compelling evidence that Alexbrn and Binksternet are professionally engaged by or affiliated with an organization intending to "smear" the subject of the article. I don't see any evidence to support anything close to that, but I do see misplaced paranoia about "Guerrilla Skeptics". LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Commment by Barney the barney barney (talk) 22
    42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

    I agree with the above. I don't think that Vivekachudamani (talk · contribs) is here to build an encyclopedia, per PW:NOTHERE, and I also think WP:ARB/PS needs to be applied, such that the appropriate action is a topic ban from fringe articles, broadly construed, for Vivekachudamani (talk · contribs) Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by AndyTheGrump

    I agree with LuckyLouie. There is nothing whatsoever in the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy that makes vague and unsubstantiated claims about individuals being 'Guerrilla Skeptics' sufficient grounds to establish a COI. Yes, Alexbrn for example is a 'sceptic' regarding Chopra (and so am I for that matter) - but such scepticism (or at least, 'sceptical behaviour') is a requirement of Wikipedia policy when dealing with a controversial figure making claims entirely at odds with scientific consensus. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It presents scientific consensus to our readers. It is not within the remit of contributors to discard the necessary scepticism, and hand over editorial control of articles to uncritical supporters of fringe perspectives. Wikipedia is sceptical regarding Chopra's scientific claims because scientific consensus is likewise sceptical. That is our job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Vivekachudamani

    This COI section is about Alexbrn. Binksternet was only cited in connection to the poor editing judgment in removing a Journal of Cosmology citation that he mistakenly claimed is not peer-reviewed. I am not claiming Alexbrn has a hidden connection to Chopra. I am taking the straightforward interpretation of conflict of interest from the WP:COI page. “A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.” Alexbrn’s aim as an individual editor is to defame and discredit the subject of the article by labeling the subject a pseudoscientist and creating a narrative that the subject’s views are fringe. The listed comments Alexbrn tell you his aims in his own words.

    • We don't give Chopra's views weight here but instead follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE . Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC) diff
    • Chopra's fringe view are identified as such by juxtaposing them with real science. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff
    • Chopra's writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast;. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff
    • Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff

    These aims are incompatible with a neutral reliably sourced encyclopedia, therefore Alexbrn has an ideological conflict of interest and should not be allowed to make controversial edits on this page in the future.

    Even though I'm sure Alexbrn appreciates the support from the skeptic gallery, I ask that only those who are not in that ideological camp bother to weigh in here. Merely moving the skeptic echo chamber from that page to this one does not address the bias at issue here. Would an outside observer looking a the page of a prominent and successful author and speaker such as Chopra, read Alexbrn's above comments on how he edits this page and say it is neutral or not? That is the only question here. All the other hand waving about "spurious" and "waste of time" is quite beside the point.Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure that it would suit your interests well for only those supporting your 'ideological' position to comment here. That is not how this noticeboard works though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vivekachudamani: conflict of interest is not simply bias, perceived or real. You have the wrong forum. WP:NPOVN is the forum for questions concerning NPOV. Or, if you feel Alexbrn is violating Wikipedia policies, the proper forum is WP:AN/I, however be advised that WP:BOOMERANG may apply. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    AndyTheGrump, asking for neutral editors to comment is not asking for ideological support. I still am waiting for a neutral editor to explain how Alexbrn's above comments are neutral. Vivekachudamani (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Full disclosure: I have never edited the Deepak Chopra article; I have no connection to Deepak Chopra; I have never been paid to edit; and I'm not a member of this "militant skeptics" group.
    Alexbrn's comments are quite reasonable, and even commendable. This encyclopædia takes the mainstream view and relies on reliable sources, rather than reporting every claim at face value and covering every person on their own terms, regardless of how far those terms stray from reality. When covering WP:FRINGE topics it can be hard to maintain neutrality, but reliable sources help. A brief look through some of Deepak Chopra's writings confirms to me that what little I've seen is very much WP:FRINGE. That must influence how competent editors deal with content about Chopra, not out of any kind of "bias", but because the encyclopædia's main purpose is to reflect what reliable sources say, not to reflect what Chopra says. bobrayner (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Be specific. What writings out of all the books and articles are you referring to? And exactly in what respect are they fringe? I'm quite familiar with the body of Chopra's work in alternative medicine as well as quantum physics, so I would welcome an in depth discussion on why you believe that it is "commendable and reasonable" for all editors on this page is to approach this page with the point of view " Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources." and " We don't give Chopra's views weight here but instead follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE?" Especially since such personal comments about the article subject violate BLP Talk page policy. Your page says you are interested in "Cleanup of pseudoscience, alt-med, and other fringe articles." So it seems you do have an axe to grind. Apparently even this blatant bias can look "reasonable and commendable" to you as long as it reinforces your existing opinions. Vivekachudamani (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vivekachudamani is apparently not saying that I am in violation of policy: at least the quotations he's produced from me illustrate that I am taking care to be (in WP terms) "neutral". The conclusion of Vivekachudamani's line of reasoning is this: editing BLPs on proponents of fringe topics according to WP policies, notably WP:PSCI, gives rise to a "conflict of interest". I am starting to wonder if WP:CIR applies here, since Vivekachudamani does not seem to have grasped some WP fundamentals, and this is causing a lot of noise. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Vivekachudamani, you would do well to actually read the guideline you are accusing editors of violating. "Conflict of interest is not simply bias.[7] Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. On Wikipedia, a person's beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest." WP:COI also lists the types of relationships an editor may have that would constitute a conflict of interest. Simply put, you have presented absolutely no reason to suspect that any of the accused have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You are expected to get along with other editors and work together toward building the encyclopedia. If your reaction to finding that someone disagrees with you is to try and have them forbidden from editing, this may be the wrong website for you. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) if we are going to apply Vivekachudamani's " I am taking the straightforward interpretation of conflict of interest from the WP:COI page. “A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.” " then by the evidence given by Vivekachudamani, it is Vivekachudamani himself who has the COI in opposing Alexbrn's applications of policy and guidelines.
    Vivekachudamani have you actually read WP:UNDUE , WP:BALASPS, WP:VALID? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    “A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.” Alexbrn's comments show his aims are to label Chopra as a pseudoscientist and "fringe." Those aims are incompatible with the aim of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Let's try to stay on topic.Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that it is a demonstrable fact that Chopra is a proponent of fringe/pseudoscientific theories, it would be incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia to suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is quite clear that Vivekachudamani hasn't got a clue what COI means as it applies here. I shall therefore remove this page from my watchlist, and look forward to more of Alex's edits both on the Chopra page, and elsewhere. This has been a waste of time and effort for everybody concerned. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    again, Vivekachudamani, please read WP:UNDUE , WP:BALASPS, WP:VALID. "Neutral point of view" does NOT mean that we give all points of view equal weight. We present the points of view based upon the representation that they are held by mainstream academics. If you keep promoting that we value them otherwise, YOU are the one who is editing with "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

    There is no evidence that Alexbrn is editing outside of Wikipedia policies in a manner that shows any COI. There is growing evidence that Vivekachudamani is unwilling or unable to edit within Wikipedia policies without promoting a COI incompatible to WP:UNDUE , WP:BALASPS, WP:VALID. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems likely on the other hand that Vivekachudamani has some personal or professional connection with Chopra. To take a single example from that user's monothematic edit history: how exactly, Vivekachudamani, did you know that Chopra does not have a son named Adam when you made this edit in July 2009? What sources did you consult that persuaded you that Adam Chopra was "fictional"? Do you in fact have some connection to Chopra? If so, you have a WP:COI, and should refrain from making direct edits to that article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: this may be moot, as a COI may have just been declared here (Note the email came through OTRS - the only person with access was Vivekachudamani): http://www.choprafoundation.org/science-consciousness/my-open-letter-to-wikipedia/ ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoa - that's been taken down pretty quickly! I have a copy. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So what's going on here? An editor (Vivekachudamani) with a history of trying to spin the Deepak Chopra article, and of repeatedly trying to have me sanctioned for COI while denying COI himself, suddenly has their email appearing on the Chopra Foundation web site in the midst of a campaign by Chopra against skepticism on Wikipedia. Something pretty rum is going on. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a copy, Alex... who signed the letter that appeared for a short time on the Chopra Foundation website? Who wrote it? Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done on getting a copy. That was quick. What was in it? (If you are able to share a copy, I'd be very interested) bobrayner (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's cached here. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As an experienced editor with only a vague awareness of OTRS, I assume that the copied email had extremely restricted access. In order for Chopra to write his letter someone who had access had to provide Chopra with a copy (or Chopra himself has access). Is this correct? --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from Vivekachudamani Busy day. Here's the deal. In July 2013 I contacted Chopra's office to inform them of the what was happening to Chopra's WP page. I was asked what could be done about it and I told them about the help link. I was asked make that contact and that's how Ticket#2013071510009944 began. That day I wrote Mastcell and told him

    "I've contacted the Chopra Center and told them the situation with the page and advised Dr. Chopra to have the page taken down immediately. He called me back today and said he didn't even know removal was possible, then said, "Okay, have them take it down right away." I've sent an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org and I'm just waiting to hear back from them. Is there any other channel that is faster? Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As the ticket activity moved forward Chopra, his office, Matthew, and I were copied in on emails, And this contact is my hidden "connection" everyone is so intrigued about. My motivation on editing the page comes from my knowledge of the material. I kept Matthew informed of my WP activity and that was the email I sent Matthew that was for some bizarre reason put underneath Chopra's letter to Matthew. Honest to God, I only saw that when someone at WP informed me this morning. I was dumbfounded that my letter was there and that Matthew was named. I emailed the office to immediately remove it. I explained to them that regardless of their frustration over these months, that this did not help their case, and probably just burned me as an editor. So there it is. The "COI" is an email of the material from the discussion page sent to Matthew and copied into Chopra and his office. Here is the shiny diversion from the COI issue at hand, coming from a direction I could not have predicted. Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vivekachudamani's letter allowed me to hunt around the interwebs to see if there was a stronger connection between him and Chopra. I found that there was: I saw a web page that described Vivekachudamani as having worked with Chopra for 15 years as a researcher and copy editor responsible for polishing Chopra's writings on the subjects of mind-body medicine and consciousness/spirituality development. That's a lot closer to Chopra than he lets on. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no 'COI issue at hand', other than possibly yours. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that anyone has done anything beyond ensure that an article on a purveyor of pseudoscientific fringe claims is accurately described as such in Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Jung Myung Seok

    There are a few dozen international news articles from Reuters, AP, and East Asian sources describing Jung Myung Seok as a convicted serial rapist who used a cult to manipulate women into having sex with him. It is my opinion that these articles are reliable descriptions, which has started a very long-term dispute over this article. User:MrTownCar, another user involved, has just posted:

    I have read many of his sermons and his proverbs. The man has a love for God that is unparalleled and is obvious to those who have witnessed his life. His greatest desire in this life is to please the heart of God and save spirits of human beings. Akin to Jesus, he loves those who persecute him and prays for their salvation. He underwent a sham trial and was accused by false witnesses. It is truly ironic and shameful that the very thing that he preaches against from the deepest part of his heart is that which the false witnesses accused him of and had him sent to prison for ten years.

    Obviously this is a statement of faith. To me, this soapboxing on the talk page places doubt on his ability to withhold his bias in a way suitable for Wikipedia. However, I am involved in the dispute and do not want to slap him with a COI warning. What do people here think is the correct course of action? Shii (tock) 02:18, 7 November 2013

    Since 99 percent of the article is contributed by Shii and only a few phrases by me I see no COI. AS LONG AS I PRESENT INDEPENDENT SOURCES THERE IS NO COI. ADDITIONALLY EDITORS SUCH AS richwales, harizotoh, ravensfire, sam sailor have all supervised the editing process and made sure everything is on the QT. If not they fix it.MrTownCar (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've contributed about two sentences to the article total. What happened here is that you and another editor removed the contents of an article written several years ago, and I've restored it several times. Shii (tock) 03:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=580686907"