Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest‎ | Noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 4 August 2008 (Archiving 1 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. (ARCHIVE FULL)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jim Prentice

This report by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reveals edits made by an anon IP from Industry Canada to the Minister of Industry's article. These edits include violating WP:POV by removing any criticism of a forthcoming bill the Minister is to table next week, and glorifying him as having "experience, confidence and competence, ability and capability." Not sure what action should be taken, but I am sure it should be noted here as this has been proven by by University of Ottawa internet law professor Michael Geist, and relayed via a reliable source, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. -- Reaper X 03:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that problem has been well stamped on already Restepc (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Liz Wilde

Liz Wilde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - continued editing of the article by it's subject (Lizwilde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). This editor has been warned numerous times on her talk page.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides COI, it's also now well beyond 3RR. I've even gotten close to 3RR myself now. The359 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, it seems possible that 199.200.243.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same person due to their edits so far today to Liz Wilde and a related Liz Wilde image. The359 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ummm, no. If you look at my edits, you'll see I've actually tried to improve the article and brin another viewpoint. I agree though, that perhaps Lizwilde should stop editing her own article. 199.200.243.253 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Another viewpoint is fine, as long as it includes citations and helps the article meet WP:BIO. This article is fast heading towards an AFD.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • AfD sounds good. The alternative would be to rewrite the article in a neutral style, but for that you need to have reliable sources that contain detailed information about the person. Given the lack of sources, and the difficulty of meeting WP:BIO, deletion sounds like a good option. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've sent it to AfD after looking at the references. I can't see any notability, if the best she could do was a handful of links like the ones on the article, the last one to a failed radio network, that's not very good. Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No I haven't, it's protected. Doug Weller (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Shall we get this unprotected and AFD it? I added those references before the edit war started.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I unprotected the article to allow an AfD nomination. Any admin should restore the protection if BLP problems occur. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I've raised the AfD. Doug Weller (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Herb Chambers Companies

Herb Chambers Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this corporate article is being repeatedly sanitized by company surrogates in order to cleanse it of unpleasant, but verifiable facts. One fact is the Boston Globe story about questionable campaign contributions. The other is a blog article (written by a reputable national journalist) where several hundred customers and current and former company employees discuss its conduct. To me both articles are noteworthy and relevant.

Beyond all that: their other, less substantial edits (such as listing every single model of car they sell) create an article that probably qualifies as a corporate vanity / spam page. The discussion page for the article has more detail. We could use some objective help over there. Thank you. BostonBrew (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article could be clearer on how the contributions to the atty general campaign are of concern. Also, which editors do you have a COI concern with? Have they been warned on their talk page?--Rtphokie (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:8bitJake


I am not biased against historical fiction, it is an interesting form of fantasy. I am a problem with "Historical Fiction" being mixed in with fact in an article about a historical event. I don't think that minor works of fiction should be included in an article on a historical event. Every little Hollywood pop-culture reference is UnEncyclopedic. It is a slippery slope if you let fantasy and fiction to mix in with an article that is trying to inform about a historical event. I don't have a problem with a link to the fictional movie in question I just think it should be labeled unambiguously as a work of fiction.--8bitJake (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the WTO protest was something that I lived though gives me a sense of reverence and respect for the dignity of the events. I don' t think a B-movie of the week should be held up to the same light as a historical record. --8bitJake (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also that ban was for political figures. This is an historical event and a work of fiction being included in a historical article. I don’t have a bias against fictional works of art loosly based on the event. I just don’t think that they should be included or passed of on the article about the historical record. I am sorry wanting Unencyclopedic content out of historical articles is considered biased toward factual verifyable information. --8bitJake (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're under probation. Because of that, you can be banned from any article you disrupt. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Merely being at the protest/riots doesn't create a conflict of interest, IMHO, and I'm not sure how such an application of COI could be applied here. As far as the disruption go, if you feel 8bitJake is being disruptive, then WP:AE is the proper venue to take, not here. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Documentary film "The Sons of Eilaboun"

Article:

Notability:

Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted the article about an award winning documentary, which describes persuade of Palestinians by Israeli government in the earlier ages of the state establishment. The user Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) himself is a UK-based Jewish man. Tried several times before to delete the article and bio of its director. Call for politically-neutral administrators to participate in this case. Mordka (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows in his profile that he is a pro Israeli, and he tries always to change and delete anything connected to Palestinians, He deleted the film the sons of Eilaboun, a film that won an award and the Arabic press including Aljazeera.net. The director/visual artist Hisham Zreiq (or Zrake) is a respected an important Palestinian artist. And his art can be found all over the internet. (Please see links bellow)

I think this is vandalism from Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://www.badil.org/Publications/Press/2008/press461-08.htm

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/897/sc3.htm

http://media.www.coyotechronicle.com/media/storage/paper1326/news/2008/05/23/MultiCultural/Remembering.60.Years.Later-3375335.shtml

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2008/05/al-awda-convention-highlights.html

http://al-awda.org/alert-eilaboun.html

http://www.3dlinks.com/HishamArt

http://onefineart.com/en/artists/hishamz/

http://hishamart.artremains.com/

http://www.artwanted.com/HishamArt

http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/60years.htm

http://tadamon.resist.ca/index.php/post/1404

http://galerie-zukunftslabor.de/hishamzreiq.html


ARABIC LINKS:

http://www.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=1070538

http://www.panet.co.il/online/articles/71/73/S-87251,71,73.html

http://www.palissue.com/vb/palestine112/issue47052

http://www.assennara.net/article.asp?id=8793

http://www.badil.org/Arabic-Web/Publications/Press/2008/pressA-12-2008.htm

http://www.7baybna.com/Default.asp?ViewArt=1&MenuID=2&NewsId=30487


Just look for "The sons of eilaboun" , "Hisham Zreiq" or "Hisham Zrake" in google

"Num666 (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)"

The above users are right in one respect - there has been a conflict of interest. However, it is that of Hishamzr (talk · contribs) who created the articles on himself and his films. Zreiq [5] or that Zrake gets less than 100 ghits, most of which are social networking sites or linked to the (deleted) Wikipedia article. Most of the links above are self-publishing.
I've also filed a RFCU on the two editors above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Number 57 is really bad in numbers. If you want to count ghits then consider that Hisham Zreiq (530 ghits) or Hisham Zrake (1700 ghits). And good luck with RFCU. Mordka (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Try scrolling through the hits. Once you get to 70-80 there aren't any more. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Try clicking the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link. Mordka (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why? It just lists more hits but on the same websites; the total number of websites remains the same. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sons of Eilaboun. MER-C 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This text is from Wikipedia about admins like Number57:
  • Criticism of Wikipedia - Administrator actions: "In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted criticism that administrators of the site, who have "special powers to lock down vulnerable articles from further editing, and temporarily block problem users from making changes to the site",[107] have occasionally abused those powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place."

The proof can be seen in his behavior in ignoring facts and other user in the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sons of Eilaboun. It is obvious he is discriminating the article about the film only because it is a Palestinian film, and he is eager in any price to delete it. JFCK (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note I think User:Number 57 should be blocked. He probably will try to block me, like he did to others. JFCK (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:IRC networks

Resolved

<- how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.138.180 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This may be the wrong place to report this but I'm unaware as to where to go. I am generally worried about most of the articles under the IRC_Network Category. A good portion of them seem to be just an advertisement of the network consisting of a description, sometimes even a list of staff, and an official link to their website. Almost always there are no references and most of them are already tagged. For example UniBG, ShellsNet, PaintballChat, NetGamers, LinkNet, IRCnet, etc. Networks such as EFnet, Freenode, Quakenet, DALnet are some of the biggest in the world making them credible but I believe this entire Category is an abuse of wikipedia. If it were only a few IRC networks advertising I would discuss locally but I believe this Category should get attention from admins in some way for the sheer amount of articles that should be reviewed. Virek (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In a quick look, I didn't see anything that seemed over the top. Maybe you could pick one of the articles that you think has the least credibility, and nominate it for deletion? Such a debate might help decide if the others should be challenged as well. Most of these articles are short, dense with information, and they are not promotional in style. If you could rank them by membership, maybe the smallest networks could be scrutinized. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am scrutinizing too much. I see things a bit differently. To me it looks like over half on the list are listed there because the administrators of the network made the page for advertising. I'll post specific articles and details.
  1. AbleNET - Article has references but they seem to be mostly blogs (or references that don't really indicate notability of the network). Network only has 150-300 users which is not notable at all.
  2. Abjects - Follows normal logic of info about the network, its services, and how to connect to it. Reference is dead.
  3. AfterNET - Not a large network, no notability defined, only reference is its own webiste
  4. AustIRC - same as above
If I continued I'd probably just list them all except 5-6 which are actually notable networks (100k+ users, first server ever, etc). Are these entries appropriate for wikipedia? PaintballChat for example has only 50-100 users and I will probably propose that for deletion. I would just like some more opinions because as I see it now most of these pages shouldn't exist. Perhaps there are (or should be) guidelines on what determines an IRC network to be notable. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia to know where to look for them though. Things such as is it appropriate to have a list of staff and administrators? Appropriate for a list of popular channels? A list of services the server uses? What kind of user base would make a network notable? I would say freenode is an example of a notable IRC network (70,000+ users, article from the registrar). I think others agree with my stance considering there are notability tags on many of them. I'm also worried about discussion because it seems like it's an unpopular area. Furion for example has been around since 2007. One person put wikify tags on it which were removed by the creator. Has about 8 edits in a year. Virek (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not propose the deletion of any IRC articles that lack reliable sources. List the names of those articles here in case anyone disagrees with your evaluation. I would support the deletion of items #1-4 that you listed above. Even some of the articles on the smaller networks tell the stories of interesting disputes. I'd still dump them if they have no sources, however. (A list of staff and administrators should not be included unless those people are notable). If you are willing to go through all the references, that would clearly be a service. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The following have been proposed for deletion: Abjects, ablenet, afternet, austIRC, austnet, brasnet, blitzed, byxnet, Crunge, Furion, GamesNET, Global Gamers, IRCHighway, IRC-Hispano, IRCLang, IRCnet, Linknet, NetGamers , PaintballChat, shellsnet, UniBG. Because the users are normally internet savvy I would expect some prods to get delete without cause at some point. Articles have been prodded before. I also looked at some IRC statistics and some user counts are much lower then suggested. For example unibg claims ~50,000 while their own statistic site shows ~4000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virek (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Low or high user counts have no bearing on how noteworthy an IRC network is. Not to sound the drama queen but what you are discussing I think is a fundamental part of what Wikipedia is or isn't. Frankly if there is a need to remove pages on IRC networks etc., based on "noteability", there is a need to stop having pages on IRC networks all together. The same applies to newsgroups, websites, companies, brands, television shows, movies, artists. Anything that "are" or "is". Wikipedia has sat on the fence for too long and this is just an example of the result. How do you define a reliable source, or noteability, for the list of "things" I just listed? How do you completely remove "Conflict of Interest" when the majority of people that read, and hence edit, these things do so because, gasp, they're "interested". I look forward to the day more users dig into the discuss and special pages to discover how much of an ugly kludge this all is, in the meantime.. well :) 203.122.246.87 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
203.122.246.87 (talk · contribs) has contested the PROD on AustNet. I observe that our article on AustNet cites no reliable sources at all. The PROD on PaintballChat was contested but it now has an AfD nomination. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Since 203.122.246.87 (talk · contribs) only has edits on the AustIRC/Austnet IRC articles I'd assume they are a user or administrator of the service. My reply to him is that he is right about popularity not being a sole reason to be noteworthy. The point is those networks aren't noteworthy in any other way, so your point proves your article is not noteworthy. If an IRC network is notable, which is possible, it deserves a page. An article on "IRC Networks" would be appropriate because their existence is notable for the sheer amount of users and uses across the internet. Individual networks should not exist unless they are themselves notable. Simple as that.Virek (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually my point was that the noteability requirements are simply not suitable for some scenarios, nor is "reliable source" or "conflict of interest" relevent for any realm you can draw your own experiences and interests from - i.e. something current and something that "is" - by 'being' it is obviously worthy of notice to somebody and by any somebody creating and editing the article they are obviously of the opinion it is noteworthy here. So feel free to become a 'reliable source' for these articles yourself, understand that a 'conflict of interest' is inevitable for something you become interested in, and shake your head with me when people spout on about a magical 'noteability' litmus when what they really need to be questioning is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. I do not agree that if you do not find an article noteable the correct course of action is to delete it, do you rip the pages out of a paper encyclopedia if they do not interest you? I feel it is absolutely no reflection on an article if you do not find it noteable, but a reflection on yourself and this website that the reaction is to burn it rather than better it yourself. I guess that's why I contribute so little to this site, but is it because I'm a hypocrite, because reading these special pages shows which direction this site is headed, or because I'm utterly and completely wrong and just don't "get" Wikipedia? Simple as what? :) 203.122.246.87 (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that IRC is a very active and important component of the internet. It was one of the first means of group communication, along with newsgroups, and remains a vital mode of communication on the 'net. To call a big network such as efnet noteworthy because lots of teens talk about their sex life there, but other smaller networks where current and leading edge discussion and dissemination of information takes place are not, is a shame. The user who raised this apparent 'problem', Mr. EdJohnston, said that he's unaware where to go. He's generally concerned. Well, a lot of these networks have been around since long before wikipedia existed. They've been around long enough to see and contribute with interest to wikipedia's new idea, and see it slowly get bogged down by exactly this type of political bullshit. 'i think it's a conflict of interest' 'not enough users means it's not notable to be on here' Dude, it's wikipedia. There already are large encyclopedias with draconian standards, the world doesn't need another one. This site isn't supposed to be about popularity contests etc. And if you want a reference for irc sites, use something like netsplit.de. Before you get 'concerned' and start deleting shit, why don't you think about how long it was up here and why someone took the time to add it. There is some important and interesting history of the internet that you are busy trying to delete. And finally, what's with the 'watch this page' not emailing when it gets deleted? Fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.138.180 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Byxnet. Byxnet seems to be one of the most well known irc networks that's deeply associated with quakecon, and the original Quake 1 community. I find it odd that it doesn't meet notoriety requirements when links like this exist. http://planetquake.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=65319 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.147.179 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Frederick R. Bieber

This article was created by and has thus far been the only edits of User:Dariamorgendorffer as well as the IP User:170.223.146.123, which resolves to somewhere inside the Harvard network. Clearly, Daria is someone who knows a lot about Bieber (if not Bieber himself, though his age makes it unlikely for him to get the TV show reference), and given that the IP listed Bieber as a Freemason on List of Freemasons as of 2007 (not cited in the article), the IP is likely Bieber himself. MSJapan (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just started some copy editing to clean this up a bit, more work to be done later. I also left a few notices on the contributors talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Xplor international

I am hesitant to bring this to this COI noticeboard: I believe that the reaction to COI edits is often excessive (sometimes they can be a good thing!), and it can drive good contributors off. However, after a discussion on my talk page, the Xplor international page still appears very spammy. Someone might want to use kiddie gloves with the authors, who are members of the organization (though they don't work for it). The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A world wide organisation of people whose job it is to send people bills and snail mail spam....you'd think they wouldn't want to advertise too much....
It's possible the guy has good intentions; though right now he's a SPA...I'll just start editing the page and see how it goes.Restepc (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I just performed some copyediting and it's much better now, but it still lacks sources and perhaps notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

KEWL Magazine

About a couple weeks ago, I came upon the article for the teenage-targeting KEWL Magazine and noticed that it was improperly written as if to suggest a promotional article. It was full of puff PR about events the magazine did, a superflous cover gallery, and a long list of blue-linked celebrities which had pictures in the magazine which seemed only designed to puff up their WLH numbers (and was a forgone conclusion; if you're 14-25, sing, or appear on TV or a film, you'll probably be in this magazine). I reverted the PR and the gallery and formalized the writing, explaining it so in my edit summary.

However Sk8trchick, who beyond a couple edits has only contributed to the KEWL article, reverted my changes saying my edit does not conform to wikipedia rules. The user removed sections without properly reporting in their edit summary and will be reported if another attempt is made. However my summary was rv overly promotional writing of article, take out pictures which add nothing to the article, which I thought was pretty clear. I re-reverted the changes, but then Poetsroad, also only editing the KEWL article (and adding a link to it in a band's article), reverted my changes, claiming the cover gallery was informative and conforms with NPOV rules, when it's more of a copyright concern since I assume the agencies selling the pictures to the magazines strictly prohibit them from being used anywhere else but in the physical magazine. The two accounts editing only that article also suggest COI and SPA's in my eyes.

I just wanted to make sure I was right in reverting these changes. I'm not in WP:3RR jeopardy, but I don't want to revert and then be shot down again even with extremely specific reasons for reverting the edits in my summaries. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left uw-coi warnings on both users' Talk pages. I have also puidisputed the images in the image gallery, since Sk8trchick claims to own the copyright, but the copyright on the images specifically claim to be created by Mike Bundie, a name which doesn't sound like a "chick" to me. Corvus cornixtalk 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Alden

Appears to be largely original research by the subject of the article, copied from his self-published bio on other sites.

For example, the phrase "the world's largest blogging company" seems to be Calden's own. I can't find notable research that supports phrases like "an innovative RSS feed reading service".

The external links in paragraphs at the end of the article seem to be a non-standard format for Wikipedia.

Some of the details may not be encyclopedic, but I may be biased.

The company I work for is largely considered the competition the subject is the CEO of, so it is inappropriate for me to update the article myself. Lloydbudd (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (I changed my username from Foolswisdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I previously reported this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and User:Corvus cornix suggested I report it here.

Pedro Pierluisi

This user who works under a obvious politically promotional username began editing the Pedro Pierluisi article earlier today, among his edits he included phrases such as "prestigious" when trying to push a POV and blanked a reference, which combined with a blantantly promotional username suggests a biased user, possibly part of the politician's campaing staff. 24.138.198.241 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mtc38118

Mtc38118 (talk · contribs) began life as Mahaffey (talk · contribs) and began creating several articles which were blatant ads for the Mahaffey company. The user changed user names, but continues to create ads for the company, with links specifically to Mahaffey sites. Several of this user's articles have been deleted as blatant advertising, but he/she keeps recreating them. Corvus cornixtalk 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Miss Pakistan World's organisers' blatant spamming

I am filing a conflict of interest on various pages including the ones mentioned in the list below:

The above articles are totally biased and have been tagged for blatant advertisement zillions of times (figure of speech), but the messages are removed. Even notices prompting the editor to add citations, remove dubious claims and vague paraphrases are routinely removed. Edits made by users in the light of mending these problems are usually reverted or in the case of Miss Pakistan World "reworded".

Proof collected for COI
To summarise the conflict of interest issues, following is a collection of the investigations into the user's and their associates' editing MO.

  • The users Sonisona (talk · contribs), Danthompsonjr (talk · contribs) and Tamara Daniels PR (talk · contribs) are put under scrutiny here.
  • User Sonisona has only ever edited articles related to the Miss Pakistan World pageant or its contestants from the time this account has been created.
  • User Danthompsonjr has been actively uploading pictures for the following articles only, almost always without a license and clear breach of copyright policies and has been warned as well. The user never cares to respond properly.
  • The third user, Tamara Daniels PR made an edit clearly acknowledging that they were hired by the company to edit their articles. This use so far has made only one edit as of this writing.
  • The website URL stated in the above mentioned edit points to the proprietors of the business being a one Daniel Thompson and another Tamara Atzenwiler. Clearly the user Danthompsonjr is Daniel here. The other edit using the other username Tamara Daniels PR was of Daniel's as well if the e-mail address is matched from his edit. It all makes sense.
  • User Sonisona denies the facts here saying their is no Daniel working for them contrary to Daniel himself. This claim is questionable as the PR agency's website features the company's working under their blog entry here. Notice the highlighted words in the address for the mentioned blog entry:
    www.tamaradaniels.com/what-were-doing/mrs-pakistan-2008-proves-progression-still-lives
  • The user Sonisona leaves a message on the talk page at one point. This message can be accessed here. Notice the words: "the team", "our true history", "mix our pictures". This was just after edits by Arunreginald proclaiming the company's associations with the Tamara Daniels PR agency. In this immediate post, these allegations were never condemned rather the user showed that there actually was a team working on the article, neither were allegations stating the user Sonisona to be the president of the company Sonia Ahmed challenged in any way.
  • It was only after the query by user Morenoodles that the user User:Sonisona changed her comments.

This is more than enough proof to state that a serious conflict of interest is being exercised on the article page. Consider this proof and tell me what needs to be done. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sloan Bella

A few days ago I stumbled upon the article Sloan Bella (I was looking at some possible COI cases generated by AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult), created by User:Sloanbella. I did not request deletion, as the subject does appear to have some notability. I tried to improve the article a bit myself, but it is not really my subject. In addition, the subject herself (who apparently created the article) keeps editing it, despite the fact that I have tried to explain the relevant policies on her talk page (User_talk:Sloanbella). According to a message that she left on my talk page, the article was written by her management staff. Bella is a new editor and I don't want to bite her head off or discourage her, but I am unsure about what is propoer here. I would appreciate if some other editor with more experience in COI issues could have a look at this. --Crusio (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I explained to this editor that she should not edit the article on her herself, but put any suggestions on the talk page in accordance with standard policy and let other editors make any changes. Suddenly a new editor has popped up, User:Kristysixt, whose only edits are to this article. Serious accusations (such as alleged heavy drinking of her father) are "sourced" by references to her bio on her website, sloanbella.com. --Crusio (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple new articles by Lnconnect

Over the past several hours the WP:SPA Lnconnect (talk · contribs) has created a number of new articles, all on the legal journals published by LexisNexis Butterworths Connect probably in the violation of WP:COI. I don't want to WP:BITE (since I was accused of that recently) and the articles have sufficent detail so that I don't feel comfortable just nominatiñg them for speedy as spammy. The articles include New Law Journal, Justice of the Peace Magazine, Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal, Construction Law Journal, Taxation Magazine. --Thetrick (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rich Bride Poor Bride

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Nguyen.

I'm an admin, but as the creator of the Rich Bride Poor Bride page I should not really be doing any admin actions related to happenings on that page, baring simple vandalism, which this is not. The page is on a cable reality TV show. The user listed above appears, by user name, to be one of the participants in one of the episodes of the show. They have twice now added to the page a section of text lifted from one of the network web pages (copyvio), and a couple of additional paragraphs highlighting the particular episode in which they appeared in fairly POV terms. They have also created a vanity page for themselves. Could I get some more eyes to assist on the page, and especially be willing to handle any admin actions there, if any should be required? As for the vanity page, I'm not sure it's eligible for speedy deletion, as appearing on a reality show is IMHO at least an assertion of notability, but I've seen plenty of (IMHO) more notable reality show participants deleted at AFD, so I'm pretty sure that this person would not pass AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

With Tony's latest edit the copyright issues are pretty much dealt with. He created a new basic description paragraph for the show that was not lifted from the series web site, and I have edited it into the main body of the article, and cleane it up for encyclopedic style. However, he's still insisting on adding a very POV paragraph about his specific episode. I'm at 3RR on that paragraph now, so I should not continue to remove it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong related AfD with COI problem (Arbcom related)

A current AfD Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination), has very few contributors outside of myself who are not vested in some way (for or against) Falun Gong related articles. Several of them were party to an Arbcom case, and have also been contacting other members with edits to a similar range of articles to come in to comment on the AfD. I think a neutral party should have a look at this for any potential COI which may affect the outcome one way or the other. MrPrada (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Falun Gong articles are all very polarised, appear only to attract devotees or cranks, and are constantly plagued by edit-warring from same. I am pretty fed up with both sides, and agree with the above that there may be a more deep-seated problem which needs to be examined, not limited to the action proposed above. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Ohconfucius and MrPrada: this should be investigated. I also believe that some of the revert-warring that initially plagued Falun Gong has moved on to other related articles, which would be in violation of the ArbCom decision regarding these articles. However, all this WikiDrama gives me a serious headache -_-. Anyway, I would support someone coming in from the outside to determine if a COI exists (I am no longer qualified, having launched myself into the AfD...). I still wish we were here to build an encyclopedia, not push "the truth". nneonneo talk 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This noticeboard is most effective when it is given a specific article to improve. Can MrPrada designate an article that he believes is non-neutral, and list the specific problems? If this issue has already been to Arbcom, then we can make no promises of miracles. But we could have a discussion. This must be the Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was referring specifically to the AFD discussion. After Ohconfucius made me aware of the previous Arbcom case (which was in May of '07, imposing a 1-year topic ban that expired last month) I noticed that several of the people involved were commenting on the AFD. It was later brought up that there is an endemic bias from both sides amongst Falung Gong related articles. I make no claim that I have any familiarity with the subject matter, I was just party to this one particular AFD—which is I why I had hoped some other neutral editors would come along and make comments. I think the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong could be a specific example, the specific problems are described within the Talk page and the AFD. I can list them for you if you'd like, but they come from other editors. MrPrada (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the Afd closed with no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Athaenara ✉ 09:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That it did, but Ohconfucius and nneonneo both brought up that this is occurring on a weekly basis on the article itself, as well as other FG related articles. I sent a note to some of the major contributors to hear what they have to say. MrPrada (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm trying to input valid criticism since the FG page appears to be overwhelmingly positive praises of the organization. I believe the page requires criticism to balance out the viewpoints, otherwise the article would be heavily POV in support of the Falun Gong. Addressing the criticisms and both sides of the issue would be logical. Intranetusa (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

POV issues have been with that article (and related ones) since its inception, unfortunately; they stem from a systemic bias introduced by tens of editors with the singular goal of pushing their own viewpoint, whether it be pro-FG or anti-FG. The Arbcom case managed to find and remove two of the more tendentious anti-FG editors, however, they haven't apparently stopped sockpuppeting and there are still many more editors on either side. I wish that someone who was genuinely neutral could help out with this article (I cannot offer to, since I know that my personal biases will make it impossible to be perfectly neutral on the subject). nneonneo talk 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I too agree with Ohconfucius: "Falun Gong articles are all very polarised, appear only to attract devotees or cranks" then of course the next best thing I think it's what MrPrada said: "I sent a note to some of the major contributors to hear what they have to say.". Now really if there would be enough interest or enough mediation, guidance on the Wikipedia rules and spirit, we could really have a constructive environment and that my friend, would be just excellent! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually by major editors I hope you mean major Wikipedia editors ..., not necessarily admins, but people who are not biased and interested to keep on eye on this article and on the contributions from both sides. Recently I saw Fuzzypeg doing this for a brief amount of time. Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have much to contribute to the discussion. I think the only way for this to be adequately resolved is for people working on the pages to demand of themselves to be polite, courteous, to listen to others, to consider the high-quality encyclopedia aspect, and to try to understand things from more points of view. All this can be difficult, no question. Ohconfucius and I for example, have traditionally worked quite well together. We discuss things and compromise, and where we cannot compromise one of us inevitably then just gives in to the other, for the purpose of progress etc.. At the moment you can check the edit histories of the articles, they are not in crisis as seems to have been suggested. I'd say they are more-or-less stable. Problems arise when people from either side start making radical edits, a la Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Neutral point of view (and associated principles): "Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem." -- this happens less than once a month at the moment. The long term editors, or let me just talk for myself (I think confucius plans to stick around) are committed to making serious, high quality articles. Of course, I have my own views on this subject, but who doesn't. If I didn't think I could make a quality contribution, I wouldn't bother. Wikipedia policies are good, and referring to them and sticking to them gives an objective measure. One of the pages was elevated to good status some months ago. It would be great if a slew of uninterested parties came in, read heaps of the literature, and started working. That hasn't happened.

Just a final point, to ohconfucius, because I'm sure he's reading: please think twice before you c&p a rant. It will make a fourth or fifth time, and I for one am finding it a bit dull. Try to say something constructive. There, I hope that wasn't a harsh comment, but I feel it's important to discourage unhelpful and venting remarks, and to encourage good ones. Of course, if you think that is a good approach, then you should do it.

About The Epoch Times and CIPFG pages... I don't know. There was a WSJ article about Falun Gong founded media earlier this year, someone should dig that up and refer to it. There's a bit of a dearth of resources on some of these topics. Epoch Times is peripherally related to the Falun Gong pages. Anyway, the articles generally have slowly improved, and I think they will continue to do so. Mostly I'd say they suffer from neglect, but check out Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting, Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident, and Persecution_of_Falun_Gong -- they are well sourced, neutrally written, and generally of a high standard. --Asdfg12345 01:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. After reading the three articles you mentioned, I must be honest in saying that they lend far too much time to the Falun Gong perspective, and not enough time to how the Chinese government or other external agencies interpret and respond to the comments generated. For example, in this section, rather than fully explaining McGregor's point of view fairly, the article immediately cuts to a takedown of his argument; this is the only argument presented which refutes the claim, despite the fact that there are numerous other sources (e.g. US Dept. of State report(s)), making the singular "doubt" an easy strawman. This section reads like a conspiracy theory (analogous to accusations that 9/11 was performed with explosives in the building, with camera crews readily available to film the incident). Now, I'm not going to act on this information, because I don't believe that I would personally be able to do a good job with such a controversial topic, and I'd rather not fan the flames. I'm simply letting you know of some serious concerns I have with these apparently neutral articles. nneonneo talk 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's my personal experience with balant DE by editor Asdfg. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate that. If you have any other comments, and don't want to edit yourself, please leave them on the talk pages or whatever. The more specific the better. Next week I wanted to have a close look at the organ harvesting page; expanding on McGregor's article might be a good idea. I wrote that part, so I take responsibility for it; I think I attempted to distil both his article and the response to it. I didn't add the Amnesty part, though, someone else put that. Originally there was a paragraph for Mcregor, a paragraph from Kilgour/Matas, and a paragraph about how the CMS sponsored him. Now Amnesty was added in. I think Amnesty can be moved elsewhere, Mcgregor strengthened (if possible), Kilgour/Matas directly follow mcgregor, and the claim that the CMS sponsored him can be shortened. I am not aware of a US State rejection of the Kilgour/Matas report. They didn't find evidence to substantiate the Sujiatun stuff, which was prior. There is the CRS report by Lum though, which raises doubts specifically about K/M, and perhaps that doesn't get enough airtime--I will check. Re-examining Mcgregor would be a good idea; thanks.

About the False Fire section, do you have any specific ideas about how it is not credible or unencyclopedic, and how it might be improved? The second paragraph of that article was previously in its own box on the right, but later changed. It is all taken from NTDTV's video analysis (a Falun Gong linked station) -- they won an award for the video. As far as I understand, the statements it makes refer to the contents of the video that was publicly broadcast; I don't think it refers to things that cannot be independently verified, such as perhaps 9/11 with explosives. Many of those specific claims were repeated in different media; for example, one media might refer to fire extinguishers, one might refer to the security cameras. I seem to recall this kind of thing. Does it not sound right because of the tone, or because of the information or views it presents? I'm not saying this is the case, but perhaps if one were already convinced it was a bona-fide Falun Gong immolation, arguments to the contrary may not be readily admitted. I suppose the key is to present what the sources have said and let the reader decide. If there is any specific way this might be improved I'd be interested to hear it. Thanks again.--Asdfg12345 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The FLG articles are largely edited my me, Ohconfucius, Asdfg12345, and HappyInGeneral, with dilip_rajeev occasionally showing up and engage in disruptive editing. I feel the problem is that the pro-FLG editors usually bent the guidelines, and try to eliminate anything critical of FLG. My edits were systematically reverted in entirety just because they don't agree with one or two of my additions. For example this article Academic views on Falun Gong is currently in very bad form, full of technical jargon and quotes. I tried to clean it up and simply state that main points, but Asdfg12345 and HappyInGeneral keeps reverting it and accused me of vandalism. Another article, Falun Gong Outside Mainland China, is full of uncited tags from last year, but whenever I try to delete unsourced material they pro-FLG users keep engage in a revert war. The article Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China has an undue weight to Kilgour-Matas, two pro-FLG investigators, yet the other investigations by the US Dept of State and Harry Wu only gets a passing mention. Several other editors who tried to edit FLG pages has been driven off by the actions of these pro-FLG SPAs and never to return. I feel that their actions of engaging in systematic reverts extremely in opposition to what Wikipedia is about.--PCPP (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PCPP has no place accusing others of disruptive editing. Just to copy a bit of my digging into edit histories: The 2nd nom was made only within 6 months of his previous one which is simply inappropriate. He's demonstrated that he is bent on promoting pro-China POV and has shown absolutely no respect to the process of Wiki from the very end of the previous AfD by slyly attempting to redirect the article merely two weeks after his previous attempt at having the article deleted failed[6]. Within the 6 months after his first AfD failed, he attempted to unilaterally redirect this article many times after being warned [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. The last time he did this, I brought the issue up at ANI[13] which resulted in a 48hr block against PCPP by Blnguyen (talk · contribs)[14]. When he realized that his efforts at unilaterally moving the article weren't going to fly, he decided to open up the second AfD. I believe that this user has the most obvious POV and COI issue here whereas the other users seem to be much more willing to discuss issues despite the occasional warring over page moves. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh look how's talking, the pot calling the kettle black. Talk like that again and I will file a complaint against you. Unlike you and your FLG buddies, I've edited more than FLG related articles. Looking at your editing history, it's obvious who really has a POV and COI issue here. Considering that the article has its notability in doubt as established in the 2nd AFD I have every right to redirect that article.

To date this user has:

  • Vandalised and blanked another user's page [15] under his Nonexistant User, and later trying to create a MFD entirely because it contained a link to the user's blog critical of FLG.
  • Flat out accused me of being an anti-FLG pro-China activist and canvassed in the CIPFG AFD [16], mislead the AFD into thinking I had a bad faith nomination. He has done it again in the seconbd AFD [17]
  • Stepped in a content disupte he has no involvement in, and flat out accused me of being a vandal, issuing ridiculous vandalism tags on my user talk page [18]
  • Has no understanding of Wikipedia policies, created a false vandalism accusation against me [19], which was later rejected by admins.
  • Canvassed other pro-FLG users against me [20] [21] [22] in ANI.
  • Worth noting is that his message appeared right after I posted my previous comment, as is this [23] and [24], citing a history of tracking me.

The behavior of this user showed that I can no longer assume good faith.--PCPP (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

quick note. I admit that I have not edited appropriately in response to PCPP. That is why I was banned for 48 hours. I would claim that it was in response to originally problematic editing on his part, but that is not actually a legitimate excuse. Of course, I am not saying that PCPP is right to do such edits repeatedly, without engaging in discussion, but I have made a rule that I will not revert more than once per article per day, so that won't happen again. Basically in the end the problem has been not enough polite discussion and too much extreme editing. That won't make articles good. But even then, the problems have been fairly contained and have not caused great issues. In future we should just discuss more, revert less.--Asdfg12345 01:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

COI of concern by two editors

Ian Lloyd (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created and edited by: Rianlloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Christopher.lloyd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is especially troubling because the page creation was done incorrectly causing a loss of the history of the article showing its creation by Christopher.lloyd. Then, it was primarily edited by Rianlloyd (the subject of the article). When I marked it with {{COI}}, Christopher.lloyd then showed up and removed the tag stating "Removed COI, verified that content was copeid from R. Ian Lloyd" (the original article history written by Christopher.lloyd). So, it's one Lloyd covering for another Lloyd while they both draft an article about one of themselves. It would appear the article meets notability, but the significant COI (x2) and then subsequent cover-up by removing the template is troubling. ju66l3r (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Rus (User:Jacobolus) promoting his website and his friends at Comet (programming)

Comet (programming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Jacobolus uses this article about a buzzword/web-technology to promote the technology itself, the website he works for, his friends and himself. I've tried to clean up the article from the pov, original research and advertisement tone, but he (and some anon ips) insists of reverting to his own version.

In the article version he wrote (and insists on maintaining), he shamelessly quotes (in big fonts) his job-friends like Joe Walker, Alex Russell, Alessandro Alinone, Michael Carter, and himself (Jacob Rus), and puts them as big luminaries of a technological future.

See http://cometdaily.com/2008/01/09/comet-on-wikipedia/ for Jacob's description of his work on this article. --Damiens.rf 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted Damiens changes, due to the fact that he comes and pushes trough his changes even when being challenged to discuss them... no matter what and with a very uncivil tone. Accusing Jacob working on his "pet project" and "ownership" is quite unfair as he was immediately cooperative by taking up a discussion and by willing to rewrite/cleanup the article, I absolutely don't see what is wrong when an expert on a field is contributing to an article. I have done similar to technology articles that I am familiar with. I would have wished to engage in communication than playing hard ball with an "alleged enemy". - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been completely open about my role editing the Comet article on Wikipedia, and welcome collaboration. Unfortunately, Damiens.rf insists on destruction rather than cooperation. These people are not my “job friends” but rather form the community of professional experts working on Comet full-time. As such, they have useful things to say about it. I have interest in neither advertising nor original research, and welcome constructive edits and advice. Accusations of “shamelessness” are offensive and absurd. —jacobolus (t) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
To further explain, Damiens.rf removed 85% of the article in a series of 40 edits, each of them justified by a one-line edit summary, most of which looked something like “remove non-notable blogger comment,” or “overly detailed.” The result was an article which explains neither what Comet is, nor how it works, and has none of the original citations which linked to several excellent sources for further reading. I (rather reasonably, in my opinion) bulk-reverted this destruction, and asked him to take it to the talk page. Unfortunately, he took this as a challenge to fight a revert war, rather than discussing, and has since re-reverted to his butchered version 5 or 6 times. I really do not understand how this reflects a conflict of interest on my part. As far as I can tell, he is now attempting to exploit this COI page, as a way of forcing through his disruptive edits. —jacobolus (t) 00:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
While Jacob has strong potential COI for the article, this is partly because he knows so much about the subject, and I do not think he is intentionally doing anything wrong. The article does have serious problems (one of which is dispute over the length) but hopefully we can work those out. If both Jacob and Damiens can agree to work on the article while being more careful about sounding like an advert/opinion, being more civil, and attempting to gain consensus with other editors rather than simply battling each other, I think we can avoid taking things any further. Restepc (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Initially not agreeing with Damiens, he made some very good points on the Comet talk page for his edits and that the current article is promoting a certain "terminology" (possibly it's a neolism, buzzword or synonym for another web technology). At this point I think that Jacob has a conflict of interest, we need to decide where to go with the Comet article and how to bring it back to a neutral point of view. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has been reduced to a stub, and is now all but useless for a reader trying to understand the term. I am for the moment giving up on the article, as it is not worth my time any more. Another couple of knowledgeable new editors attempted to lend their own wisdom, but as far as I can tell Damiens’s disruptive editing style and abrasive, condescending discussion style have driven away every user with any interest in productive editing. None of the remaining editors have, as far as I can tell, any prior knowledge of the subject, and there has been no evidence any are interested in researching it. So I expect that the article will now remain a useless stub for the foreseeable future. Most unfortunate. Cheers. —jacobolus (t) 05:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

complaining won't change the fact that your preferred version of the article was completely unsuitable; it would probably be extremely helpful if you do indeed 'give up' on the article and let people get on with it. I suspect that it will develop a lot faster without everything turning into an argument.
You do have a point about Damiens demeanor, although it is slowly improving...if you do want to complain about it try WP:WQA, not here.
Obviously, for now this issue is ongoing, but perhaps resolved soon if Jacob really does step out of the article this time. Restepc (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
For the COI page, what's interesting to note is that these "couple of knowledgeable new editors" that Jacob mentions are all, just as Jacob, Comet Daily's contributors:
These users are being cooperative in the main namespace, so far. But we should keep taking a look, since they have the same COI problems and lack a broader understanding of Wikipedia's core policies (for instance, they are reluctant to accept that published books are more reliable sources than their blogs[25] [26] [27]). --Damiens.rf 12:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Gregwilkins has started promoting Comet in the push technology article [28][29] and Martintyler (Chief Software Architect at Caplin Systems) has added an external link to his own Comet product [30][31]. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It's obviously reasonable to be concerned about these people, but I suggest assuming good faith for now. Restepc (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This really is getting quite petty, I had no idea Wikipedia was like this, and I sincerely hope this is a relatively isolated incident. Of course the other knowledgable new editors are from cometdaily, since that site attracted most of the people interested in the topic. I added a link to my software, into an existing list of software, as far as i knew i was adding useful information. Of course it was edited out immediately by Damiens.rf, but he left the other external links to software there (some were removed after i pointed it out, but others remain) Martintyler (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
At this moment the article on Comet (programming) is under full protection for a week. If you'd like to improve the article, consider commenting in the RfC at Talk:Comet (programming)#Request For Comment: Article version dispute. What are serving as references right now look to be mostly personal blogs. We have no idea from the article whether Comet is a very important web technology, or only 1% as important as Ajax (programming). See also the recent ANI thread that led to the protection. In my opinion, User:Damiens.rf's complaints about the COI problems are well taken. I think that User:tqbf and User:Restepc have made some astute comments about how to improve the article in the mentioned RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table

PigeonPiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - an SPA active only on Oxford Round Table, appears to have a close association with the Oxford Round Table, Inc., and is editing disruptively. At present this consists of adding unsourced material, as here, here, here, here, despite discussion on talk page here where failed verification is noted. A new instance of different unsourced information is here.

PigeonPiece is perhaps a reincarnation of User:Obscuredata (banned for sockpuppets); User:PigeonPiece's second edit showed surprising (for a newbie) knowledge of policies, in citing WP:NPA with "no personal attacks" substituted; that edit also showed awareness of an AfD about this page.

A central point is that PigeonPiece appears to have information about the ORT not available on the internet, first introduced here; PigeonPiece has never explained how he/she found that article (it does not appear in search engines). It is likely that the organization has a clippings file and PigeonPiece (assuming association with ORT) has access to such a file. Another instance is here.

This user's approach to editing the page is to conform to what the ORT says about itself, as noted here. It has been difficult to make progress on this page, with entirely reasonable edits/proposals obstructed for extended periods. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the lack of any response here. What is supposed to happen next? Sure, PigeonPiece hasn't been active in the last few days, but I doubt he/she is gone for good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
PP's edits appear innocuous. They mostly contain merely the names of the officers of the group at various periods. Some of it was slightly excessive detail, and I reduced it to the normal amount a few days ago. Most of it seems to have been sourced acceptably. I do not see how this is other than constructive, though the editor very probably is associated with the group. This is however certainly an article that needs watching. DGG (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
PP's very first edit was to delete the corporate history section of the article. I think part of the problem is simply PP's refusal to acknowledge her/his COI. S/he repeatedly said the article Nomoskedasticity referenced above (here) could be found on search engines, which it cannot. I have a subscription to premium Nexis and it does not come up. I had to get it on microfilm. There is really no other explanation than her/him having access to a clippings file at the ORT. But the other big problem, as Nomoskedasticity said, is the constant obstructionism and absurd arguments PP continuously resorts to on the talk page, as you can see easily. We had to go through an RfC to add one sentence! Academic38 (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
my observation is that just about everyone who participates more than a little at Oxford Round Table has a COI or a very strong POV. Some like Academic edit responsibly, others, less so. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Rocksanddirt, if you think there are editors on the page who have a COI, perhaps it would make sense to warn them on their talk page? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
They've all been warned, threatened, some socks blocked, read the afd from a couple of months ago. I've lost most of my pateince for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Not true that they've all been warned, unfortunately. I started this section precisely because PigeonPiece has not been warned, despite an obvious association with ORT itself. Given my previous interactions with PigeonPiece, a warning shouldn't come from me; the question is simply whether others reading here find what I have presented convincing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As per Academic38's concerns (see User talk:Athaenara#COI Noticeboard re Oxford Round Table), I posted {{Uw-coi}} on User talk:PigeonPiece#Conflict of interest. — Athaenara ✉ 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor involved in informal mediation

Resolved
 – Not clear that there is a COI here. Submitter does not object to this closure. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Miguel.mateo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miguel is an amateur Euro coin collector and is involved in the discussions of an informal mediation on the article Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-12 List of countries by GDP (nominal). "I am an amateur euro collector, with passion for information about the euro." - Miguel's user page. Miguel obviously has a financial interest in maintain the EU listing in the disputed article. His comments lack substance and do not address the core issue of accuracy within the article, and insists that it be listed for comparison. This could be beneficial to his financial interests as a collector.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the above link to the mediation case. I don't immediately see a COI in Miguel's case. He has only made two edits in total to List of countries by GDP (nominal). He edits a range of different articles. Take a look at his user page to see the type of articles he has worked on! His efforts are beneficial to Wikipedia, in my opinion. He may have an opinion on the importance of the Euro zone but that doesn't fall under Wikipedia's standard definition of Conflict of interest. (Do you think it hurts WP's interests to have better coverage of Euro coins?). EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ed, well put and nothing else to say from my side. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, fine; the notoriety of the Euro by promoting the EU has no affect on its value. My apologies. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

BCM Institute

Bcmiadmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BCM Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User created this promotional article about his venture, and he has no other edits. Article has already been deleted twice, and needs to be deleted a third time. User may need to be blocked for username violation. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Shereth blocked Bcmiadmin a few minutes later. — Athaenara ✉ 18:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

William Norman Grigg

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Norman Grigg.

  • William Norman Grigg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two-thirds of the article was written by an IP editor with an edit summary containing the name Tom Eddlem. Google search reveals a blog written by Tom Eddlem called Dangerous Talk where the main page advertises one of William Grigg's books. In addition, the bio page on the blog reveals that Tom Eddlem has worked at many of the same locations as William Grigg and contributes to many of the same publications. --Millbrooky (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry and Louise, redux

Resolved
 – No need to re-open this old issue, because the person who complained has not returned. EdJohnston (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to MCB's comments from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Harry and Louise and edits by Goddard Claussen (ad agency)

Again, why is this so called administrator so worried about COI when the original Harry & Louise articles contains FACTUAL ERRORS. There are major errors to the entry yet someone who pertains to be a champion of Wikipedia doesn't care. He just cares that I work for Goddard Claussen. I said that I was happy to rewrite parts he thought were from a GC POV, and I also said that I wanted to cite portions of the article, but that I did not know how, and I asked for help. All I received was a reply stating I worked for Goddard Claussen and that he was thinking about blocking me. All I would like to do is have the Harry and Louise article updated to be factually correct, and cited properly. Wikipedia claims to be a verifiable online encylopedia, yet it condones MCB's actions of preventing a truthful edit to an article. I should be able to make edits to an article that contains misleading and inaccurate information no matter who I work for or don't work for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkr13 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the original links from the first WP:COIN listing:
To reiterate the issues, Hkr13 (formerly Hilarykoehl) attempted to rewrite the Harry and Louise article several times, replacing the lead paragraph with an unencyclopedic magazine-style lead which was laudatory/promotional to the creators of the commercial, removing sources/citations and the reference section, and removing a sourced paragraph regarding re-use of the Harry and Louise characters in a subsequent commercial and resulting litigation in which Goddard Claussen was involved. The rewrite cites no sources, and has NPOV and verifiability problems as well as the obvious COI.
In addition, she denied working for Goddard Clausen, the producer of the Harry & Louise commercials, which was trivially rebutted by a Google search on her name.
Again, if she has relevant, reliably (and independently) sourced material for the article, it should be posted to the article's Talk page and proposed, on a sentence-by-sentence, line-by-line basis, with the sources cited (they don't need to be in the correct format, just verifiable). But removing well-sourced information (regarding the litigation), removing the sources themselves, and being deliberately untruthful about one's employer and a conflict of interest, show bad faith, and I recommend that Hkr13 be banned from directly editing the article, and restricted to proposing specific changes on the Talk page. --MCB (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to ask for help before you will listen. I can ABSOLUTELY 100% give third party references, I just do not know how to get it to display properly. You think are this great wikipedia cop patrolling for errors, but you have contiually ignored the fact that 1. I can source each and every fact in the rewrite; 2. There is factually inaccurate information in the current article.

You are not helpful, but bullying me into leaving the Harry and Louise article incorrect and factually UNTRUE. I have since the beginning done what you have asked and posted changes to the talk page, and asked for help in citing the sources. I have received nothing but unhelpful malicious feedback, splashing my name around as if I have a criminal record. If you are a true encyclopedia then it should be a no-brainer to fix the information and help me to include the citations. None of which has happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.218.127 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I NEVER denied working for Goddard Claussen, you never asked just googled my name. I did deny working for GC Strategic Ventures which I have never heard of. You should get your facts straight before accusing someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.218.127 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of rewriting the article or worrying about getting the third party references to display properly, just post a list of specific issues you have with the article on its Talk page, line by line, with your sources. Don't worry about how they display; others will take care of that. You have been asked many times to do that, but have not complied, and instead, you removed sourced information and the source, and replaced the article with a laudatory/promotional rewrite for Goddard Claussen.
In addition please sign your postings here on this page and on Talk pages. It is also better if you sign in to your account so that we can keep track of who is posting what. --MCB (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm marking this Resolved (for the second time) because neither Hkr13 (talk · contribs) nor 128.220.218.127 (talk · contribs) has had anything further to say on the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not resolved, although it is inactive. Her M.O. so far has been to edit, go away, wait, come back and complain, ignore any suggestions on my part about providing sources or discussion on the article's talk page, repeat, etc. I suppose if there are further COI edits we can discuss an article ban. --MCB (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
We can't force people to continue the discussion if they don't come back. I assume you are not objecting to letting this be archived, for now? I agree that blocks or restrictions should be considered if this editor returns with no change in attitude and continues to edit the article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely it can be archived; it's just not "resolved" in the sense of settled by agreement (or a block/ban/deletion/protection or whatever). Thanks. --MCB (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User Gary WebTrain

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebTrain

User Gary WebTrain is a fairly recent contributor with a strong interest in increasing the visibility of his company on Wikipedia. After his articles were deleted as per the blatant advertising WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion criterion and the WP:NOT#ADVERTISING policy, he put most of the text from the deleted articles on his main userpage and solicited assistance from other editors.

The related issues here are the COI, the company username, and the use of the user page to display deleted text. There has been some discussion on the user's talk page (primarily there about how to improve his article) as well as on:

Here on COI/N I ask that additional neutral editors and admins give the user and the intertwining COI issues more direct attention. Please! — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi as per my responses at related discussions I think:
  • the user page should be a sub page at the very least
but it should have a finite time to establish notability or be deleted, not sure what that period should be - say no more than 1 month.
  • the user should be invited to change his username
I have no difficulty with him soliciting other users for help on the draft article to meet verifiability and notability standards --Matilda talk 23:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was an EA request (see here); I think 1 month is good. In the meantime, he has been earnest about policy/guidelines etc. It's hard to tell how this - and the article - will end, but I'm hoping with a bit more assistance that page can either be placed in mainspace or convincingly not placed in mainspace. I ask anyone reading this to be kind; as SPA COIs go, this one isn't bad at all. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that he's been very open and civil, which is refreshing on the COI beat. I think a few more weeks grace period may be appropriate if it's on a subpage, but I don't think it should stay on the main user page (where it has been since June 6th) more than another day. — Athaenara ✉ 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
(Moved today to User:Gary WebTrain/Sandbox as per discussion here and elsewhere.) — Athaenara ✉ 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a message at User talk:Gary WebTrain, asking how much time he will need to complete the article. At present it does not look like the proposed article would survive AfD, but let's hear what he has to say. I agree with Athaenara that our patience should not be indefinite. Moving it to a user subpage is a worthwhile idea. I don't personally see a need for him to change his username. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the need to change the username is that firstly although the policy is not emphatic it is a guideline and I think one worth enforcing. We do not know whether he is who he says he is and the username implies that he speaks with authority on behalf of the firm. I don't think that is a place we would want to be in. In fact the more I think about it we should be firmer in not allowing usernames that imply an imprimata to speak on behalf of an organisation.--Matilda talk 04:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
wat authority does the name "Gary WebTrain" confer!?? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs) 04:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
that he speaks on behalf of the firm WebTrain - the subject of this COI thread --Matilda talk 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Gary WebTrain has got himself renamed to User:GaryECampbell, which should address Matilda's concern. EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

NebuAd

First, full disclosure:

  1. My name is Ed Waingortin and I work at NebuAd. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will abide by them.
  2. With the exception of BLP violations and similar issues, my edits on the NebuAd article will be restricted to talk pages.
  3. I'm asking for Wikipedians' help to revise the NebuAd article. If you have any questions, please e-mail me at ewaingortin@nebuad.com.

On May 28th I posted a request on the NebuAd talk page to revise the NebuAd article. The NebuAd article was primarily compiled by User:Lostforwords with no citations or citations from unreliable sources.

Since my posting three weeks ago, there hasn't been any substantive edits to the article, and that's why I'm posting this COI notice -- specifically:

  1. I kindly request that an editor Wikify the article and organize it using the content headings generally found in articles on similar technologies or companies (e.g. AdSense or Yahoo).
  2. For statements tagged with "Citation needed," I request that an editor provide citations for those statements in accordance with the standards listed in Wikipedia:Citation_needed, or remove those statements for which citations are not provided (see Wikipedia:BURDEN#Burden_of_evidence)
  3. For statements that are vague or unsubstantiated (e.g. "It has been questioned whether Charter...") I request that an editor clarify or remove those statements in order to meet Wikipedia's style guidelines (see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms)
  4. I request that an editor revise or delete contentious statements attributed to inappropriate sources such as fringe blogs (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources).

Thanks!

Edgar Waingortin (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your connection to the company in such a forthright way. I don't see any particular problems with the current version of the article. It does contain well-sourced criticism of this type of advertising. I've noticed a number of regular editors, including Matilda, helping to wikify the article in the last day or two. I edited one sentence that began 'It has been questioned..' to specify who was questioning. If you believe that some blogs are being improperly used as references, please specify which. I did notice this reference to Democratic Media. Does anyone have an opinion on whether that is an acceptable source? EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
A discussion of how to improve this article is continuing at Talk:NebuAd. The company seems to be requesting above that we omit negative information that isn't cited to reliable sources. In fact, one of the questions not fully answered is, which sources are good enough to qualify. See the Talk page for more. EdJohnston (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Garydubh and Republic of Ireland postal addresses

Garydubh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Stumbled across this on Republic of Ireland postal addresses. Looked like a simple case of WP:LINKSPAM, but it was apparent there had been a lot of WP:COI editing to this article. I placed a COI warning warning on his talk page and did some tidying up. What concerns me are a couple of posts on that article's talk page - this and this. They look like linkspam to me rather than discussion, but I'm a bit uncertain on the ethics of removing other people's comments on a talk page. DrFrench (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"""Not just a close connection !- I have designed and implemented a system of Post Codes for Ireland which this article has consistently blocked reference to. I have been honest about this and have declared by interest continuopusly- others, who I will refer to as "text terrorists" remain anonimous with their real allegiances unknown! And worse, they reign over an article they clearly have no knowledge of or interest in. If you investigate you will note that I asked for this article to be rewritten independently several months ago - it did not happen then and it has not been updated since - funny how the only time that anyone shows an interest in the content of this article is when I wish to contribute!!!
Take my advice - take it down and do not put it back in place until it is up to date and factual - --86.41.143.79 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Please indulge me but first a bit of history by way of context. Garydubh started out using the anonIP User talk:83.70.211.45 where I reverted his similar POV COI edits that he started again yesterday. He started an edit-war for which his anonIP account User talk:83.70.211.45 was blocked by admin BrownHairedGirl. Then he registered an account Garydubh and used that to evade the block reverting most of his deleted edits. BrownHairedGirl then blocked that account because he was using it to evade a block.
Basically both accounts were used to promote his own company's product, a gps based building location product that was in development back in March when these events happened. Now he has started to add the same product but under a new name www.irishpostcodes.ie while previously he had promoted www.gpsireland.ie. Following the reverts by DrFrench he has also avoided using his registered account exclusively, instead reinserting the same edits with another anonIP account User talk:86.41.143.79, also using that for his response here.
The reason his edit do not belong is that his product is not an official postal code system. That is a system used by a country's postal authority, vis., An Post. Neither An Post, nor the Irish government, have yet initiated such a system, thought there has been talk about a system but it has been delayed and An Post says it does not need a system because its own internal scheme is superior. Garydubh keeps pushing his own product even though there is no evidence of official recognition and, in this edit I told him that "When the Irish Minister for Communications announces the new postal code system for Ireland, if he ever does, then I will be very happy to add that information, but remember I don't have a conflict of interest, you do."
I think Garydubh, as an employee of gpsireland and I presume of irishpostcodes.ie, a website owned by web site is the property of GPS Ireland Consultants Ltd, is too close to the product he is promoting due to his CIO and I thought he had learned from his previous Wikipedia encounter that he should wait for someone else to add appropriate edits concerning postal codes and Republic of Ireland postal addresses when a new official system comes into place, if it ever does. Besides the COI his edits are not appropriate as they refer to something they are not. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ww2censor's analysis. I suggest that Garydubh should not be editing the article Republic of Ireland postal addresses either directly or through IP addresses, due to the conflict of interest. This would still allow him to express his views on the article's Talk page. I hope he will be receptive to our concerns. Because of his block history, his use of IPs to evade blocks, and his apparent reluctance to follow our policies, administrators may be keeping a close eye on him until he decides how he wants to proceed. We have excellent systems for blacklisting links across all of Wikipedia if no other solution appears to work.
In my opinion, there is no reason to remove Gary's Talk page comments even if they contain links. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Boxed up over-length post. Please see the 200-word limit at the top of this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Yet again the man that calls himself a Censor has popped his head above the Cob. How many times do you have to be told that An Post does not decide what a Post Code is and what will be used - it is a commercial organisation (semi-state)and not a Government Legislative agency. In the end - the Dept. Of Communications (and not wiki editors either) who will make the decison but there is no lesgislative basis that prevents any system being used as a Post Code - Ab Post uses an OCR based system as stated in the article! A stated presumption on anyones behalf here that a coordinate (not GPS) based system cannot be a Post Code is to delberately favour one type and undermine another. Or at least to favour one possible implementation technology over another. Mr Censor - please do not exercise any editorial jurisdiction over something you obviosuly do not know about.
I am now citing you in writing (I will not be quoting any hyperlinks) for two reasons - No.1 you have continuously, in relation to this article, sought to protect the interests on An Post who are a commercial organistion - you therefore are clearly displaying a conflict of Interest. Secondly, I am citing you on a second count for giving an impression of undue authoriy by the name you have chosen. I have raised this with you previously. DrFrench and now EdJohnson - it is now your repsonsibility to research these citations and come up with the appropriate Hyperlinks for them - they are both covered in the rules but I am not armed with the Hyper Phaser as you are - again Power and responsibility - not just the first on its own.
Mr Censor - Do not continue to associate the term "admission" with my input as there is no crime committed and I have never hidden the fact that I have developed the a Postal Code solution for Ireland. (Not an employee!!) I have not made any attempt to hide my identity. I have repeatedly been trying to get mention of my legitimate endeavours in this ring fenced artice. You have continuously and systematically mentioned An Post's System; - you have referred to a media report of Government proposal as fact and yet Dr French says it is incorrect! Why Mr Censor have you not taken time to investigate the veracity on the article that you are standing sentry over or at least brought it to date with recent events? You have had 3 months, since the 24th of March when I last made input, to bring this article to date and reflcet the up-to-date position and that has not been done. Do you think this reflects a fair situation???? The Problem is no one will take responsibility for the veracity and completeness of the content but rather only hunger for control of the rules of input!
I will say it again and keep saying it until some of you editors who only pop up when I am around, that I will only be happy when this article is rewritten with the facts of the situation as it stands and by someone who is proven independent and not by anonymously named editors. Now MrCensor - change your name.......and prove that you do not have a vested interset in An Post or stay away from controlling this article!!!! GaryDubh--86.41.143.79 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC) --Garydubh (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Just In case you cannot find the refernce on inappropriate user names - I have done so for you at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames which states:

Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are misleading, promotional, offensive or disruptive. • Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authority,Bold text or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual. • Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia. • Offensive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible. • Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia. These criteria apply to both usernames and signatures. Usernames that are inappropriate in another language, or that represent an inappropriate name with misspellings and substitutions, or do so indirectly or by implication, are still considered inappropriate. The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors. If you want to seek approval for a username, you can do so by filing a request at Wikipedia:Request an account.

Please investiage and advise wwwcensor that his name is inappropriate and must be changed --Garydubh (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Garydubh responded at great length to the above comments, exceeding the 200-word limit. Please restate your point briefly if would like us to take action on it. Misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy are unlikely to be found persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Frampton

Paul Frampton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I recently found this page which appears to be edited nearly exclusively by the subject, who has used multiple sockpuppets to remove COI tags which were previously put on the page (see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/HowardFrampton). Most of the references seem legitimate, but I can't tell if the article is otherwise inflated or if it is mostly a vanity page? What's the best thing to be done in this situation? Thanks, A13ean (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:KAIST and KAIST Business School

KAIST (talk · contribs) appears to be making COI adds/edits, but the added content looks to be salvagably encyclopedic. The username appears to refer to the group KAIST‎ and has been used for promotion in the creation of KAIST Business School‎. This editor hasn't been over-the-top about promotion, but I still thought it worth bringing to wider attention. The article KAIST Business School does sound like an advertisement, but it also seems notable enough to keep to me. I posted to WP:UAA as an advisory, not a block request, and it was suggested to me to bring it up here. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 05:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

University Bible Fellowship

A former member (User:easternroot) of the University Bible Fellowship is using Wikipedia to promote his view of the organization as a destructive cult. The Wikipedia article for University Bible Fellowship was started by a former member as a clever way to discredit the ministry, as can be seen by the erratic talk page on the article. This is a clear conflict of interest in authoring Wikipedia articles. Help is needed to make this article a proper entry in Wikipedia, and not a forum for slamming the organization, nor for praising it. User:easternroot is constantly separating all of his viewpoints into his own sections or subsections that give the article structure undue weight on his fringe theory about the organization. Bkarcher (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • This appears to also be an edit war, and perhaps some sockpuppets are involved as well. Multiple single purpose accounts with edits almost exclusively to this article with similar argumentative edit summaries. hmmm. This will take some significant digging into. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • At present, the response to criticism section has been removed, but not the criticism section. .DGG (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I summarized the criticism section and also made a proposed replacement in the talk. How does the article look now? Bkarcher (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears that this issue may be resolved. Can you confirm? Tiggerjay (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mark this as resolved yet. I have first-hand knowledge of UBF, since they recruited heavily at my graduate school, and I find the current state of the article to be a whitewash. I'm not going to edit the article, since I have a pretty negative opinion of the group, but I want to point out a few things. UBF has been kicked off of several colleges and universities throughout North America due to aggressive recruiting tactics and controlling behavior. They enforce arranged marriages among college-age members, and dictate career paths members take, and pressure members into severing ties with family and friends. There are some good sources that document this here[32], particularly this article[33]. This is far from a "fringe theory", as Bkarcher asserts - academics and mainstream media have discussed these aspects of UBF in verifiable sources.
Skinwalker, particularly which article? Easternroot (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I meant this one[34]. Hopefully the link works now. Skinwalker (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Skinwalker, I'd like to see some verifiable sources, other than a former member's collection and interpretations of articles. Bkarcher (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This, as you say, "former member's collection" is an assortment of article reprints that have been published in reliable sources elsewhere. I link to it out of convenience - we can (and will) cite the original articles without mentioning rsqubf.info if need be. You have been given verifiable sources. Skinwalker (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, please use the actual, verifiable sources. If you read through the "published" articles on the German website, you'll see notes added into some of the articles. Without the original sources, the public cannot be certain of the original intent of the articles. By the way, I have no problem with negative facts added into the UBF article, provided they are correctly sourced and have the "attitude" removed from them. Bkarcher (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Skinwalker, you said above that "UBF has been kicked off of several colleges and universities throughout North America..." How many is "several"? When did this happen? What proof do you have? Bkarcher (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, let's see. UBF has been banned or otherwise restricted from recruiting on-campus by:
  1. University of Winnipeg, as cited in the Winnipeg Free Press, Vol. 114., No. 322, page 1, Oct. 25 1986.
  2. University of Manitoba, as cited in The Silhouette, the student newspaper of McMaster University, February 7, 1991 (Vol. 61, No.22) Page 11.
  3. DePaul University, as cited by WBNS-TV, March 2, 2005[35].
  4. Loyola University as cited here[36].
  • These are old news and have been resolved. Bkarcher (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please cite a verifiable source that shows that these restrictions have been resolved or are no longer in effect. Skinwalker (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing published on the internet as of yet. Bkarcher (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, UBF is a registered student organization at Loyola, as can be seen here and here. Bkarcher (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Two universities in Chicago and two in Canada (17+ years ago) hardly convince me of your statement above that UBF has been kicked off campuses "throughout North America". UBF can be considered zealous for sure, but to imply that there are a slew of such incidents on campuses throughout North America is misleading, in my opinion. Also the "cited" source you gave for Loyola University has no verifiable source. Bkarcher (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, it's clear that your purpose here is to obfuscate legitimate and sourced criticism of UBF, and that there is no point in arguing with you any further. I will edit the UBF article to better include this criticism, and I will invite the community at large to review my changes once I post them. Skinwalker (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am here for two reasons: 1) to ensure that the positive facts of UBF are represented, such as the ECFA accreditation. 2) to point out that there is a concerted effort led by a former member in Germany to discredit UBF. This is well documented here. There is no NPOV or balance to his website, as can be seen here (this section has been empty for years.) Bkarcher (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, I should also point out that the National Association of Evangelicals has revoked UBF's membership after an investigation into its abusive tactics[37]. Skinwalker (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Then I should point out that the National Association of Evangelicals has re-instated UBF's membership in 2008. I have spoken and emailed with the NAE and know some details of the termination in 2004. Bkarcher (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please cite a verifiable source of the NAE reinstating UBF's membership. Skinwalker (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The 2008 letter from the NAE to UBF has been posted here. Also, note in 2005 that Rick Ross mentions the membership was "suspended last year and is currently under review by the NAE." UBF/NAE. The original termination was due to three "serious allegations". When time was taken to review those allegations, UBF was readmitted. Bkarcher (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, Bkarcher is likely to be Brian Karcher, a minister in UBF.[38][39] This is a clear conflict of interest, and the fact that he is issuing COI notices to other parties in the dispute is particularly obnoxious.[40] This needs admin attention, and would benefit from disinterested editors who can properly source the article and prune the obvious hagiography. Skinwalker (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see now that Bkarcher has acknowledged his COI[41]. He should not be editing the article, candor notwithstanding. Skinwalker (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Er, yes, since I am also a former member of the group (UBF), I should and will gladly also refrain from editing the article. I didn't start the article, nor do I wish it had been created. I saw my role as reverting the clean deletions of critical views of UBF. Easternroot (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, Skinwalker, in my identity. I have a clear conflict of interest in this article. My issue though, is that so do the three userid's above, being former members of the ministry. I think the article is fine as it is currently. Bkarcher (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That final comment naturally has the effect of making an outsider uneasy. In any event, I'd like to make here a point I made in an edit summary on the article: a COI-burdened editor should under no circumstances remove a COI or NPOV template from an article (as Bkarcher did yesterday). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
My mistake in removing the COI flag... I will gladly refrain from editing this article. My concern however is that it does not become a criticism soapbox. It would be fair to also include the third party assessments from verifiable Christian authors and organizations. Can an admin prevent a criticism soapbox? If not, the article may well end up like the talk page. Bkarcher (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
What "final comment" are you referring to, Nomoskedasticity? What would make an "outsider uneasy"? Bkarcher (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The final comment that you now think the article is fine. Your edits of the 9th of June removed most of the "Controversies" section; the concern naturally is that the article now is a bit of a whitewash, in comparison to what it used to be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I see...well I replaced the detailed criticism with a summary version, trying to follow Tiggerjay's comments that the article was "way out of balance on the end of criticisms". I have no intention of whitwashing the article. I want to bring balance to it. I have tried to edit the controversy section, but it keeps getting replaced with the same detailed version. Bkarcher (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I am reconsidering my reluctance to edit the UBF article, since no one else seems to want to add the verifiable sources I have provided. UBF has received a significant amount of criticism in the press for their behavior, and it needs to be discussed and cited in the article in more detail than it currently is. Skinwalker (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have chosen to refrain from major edits to the article, if any at all, per my declared COI. I welcome a third party wikipedian such as yourself to properly source and edit the article. Bkarcher (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

mKR (programming language)

Run of the mill content dispute. He's been using the talk page, he's been reasonable. I don't see any tendencies toward excessive ownership here. Friday (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Graphology

jonathon talk blanks this section over and over: "But the scientific status of graphology is controversial and it has been occasionally labeled as a pseudoscience". And in here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pseudo_daoist&action=edit&oldid=208512966 can be seen that there is a conflict of interest (i am sorry i don´t send you directly to his talk page but he blanked it)456hjk (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I copy the content in here:

Bhekare

Hi jonathon, Are you by any chance Jonathon Blake? Creator of the graphology resource... ~hwa A Graphology Web Site

Bhekare (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. jonathon (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Apcbg and Manfred Wörner Foundation

Apcbg (talk · contribs) identifies ([42]) as Lyubomir Ivanov, president of the Manfred Wörner Foundation, a Bulgarian political organisation or think-tank of sorts. He has created a walled garden of articles including his autobiography, his organisation, and other activities of his (e.g. here). He has also been spamming links and text dumps of a political manifesto of his ([43], [44], [45], User:Apcbg/BG-MK-Policies, wikisource:Bulgarian_Policies_on_the_Republic_of_Macedonia). Moreover, he is persistently pushing nationalist Bulgarian POV/OR notions on Bulgaria ([46], [47], [48]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree he shouldn't be writing his own autobiography here, and I've added templates to Lyubomir Ivanov. I'm less sure that there are problems with the article on the foundation; he's been on wikipedia for quite a while and seems at least to know how to edit here in a reasonable way (not that all edits are reasonable). The Bulgaria article is potentially more of a problem, though not really a conflict of interest problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is that both organisations (it turns out there's another, the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria) lack all independent reliable sourcing. It's all self-published stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm certainly not admiring the articles. Since he hasn't responded here, perhaps the solution for now is simply to challenge or delete unsourced (or poorly sourced) content; he'll be on pretty shaky ground if he tries to restore it without replying here. A bit of googling certainly reinforces the notion that there is a conflict of interest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Survival of the Sickest (book)

This article about a book is essentially a long, enthusiastic, detailed review, written and updated by user Evodev. He resists all attempts to introduce links to criticism of the book, and indeed appears to be identical with its author. I'd appreciate it if people would have a look. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants

It seems that an IP [49] belonging to the organization is editing the article extensively, also via the user User:Landonfire. The IP and the newly created single-purpose account is adding links to the organization's reports and websites to various articles. From the IP, and the pattern of edits, it seems that the user:Landonfire is also the same person, and possibly an employee of the organization in question. Can someone please take a look at this situation? --Ragib (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article was created by User:Jonspangler1. A quick google search shows that Jonathan Spangler, Healthy Refugees Healthy Families Program Officer is an employee of the organization in question. --Ragib (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Karel Bouley‎

Charles Karel Bouley‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article has been written nearly entirely by JoyDiamond (talk · contribs), who also removed a prod tag on this article recently. This user account has been used only to edit this article. Another set of eyes would be appreciated.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Suzie Plakson

There appears to be some editing by the article subject going on here - consists mainly of removing the photo and adding self-promotional information. The other active editor, Marcwade (talk · contribs), is active in Star Trek fan sites[50] and claims to be in touch with Ms. Plakson, so she's obviously aware of the article. I don't think Marcwade is doing the anonymous editing, though, I think it's someone else. Would appreciate a second opinion on this. Kelly hi! 17:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing changed by the anon was inappropriate. Regardless of any supposed COI, the anon was right to remove that other horrible picture. The current one is much nicer. --Faith (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Honest Reporting Canada

Honest Reporting Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Honest Reporting is a pro-Israeli media watchdog group that attempts to correct bias in the mainstream media (real or imagined). User:Michah99 has uploaded two images that may be deemed problematic. (diff) If the document source CLAIRVEST is Clairvest Group Inc., then there might possibly be a conflict of interest (as established here). ~ smb 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i dont know if i am responding in the right section... Im confused by the "conflict of interest" (im still not sure what i did wrong), but i do share the CLAIRVEST server, if that helps to clarify anything. please get back to me, thanks! ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michah99 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Swapnil Bhartiya

Swapnil Bhartiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is some heavy evidence that the creator and major contributor Arnieswap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Various editors suspect the editor of writing his own resume in this article (see the discussions: here and here). The editor's identity can easily be verified using google: [51] The editor in question even links his real name with his Wikipedia user name on various sites on the internet: [52] (note the photo at the bottom, which was also uploaded by the user in question) Ghettoblaster (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I suspect that a number of anonymous IP adresses which also contributed to this article in the past are in fact sockpuppets of the same editor in question. For example, see the editing pattern in the contributions of the following users. It seems to me that the user is promoting his place of work.

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

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

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

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

Ghettoblaster (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Eric Skys biography page

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Skys

Eric Skys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This page appears to be mostly self-advertising. No mention of the current criminal investigation is given, and the talk page is a disaster. Comments in the article's discussion are rarely signed, emotionally heated by any measure, and the entire talk page is frequently wiped by someone cliaming to be a family member soon after questions about impartiality are raised. To me this is a problem, since at least one news article links to the actual entry.

I fully admit to my own conflict of interest in this, as I am involved in the case as well, thus making me think that outside arbitration is even more necessary. 24.128.82.179 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Eric Skys page might be nominated for deletion, due to the lack of reliable sources. If it is not deleted, some editors should be cited for removing others' comments from the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress editing Kenneth Zucker bio page

I am a colleague of Kenneth Zucker, and I am concerned that Jokestress/Andrea James has written a biographical page on Zucker. Jokestress/Andrea James has previously written the following letter to Zucker's hospital regarding Zucker (and others), thus becoming an actor in the events. Despite the rights she has to express her opinions off-wiki, it does not seem appropriate for her to be involved in writing the BLP's of the people once she has involved herself in their lives, such as by contacting their employers.

http://www.tsroadmap.com/notes/index.php/site/comments/letter_to_consultant_brought_in_to_clean_up_camh_clarke_institute/

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally posted the above at BLPN, and User:GRBerry wrote the following to suggest that the concern would be better placed here. I copied-and-pasted GRBerry's comment below for convenience.<br.> —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile to have another editor review the new article, but the conflict of interest you express concern about would be better aired at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Are there any specific concerns about the article, as the primary issue from this board's perspective will be the sourcing, balance, and accuracy of the article? Reviewing, a history merge from Kenneth J. Zucker to Kenneth Zucker may be worth doing, but there is no clear copy paste merge here to absolutely require it. GRBerry 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nikki Hornsby

Per this post, GM Hornsby may in fact be Nikki Hornsby, editing her own article. The edits seem to show a conflict in an effort to edit the truth into the article to overcome referenced information. Please look at. Also, perhaps something can be placed on the article talk page to indicated that the subject of the article may be editing the article. Bebestbe (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doll-E Girl

The user User:Droptoploco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) apparantly appears to have a close connection with the article Doll-E Girl, as the user uploaded the main image of the subject and wrote the article about Doll-E as well. Additionally, contributions prove that the user also added advertising about Doll-E on another article, and the talk page shows about creating a [now-deleted] article about "J.V.", another subject close to Doll-E. I tried tagging the article for speedy deletion, but another editor deleted it soon afterwards. Thus, I am here requesting help in the matter. I feel that Doll-E Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't meet WP:MUSIC; there is only one external source I could find about her, and it's a bit dubious. Thank you. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

MarionTheLibrarian

MarionTheLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This anonynous WP:SPA has disclosed its identity to me, perhaps inadvertently, by email, so I am certain of the close association with the principals that it edits about. It (I avoid used a gendered pronoun for this account) has published on, and has been criticized on, these controversial sexology disputes before bringing its case to wikipedia. Since WP:OUTING prevents me from disclosing personal details, can I make a good case for COI by demonstrating the clear POV edits on the articles that are all about a close set of colleagues and their "enemies"? Some background may be found in the ongoing mediation on the article about one of its enemies, Lynn Conway, who is a friend of mine, which is the only reason I noticed. I have invited this editor numerous times to disclose its relationship to the principals in the topics it edits, but it has ignored those requests. This editor has also edited the same articles under accounts WriteMakesRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 99.231.67.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 99.227.88.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and probably also 68.55.67.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in December 2007). Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


  • If user:Dicklyon has deduced my identity and if I disclosed it myself, both are indeed inadvertent on my part. (I actually have no idea if he has correctly identified me.)
When you emailed me the commentaries on Dreger, you used your yahoo.com email, instead of your yahoo.ca email; the yahoo.com email was set up to put your name by your email address. When I replied to you, I'm sure you would have been startled to see the name there if it was not your own. I assumed you realized that you had done that. That's why I find it funny that you have denied having a COI. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have previously familiarized myself with WP:COI, and I have made my edits within that policy in good faith.
That's what I'm challenging. How can your aggressive attacks on Conway and James and aggressive whitewashing rewrites of Bailey and related articles not violate COI? Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The only people who have accused me of COI (User:Dicklyon and User:Jokestress) are people who themselves acknowledge having close personal relationship with the subjects in question[53], www.tsroadmap.com. Of the entirely external editors who have contributed to any of the discussions, none has indicated that any of my edits has been inappropriate, whereas several admins have indicated that User:Dicklyon’s edits have violated BLP[54],[55],[56],[57] and have blocked him for violating 3RR on the same pages.[58]. I understand that that was User:Dicklyon’s third time being blocked for edit warring, although the prior two did not involve me.
The prior two involved User:Geoeg, all traces of whom were expunged by the attorneys after he was blocked indefinitely. He had a real bad WP:LEGAL and civility problem in addition to his COI. He got blocked for 3RR each time, but the admin felt it fair to block me as well; I accepted that. It's unclear why they didn't block you as well on the recent 3RR. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
And I didn't say anything about a "close personal relationship". Lynn Conway was my manager, 30 years ago; I had no idea she was a transwoman until she came out decades later; we have kept in touch, and I consider her a friend and professional colleague. She does not deserve the treatment that TheLibrarian has been giving to her wikipedia article; whether she deserves the treatment that Dreger and J. Michael Bailey give her in their writings and radio shows is something on which I have no opinion, though I do tend to agree with those on her side who point out that the Dreger article is extremely pro-Bailey biased and not a history. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is my opinion that User:Dicklyon violates the WP:COI admonition that editors “Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.” Our content dispute is currently being mediated[59].

A list of User:Dicklyon’s other tendentious and disruptive edits with regard to the present dispute is available at WP:ANI [60].
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

as one of the people who have tried to deal with this, it is my opinion that both Dicklyon's and Marion's editing has both shown a degree of intemperance that would ordinarily be take to imply a degree of over involvement, also known as conflict of interest. this can arise not just from close personal association, but of deep commitment to a point of view. In any case, I regret the expansion of the discussion from the many articles involved to this page. It is not likely to help the situation. What will help the situation is for both editors to stand down, and avoid accusing each other. DGG (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
DGG, while I appreciate your advice, I don't see how I can stand down until someone else finds a way to deal with TheLibrarian. It's recent edits to J. Michael Bailey, for example, so blatantly misrepresent the cited sources as to be cause enough for a block, in my opinion. I realize I did end up going a bit over to the opposite partisan side in some content arguments with TheLibrarian, but what motivated it was not so much any actual position on the complex issues as just a desire to solve the WP:BLP attacks on Lynn Conway so I could get on with working on that bio. I realize that having done that I have weakened my case. That's why I'm hoping someone else will take a good look, and deal with this. If someone will take on the task of keeping TheLibrarian honest, or away from articles in which it has a COI, I will be happy to swear off touching any of those articles except the bios of people that I actually know something about (that being Lynn Conway and nobody else related to this mess). Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

←MarionTheLibrarian notified me of this matter as a result of my involvement in related discussion at the WP:BLPN and at WP:3RR. While I felt the question at BLPN was fairly straightforward, I find the overall issue of conflict here tangled, in part no doubt because I lack familiarity with the topic. I'm very much in agreement with DGG that both editors seem to be working from a strong POV. In the recent ANI thread, the mediator suggested that another venue might be necessary as mediation did not seem to be resolving issues. I had suggested at his talk page that Dicklyon might wish to take up the matter at WP:NPOVN. I believe that whether a traditional conflict exists or not, the question here is less whether one of these editors should not be working on the article because of a personal connection, but primarily on where the neutral perspective lies, whether one of them is right (strong opinion does not necessarily equal wrong opinion) or if the neutral view falls somewhere between their extremes. My concern is that the argument between them is becoming so complex that it will not be easily resolved by anyone coming in from outside. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that that is a fair assessment. I am happy to go along with the content that was suggested by the mediator.[61]
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it as so complicated. My only POV on the underlying controversies is that the perspective of the transwomen should not be totally discounted and dominated by the academic sexologits such as TheLibrarian, and that the "case history" by Dreger that TheLibrarian like to use as supposedly reliable source is not neutral. Nobody involved is likely to be neutral on the underlying controversy; but I'm not involved; TheLibrarian is, having published in favor of Bailey and his controversial book, having been criticized online by Lynn Conway for that, etc. I realize, and have admitted, my mistake in trying to counter TheLibrarian by taking the opposite side in some of the disputes that it pushes POV on; I should have just come here, or NPOVN, sooner. If any admin would like to look into this, I will provide details. If nobody wants to bother, I won't.
As to the particular content detail in the Lynn Conway mediation, settling on that compromise wouldn't help the underlying problem. It would pretty much enshrine TheLibrarian's point that the Dreger piece should carry more weight than the commentaries (in the same journal issue) that tear it apart. This wouldn't bother me much in some other articles, but to quote Dreger in Conway's bio, when Dreger and Conway are involved in such a dispute, and then not allow a simple balancing quote from the title of a commentary, or some other one of the three ways I proposed for balancing it, is just a BLP violation in my opinion. I realize this particular point is subtle, and might require someone to read a bit of the Dreger article and commentaries in question in order to understand my point. I will be happy provide copies on request. But the real problem is that TheLibrarian has this big elephant-in-the-room COI that it declines to fess up to. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Not having the journals in front of me, can you clarify what you mean by "commentaries"? Are these in the form of letters to the editor, or otherwise unedited and not as such "published" by the journal so much as reprinted with permission? I think there is a significant difference between an article published in a reliable source and a letter to the editor published alongside it - we would be correct not to accord them the same weight in the article, particularly since as you've said only a bit more than half were critical while the rest were supportive. As to your point that the Dreger article isn't neutral - well, no, it clearly isn't. Her review and writing on the subject takes the view that Bailey has been mistreated and she describes how she came to this conclusion. So her opinion on the subject isn't neutral, which isn't required in any case by Wikipedia policy (our article should be neutral, not hers). The separate question is whether she was biased in Bailey's favor prior to writing her review. You, yourself, have commented that you don't think this is the case. Even were you to make that argument you would need to support it using a reliable source in order to include that view or caveat in any of the articles describing Dreger's work. I think that all of the commenters on this thread and editors on the varios pages who have a significant conflict of interest should both identify that conflict (by adding themselves to the page using {{Notable Wikipedian}}) and refrain from major editing in the conflict area. Avruch 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
They are short papers, or letters, from 23 individual who had a chance to study an advance copy of the Dreger "case history". Here's what the editor says:

Since I assumed Editorship of the Journal in 2002, we have published four peer-reviewed target articles on controversial topics, followed by peer commentaries, and a reply by the target article authors. The first two target articles were about pedophilia (Green, 2002; Schmidt, 2002), the third target article was about sexual orientation change (Spitzer, 2003), and the fourth target article was about the sexual dysfunc- tion diagnosis of dyspareunia (Binik, 2005). The Green and Schmidt articles were followed by 19 peer commentaries; the Spitzer article was followed by 26 peer commentaries (which later morphed into an edited volume that included other essays from the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psycho- therapy) (Drescher & Zucker, 2006); and the Binik article was followed by 20 peer commentaries. The target article by Dreger in this issue follows this newly spawned tradition. Dreger’s article was peer-reviewed by three referees and then a call for commentaries was issued via various listservs and organizations. A total of 60 people expressed an interest in writing a commentary and, in the end, 24 commentaries were received. One commentary was not accepted by me for publication because its content did not have anything to do with the target article. The 23 published commentaries are followed by a reply from Dreger. I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in con- sultation with the author. There is one production point to keep in mind when reading the commentaries: quotes from the Dreger article do not include page numbers because the era of online first ahead of print makes it impossible, in advance, to know the page number of the print version. In my Editorial introducing the target article by Spitzer (2003), I wrote that ‘‘a scholarly journal is a legitimate forum to address controversial scientific and ethical issues rather than leaving the complexity of the attendant discourse to ‘the street’’’ (Zucker, 2003, p. 400). I hope the readers of this Journal will enjoy the walk as they read the talk. Just look all ways before crossing.

Treating the "peer-reviewed" controversial-topic Dreger article as more authoritative or neutral than the 14 commentaries that take serious issue with it is OK to some point, but the reaction against it, as a whole, should not be given much less weight, in my opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


As someone whose biography has been attacked by MarionTheLibrarian, I find this to be a complicated matter. MTL's edits consist entirely of promoting the knowledge produced at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). While I am OK with POV-pushing editors up to a point (I believe most people edit articles that interest them and usually have a POV), I have concerns here because MarionTheLibrarian is obviously an employee of CAMH. The reason I am being attacked is because I am one of several key critics of CAMH. One of my major criticisms is the ways in which CAMH employees and supporters attempt to suppress criticism, and MTL's edit history is a perfect summation of these activities.

Though we have never crossed paths on Wikipedia previously, both Dicklyon and I are longtime editors who have worked on a multitude of controversial articles without incident. MarionTheLibrarian is a single purpose account who has significantly improved a number of articles related to CAMH and their employees and research. However, MarionTheLibrarian has also been systematically attempting to suppress dissent and criticism of CAMH's controversial work, by including poorly sourced material about their critics, and removing reliably-sourced material criticizing CAMH-related people and work.

As several have noted, this is a complicated issue, but one part is uncomplicated. MTL is obviously associated with CAMH and has engaged in a pattern of edits solely designed to improve the image of CAMH employees and their work. In my opinion, based on years of editing, this is one of the most clear-cut cases of WP:COI I have seen.

What I propose is that we find a few disinterested editors willing to help in a long-term refereeing of this controversy. I believe that will help reduce problems significantly. MTL and others can present the CAMH case, and critics can present their case, then a consensus can be reached. Because I am directly involved and have fully disclosed my own interests, I have tried to keep my editing of articles that mention me to correcting misstatements of fact. However, it's really gotten out of hand while I was away at an academic conference presenting on the very topic of CAMH-related controversies. Any thoughts would be appreciated, as it's an unprecedented situation to my knowledge. Jokestress (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that your editing conduct in the area of your disclosed conflict has been exemplary, and the few corrections you've made (including correcting one insertion of mine that introduced a misstatement) have been very reasonable - particularly given the severity of some of the criticism aimed your way. I think what we should expect here is that all participants with a similar level of conflict behave in a similar way - by refraining from major edits or revisions to articles that are under dispute. Proposing changes (paragraph by paragraph is how I would suggest it be done) on the talkpage and requesting discussion and implementation by others is not too cumbersome. Consider that there is no deadline. Avruch 22:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
A deal has been proposed over at User talk:DGG#Dicklyon.2FMarion case at WP:COIN. If this holds up, then the current COI item can probably be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
That deal is done. TheLibrarian has specifically said it intends to continue to edit in its area of expertise, sexology, so it would still be useful in many such articles to disclose its affiliations at least in a general sense, to avoid more COI problems. I will also continue to edit in my areas of expertise, and my identity is plain on my user page, and my affiliations are easy to find, and I'll be happy to confess any ohters that become relevant to my editing. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: MarionTheLibrarian has now declared on its user page that it is James Cantor; he has agreed not to edit certain articles that we were arguing about, but still needs to be watched for bias with respect to other sexology-related articles, since he's a professional in this controversial field, who has for example published a positive review of The Man Who Would Be Queen, and has been castigated for that by various people on the other side of the debates, and apparently has attempted to use wikipedia to get back at some of them, which is what brought us here in the first place. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Noting conflicts of interest

In the talk page of biographical articles, people can note conflicts of interest by the subject with {{Notable Wikipedian|John Smith|editedhere=yes}}, but there doesn't seem to be a tag noting that people or groups opposed to the subject have edited the article. Is this appropriate? Andjam (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to report editing of a specific article by COI-affected *opponents* of the subject, in such a way that the neutrality of the page is affected, this board is open to you. Adding page tags to record this situation sounds unworkable. (Pages would be covered with tags). EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Diann Burns

This one is a tough one, but I don't want to proceed with a further neutral copyedit before some second opinions. The subject is a former Chicago news anchor for WBBM-TV who was a part of CBS Corporation's March layoffs, and in the last month there's been tenuous editing on the page where Factorfriction (who has only edits relating to Burns) changed the tone from neutral to extremely negative against the management of CBS, including one on the station's page where they added since the layoffs the station has fallen to fifth place without sources. I want to rewrite this to be neutral (and I will be as I am not in the Chicago area), but with a column today in the Chicago Sun-Times about the glowing editing (which was tipped off by the webmaster of a popular site about the TV news business), I'm afraid that I might be in a losing battle. The article has been edited since the CST article came out, but it still needs major help. Nate • (chatter) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Marc Ostrofsky

Brief history: Article subject created a page about himself and attempted to prevent anyone else from changing it. Since then (apparent) meat-puppets have attempted to whitewash it again several times. At the very least, it's major SPA bait. In the interests of full disclosure, I will admit to being more than a bit pissy at him right now, so I don't want to just up and nuke his latest changes here. Can they be cut back or should they be removed entirely? What about the article in general? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The bit about his daughters doesn't belong there. But apart from that I'm not sure what the problem is - adding the bit about his daughters is the only recent change, and the page currently includes the cybersquatting and legal stuff. It's a pretty crappy article, but I doubt anyone is going to do much to improve it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User Peterjabrahams

This COI SPA created an article about his company six days ago which showed up yesterday in the CSD category, tagged for deletion as per WP:CSD#A7 (no indication of WP:CORP notability). It was also eligible for deletion as per WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising). I saw it in the category, checked it out, and deleted it.

Today, Bongomatic notified me (User talk:Athaenara#Intelligent Entertainment) that it had reappeared. The content was identical and now triply eligible for deletion as per WP:CSD#G4: re-creation of a previously deleted page.

I don't want to go one-on-one—it's not personal—with someone who according to IMDB is "a partner and producer/manager" of the company he's trying to use this encyclopedia to promote. More eyes, please, more attention from other neutral editors and admins! Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rehan Qayoom

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehan Qayoom (2nd nomination)

Autobiography template now on his userpage. Dougweller, please remember to inform the editor when starting a COI discussion about him/her. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This article looks a ripe candidate for deletion. In fact, it's a recreation of an article previously speedy-deleted in 2007[62].
While being highly aware of systemic bias (i.e. he could conceivably be big on the non-English-language circuit somewhere) I think this is a total vanity entry: he has zero hits in the NewsBank UK newspaper archive; his book Seeking Betjeman Country is self-published at Lulu.com; the publications are a bunch of blogs, small-press mags, unpaid poetry showcase sites, etc; and ultimately there are no solid third-party sources demonstrating notability.
I also see an earlier COI warning was given a year ago. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
db-bio now on article page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, there's a distinct smell of sockpuppetry here:
have a rather close overlap of topic interests and edit patterns. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamco

Jamco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User:Jamco has made various edits at Communist Party of Pakistan which points to a direct COI problem. User:jamco is seemingly the same person claiming to be the representative of CPP in various web forums, a claim that appears to be a hoax. Soman (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:edco0o

edco0o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:edco0o has created several biographies of living people who manage or direct the company he is employed by [63]: Chris Lonergan, Anthony DiPilla, Patrick J. Peters, John Mancuso, Mark Kozaki, Tony Ceglio, Jim Picinich. These articles are all connected by the Italian American Network I have nominated the biographical pages for AfD, but further action may be necessary. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

P.E.O. Sisterhood

  • P.E.O. Sisterhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A group of editors, at least one of whom has identified themselves as a member of this organization, has repeatedly blanked sourced content. Their main motivation seems to be the protection of the "secret" 19th century origin of the organization's name. I haven't taken any admin steps yet, but thought a note here was appropriate. Dppowell (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see you've protected it - probably the only workable strategy for now; with new editors popping up to delete the same material, I have visions of all 250,000 members of this thing joining Wikipedia... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It has started again... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Saw that, thanks for catching it. I think we should handle this on a per-incident basis for the moment. If the intensity picks up, I can re-protect. Dppowell (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page again, this time for a month. I've also made overtures to all the named accounts who've recently blanked the references in question. I'm hoping that we can get these folks to come to the table and start working within our processes. Anyone have any suggestions for next steps? Dppowell (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

user: Marburg72

Articles
A WP:SPA that has been editing for almost a year, with over 500 edits, that has very little understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The link that he's been adding to multiple articles, freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound, is his own website. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It is his own website [65] identifies the editor as Vince Barrows, the owner of the website. I am probably more concerned about the fact it is an unreliable source as well as, when you read down far enough, WP:Fringe. Doug Weller (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Marburg72 identifies himself and some of his websites in his earliest edits. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my name is Vincent Jay Barrows (Thank God)! My screen name is Marburg72. Wikipedia policy states that revealing personal information on wikipedia is prohibited - which is why I go by Marburg72. Also, legal threats such as those portrayed by Doug and Mark Esary go against the standards of Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the content that you are repeatedly removing from the articles which is disruptive and should be considered vandalism. If the goal of Wikipedia is to present misinformation and to ignore all relavent information on a topic - then keep removing as Doug and Trochos and Ronz now have. Conflict of interest has nothing to do with this topic at all. There is nothing about competing companies or any relavence to this topic in "Conflict of Interest." Marburg72 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest has nothing to do with this topic at all. There is nothing about competing companies or any relavence to this topic in "Conflict of Interest."
WP:COI isn't just about companies; it covers any situation where someone has a personal stake in the way the topic is covered. There's certainly a conflict of interest in your linking to your own website: the correct procedure is to let other editors decide whether it's a worthwhile link. And if, as Mark Esarey writes here, you have an ongoing personal dispute with the managers of these sites, that too is a COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not have any personal stakes about how this topic is covered. No financial or other stake in any way. and again, Mark Esarey violated the procedures of NO LEGAL THREATS on wikipedia when he posted that. There are no personal disputes. Only facts to correct the misinformation presented by the responsible party and independent party is myself. At least someone has the guts to stand up to the corrupt state bureaucrats.Wikipedia policy states that websites should be added if they provide relavent interesting information. Clearly it is not a personal website in any way and clearly I do not have any Conflcit of Interest with the people responsible for the destruction. Marburg72 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

{unindent] Wikipedia policy does not stop you from using your own name, you've misunderstood that just as you have misunderstood COI. Your website, as I have explained on Talk:Monks Mound is WP:FRINGE and any relevant information should be available from reliable sources. I don't know what you mean by my portraying legal threats, unless it was my comments that some of your statements which seem to suggest that some reliably published authors are liars and other people had committed criminal acts might be considered libel. Your very words above suggest that you are extremely personally involved and that is a worry. Doug Weller (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Doug, Wikipedia policy on Identification of an author states: When you publish a page in the wiki, you may be logged in or not. If you are logged in, you will be identified by your user name. This may be your real name if you so choose, or you may choose to publish under a pseudonym, whatever user name you selected when you created your account. Also You should review the Code of Conduct on Wikipedia: Wikimedia Foundation Code of Conduct

(text removed: see foundation:Code of Conduct Policy for the original)

Marburg72 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The above code applies to employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is non-binding on ordinary editors. MER-C 14:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Clearly it is not a personal website in any way
Hello? A site on a free web hosting service [66] expressing the views of one person isn't a personal website? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Breadandsocks and William Morris Agency

Articles
Report by

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User is obviously an employee of the company who has expanded the main article at William Morris Agency to a promotion for the company and has edited the page of other major talent agencies to link back to William Morris. They created a sock to support them in their edits, for which the only edit made by that account is to that article. They have also written extensively on the managers of William Morris, creating both articles and promoting those two men. All text is uncited promotional original research.

Comments
I think we should ask the editor to identify themselves, if they will, and disavow using a sock account if that's what they've done. That would be a lot less trouble than trying to sleuth and reason it through ourselves. They seem willing to try. Assuming it is a COI situation I don't see anything wrong if they add very basic, sourced, factual information about clearly notable companies and people. It's an editorial / style decision whether to have back-lings between different agencies but if we do they should be fair so as not to favor or promote one over the other. Wikidemo (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But they're not "adding very basic, sourced, factual information," they're obviously promoting the company and trying to whitewash the main article. This same thing happened at American Apparel and you told me we should assume the good faith of the user and look where that got us. I don't understand why you insist on using a soft touch with users who come here and try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising but it may be time to reevaluate that position. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cumulus Clouds, I think your assertions are very strange. How can you be doing this? I'd like you to identify yourself as well. You seem to me like someone who has a COI too. Yes I've made changes and added things that are related to this company, only because i've set out to include any relevant information about this company that wiki is lacking. I've referred repeatedly and significantly to other firms in the same industry and carefully followed their format and content while doing so. You continue to delete and undo my efforts without providing real improvement and refuse to reply to my talk. I hope someone can look through the history and explain to me if i'm wrong. this is somewhat disappointing.Breadandsocks (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Also Cumulus Clouds, I'm not a employee of this company. I haven't written extensively on the managers of william morris, i created 2 articles on the two men becuaes it hought they were noted and hoped someone would expand on it. as regarding the other account, on which i made 2 or 3 minor changes, yes it's mine and i will stop using it. i created it before creating my current one but realized that it's my screenname that i'd like. i've already saved the password on my computer so when i logged back on it's automaticcaly that. please be constructive and use good faith in explaining to me what i'm doing wrong and make suggestions to improve the article. please do not just delete them immediately without discussion and then report and complain about my efforts and not respond to my talks. Breadandsocks (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

Search engine optimization

An IP editor is making edits to Search engine optimization in support of a trademark application filed by Jason Gambert. As I am currently opposing this application, I will not get involved in editing the disputed parts of the article, but somebody immediately needs to put an end to this nonsense. The IP is adding unsourced material and biasing this featured article. The sequence of edits in question: [68]. Jehochman Talk 03:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor has taken care of the problem. Could we please leave this report open a bit longer in case the COI editing resumes? Jehochman Talk 04:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I've found an admission of identity here. This is in fact Jason Gambert, and he is violating WP:COI with the edits he's making. Jehochman Talk 16:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Gambert has proceeded to edit war over the removal of his content, and been blocked. [69][70] Jehochman Talk 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

iTunes article is not neutral

Resolved
 – Not a COI. MER-C 14:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In short ITunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not neutral and group of editors (apple fans) is blocking any edits they don't like.
The problem is that iTunes article is written like and advertisement or brochure and is not neutral. Any edits making it more neutral (like adding criticisms section) are reverted by apple fans. This problem is described on the Talk:ITunes by me and other editors. If you take a look on the edit history you will see that criticisms section as well as warning boxes were added and removed many times.

I've added two proposed additions to criticism section at the bottom of Talk:iTunes page. --Varnav (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AlistairMcMillan who is and admin threatens to block me on my talk page if I continue my edits. --Varnav (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have substantial evidence that someone from e.g. Apple is white-washing the page, this is the wrong place to come to. "Apple fans" don't have a conflict of interest (though they may have a particular point of view. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A group of editors has conflict of interest with others. It's described on the Talk:iTunes. And their point of view is not neutral, as well as the whole article is not neutral. --Varnav (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not what this noticeboard is for. It is for cases where an editor may have an external conflict of interest - say Monsanto's PR department editing the article on Roundup, or George Bush editing Iraq War. Groups of editors with different opinion who cannot agree even after discussion should follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
What you have is a "content dispute". These are outside the purview of this noticeboard - a conflict of interest occurs when a (real-life) relationship with a subject affects your ability to write a neutral article on that subject. MER-C 14:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

David Giménez Carreras

Fidelio Artist are the publicists of David Giménez Carreras. The article was originally created by Elena Fidelio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a copyvio paste of David Giménez Carreras' bio at Michael Storrs Management. [71] On the same day, that editor also created copy/paste articles (using Fidelio's biography on his official web site) at Spanish Wikipedia and Italian Wikipedia. When the article here was then reduced to a stub by another editor, I rewrote it from scratch.

Today Elena Fidelio deleted the fact that he is the nephew of José Carreras which has been discussed by Giménez Carreras himself as well as by José Carreras in numerous press interviews and is referenced in the article. It is even stated on his official website here. I then restored that information and left a message on the article talk page about it. Whereupon 81.39.9.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) immediately deleted the fact that he is the nephew of José Carreras again and left this unsigned message on my talk page admitting that they deleted the fact "not because the information is not correct, but because Mr. Giménez Carreras asked me to."

Presumably because he doesn't want English-speaking readers to infer anything about the fact that José Carreras is his uncle and the majority of the performances he has conducted so far including his professional conducting debut, professional opera conducting debut, and major house debuts have all featured José Carreras? Interestingly, both the Italian and Spanish Wikipedia articles pasted in by Elena Fidelio actually mention that José Carreras is his uncle in the opening sentence. Could I have some advice here as to whether this kind of COI interference in a Wikipedia article is justfied? Voceditenore (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I believe that, I think the motives of the person/s in question are not clear, but it is clearly censorship. I wouldn't believe it is justified in any case. If it is verified and it is referenced, I think it should stay in the article. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know for sure what the reason is for wanting to supress information which he has on his own web site either, but it certainly looks like an an attempt to de-emphasise the "interdependence" of his career with that of his more famous uncle, and is entirely unjustified censorship in my view. What should I do? Voceditenore (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Invitations: If you want to invite me to speak at a conference, please send an e-mail to walesgroup@harrywalker.com or call +1 646-227-4900. If you call this number with complaints about Wikipedia, they will not know what you are talking about, and you will not receive any help at all.
I have received information that indicates that even one hour of personal appearance time by this User is priced at $100,000 plus first-class travel and accomodations. Just one appearance per year would put this User in the top 5% of all income earners in the United States. Surely, most of the value of that speaker's fee is derived from his role in administering Wikipedia. Then, to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform to further collection of that speaker's fee... how is that not a conflict of interest, if not a violation of the various WP: rules on how not to exploit User space?
I admit that I may be way off base here, but hasn't Wales personally shut down User pages that he felt exploited Wikipedia for personal gain? Now he's doing it himself. How does his advertising his $100,000-a-pop speaking agent promote the mission of the Foundation? I don't see it. --Cool as a Cuke (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's on his user page, not in the main space. We traditionally give people a lot of leeway in user space. I don't think this is a serious problem. It most certainly is not a relevant COI, as it does not affect encyclopedic content. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not the viewpoint Wales took, when he deleted an article from main space that had been uploaded by an innocent, valued User, but had been authored by a User whom Wales had a disagreement about OFFSITE literature about Wikipedia policy. I wish I could say that Wales appears not to affect main space with User space conflicts, but here's an example where he did. When the shoe's on the other foot, though, it doesn't "count"? --Cool as a Cuke (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
User space != Main Space, so I fail to see the analogy. If Wales had a COI in 2006, complain abbout the old event (and expect to be ridiculed, to be honest). Do you have a point or just a WP:POINT? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, you wouldn't see the point, because Wales overwrote the User page of the user he blocked with disparaging content that didn't hold water legally, but that hostile action was later oversighted, to cover his misdeed. I guess it is just stirring up an old, ridiculous dispute, but I'm of my own mind as to who looked the more ridiculous of the two parties in the flap. --Cool as a Cuke (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we should tell Jimbo the fee is too high, then mark this resolved :) No, seriously, maybe just ask him politely if you think there's a problem. But I find his user page to be rather dignified and helpful to people in sorting out his many roles and the different reasons one might want to reach him. Making that distinction among his various contact points and activities actually helps, not hurts, his availability to Wikipedia for Wikipedia-related matters.Wikidemo (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This is amusing. But the relevant guideline appears to permit what is on his userpage: WP:UP#NOT seems to allow "Advertising or promotion of a business or organization related to Wikipedia". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, when filing a notice here, one is supposed to inform the editor in question. Cool as a Cuke - have you done this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Cool as a Cuke has been indef blocked. -- Mark Chovain 22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary read "Jimbo Wales: indef blocked", so I just had to pipe and say that's funny : ) Let's see if I can make an another interesting combo with this edit summary. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wolfram Kaiser

Resolved
 – I've cleaned up the article. -- Mark Chovain 04:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wolfram Kaiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This was called to my attention today by CyberGhostface (talk · contribs), who placed autobiography and COI tags on the article some time ago. A new editor appeared this morning and removed the tags. I've replaced them and advised the new editor not to remove them again without discussion. Dppowell (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put this on my watch, and am having a crack at cleaning it up. -- Mark Chovain 04:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Jackowiki

Jackowiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Claims in editing summaries to be the manager of musical acts Jackopierce and Brandi Carlile. Has repeatedly reverted a free-use image [72] to a copywritten (with no documentation template) non-free use image (currently [73]) against WP:NONFREE policy. She has also readded a copywritten image to the Jackopierce article. She has also edited Aware Records which is related to her employer. Her first name, phone number, and employer name are in several of her edit summaries. Was warned about COI on her talk page 2 July 08 by User:Somno but is back at it again today -- Foetusized (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Akirwan

Akirwan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'd appreciate some second opinions here. My read: single purpose account plugging his own book, and adding original research to Law of Attraction‎. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This looks pretty darned obvious to me. He seemed to have copied/pasted an essay promoting his book & ideas into every article that he can tangentially connect to the subject. I've issued a third-tier OR warning to him and am prepared to block if he doesn't cut it out immediately. Would welcome a review of that stance from someone more experienced with COI issues. Dppowell (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I'm not sure breach of COI is a blockable issue, but the book's inclusion is certainly out per WP:SPAM, and lack of notability (I can't find any third-party sources about it, which appears to be vanity e-published); and his analysis is definitely OR, as unpublished synthesis (where "published" of course means reliable third-party sources). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
COI is blockable when "they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator" [WP:COI]. -- Mark Chovain 04:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just blocked him for 24 hours in response to his latest reinsertions of the promotional content. Review/comments strongly encouraged, as I'm operating a bit outside my admin comfort zone here. Dppowell (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

References to published papers by Professors and PHDs of Math, Physics and other theoretical sciences stating that Hawking Radiation may not exist and that micro black holes may become charged and grow exponentially are being repeatedly removed from the article "Safety of the Large Hadron Collider", leaving the article un-balanced and preventing opposition references that do not support CERN's position. One editor on the article is both a CERN employee and a Wikipedia admin, but he reports that he has rescued himself from acting as an admin on the article. This employee has in the past acted in good faith in my opinion, but other editors have not and are [one editor, Phenylalanine has been] removing opposition references without discussion nor admin intervention, and because 3RR rules prevent other editors from correcting multiple times without admin assistance, an admin on the article is clearly needed. --Jtankers (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:COI is not at stake here, as Jtankers says User:Khukri has reclused himself from acting as an administrator, and I believe has been scrupulous in adhering to Wikipedia policies in his edits. There is indeed an incipient edit war brewing, over the issues of reliable sourcing, and synthesis, so some other form of WP:DR seems likely to be needed soon. See the article talk page for the details. But I think WP:COI is not the issue. Also, note that User:Jtankers contribution history shows that he has edited essentially exclusively on the LHC safety issue since arriving in January 2008. I believe he is also webmaster of the LHC Facts web site, which is an anti-LHC advocacy site, so he may have a COI problem himself. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, Wikipedia's job is not to promote novel theories of physics. It is to communicate the ideas of established physics as would be understood by the vast majority of working physicists. --BenBurch (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The references being removed challenge Hawking Radiation (as user Wwheaton acknowledges is a disputed theory and the references are solid) and Dr. Otto Rossler's theory that micro black holes might become charged and grow quickly which has been peer reviewed and addressed by the 2008 LSAG Safety Report which finds charged micro black holes to be a plausible theory.). The only think novel here is that CERN's month old self published self reviewed report is gospel and published peer reviewed opposition experts views do not deserve to be heard. --Jtankers (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In user Wwheaton own words: "I have no objection to Helfer's and Belinsky's papers... I think there is no question that Hawking radiation is not a settled issue in the community." Yet these references have been repeatedly removed by user Phenylalanine without prior discussion, nor even accurate edit summaries. --Jtankers (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The safety opposition only requests to keep the same references to published peer reviewed main stream science that is also addressed directly by CERN and directly challenges CERN's conclusions that have been part of the safety article for months. WP:NPOV and Wikipedia [WP:NPOV_tutorial Information Suppression] that requires "various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability" --Jtankers (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed? What journals? (And you do realize all this will be moot in days, right?) --BenBurch (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
V.A. Belinski's work was published by Elsevier in Physics Letters A, Volume 209, Number 1, (1995) , pp. 13-20(8). Dr. Helfer's work is well known and discussed on physics sites such as "Back-Reaction" and others, and William G. Unruh and Ralf Sch¨utzhold work has been referenced in at least one major news article. (By the way, TeV power collisions are still months away, and higher power Lead collisions are many months away. The 2008 LSAG Safety Report is being peer reviewed now and results disputing some of the conclusions are forth coming). The removed statement challenging Hawking Radiation theory is below (followed by references in the form of [1][2][3] etc. but detailed below as done in the talk page):
A concern of some physicists is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all.[1][2][3] Professor V.A. Belinski argues that Hawking Radiation does not exit.[4]
Reference details from Talk Page:
  • Adam D. Helfer, "Do black holes radiate?", arxiv, (2003) arXiv:gr-qc/0304042 "Until then, no compelling theoretical case for or against radiation by black holes is likely to be made."
  • William G. Unruh1,2 and Ralf Sch¨utzhold, "On the Universality of the Hawking Effect", arxiv, (2004) arXiv:gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2 "Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question and could give non-trivial information about Planckian physics."
  • V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole", Physics Letters A, Volume 209, Number 1, (1995) , pp. 13-20(8) Elsevier "A conjecture is made that the standard derivation of the black hole evaporation effect which uses infinite frequency wave modes is inadequate to describe black hole physics. The proposed resolution is that the problem is not due to the absence of the as yet unknown “correct” derivation but rather that the effect does not exist."
The other removed statement which has been part of the article for months (in one wording or another) is the following:
Otto E. Rössler, professor of theoretical biochemistry at the University of Tübingen,[5] calculates that Earth accretion by a micro black hole could take as little as 50 months.[6][7][8]
Reference detail:
--Jtankers (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Unindenting for clarity; NONE of those are peer-reviewed. "Physics Letters A" is just an editorial decision not a peer review. No wonder nobody wants this stuff it the article. Its all "woo." --BenBurch (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • To be fair WP:NPOV, the independent peer review of CERN's 2008 LSAG Safety Report by scientists not selected by CERN is still in progress, and this report was only released last month and only self published on the web.
    • Even CERN's Scientific Policy Committee which approved the new safety report writes of the argued empirical evidence from neutron stars and cosmic rays: "A powerful argument applicable also to higher energies is formulated making reference to observed neutron stars, but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years.". But editors opposed to further safety review have actually removed links to that validation report also (currently in the article), and what are the chances of including that important statement of requiring confirmation. But if you read the article, you would think that all arguments were confirmed. --Jtankers (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


See also this for a centralized location. Editor is forum shopping here. ThuranX (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon Christos

This page is mostly autobiography through a SPA, though citations are being added. Some well-experienced guidance is probably needed almost-instinct 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dez Reed

Dez Reed - almost certainly an autobiography - all entries in one day save one are written by user: Dezcorp. Manway (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

When WP:COI and WP:PRIVACY collide

I have stumbled across an editor with a potentially substantial conflict of interest, but I cannot publicly reveal the details without violating WP:PRIVACY. Is there a procedure for handling this type of situation? I've posted this question at WP:ANI too. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/C 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) This no longer needs attention and can be archived.

Matthew Mullenweg

Photomatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User is editing aricles about his own company and removing criticisms about them. I have sourced this criticisms from a number of places. (Granted one of them are my own blog but I have linked to other sites inlcuded their own support forum) --Drmike (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There's potential COI, and were I him, I'd have pointed out the problems with those sections on the talk page rather than attracting COI-related attention...but the edits he made appear defensible under WP:RS. Dppowell (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

St. Matthew's Churches

According to the HoustonPress, St. Matthew's Churches is headquartered at the J.C. Joyce law firm.[74] It has paid Joyce over 2.6 million[75] to defend it. The above IP goes directly to the law firm, which has completely cleaned the article of numerous statements and sources exposing the activities of this business.

This is blatant conflict of interest. I would like more eyes watching the article and perhaps ensuring all the existing refs are the most reliable sources. ✤ JonHarder talk 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is partisan redaction going on. That said, I removed the remaining external link, which seemed to run afoul of #2 and #11 at WP:ELNO. One of the sources blanked by the law firm, while hosted by the Trinity Foundation, is actually an article from a Feb. 2005 edition of the York (PA) Daily Record and would meet WP:RS if the original article could be sourced (i.e., Trinity's reprint could theoretically have been altered from the original). Still looking it over. Dppowell (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Violet Blue (author)

Violet Blue (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article is being edited by subject's lover and also by IP anons apparently recruited by a posting on subject's blog asking readers to make subject's wiki entry 'special.' Said lover denies that any of his edits have been anything except NPOV. Meanwhile, because I was long ago on a mailing list with somebody subject sued I am being accused of having a COI that is just not there. Guidance and some outside attention to this article most welcome. Also, there are allegations that the subject in cooperation with the lover outed a wiki editor in public and accused that editor of stalking, and I would love to know if there is somewhere appropriate to raise that issue. Thanks so much. BenBurch (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The blog post in question requesting readers edit the subject's wiki is here. [76] I for one find it innocuous--she is not asking for specific details to be pushed for or against, she simply seems to dislike the scantness of her article (at the time). Also, post is a year old, so I consider it synthesis to assume anonymous IPs are being routed from there.Yeago (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Could we also get an opinion on the merits of the COI tag on the article? BenBurch is insisting that it stays but refuses to point out any specific problems with the article that can be fixed in order to remove it. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is definite concern about COI here, but I'm not sure that the article needs a tag at this time, since there are people participating from many different points of view and the overall result seems to be a reasonable pass at NPOV regardless, at least at this time.
However, multiple contributors to the article appear to have strong points of view about the subject, either positively or negatively. All should be very careful about their editing around this subject because of this. I'd recommend that the individual identified as Violet Blue's boyfriend in particular be careful about his editing, since such edits could do harm to Violet's reputation – got her boyfriend to whitewash her Wikipedia article doesn't exactly sound good.
Absent strong evidence of malfeasance, I would recommend that all parties avoid throwing sockpuppetry allegations around, as well.
As to Violet Blue's call for her readers to edit her Wikipedia article, it was ill-advised, but possibly good-intentioned, depending on her level of knowledge about Wikipedia at the time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting! I will stipulate to the call for edits being possibly good-intentioned, however by now she does know the issues involved and her boyfriend needs to lay off. --BenBurch (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If by 'lay off' you mean 'stop editing WP' I think you have missed the sentiment above.Yeago (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I mean 'lay off' editing this article or any article he has a COI with. Period. --BenBurch (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Right. In that case, sentiment lost.Yeago (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Morven, I left a comment on the page of the editor who placed the tag on the article a few days ago. Waiting to hear back.Yeago (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that as long as the COI editor has not clearly committed to laying off the article entirely, the COI tag should stay on. I will defer to the consensus, of course; how say you? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I equivocate with the sentiment of the arbitrator: ...I'm not sure that the article needs a tag at this time, since there are people participating from many different points of view and the overall result seems to be a reasonable pass at NPOV regardless, at least at this time. What further direction about this matter are BenBurch/OrangeMike waiting for? Was this issue raised simply to hear a 'Yes, this contributer needs to lay off or be sitebanned instantly! now! now! now!'? The above flatly doesn't say this.Yeago (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I say it stays until he recuses himself. "be careful about his editing" is just what he has NOT done, and therefore is a recommendation that he indeed does recuse himself as I see it. --BenBurch (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Clarification please, Morven?Yeago (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies; I was busy at work and haven't had much time for WP over the last couple of days.
Her boyfriend needs to moderate his editing. I won't go as far as saying he should not edit entirely. It doesn't appear to be impossible for the article to reach an NPOV state without his being blocked from editing, does it? I'll see if I can get some cooperation. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Yeago: I am not acting as an arbitrator here, but as an admin; no greater weight should be placed on what I say here because of that. Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

{{COI2}}

Just as a note, {{COI2}} is (again) up for deletion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dance Party USA

Dancepartyusa (talk · contribs), who admits to being an employee of OMNI 2000, Inc, which claims to own the trademark to the show's name, has made a royal mess out of the Dance Party USA article. Despite repeated requests to stop adding POV terms and what may be a copyright violation, and despite my pointing them to WP:COI, they've turned the article into a big kluge. Corvus cornixtalk 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

BLACKBLOT / Spinacia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) CONFLICT OF INTEREST

User Spinacia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted on the discussion page of Blackblot that he / she is associated with Blackblot...com. He / she also created a Wikipedia article on Blackblot. So, he / she can't insert links to blackblot...com. This is a clear case of conflict of interst. What he / she is doing is self-promotion to sell more of Blackblot's PMTK templates (or whatever else he / she claims to be selling on the discussion page of Blackblot by getting free advertising and free Internet traffic through Wikipedia. Also, the Blackblot article should be placed as an Article for Deletion (AFD), since there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST on that as well...

Some of the articles where I have deleted SPAM links to blackblot...com; which are cleverly disguised as REFERENCES, include articles on Marketing, Product Marketing, Marketing communications, Marketing mix, Analyst relations, Competitive advantage, etc. Then someone pointed out that I should report Spinacia's SPAMMING of blackblot...com on this page, hence I am duly reporting this.

This user's Spinacia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contributions are clever; he creates new articles, or introduces a subheading called Alternative view of marketing, product marketing, marketing communications, or what have you, and then adds a SPAM link to his blackblot...com homepage as a reference. Some administrator should visit all the articles Spinacia made contributions to, and delete these SPAM references; since his / her SPAM references are affecting the neutrality of content for these articles.

Frequently, other users add content, and Spinacia goes and undoes those, to preserve his SPAM link. So, Spinacia should be warned, and probably banned from making edits to Wikipedia. Also, the article on his / her company / business called Blackblot should be blacklisted / deleted.

69.109.174.47 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

    • Request this section be deleted. All content must be accompanied by sources. Removed own copyrighted material with citations. Spinacia (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Please note that user 69.109.174.47 has not contributed anything to Wikipedia and his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to have my content removed. Without going into lengthy debates about valid citations, sources and notability, I voluntarily removed ALL my content contributions and the accompanying citations. I ask the reports made about me be removed as they are no longer relevant.Spinacia (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Article deleted after a prodding. Spinacia, they may be relevant in the future; thus we will keep the report. Note that you are not blocked - aside from this being the wrong venue to request a block or community ban, IP (and registered users') requests for same generally go unheeded without evidence of severe wrongdoing, such as harassment or threats. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 04:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
          • While from the outset I made full disclosure and was always transparent about my identity, user 69.109.174.47 never was and appeared on Wikipedia one day only to harass and modify my content. This user originally deleted entire submissions and then opted only to delete references. So his motivation here is clear. He is most likely a commercial competitor and the admins had served his wishes, but ultimately it is the Wikipedia community that will be hurt because they will not be able to see the content. This matter is over, but please be advised that my content is copyright and must be accompanied by sources so I will not allow it to be resubmitted. Thanks for responding.Spinacia (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Which only works *against* you as Wikipedia isn't a billboard. This works in all circumstances, as does Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which you seem to not be doing here as regards the IP editor. I made the PROD decision based on what I saw on the article and on the talk page; the article was deleted for not being notable. Nobody's out to get you here, so calm down, please, before you do something you may regret. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 04:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
              • I agree. I ask for your and the other admins assistance in removing all my IP contributions and deleting all the articles which I had created in order to avoid the issues we discussed and especially the copyright issues. Thanks. Spinacia (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
                • It's your fault you didn't notice the GNU Free Document License implications. By editing Wikipedia, you agree to license your contributions under it (as it tells you right beneath the edit box). See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Further, we will only delete articles or images for copyright if the article is copied word-for-word from a source or the image fails our nonfree content policy. Data in-and-of-itself isn't copyrightable; only its presentation is. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 04:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • I still agree. First, the content was copied verbatim. Besides that, any content must have references and sources, so even modified content has to be accompanied by references. You can not have it both ways. The content must be accompanied by sources and that brings us back to the initial purpose of this discussion which was to removed the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinacia (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
(Reindented) So the content was copied verbatim? Sorry, but that's wholly unacceptable. NO sources would have helped you there - you can't just copy-and-paste something from another website, post it here, and call it good (again, WP:Copyrights). The article would still have been deleted as a copyright violation. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 04:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
And as a side note, I've returned Product branding to being a redirect, as it originally was. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 04:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
NOTE Is this what you mean when you say "copied verbatim"? -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 05:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
* There will be full disclosure on my part as was from the beginning. The content was copied word-for-word from commerical articles posted here [77]. There was not point in altering any text so it was pure cut&paste. The articles were also registered with the USA copyright office [78] to secure copyrights. Clearly my mistake. I will delete the content and submit the articles to AFD. Thanks.Spinacia (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You're not answering my question. Did you call edits like the one above "copying verbatim" from other sites? If so, you're wrong. To copy something verbatim is to take it word for word from one place and write or type it out at another. This isn't copyright violation of any kind unless you lifted words you used from those papers unattributed or unquoted and put them on Wikipedia. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 05:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to User_talk:Spinacia.Spinacia (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There was spamming going on. I'll look into it more. [79] --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz - you need to remain neutral. First you have to look into it a matter and only then make a determination. Obviously you have it the reverse. Second, if you look good into all the product management category articles you will note that very many entries that would fall into the real category of SPAM. You should delete them as well and not seek my citations blindly Third, the discussion was was moved to my talk page. Please keep it there and see the discussion with Jéské. Thanks.Spinacia (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd already looked into the matter partially when I wrote the comment above.
I agree that the product management articles are full of such problems. That's why I'm here, because I've been working on the problems in those articles for some time.
Given that you're removing most of the comments on your talk page, I think it better to keep at least some record here.
There have definitely been COI and SPAM problems from Spinacia. I've cleaned up all the spam, and judging by the discussions, I don't think there will be any further problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz. Your assistance in cleanup and speedy deletions is appreciated. Spinacia (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Drew Hayes

Drew Hayes is a comicbook artist/writer who died recently. At the bottom of his article, there is:

Hayes leaves behind daughter Mary of 14 years. His mother, Sharon, has started a memorial fund in his name to fund his daughter's education. Donations can be sent to:
"Drew Hayes Memorial Fund" Whatcom Educational Credit Union
PO Box 9750
Bellingham WA 98227-9750
You can also contact Haye's colleagues at info@cosmictherapy.com for info about how you can pay your respects to Haye's memory. Cosmic Therapy was Haye's official storefront for his original series, Poison Elves.

I really don't know if this counts as WP:COI or not. Its for a good cause apparently, so I'm hesitant about removing it, but if we make exceptions then who knows what will happen. So I brought it over here and maybe someone better versed can fill me in on what to do.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of a COI or not I removed it because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it's written in the second person. MER-C 02:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian and 5W Public Relations

Edits by:

The Ip addresses have repeatedly deleted unpleasant edits from the above articles. The first IP address belongs to 5W, so it's an obvious WP:COI. The second is a standard residential ISP, but considering the edits are identical, it's safe to conclude that it's the same person, or at least people associated with each other. The detail that keeps getting deleted refers to a 5W exceutive, (who also happens to be a Wikipedia editor), astroturfing and impersonating a Rabbi on the internet. Mosmof (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add, looking at the edit history for the article, there have been several edits by single-purpose account, and both articles were initially created by an exec at the firm. --Mosmof (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Emetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a SPA editing exclusively Ronn Torossian, 5W Public Relations, articles of their clients and articles pertaining on them, often removing referenced information, which shed unpleasant light on them.--Atavi (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Open business

Open business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Very large number and volume of edits made to this article since beginning of June 2008 by David gv ray (talk · contribs) and more recently by 84.57.66.42 (talk · contribs). Some editors suspect this is a conflict of interest since the new material is referenced to a book by David G.V. Ray (see talk page). In addition most of the material is written as if it were a textbook or a training course. I have tried to be bold and revert this to the "good" version, but it was immediately reverted back. I've also left a message for the anon IP, but there has been no response yet. Another editor has left a message for DVGR regarding this article, also with (as far as I can tell) no response. What do you suggest is the way forward for this article? -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

COI at Gerald Guterman?

  • Gerald Guterman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I strongly suspect a COI by user NetHistoryBuff5 (and previous socks). NHB5 has only one interest on WP and that is keeping the above page safe and nice. Rejects all mention of Guterman's troubles and controversies. Refuses repeated requests to disclose COI. Please help. Smilo Don (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

COI at MerchantCircle

  • MerchantCircle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I suspect a COI by MerchantCircle engaging in removal of factual, sourced but perhaps inconvenient information from its own page. Initially, a user Kleubay joined WP, and has only one purpose- that is removing factual but negative links and entries about MerchantCircle. When this was brought to attention, Kleubay was abandoned and several IP addresses were used to edit the page (208.54.15.125, 68.166.184.187, 12.226.182.113). The effect was the same: removing facts such as Alabama's Better Business Bureau report on MerchantCircle. Advice appreciated. Zsmith721 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JanetNguyen

JanetNguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user had been editing the article Janet Nguyen with POV text taken verbatim from her official website. Efforts to contact the user did not cease her activities. DHN (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

She's at it again. DHN (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This user now seem to have a sockpuppet to do the edits. DHN (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The Janet Nguyen article has been protected. Dppowell (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Friends With You

RelentlessRolento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The current version of the Friends With You (FWY) article is written in a very flattering style. It has been expanded by RelentlessRolento alone, going back to May. (this [80] was the last version before he began expanding it.) There is some evidence that RelentlessRolento is affiliated with FWY: he has uploaded and seemingly licensed images from FWY, and he has not edited any articles besides the FWY one. I am a pretty inexperienced editor, and I'm not familiar with the subject matter of this article, I just came across it looking through toy articles. It seems some of the material RelentlessRolento added would in and of itself make decent additions, but as it stands right now, the entire article is very POV'd and I don't know how to handle it. Siawase (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Puget Systems article

Resolved

Hello, COI affected editor here. I'd like to see an article about my employer, Puget Systems. After reading through WP:CORP I believe it's notable, and have compiled a list of evidence in userspace here. I've written a draft article here with the idea that if I do the bulk of the work, it's much more likely to actually get posted. I've tried to adhere to NPOV as well as I can, feel free to discuss or make changes if you see problems. Because of my COI, I don't want to put the article in mainspace myself. If someone could look over what I've written and put it in mainspace if it passes judgment, I'd greatly appreciate it.

By way of background info, Puget Systems was known as Puget Custom Computers up until earlier this year, there was an article created under that title by a Puget employee as part of a well-intentioned but misguided SEO campaign. It was eventually deleted at this AFD [81] as a combination of notability concerns and spam. Since then it appears to have been recreated and speedied as spam twice, and the page has been salted. I don't know if the creation of those articles was tied to Puget or not. This is a rather regrettable background, especially since businesses are often guilty until proven innocent on Wikipedia. I hope that Puget can be judged based on current notability rather than past articles.

Thanks,

Fire67 (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Dppowell (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • After checking out Fire67's draft and its references, I concluded that the subject fulfills WP:CORP and the article is ready for mainspace. I am willing to put it there. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Article has been created by Athaenara at Puget Systems. My thanks to everyone who helped out, especially User:Moonriddengirl at the drawing board. Fire67 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Minor point: I didn't create it, I moved it to mainspace :-) — Athaenara ✉ 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Glenn McGee

An anonymous editor who declared himself to have a conflict of interest in a recent AfD has been editing Glenn McGee in a way that minimizes sourced negative information about the subject, with edit summaries that imply that the "keep" outcome of the AfD gives him a license to reshape the article as he wills it. There was also at least one single-purpose account in the AfD who seems to prefer a more negative version of the article, but that isn't the problem right now. It hasn't escalated to the point of being an edit war but it could probably use a few more neutral eyes. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Added it to my watchlist. You appear to be handling the situation nicely. Dppowell (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

EdLudbrook

The apparent autobiography has been speedied and I expect it will be deleted soon. I'm talking with the editor. Dppowell (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Don Ecker

Don Ecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Dark Matters Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A single user who appears to be the subject of the article is the primary contributor to Don Ecker and is the creator and only contributor to Dark Matters Radio. Appears to be a self promotion of a radio personality lacking notability. Both articles are in an AFD state currently. Rtphokie (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Park West Gallery: our article compared to the New York Times'

Note that some of these artists are likely notable; the articles in some cases appear to have been added as vehicles for links various Park West domains. I also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment asking for input on the notability of the more marginal subjects.


After reading a long New York Times article yesterdayday, "Art Auctions on Cruise Ships Lead to Anger, Accusations and Lawsuits", I was curious to see if we had an article. In fact we did: a slickly pretty article complete with "refs" and good compliance to our Manual of Style … it was also a blatantly promotional PR piece.

I've made a few changes to the article and tagged it for a conflict of interest; another editor added a small controversy section but it still needs more work. I dug up several other news articles that are listed in the external links and reference sections that could be potentially helpful with this.

One of the accounts, Sorlando, that produced the article has expressed willingness to make the article more acceptable; see our exchange at User talk:A. B.#PWG.


Accounts: I've left {{COI}} warnings for all of these:


A full list of domains is at:

I originally listed this case at WikiProject Spam however after a closer look it probably belongs here. This one is more of an article-spam/conflict of interest issue than a linkspam problem. Also, the spammed articles that have not been deleted are about subjects that are probably notable; they should be reworked rather than deleted.


I'd appreciate any help you could give in getting these articles (especially the main one, Park West Gallery) up to our standards. You guys are much better at this than I am.

Thanks! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A new editor, Truthwithoutbias, just deleted the small controversy section I and an IP added to the article. He also alleges slander, bias and conflict of interest on the part of myself and the other editor. --A. B. (talk • contribs)
Added to my watchlist. Dppowell (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Large Hadron Collider

Oldnoah (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest in regard to the Large Hadron Collider page. In the interest of not publicly "outing" the user (as I promised in an email to him), is there an email address to which I can send the evidence to be vetted? When I requested confirmation of the COI by email, he threatened to "out" other editors that contribute to the page, so I think this is a somewhat delicate situation. -- Mark Chovain 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, more than one editor of the Large Hadron Collider and Safety of the Large Hadron Collider are CERN employees including a Wikipedia admin. The shear numbers of pro-CERN editors and lack of equal respect for the opposition cause me to no longer feel comfortable contributing to the safety article. CERN has a direct interest in the outcome of the legal action in US Federal Court in Hawaii beyond any safety interests jointly shared with the plaintiffs. --Jtankers (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
And to be even fairer, the user you refer to is open about being from CERN, and has never used the tools on the article. That editor discusses all changes on the talk page, and never edits against consensus.
OldNoah on the other hand, refuses to take any part in discussions, edit wars against consensus with a clear intention of personal off-wiki gain, and threatens to "out" other editors.
Let's not pretend these two editors behaviour are anything like each other. -- Mark Chovain 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I dispute the statement "never edits against consensus". The CERN employee editor removed references to published peer reviewed papers that challenge the probability that Hawking Radiation might exist against editor consensus. I was personally reported by this editor as an Administrator Incident in what the editor later acknowledged was clearly a content dispute when I followed rules to the best of my ability while clear rule violations by another editor were ignored. I do not think the characterization that one editor is saintly and one is not is fair. --Jtankers (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop hijacking discussions? If you want to report a conflict of interest, there's a "New Section" tab up the top of the page - you don't need to wait for someone else to click it for you. This section is regarding Oldnoah's disruptive editing where an undisclosed conflict of interest exists - period. To bring this back on topic, I'll repeat my points here:

  • Oldnoah has a serious, undisclosed conflict of interest.
  • Oldnoah has never (not once) taken part in the discussion of his contentious edits.
  • When discussion occurs, Oldnoah continues to edit against consensus.

-- Mark Chovain 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

HydraIRC

HydraIRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - has been modified by the creator (I believe, signed Hydra, not logged in) of the software. Re-added unsourced statements that were removed and made some other changes (may or may not be okay). Comment on the discussion page by him shows substantial lack of neutrality. Dsav (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Its only references are primary sources, the software's own website. This is a good candidate for deletion if its notability cannot be established using more reliable third party sources. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone may want to nominate the article for WP:AFD. Recent edits by IPs do seem to be removing criticism. If you want to catalog the removals here, that might be enough to justify semi-protection. If the article is sent to AfD, it might well be deleted due to lack of reliable sources to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's definitely notable in the IRC world, but largely through word of mouth. A quick search turned up some references: fileforum user reviews, third party review, exploit in x-force database [82]. The article definitely needs some work though. Dsav (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lskaliotis and Spinning cone

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

An employee (or perhaps employees) have been doing extensive edits to the spinning cone article adding distinctly WP:ADVERT language, even using a sales brochure (from possibly their own company) as reference. I've requested the editor(s) to post their propose changes on the talk page or to create a sandbox with a draft article so that editors without a COI can review and assist in editing the article in a NPOV tone. AgneCheese/Wine 04:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Rmarcinkowski

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

Both articles were created by Rmarcinkowski, he's the only one who has ever made additions, and they're the only articles he's ever edited.

Both companies are owned by Pat Roney and have Marco DiGiulio as their winemaker. Their "web guy" is Ray Marcinkowski.

There's an active question as to whether each has sufficient notability to have an article, but an employee of the companies in question shouldn't be touching the articles.

Disclosing COI...no subterfuge intended, just unclear on the guidelines. I've reviewed the COI policies and will refrain from editing the above articles. Although I believe the winery histories and published references are sufficient grounds for inclusion, I defer to the editors determine suitability. Thanks. Rmarcinkowski (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:300bucks

Virtually all of the user's edits involve someone named Kevin J. Johnston, which are starting to look very like COI, possibly AUTO. Any additional eyes at the contribution history would be appreciated, as I have yet to be convinced that any of this passes notability standards. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn

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

Look at this user's user page where he brags that he has "won the battle" over cold fusion. I think he should be banned from editing in article space per his obvious conflict of interest and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explicate your argument for COI a little more? I'm sorry, but my first take is that this is an unusual COIN listing by someone who states on their own user page that they are "tired of silly drama on Wikipedia." Dppowell (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Read this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I read it, but I still don't see a conflict of interest. Are you suggesting that writing about an instance of Wikipedia processes on a news site disqualifies someone from editing here? I agree that talking about "winning the battle" on one's user page is perhaps unnecessarily triumphalist, but I still don't see a COI (and certainly not a reason to ban the editor, not that this is the right forum for that discussion). Dppowell (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't see a sufficiently close relationship to the topic to count as COI. That said, the edit history certainly looks SPA and tendentious, with a sole interest in being here to overturn the article's reflecting the real-world sceptical consensus about cold fusion: see also this New Energy Times piece - "many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum though a few observers such as Ron Marshall and Pierre Carbonnelle have tried their best to participate") and other off-wiki discussions [83]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have never tried to "overturn the article's reflecting the real-world sceptical consensus about cold fusion". Actually, I have fought hard for the article to represent precisely that view, instead of the view of rejection and pseudoscience that some editors have tried to impose without appropriate sources. I have asked editors to stick to what the 2004 DOE report was saying. This is also clearly described in the article I was asked to write for New Energy Times. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't come across that way.
"I'm pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science. This is a major step forward in the recognition of the new field of condensed matter nuclear science and low-energy nuclear reaction research ... I now have a lot of respect for all paradigm-shifting scientists, like Copernicus, Galileo, Fleischmann and Pons, and the other courageous cold fusion pioneers".
reads as a distinct agenda of Righting a Great Wrong re cold fusion. We all have biases, but if your aim is push a new paradigm into Wikipedia, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SOAP definitely apply. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
My particular concern over this is that New Energy Times is all over that article, with several citations and external links. It's not just a conflict of interest, it's self-promotion.[84] --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflating on-wiki disputes and off-wiki advocacy is never a good idea. While I think there is a bit of Pot-Kettle-Black going on here, I think an apology is in order, Pierre. However, you have been a strong contributor to this page and a topic ban is overkill. Ronnotel (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I should say that I'm not interested in a topic ban. I just want links that are promotional removed, and for the article to be reliable. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I did not want to have the NET article mentionned in the cold fusion talk page. I just wanted SA to know about it, and I posted my message on his talk page. It's unfortunate that Seicer brought it to the cold fusion talk page. I wish I had sent it by e-mail to SA, as we would have avoided the whole thing. As I did not bring it up, I don't see what I have to apologize for, but welcome any suggestion. I wish someone would ask SA to apologize for the many personal attacks that me and others had to endure. This episode is nothing compared to the incivility that he has been blocked many times for. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
My response to another comment above: If the Great Wrongs is inconsistent with published, reputable sources, and if it is published on wikipedia, it is a service to wikipedia to Right it. The DOE does say it is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience. Bragging about it out of wikipedia does not change this. I stand by what I wrote in the NET article and on wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've watched this unfold and it has been very frustrating. It was not helpful at all to the encyclopedia to have Pcarbonn boasting in an external publication that he has managed to influence it. SA's behaviour has been challenging at times as well. Full page protection should be extended and perhaps some editors should voluntarily turn their attention to other articles for a while. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I have apologized to ScienceApologist by private e-mail on July 14. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I am absolutely not surprised that Pcarbonn turns out to be part of the NET POV-pushing cabal, he should have declared this COI up front, and I support a topic ban. That article has been completely hijacked by proponents of a minority POV, to the detriment of neutrality and the project's reputation. From the article: "Ihope that the revised Wikipedia article will help put a stop to the epidemic of pathological disbelief and that it will help raise the interest of scientists so that prominent scientific journals won't be able to reject articles on the topic "because it does not interest our readers." - this is a clear abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy. We are not here to "correct" problems which exist in the real world. The real world views this as a pariah field, Wikipedia is, thanks to Pcarbonn and his very determined friends, blazing a trail in "fixing" that. This is a perfect example of how Wikipedia is abused by thiose who want to promote a fringe view, and an admission of how important it it to get Wikipedia to reflect your fringe view. I think it's unforgivable, and if we let them continue to get away with it as they have then we might just as well ditch WP:NPOV. Compare the current version with the FA version and see for yourself how much more the current version reflects the fringe view. And fringe it absolutely still is, though they fought tooth and nail against references which pointed this out. In fact, it went through months of mediation and Pcarbonn never once thought it might be relevant to mention that he was hoping to change the real-world view of this field. The apology above is incredibly hollow. "I'm sorry I abused the project to advance a fringe POV, but by the way I'm actually rather proud of it and am not going to back down". We shold return the article to the FA version immediately and wait for some editors who do not have a vested interest in promoting the frienge view of this subject. Guy (Help!) 06:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:COI says "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." I am certain that the interests of Wikipedia remained paramount in all my edits. That's why I wrote many times "for the enemy", unlike many other editors. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of a hitherto completely uninvolved admin, could you provide some examples of where you've written for the enemy on cold fusion? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Pcarbonn, I am sure that in your own mind the interests of Wikipedia are best served by helping the real world to find out that it is wrong about cold fusion. Unfortunately, that conflicts with our core mission and non-negotiable policies. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any COI issue here. Guy needs to go check a dictionary or something. You want to topic ban someone because they dare hope that a truth they believe in gets spread? He might be wrong about the information itself, he might not be, but what the hell man. No really, what the freaking hell. You are just spazzing out here. "It's unforgivable" and "detriment of neutrality and the project's reputation". Are you sure you didn't get your web browser windows mixed up? -- Ned Scott 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Guy's started a thread about Pcarbonn at WP:AN#Cold fusion, which he didn't bother to mention here (or to Pcarbonn). -- Ned Scott 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So which bit is OK by you, again? The violation of WP:NPOV or the crowing about it? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if he's violated NPOV or not, but the COI accusation seems unfounded. If an editor wants to gloat about getting an article to a version that they honestly believe is within our policies and guidelines, and is in the best interest of the wiki, fine by me. -- Ned Scott 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference AffidavitWagner was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Adam D. Helfer, "Do black holes radiate?", arxiv, (2003) arXiv:gr-qc/0304042
  3. ^ William G. Unruh1,2 and Ralf Sch¨utzhold, "On the Universality of the Hawking Effect", arxiv, (2004) arXiv:gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2
  4. ^ V.A. Belinski, "On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole", Physics Letters A, Volume 209, Number 1, (1995) , pp. 13-20(8) Elsevier
  5. ^ Otto E. Rossler [de, tm08 / Programme / Overview / Persons]
  6. ^ O.E. Rössler, "Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk", (2008) www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OttoRoesslerMiniBlackHole.pdf
  7. ^ O.E. Rössler, "Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung, schwarze Löcher ", (2008) Chaos, conspiracy, black holes in German
  8. ^ O.E. Rössler, "Chaos, conspiracy, black holes", (2008) Translation from German
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_25&oldid=229724320"