Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Drew Technologies, Inc.

This IP address (which maps directly to DREW TECHNOLOGIES INC according to http://ws.arin.net/whois/) has repeatedly vandalized the pages which list commercial OBD-II products (which is Drew Technologies core business). Please see the contributions list for this IP. The 8 most recent edits (at the time of this writing) by this IP (going back roughly two months time) appear to be DREW TECHNOLOGIES moving themselves to the top of the list (and moving people above them down the list) in order to self-promote. They also removed (without discussion) someone's concern about one of the articles being used purely for advertising. The article lists (containing DREW TECHNOLOGIES products and competitors' products) had recently been arranged alphabetically to discourage this kind of product "bumping", but they again put their products at the top of the list. Since the history of this practice goes back roughly two months' time, I propose a two-month IP ban for this address. As the edits in question were already listed in an alphabetically ordered list, the only reason for moving to the top would be self-promotion. Can someone else please review the edits by this IP and give a second opinion?

  • The talk page is a redlink ,which indicates that you have not yet tried dialogue. Please do. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

COI with Rjm7730

Rjm7730 recently edited Tucker Max to add original research (unsourced commentary about a lawsuit), Max's lawyers' names, and a link to Richard J Mockler's biography, one of the lawyers. Since the username in question is 'Rjm' and the lawyer is named Richard J Mockler, I assume there is a COI for him to add original research and his name to the article (contribs: [[1]] Theserialcomma (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's certainly a COI since he has essentially admitted the connection. But COI or not, original research is a big no-no in a BLP anyway. Also, I would ask you to keep
WP:BLPN if you've not already done so. ArakunemTalk
15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, it seems that the reporting editor violated
WP:OUTING, as seen in this dif. McJeff (talk
) 05:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I was not initially aware that I was violating any COI policy. I was simply correcting an obvious inaccuracy in what apparently is a very controversial personal biography. I never denied the alleged COI. However, the reporting editor clearly violated Wikipedia's policies by publicly posting my name and other identifying information here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. This could have been addressed on my talk page. Instead, the editor made an effort to post my name and identifying information on the discussion page, this page, and on my talk page. This type of activity can be very dangerous in other circumstances. The editor should remove any references to my personal identity and stop posting it on Wikipedia. Further, others on the discussion page have pointed out the editor is actually conflicted as a contributor to a celebrity gossip and smut website.Rjm7730 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric Craig

Ericcraigis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inoneearandoutyourmother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.155.98.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.90.121.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Ericcraigis says he is

Lakeshore Records. He started articles on these three subjects and is the major contributor to all three. The account Ericcraigis appears to have stopped editing and Inoneearandoutyourmother started soon after, doing the same sort of edits as Ericcraigis. After Eric Craig was deleted it was twice recreated by Inoneearandoutyourmother. Editor repeatedly removes tags from these articles without giving any reasons [2] [3] [4] and was repeatedly readding incorect information about Queens of the Stone Age [5] [6] (Talk:Lakeshore Records). Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated
comment was added at 09:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

Douglas Romayne - COI

This article Douglas Romayne appears to be a COI under the Wikipedia standard, as it appears to be an autobiography that has been posted by user Bleu Jean Management and a user with the IP addrss 216.86.198.37. Bleu Jean Management is this persons management company, and writing an article about someone you are in bussiness with is a direct violation of the Wikipedia COI rules.

Also the section on "Albums" is a blatent attempt for self promotion, because it send people to iTunes, MovieScore Media and CD Baby where the CD can be purchased. The quotes provided are also the type of quotes that would be used in a promotional package, not a enyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pub14 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: editing, and vandalism, from UBS

Robert Wolf (UBS AG) to their watchlists. And perhaps someone richer with the milk of human kindness than I might gently point out to Pistonme how unwise her recent behaviour has been. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk
21:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Other concerned accounts appear to include PKurer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and UBS Fixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both whose edits concern the same subject. UBS Fixer's deleted edits also include a legal threat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
UBS IPs: 151.191.175.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.191.175.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.191.175.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 151.191.175.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Conversely there's UnionBS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who appears to be disgruntled in some fashion too arcane for me to figure out. Oh what a world we live in, why can't everyone be gruntled? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
See also JM0207.0909 (talk · contribs). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The chairman of a large bank is almost certain to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It would have been easy enough to rewrite the copyvio. And to find sources. DGG (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Heimerdinger

Chris Heimerdinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) My interest in the page is just through responding to a message on the BLP noticeboard; I am in discussion on the talk page about edits that should not really be very controversial. Also on the talk page there are accusations that one editor is the article subject and another is someone involved in a lawsuit against him. Would appreciate a further external look. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to complain about a conflict of interest from Itsmejudith. I've been watching the article for quite some time myself and some of these edits you are making are absolutely baseless. Its ridiculous to constantly exhibit the need to monitor this article and make such obsessive-compulsive changes to it that are totally unnecessary. Given that Mr. Heimerdinger does not have an official page at the moment and some of this information is found on very few other places on the web, it is an abuse of power to frequently change things "just because you feel like it." The information presented in Mr. Heimerdinger's article is neutral and is helpful to anyone legitimately seeking information about this individual. As Thumper10 pointed out in his edits to the argument - you are welcome to go look up the track information to the CD on Amazon for instance - but if you can find it there - then you should provide a link for doing so. Honestly - if you aren't doing anything legitimate to contribute to this article, get out of the way so that some of us that would legitimately like to contribute to it can without the worry of the article being changed mere minutes later.--FireandFlames17 FireandFlames17 (talk)
Disagreeing with you isn't a conflict of interest or an abuse of power. Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page, not here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears there are multiple people editing the article against a conflict of interest. Chris Heimerdinger is editing as 98.202.23.178, and there's speculation he's editing as Thumper10 as well. There is also speculation that 216.49.181.128 has a conflict of interest in the subject matter. --

talk
) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FireandFlames17 is a new editor, whose edits border on

talk
) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved with the page in question for some time, I would like to offer moral support to itsmejudith and thank her for her help. It's quite clear that Heimerdinger has his paws on his page with some regularity and I find it easy to believe that the gentleman on the other side of the lawsuit does as well. It's pretty ugly. So continued stopbys from uninvolved editors are highly welcome. Thmazing (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ryan McAdams

One to watch. Related to New York Youth Symphony and being edited by User:Newyorkyouthsymphony. — Alan✉ 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the user's talk page and excised some peacock terms and unneccesary promotional info. ArakunemTalk 14:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gurvic

Resolved
 – Articles deleted. MER-C 03:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User has created all three abovementioned articles. PENCAMP, according to the

MuZemike (talk
) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

These actions combined strike as a bit more that just plain COI: he's gaming the system (disruption) to propagate spam basically. None of the articles he added have any merit. Isn't it time to take it to AN/I?VG ☎ 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I left a warning for this editor. Let's hope for an appropriate response. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All By Students (ABS) Notebooks

Only article created by user. Also, only edits beside AfD/other tagging made by user. User has removed a {{

MuZemike (talk
) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note — user has made comment on the AfD here. I will AGF as of now unless there may be any other reason brought up here not to.
MuZemike (talk
) 07:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WeatherBug

I noticed that the last edit on the article (as of October 1) was made by an anonymous user. The WHOIS data on the IP came back to WeatherBug. The edit deals with mobile versions of WeatherBug:

WeatherBug Direct is a line of free applications for mobile devices, including WeatherBug Direct for Blackberry and WeatherBug Direct for Windows Mobile.

Is this a major COI violation? Thanks, --Willking1979 (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, a minor one if that. If they were adding lavish praise or unnecessary detail, or were deleting unfavourable material, then that would be something to worry about. If there were making large changes to the article, shutting out others' edits, that would be both a WP:OWN and WP:COI problem. But a single edit, adding only a one sentence mention of a product, using pretty NPOV language, isn't a problem. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

COI - The Foundation for a Better Life

Looks like a conflict of interest — see editing history. User:Forbetterlife has only edited this article and once the Philip Anschutz article. -BStarky (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sketch (restaurant)

Sketch is a notable restaurant in London, and an edit war is starting [7] between myself and an anonymous editor [8]. The editor claims that they work for Sketch, and their edits make the article look like, for want of a better phrase, a press release [9]

talk
) 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talk page, which the IP will hopefully participate in, and take note of the policies. I also left an edit sumamry pointing to the talk page. We'll see what develops. ArakunemTalk 19:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up, incoming influx of Occupational Therapy COI edits

On the talk page of an article currently proposed for deletion (Occupational apartheid), the User:Occupational scientist writes that "There are going to be a large group of Occupational Therapists editing all things related to occupational therapy on wikipedia over the next few weeks...I am just one of those..." and states that this will be because of an event called OT wikiflash. The user points towards the website OTwikiflash.net. I feel that the community should be notified of these (seemingly good-faith) edits since they might unwittingly breach into COI range (as can be seen on the occupational apartheid page). Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I left a fairly detailed note on this user's talk page, describing the core policies in a nutshell. Hopefully they get passed on to the project. I think a bunch of subject matter experts fixin up those articles is a good thing, as long as the pillars are maintained. I suspect most of the editors will be fairly new, and not familiar with policies. The above user's page had a slight bitey feel to it, from the messages already on there, so hopefully the new editors don't get discouraged from editing. ArakunemTalk 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

COI - Jaclyn A. Smith

There appears to be conflict of interest editing on

Jaclyn A. Smith by her management company / User:Noodleheadproductions. Article text comes straight from NoodleHead Productions which represents her. I periodically try to clean it up but they just come back and reset it to their text about once a quarter. Jjaazz (talk
) 11:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Syn, Steve Nardelli and user Umbrello

Shortly after a call for fans of The Syn to edit their Wikipedia article from the owner of their official e-mail list (14Hour) and subsequent complaints of anti-Syn bias on Wikipedia, a new Wikipedia editor appeared with the username Umbrello. Umbrello Records was founded and is run by Steve Nardelli, lead singer in The Syn. This editor has only edited articles on The Syn and on Nardelli. His user page is basically the same as the article page for Steve Nardelli. I suspect user Umbrello probably is Steve Nardelli; he has form for promoting himself on the Web (see this material since removed from The Syn article). Most of Umbrello's edits are reasonable and useful, but some are overly praiseworthy and ridiculous (e.g. this one). I have tagged both articles with coi notices and done npov tidy-up, although Umbrello and a seemingly associated IP editor (24.47.192.90) has removed the coi tags. I've some history, both good and bad, with Nardelli and have no particular desire to wade into this situation, so would some others be up for monitoring the situation? Bondegezou (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User Toyne

Yesterday, Toyne's userpage was tagged {{db-g11}} for speedy deletion as blatant advertising and subsequently appeared in the Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion.

I saw it there and, as no notice had been given on the user's talk page, posted information for Toyne about the speedy deletion criterion

What may I not have on my user page?
" portion of the Wikipedia userpage content guideline. I then deleted the userpage.

Today (diff), Toyne posted the following on my talk page:

Public Relations Consultants Association
Hi Athaenara,
You recently deleted a page I submitted on behalf of the the Public Relations Consultants Association and I would be interested to know why.
There are pages on Wikipedia for similar organisation such as the Chartered Institute of Public Relations [10]
Your help would be much appreciated.
Toyne
Toyne (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am posting the issue here on Toyne's behalf for the attention of the wider audience of NPOV editors and admins who share my concerns about COI issues. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(deletion log) — Athaenara ✉ 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Gravityforce

WP:OR to name a few. Entreaties to stop this behavior have been completely unsuccessful. siℓℓy rabbit (talk
) 11:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected
Gravitation for one month due to the possibility of sock editing. Otherwise these IPs have ideas that are inexplicably similar to those of User:Gravityforce. EdJohnston (talk
) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User Yndurain

New account Yndurain has:

However, according to the bio article, Francisco Jose Yndurain Muñoz died on June 6 this year, so it is not clear to me whether this is actually COI, or just an SPA with a poorly chosen name. Bio article seems to be too well written for a complete novice, so possibly this is an alternate account. Anyway, bringing it here hoping that someone may know how to handle this. I have notified Yndurain of this post on their talk page. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This user might also be family, or accidentally have the same name. A possible approach, which I would suggest: just value the edits on their merits (
undue weight), for the time being. -- Crowsnest (talk
) 08:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion:
EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientologist

Resolved
 – No inappropriate behavior by AndroidCat, per multiple comments below. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AndroidCat boasts on Alt.Religion.Scientology of his "work" here at Wikipedia. This is a clear Conflict of Interest, showing agenda based political intention for censorship! [1] AndroidCat also posts on the Dianetic Groups: [2] AndroidCat recently attacked over and over various Wiki pages called "obnosis" which included good references, until the page was deleted. He has also a history of attacking other Scientology pages and censorship agendas. --lisakachold 24.251.216.251 (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The links you wanted to cite above are [11] and [12]. (Use of the ref tags makes them invisible in the absence of a reference list). Can I request that you post here using your real account, User:LisaKachold, which is still available for your use? Posting as an IP adds a confusion factor. In fact, you seem to have double-voted (perhaps accidentally?) in WP:Articles for deletion/Obnosis, using both your registered account and your IP. Obnosis was deleted fair-and-square in a regular deletion discussion, and so far there is no well-defined misbehavior by AndroidCat for us to study. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Responses:

Links for well-defined misbehavior by AndroidCat on various Scientology Cites: The links are [13] and [14].

More than one person uses this IP base. We did not double vote in the Obnosis discussion. In fact, one person did not get to vote because of Denial of Service packets which disallowed all network use.

LisaKachold (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He is just as entitled to have an opinion and talk about it on the web as anyone else. Holding an opinion does not in and of itself constitute a COI, sorry. Jayen466 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not a COI issue. In fact, the only thing those posts seem to show is that he's trying to combat a perceived COI from Scientology employees and maintain the neutral point-of-view. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I did nothing against those vanity pages. I don't believe I even voted in the AfDs. I merely reported on ARS that Wikipedia's system for dealing with such pages seemed to be working. (First link) I did vote on the AfD for Obnosis, which seems to be the root of LisaKachold's problem with me, and why she's bringing a non-Wikipedia discussion in here for review. (The second link is just a mirror of the Wiki Dianetics Talk page.) The Obnosis article was a mess that couldn't be saved and deserved the AfD, but even then, it was LisaKachold spamming and coatracking other articles with it and her original research that convinced me. The admission that the obnosis site belongs to her (or someone with an IP just like her) only adds weight to the correctness of that AfD.
Her continual mentions of her difficulties in operating a computer on the Internet almost sound like accusations of criminal actions, and even worse, acting like a common script-kiddie.
Of course I'm a free-range critic of Scientology. Never denied it. However, I feel that the best criticisms are NPOV articles with hard-as-nails cites. My nails: Let me show you them. AndroidCat (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any regular COI issue here for us to address. WP is cautious about editors' particular enthusiasms causing them to go overboard, but that could only be proved if actual diffs were supplied about a person doing improper things here on Wikipedia. The submitter mentions AndroidCat's off-wiki interests, and they are duly noted. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with AndroidCat participating in a deletion debate about Obnosis. I suggest that this issue be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LisaKachold. Cirt (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPA campaign at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Hshieh

This message approved by: VG ☎ 12:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

COI with Bert Convy

User Bert Convy keeps editing the Gary Trauner article with obvious bias. Especially, since it's the only article he's edited, I'm suspicious that he's working for the Lummis campaign. BeIsKr (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the article's talk page. ArakunemTalk 14:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he's still at it, inserting links either to Trauner's opponent's website or to an anti-Trauner propaganda site into the middle of the article, depending on his mood. BeIsKr (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I've left BC/JW a specific note on the inappropriate external links, as well as some additional commentary on the talk page. ArakunemTalk 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

bluepulse - notable? bias?

BluePulse is a web 2.0 start up. They sort of have a marketing campaign going but I don't know if it has users/notability except for coverage on a few startup blogs. I was first attracted into googling them after seeing that their iTunes ratings were being gamed. (If anyone has iTunes, they are in the app store). I was wondering if anyone could look through the history of edits, check notability, and see if they're complying with rules and such. Because I know not how to handle (There may indeed be no problem, I'm not very familiar). --Drinkadrink (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bluepulse article is basically OK but it would benefit from a rewrite by somebody familiar with Wikipedia style. All the awards, for example, might be trimmed or summarized. Phrases like: well positioned to be the major player in the mobile social messaging space could be replaced by something more neutral. Their chief claim to fame is that their beta was downloaded 3 million times. They've also received $6 million in venture capital. Some of the references seem to be saying 'their features sound great.' Nobody seems to describe actual experience with using their service. Do you want to take a crack at improving the article? EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll (try to) strip some of the crufty stuff out. --Drinkadrink (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to move this to Talk:Bluepulse. --Drinkadrink (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I've added a
proposed deletion notice to this article. EdJohnston (talk
) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

MISRA C++ article and User:Phaedsys

Resolved

Phaedsys username blocked by another admin as promotional, IP editor warned.

talk
) 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

talk
) 13:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, should have added this link [15] to ANI where this was first raised.
talk
) 13:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Winton

While working on a series of articles related to publishing, I ran across an article about book publisher Charlie Winton. I looked at the editing history and noticed that the creator and main editor of the page was a User talk:kwinton. Perhaps the name is just a coincidence. I am backing off of editing it for now. The article on its face seems sound, with not an excessive number of superlatives affecting its tone, but it currently does not reference problems in the publishing industry such as those in this article, which quotes Winton: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/06/21/independent_press/print.html - Please advise on how best to handle this. --Larrybob (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

William Eric Alexander

Radionut (talk · contribs) has declared himself as the subject of the article on William Eric Alexander. he has been today informed of wp:coi policy. his contributions have at times been disruptive and war-ish, and is suspected of using the ip puppets, 71.126.34.110 (talk · contribs), 71.126.39.195 (talk · contribs), and Netio99 (talk · contribs). --emerson7 17:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be taking a lot of liberty with our policies. Under
WP:AFD might be considered. If the article is to be kept, the blocking policy will need to be explained to several editors, who may (in fact) all be the same person. I have notified User:Radionut of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk
) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Article has now been proposed for deletion under
WP:BIO. EdJohnston (talk
) 03:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting case...

I'm not entirely sure if this is more a question about

Gladys J Cortez
22:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Daytona Post does not appear to me to be a reliable source, though I'd have to suss it out a little more to be sure. Regardless,
talk
) 23:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it turned out not to take much more sussing at all: it's a blogspot-powered blog. Clearly not reliable, absent some evidence of editorial oversight or recognized expertise on the part of the (anonymous) author. I'd say nuke information supported by that source and warn the editor, followed if need be by blocking.
talk
) 23:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just e/c'ed w you to mention that it's an "online newspaper" and that the article regarding same had been speedied back in July AFTER having been created by our good friend Daytonapost. So...next question, does this count as a role account, or not so much?
Gladys J Cortez
23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be, yes (see
Wikipedia:Role account but clearly a promotional coi spa. — Athaenara ✉
05:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
- Censorship of unfavorable information

I have been trying to add information on this entry regarding a major case here in Montana where punitive damages were assessed against this law firm, but somebody with a Utah IP address keeps deleting it. I suspect he/she has a conflict of interest for the reason that he has removed this information three times now, stating that "this should belong in a criticisms section, if at all", and only edits this page and the BYU law school page. I am aware that GDC recruits heavily from that law school. I don't necessarily object to his contention that my entry might belong in a different section than I have placed it, but it peeves me that it just keeps getting deleted, instead of moved. There is no talk page for this entry, so I have been unable to initiate discussion with this user. 69.144.136.45 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the case mentioned is in the article now. Incidentally, when making edits to that article, edit comments would be helpful. There are five successive edits by four editors without edit comments. Three of those edits were made by anons or editors with no edits to other articles. The involved parties might want to register for accounts to reduce the confusion. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Onetz53 and ISurv1vor

User is directly involved in the article above, as shown by viewing the corresponding images on the page in which s/he is admittingly the copyright holder, hence using the article as self-promotion of the game. User does not seem to understand the basic Wikipedia guidelines as shown in

MuZemike (talk
) 06:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User Azambataro and TIBCO marketing
articles

Azambataro is a marketing writer for

Tibco Software and a coi spa on Wikipedia.
(Just a basic post here on my way offline for the evening.) — Athaenara ✉
03:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cadence Quest

AfD
Accounts (coi spas)
Articles

These accounts have been creating, editing, and re-creating articles which so far have been deleted at least five times. Is it perhaps time for blocks for advertising / sockpuppeting and page protection for the article titles which may be used? — Athaenara ✉ 21:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If they do it again, you should definitely salt the pages. MER-C 13:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thacher Proffitt
self-promotion

The below item was posted to the talk page here. Brought here to the project page for the appropriate desired comment. The issue, in my view, is that there are an number of analysis like this, published for law-firm clients, and occasionally visible to the larger world. The particular item in question actually is informative, and not available in the standard media yet--in any form; the source is reliable, but the item was apparently posted by a self-promotional effort, or an account name that pretends to make it a self promotional effort. See below.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Troubled Assets Relief Program, but left the one in Structured finance. The self-promotion is bothersome, but they're something of an authority on the subject; they were "instrumental in the creation of the mortgage-based securities market", so they helped create the problem. --John Nagle (talk
    ) 16:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If they are the best source, they are the best source even if there is some commercial motive. DGG (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
They're more like the first source. We'll probably be able to find a better one in a week or so, when the weekly business magazines start to analyze the situation. At this very moment, writers are frantically cranking out the first books on the bailout, and academics are trying to get the first papers submitted. I've been reading one guy who's going through microfilms on the Panic of 1873, looking for parallels. We're going to be buried in reliable sources in a few weeks, and people will be writing about these events for the next century. Let's wait a bit and then dump the link to this quickie piece. --John Nagle (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
They're at it again. They put two more links to themselves in
Troubled Assets Relief Program. I removed those and put in a reference to an article in Forbes instead. The financial press is catching up; there's no shortage of reliable sources. If you search Google for the names of the documents to which they're linking, they come up in press releases and sites that redisplay press releases. This looks like an organized promotional effort. --John Nagle (talk
) 18:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thacher Proffitt (talk · contribs) linkspammed another article; they were indef blocked and reverted. --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This editor was blocked for inappropriate username. In principle they might start up again under a new name. We should probably keep this report open for another day or two to see what happens. I'm not 100% sure of the meaning of {{uw-spamublock}}, but I think it means they can come back. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
{{
WP:UAA reports defaults to Account Creation Prohibited (ACP) but not IP autoblock, although either of those can be tweaked at the admin's discretion. If the user comes back with a new account or edits as an IP, we can obviously make new blocks as appropriate. --MCB (talk
) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Link tracking data follows. MER-C 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.tpw.com

Lilith Astaroth

Resolved
 – Page deleted. MER-C 13:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A prod lasted over five days so the article should have been deleted, but User:Lilithastaroth went to the BLP noticeboard and said she objected to the deletion, so someone removed the prod saying it was because she did had objected there and because the prodder was a newish editor, [16] although the time limit had elapsed (?) Is that a new way in accordance with policy for people to avoid getting their articles deleted if no-one who happens to come across the article without being asked to do what she wants will remove the prod? Anyway it's up at AfD now, but she of course has a COI so I thought I'd let you know. Sticky Parkin 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Behgjet Pacolli

Resolved
 – Semi-protected. MER-C 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been hijacked by single purpose accounts clearly linked to the subject: [17]. Watch this case closely. Colchicum (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected by Alex Bakharev until the 31st. Bump us if it happens again. MER-C 13:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar Edit History

This article is repeatedly having edits reverted by an unregistered user of the name 'EvilAvatar'. Evil Avatar is a popular online gaming forum which recently had several administrators and a large segment of its user base depart for another site. Any edits mentioning this fact are being repeatedly reverted with the comment 'Please stop vandalizing this page!'

It is highly likely that this user is Philip Hansen, the owner of the Evil Avatar website, given that the user is both using Mr. Hansen's online moniker and that this behavior is in-line with the way all mention of this split have been systematically expunged from his own site.

Wikipedia, however, is not Mr. Hansen's personal webpage, and the repeated removal of relevant, verifiable information from a Wikipedia entry because he does not want it proliferated is not acceptable behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commandar (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Powell

Mikegooderson (talk · contribs), Coldwinterday (talk · contribs), 81.192.195.118 (talk · contribs), 81.192.167.196 (talk · contribs), 81.192.191.48 (talk · contribs): problematic pattern of contributions to Tahir Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles

Overview: History of promotional, possibly self-serving edits and article creations, with apparent use of multiple user IDs (sockpuppets). Possible candidate for Checkuser, although from the evidence (unbroken strings of edits, some under IP, some under user names) it seems fairly clear that we are dealing only with one person.

According to geobytes, all the IPs involved hail from Casablanca, Morocco, the place of residence of the article subject of Tahir Shah.

Previous talk page requests to comply with COI and core content policies: [18], [19].

Examples of problematic edits:

  • Mikegooderson creates The Phararoh Code (with misspelt title): [20]. The article Pharaoh code has been deleted twice before: [21]. Article cites no third-party reliable sources and appears to exist solely to promote Tahir Shah's theory.
  • Coldwinterday inserts circular reference (using a Wikipedia mirror site) to Tahir Shah's Qantara Foundation, which appears to lack independent notability: [22]. Undone by another editor: [23] Mikegooderson steps in and inserts references to another open wiki that uses Wikipedia content: [24]
  • Coldwinterday edits Tahir Shah to describe the father of Tahir Shah as "legendary": [25]; the cited source (the New York Times) describes him as "well-known", as our article said. (Ironically, Tahir Shah's father was accused by critics of self-aggrandisement, and self-publishing an unparalleled corpus of pseudonymous literature in adulation of himself.)
  • IP 81.192.167.196 reinserts unsupported claim that Tahir Shah holds various memberships and honorary titles: [26], [27]. I insert fact templates after the claims: [28]. Now, an hour later, IP 81.192.195.118 adds Tahir Shah as a club member in the article on the
    unverifiable
    for our readers.

To be clear, Tahir Shah is a notable and talented author, with congratulatory coverage in top-class newspapers, as well as a filmmaker, a book reviewer for the Washington Post, a writer of screenplays and much besides.

It is all the more puzzling that these accounts, rather than capitalising on the good press coverage there is on the man, seek to inflate his achievements with unsourced claims and fawning descriptions. Here is an example of the state the article was in after one of the user's recent editing sessions: [35]

To be fair, I will grant that some of the contributions made by the above IDs have been pertinent, if invariably flattering to the subject.

The problem is long-standing; here, in 2006, yet another Casablancan IP deletes "copyedit" and "verify" tags, they are restored by the other user, and then the same Casablancan IP deletes them again the next day.

None of the user IDs concerned has so far responded to talk page messages. Over to you guys. Jayen466 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User(s) concerned has been notified of this thread: [36], [37], [38]. Jayen466 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

More of the same: [39], misspelt title, POV and unsourced. Jayen466 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Title spelling now fixed, page moved. Jayen466 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly Jayen. The editor/s have created or contributed to several articles promoting possible associates, sometimes with backlinks to Tahir Shah. 81.192.186.193 (Morocco again) unilaterally deleted two sections of Idries Shah, Tahir Shah's father, without first or subsequently discussing. These sections were critical of his father. EricT (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I missed that one. It's another Casablanca IP: Special:Contributions/81.192.186.193, diff link. Jayen466 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears there haven't been any further edits by the user(s) in the last week or so. What to do? Mothball this thread until they come back? Jayen466 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Coldwinterday has recently created several articles on books by Tahir Shah. Looks like a major marketing exercise. See that article for the list. EricT (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I note at least we now have references, some of them from bona fide sources. There appear to be copyright problems with the book covers (see the talk page of Coldwinterday (talk · contribs)), but the sourcing appears to be a step in the right direction. Would appreciate an uninvolved editor looking the articles over:

Cheers, Jayen466 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A casual look at just Trail of Feathers and In Arabian Nights and a google search reveals that much of the description is to be found on other published pages. See articles' talk pages. Cleanup-rewrite? Uninvolved editors' help, please. EricT (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You are right, much is lifted from the sites you indicated. I second the call for an uninvolved editor's help. Jayen466 14:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The books certainly merit articles: could someone tag the relevant pages as (say) requiring a rewrite to meet standards, rather than their being unnecessarily deleted? EricT (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that most, if not all, the books are notable enough, and have had detailed coverage in multiple RS (not all of it reflected necessarily in the articles as they stand). Jayen466 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Checkuser requested: [40] Jayen466 07:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hm2k

Has added links to his personal blog as references to material he has added to articles:

He was given a coi warning 09:58, 14 June 2008 by Herbythyme after restoring the link [41] in E-mail address.

Since then he restored the link in MagicISO on 12:22, 30 July 2008 after it was removed and was aware that his link in E-mail address remained when he edited the sentence containing the link on 11:09, 21 September 2008.

Previous discussions

After participating in the discussion above with EdJohnston, Hm2k has decided to restore his personal website as a source to E-mail address [42]. --

talk
) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Copying in the text of the discussion from Ed's page, for your COIN'ing Convenience. ArakunemTalk 15:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My read is that Hm2k is adding the link in because there is no better one to use as a source that he can find. This is based on his last comment in the discussion above. Clearly, "It's better than nothing" is rarely a good guideline on Wikipedia. ArakunemTalk 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So we're in agreement that there is no COI. --Hm2k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't say that what you're doing is not problematic. The biggest problem with your links is that they are not
WP:SPS, as the material on your site has not been published or reviewed elsewhere. ArakunemTalk
16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Since this editor's personal web site, hm2k.com, is not a
E-mail address. Since there has been plenty of discussion, and lots of explanation of our policy, I would argue that a {{uw-spam3}} warning could be left on this editor's Talk page. What do others think? People shouldn't get an infinite number of chances when the policy is so clear. EdJohnston (talk
) 16:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the link should go. It should not be hard to find a RS stating that "it is hard to regex every possible email address permutation". (If it IS hard, then maybe the statement needs to be re-evaluated). As far as the spam-3 goes, personally I consider this discussion to be filling that role at the moment, provided the discussion actually continues. As I said above, I got the impression from the talk on your page, that Hm2k understood the RS problem with his link, but kept it as "better than nothing". If my read was correct, then HM needs to understand that "better than nothing" is actually not. Once the link is removed, after all the policies have been explained and applied, restoring the link will have to be treated as disruptive. ArakunemTalk 16:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying I cannot restore the link? If so, I'd suggest you recommend an alternative source. --Hm2k (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
If an article contains a statement whose truth you want to question, and it has no reliable source, why not propose removing it on the Talk page? Adding a self-published source for such a claim is not accepted as being the right way to go. In this particular case the statement does not seem very surprising, since people who have used regular expressions are aware they have limited expressive power (cf. any computer science textbook that discusses formal languages). Here's the statement you wanted to provide a cite for:

Trying to match these restrictions is an extremely difficult and complex task, often resulting in long regular expressions that are too hard to actually be practical.

I'd be willing to retain that sentence even without a cite, maybe replacing an extremely difficult and complex task with a complex task. If you still object to that sentence unless it has a citation, let's get rid of the sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually warned this editor about
COI here in June of this year. I do see this as a clear conflict of interest and an attempt to promote the user's own website. I do not consider that this editor should be permitted to place a link to his website under any guise whatsoever. --Herby talk thyme
12:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Any kind of ban on my website will have an undesired effect. I do not tolerate restrictions. Further more, the citation was not for self promotion, but instead proof to show I had authority on the statement as I show clear research on the subject. However I'm happy to keep the statement without any kind of citation to avoid further conflicts. --Hm2k (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hum - I do not tolerate restrictions. Such words may also have an "undesired effect" in a collaborative environment. --Herby talk thyme 12:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Then we're agreed that no further action needs to be taken at this time. --Hm2k (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor

Resolved
 – Not a COI issue. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing here in item 18. Since this user has a business that has the potential to receive income from a cold fusion enterprise based on thin films
, I ask that he be banned from editing cold fusion related pages.

talk
) 17:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

SA, your concerns are important. But our COI policy states, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The italics are mine to emphasize the key point. I have a question and some advice. Question: do you feel you have strong evidence that this user is using these articles to advance his own interests against those of the project? Please bear in mind that Christians edit the article on Jesus to add Christian POV's and as long as they are significant and verifiable and pegged to reliable sources we do not claim a conflict of interest. Has this guy been eeleting any significant verifiable views other than his own? If the answer to both questions is yes, then you have a COI case. But in the meantime, I have a suggestion: hold this editor to the highest standards of NOR, V, and NPOV. Make sure any views he adds are significant and verifiable and from reliable sources. Make sure he never removes any views that are significant and verifiable. Make sure all his views maintain the neutral presentation of diverse views. If he fails to do this correct him but try - at least try - gently to encourage him to abide by our policies.
I share your concerns but do not think that his busness means he cannot edit articles he cares about or knows about as long as he complies with our policies and works collaboratively with other editos who comply with out policies. So in my view no ban should be automatic, or so simple. Does this make sense to you, at least as a provisional plan? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually think the New Energy Times article answers your question in the affirmative. He is intending to tilt coverage of cold fusion toward a POV that advances it as a legitimate enterprise which is position about which Wikipedia must remain neutral. The fact that he has a company which stands to benefit monetarily from an active cold fusion research program based on the idea that there are low energy nuclear reactions happening in certain thin film applications adds up to me that this particular user probably shouldn't be editing anymore. I'm thinking of the integrity of the encyclopedia here. I have no problem with Pcarbonn continuing to add his input on the talk pages, but his advocacy in article space is extremely problematic.
talk
) 20:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
A ban should not be automatic, but I support SA's assertion that Pcarbonn is pushing the POV that cold fusion is valid to a disruptive degree, and since he has a conflict of interest, this should not be permitted. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, disruptive editing is also a violation of policy. Do you think there would be any value to seek mediation for disruptive edition before seeking a ban? If there is a consensus he is a disruptive editor, then you are taking the right course. But have you already doen an RfC? I suggest doing that and seeing what a wider group of editors think - not just on the substance of cold fusion but on issues of NPOV and disruptive editing i.e. content policies - before seeking a topic ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
We've tried mediation in the past. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a real dud. I think that a simple ban from article-space would do wonders, though.
talk
) 20:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable banning someone unilaterally, but I think if you provided some examples of edit difs where he clearly violated NPOV, and here he was clearly disruptive, and also diffs that show the failure of mediation, other admins will give serious consideration to this. You are asking for a big thing and I really am sympathetic but we need more agreement among admins, and for that you need to provide some details to support your case. If you get no response here, my advice is (1) bend over backwards to be conciliatory to him and then the next time there is a clear example of violation of NPOV or disruptive editing, (2) present your case at AN/I as a demonstrable pattern of disruptive POV pushing editing. COI explains the pattern of violating DIS and NPOV but the hear of the case is the pattern of disregarding these policies. Put some evidence here and let's see what other admins have to say; otherwise try my advice and go the AN/I route when you have abundant and clear cause. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at
WP:RFC/U if you have data to present. The space limitations of COIN don't allow room for complex cases to be handled successfullly EdJohnston (talk
) 20:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
That mediation was far from "successful". I was railroaded out of it by a jerk of a mediator. People who dig will see the history.
talk
) 23:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You say : "A jerk of a mediator" ? Please
remain civil
. Those who dig the history will see that this is not the first time you should have.
First off, COI/N has no power to ban anyone. We try to resolve COI disputes by educating those accused in understanding and following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Our objective is to turn them into constructive contributors. The place to take problems with editors who failed to abide by multiple levels of
Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents
. However, it is unlikely that they will censure an editor over off-wiki activities that are not pursued disruptively on Wikipedia itself (although they may be taken as evidence against their "good faith").
Please note, though, that disagreement over content is not a sin, unless it is exercised in a continuing disruptive fashion. I concur with Ed that the NET article to which you’ve linked appears unexceptional. The “crowing” appears to be chiefly over cold fusion being portrayed as “controversial” rather than “beyond the pale” – and I think no one disputes that it is indeed quite controversial. Unless you can provide diffs that clearly demonstrate evidence of contentious COI editing on Wikipedia, I’m afraid you have presented us with nothing to work with here. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This was brought to my attention.. ScienceApologist, why are you revealing the real world name of a user? Are you certain that this user has consented to be identified? A quick check of his current userpage does not show a disclosure, although I may have missed it. I would think that you would be particularly sensitive to the need not to out people. Please either demonstrate where this connection was made, or redact your connecting the users. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a current thread on ANI about this. The user is using a contraction of their real name, and previously named themselves on their user page according to the ANI thread. Yours, Verbal chat 22:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing. I commented there. It's not clear to me that this user wants their name associated NOW. It was removed, after all. We honor requests to go less connected all the time. ++Lar: t/c 22:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, perhaps it would help if you would explain (here or elsewhere) how his company could profit from changing the reputation of cold fusion. I don't see cold fusion discussed on that company web site. If he has a strong financial stake in the matter he should disclose it, at the very least. Olorinish (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
So, I linked to a report from some of the Illinois cold fusion proponents who think that thin film reactions are associated with transmutation of elements at, say, room temperature. The company in question is involved in attempts to sell material support for such research.
talk
) 23:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the name of the company involved? How do you know Pcarbonn has a financial stake? Since Pcarbonn has posted on multiple cold-fusion-related sites with his real name, there is no expectation of confidentiality. Olorinish (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. opening statement to this thread, "He has crowed about his successful

WP:NPOV). The statement does say, "One editor, who calls himself ScienceApologist, fiercely defended the view that cold fusion is 'contrary to current theory, so it's impossible.' " If that is true, one has to question who is POV-pushing. Ty
03:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, ScienceApologist already introduced a COI, which was declined. Its accusations are baseless. Furthermore, when Shkedi and Shanahan, 2 scientists who published anti-CF papers, contributed to the article, nobody complained. Wasn't there any conflict of interest ? Furthermore, COI complaints only make sense when policies such as NPOV are in danger. This is not the case here, as all my edits are fully backed by proper sources, and are done wihth the purpose of improving the quality of the article and presenting both sides of the controversy appropriately. I have made numerous anti-CF edits, and can provide some if necessarry. As somebody says, who is POV-pushing here ? Pcarbonn (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has been editing at the cold fusion page for over a year, I would say that Pcarbonn has been POV-pushing on many issues, such as the infrared image issue, the Oriani reference, and the Physical Review C article issue. I am not convinced he has a financially invested in the field (although I am not sure if he has denied that), and I have asked ScienceApologist for details on that assertion. Olorinish (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
They are no references to infrared image, Oriani, or Physical Review C in the version of the article that ScienceApologist is challenging. So, why make such a big issue with it ? Even if I had POV-pushed them, which I don't recall, I would have failed. Also, I do not have a share in any company, nor have I invested in cold fusion research, so I don't have any fincanial interest tied with cold fusion. Again, even if I had, I should be judged on my editing behavior, not on my financial holdings. You have still not shown any example of where I have damaged the quality of the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors don't generally (ever?) have a COI with a field of study. They may have a COI with respect to an organization or biography. It seems that if there is no violation of

WP:NPOV there is no problem. If NPOV is the issue, then it should be addressed elsewhere, and without reference to the real life identity of the editor. Jehochman Talk
13:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I have redacted all mention (that I could find) of the name of the investor, since ScienceApologist has not done so after several days. This included editing his remarks, as well as the heading of this section, as a diff will show, but I felt I had no choice. If I missed some please do them for me, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My real name is Pierre Carbonnelle. I have nothing to hide. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out. Perhaps you can put this info back on your user page, it will save a lot of confusion going forward. Absent such a confirmation there, or as you've given now, and given that you removed it before, that you wanted to disassociate was a reasonable inference. We all need to err on the side of caution. ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with and support your general principle. ScienceApologist should not have disclosed my real name. The first step before discussing COI must be to establish the improper behavior of the disputed user. In this case, SA has still failed to do that step. Discussing presumed intent is therefore irrelevant, and the disclosure of my name to trace such intent is therefore unjustified. I suggest that the COI noticeboard do require the establishment of improper behavior before allowing inquiry of persons in real life. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, this is not the first time SA has inappropriately sought someone's off-wiki identity to use as a bludgeon. See my complaint here about the time SA went after me and the subsequent oversighting of said material. Ronnotel (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:80.44.181.2 and Naomi Westerman

The IP above is the manager of the subject of the above article, as admitted in the AfD here.

MuZemike (talk
) 23:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor who blanked the page and asked for the article to be deleted almost certainly is an actor she's been fighting with as his prior edits added personal information about her only a few know. FYI80.44.181.2 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
No I am not an actor or a he some person was fighting with, I came to Naomi Westerman bc an article I watch-listed had blp violations added by a anonymous editor so I checked out the IPs other contributions, it was Naomi Westerman article. I saw Naomi Westerman did not have sources so I looked for sources. I couldn't find any sources just blogs and stuff. So I took out the blp problems and I prod'ed it, but blp violations went back in by this person who says they are an agent. So now I took it to Afd. RetroS1mone talk 02:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hardly notable to begin with, and due to the BLP issues the article is now deleted. Wizardman 18:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having read that discussion, I'm not convinced that either the 'Naomi' or the 'Louis' participating in the discussion were who they claimed they were; let's keep a watch on this in case of re-creation. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On the freelance job board getafreelancer.com, I stumbled upon yet another commercial request for doing PR work on WP. Interestingly, one of the bidders showcased his previous work naming the two articles above. _R_ (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment 75.38.186.104 just removed the link to getafreelancer.com. I have restored the link. Themfromspace (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The only significant contributer to Paul Di Leo outside of User:Psteven08 is 208.215.25.131. I think its safe to say that this is the IP of the SEO man, although it seems he didn't leave his guard down many other times since I can't identify any other articles edited by him with a COI. Please note the amount of AfDs participated in, as the IP could have been used as a second vote. Themfromspace (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the AFD discussions are likely to be the same editor; they were a couple years back, and a couple of the edits then seem to tie the IP to a mostly-retired editor in good standing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at the Paul Di Leo article; it was created by
WP:MUSIC, from my view. The John Safer article looks to be far more likely to meet guidelines. Interesting thing: it was created by Tomfolkes (talk · contribs). The link provided above suggests that the same person was involved with those articles, but I don't see any crossover of a single editor that was substantive; the other major contributor to Safer was Pilot03 (talk · contribs). I'm wondering about sockpuppetry here, and if there are other articles we should be looking at. Tony Fox (arf!)
04:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Paul Di Leo article is definitely not notable and contains a strong hint of COI. Whether or not it was paid is not for me to tell. I'm a member of the free lancer website and I have seen some of the brag boards created for Wiki pages. Saying that, I would not be surprised to see it as a paid work. But, the John Safer article is tougher to tell. Yes, it does have that same hint of COI, but the notability of the article seems to be a lot better than the article about Di Leo. I'll give a !vote at the AfD for Di Leo, but I wouldn't take Safer's article to AfD. (maybe just a cleanup for COI issues) Undead Warrior (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Safer article does a lot better at expressing notability, so I'm not as concerned about that one - the subject seems to be quite recognized in his field. I'm a little more concerned that we've got a wave of freelancers writing potentially promotional articles for pay. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Another issue is that the Safer article has many photographs uploaded by the author of the article, tagged as "self-made" by Tomfolkes (talk · contribs). Either that user is a rather good professional photographer who went around the country and photographed most of Safer's larger works, and obtained access to smaller works in private collections, or that claim is phony. What we're looking at here, I suspect, are photos taken over the years from the sculptor's own collection. This raises some difficult copyright questions. Is "Tom Folkes" an agent of Safer for copyright purposes. authorized to license those images under the GFDL? What does it mean when an anonymous party executes a GFDL release? Do we delete all the images now, or what? --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
He is taking a picture of a copyrighted work and claiming that it is his own work. That is a false license for one and the images should be deleted. Also, I have a high suspicion that Tomfolkes (talk · contribs) is in on the whole paid editing scheme from getafreelancer.com. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
See this for the pictures. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That's fascinating. The web site at [44] has many very similar images. But the ones uploaded to Wikipedia are bigger; they have more detail and better color balance. Whoever did the upload had access to better versions of those images than the ones on Safer's web site. Incidentally, Safer's web site has a link to this Wikipedia article.[45] So it's likely that this was all done with Safer's knowledge and cooperation. Still, "Tom Folkes" can't issue a copyright release for Safter. Do we ask Safer for a GFDL release, or delete the images? --John Nagle (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ask for a GFDL release. Undead Warrior (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If the artist wants to give us encyclopedic photos we should only say one thing, "thank you". If somebody is doing paid editing, they can post their work to the article talk page and leave a note for us here asking for an uninvolved editor to review their work and consider it for article space. As long as people don't edit war or act disruptively, it is really none of our business what real life relationships they might have. Jehochman Talk 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bkonop

Bkonop (talk · contribs) is removing sourced controversy material from Ben Konop. I've issued him a COI warning. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That said, the reliability/neutrality of the controversial material needs looking at. "Konop has been labeled by some a carpet bagger" because someone said it on a blog? The whole "controversy" section - collecting a laundry list of negative things he's done, then bagging it up under an original conclusion that "Konop's brief tenure as a politician has been shrouded in controversy" smells of
WP:SYNTH
.
I've moved it to Talk for discussion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Commented there. ArakunemTalk 14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

An anonymous editor (the IP Editor is using different IPs) who claims to be a lawyer, and has spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case, is editing the article based on several different court documents and newspaper editorials. The IP Editor is trying to add the vacated portions of the trial into the article by using court documents and newspaper editorials.

I and other editors (including Third Opinion) have told the IP Editor they need to supply secondary reliable sources, but they are insistent on editing the article by using primary sources and newspaper editorials. Some of the newspaper editorials used are human-interest pieces that just have a mention of the original trial and include misinformation about pertinent data that involves the Roxas v Marcos trial.

Finding secondary reliable sources pertaining to the Roxas v Marcos trial are almost nonexistent. The IP Editor’s involvement with the case is in direct conflict of interest, and the edits are not neutral. Jim (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

____________________________

There is no absolutely conflict of interest in the IP version. Merely being a lawyer does not create a conflict. Talking to a tangentially involved lawyer does not create a conflict. No material provided came from the tangentially involved lawyer, so it does not represent original research. See the talk page for the article for the IP's suggested version. All material proposed is based upon a neutral description of what transpired in the legal proceeding as reported in the actual court records as well as numerous contemporary news reports from mainstream newspapers. JimBob takes the position that appellate court decisions can never be used as a source on Wikipedia and the news reports are all editorial opinion pieces. That is a preposterous position. The appellate court decisions (as opposed to pleadings filed by one party in the trial court, or one-sided trial testimony) will summarize the pleadings and proceedings of the trial court, and thus the appellate court decisions become the most reliable secondary source as to what transpired in a given legal proceeding. Furthermore, since the decision is the measured work of judges in an adversarial system subject to review by the opposing attorneys and often other judges in other courts, the decisions should be considered hyper-peer reviewed secondary sources. That being said, even if the court decisions are considered primary sources, they can still be used according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. As stated in WP:PSTS, “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia…” Use of primary sources can be used to “make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.” The use of the court records in the IP version is consistent with these guidelines. Finally, the IP version does not rely solely on court decisions. The fact that Roxas and his successors were successful in establishing in a court of law that Roxas found the treasure and that it was stolen by Marcos has been established in the IP version through the use of the following reliable secondary sources -- New York Daily News, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Manila Standard Today, and even a press release from the Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines. These secondary sources are reliable and verifiable, and to dismiss these news reports as well as a press release from the Office of Solicitor General, Republic of the Philippines as mere opinion editorials is nonsense. Look at the sources!

Finally, JimBob distorts the nature of the only other third opinion provided on this dispute. The only third opinion in this matter was provided by Fr33kman. It was his opinion that the court decision could be used so long as party allegations were identified as such -- as mere allegations. The IP version complies with this recommendation in that it described Roxas' allegation as just that, allegations. The IP version prefaces the alleged material from the court case with “The evidence and testimony submitted by Roxas alleged…” and “Roxas went on to allege….” So, the IP version complies with Fr33kman's suggestions. Fr33kamn did not address the reliability and verifiability of the news reports or the other sources.

It is my position that JimBob's fanatical behavior in distorting the truth about Yamashita's treasure could only be the result of an undisclosed conflict of interest of his own. I am not the first editor to be bullied by JimBob concerning thoughtful edits to this article. See the Archived disputes with other members including member Grant.

67.120.59.46 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Les Fradkin

This article was tagged for COI soon after creation as probable autobiographical, given the identity between the creating user name and the subject name. Since then it has had a very large number edits by IP users (predominantly in the Colorado area, and often with little interest in editing articles other than this one). The COI notice (and other notices were deleted). I restored the COI notice last week, it was deleted; restored again, etc. It is currently restored, but I anticipate its re-removal. None of the IP editors appear interested in "taking it to Talk". AllyD (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't actually look too bad as an article. Main problem is - one endemic with pop/rock musician bios - general lack of sourcing and, where sources are given, no indication of which citation applies to which text. I've added the appropriate tags. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

COI on the Eli Soriano Article

Journeyist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User is a confirmed member of the religious group led by the subject and armed with a blog that does nothing but defend the subject even if newspaper and other reliable, third-party, published sources' reports abound regarding his (the subject's) unlawful activities (currently wanted by the Philippine government). Actually the said editor only edits this page. Another member Darbook has just recently been banned for using a sockpuppet to make POV edits to this and related articles. Shannon Rose (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection of
canvassing on the blog. Themfromspace (talk
) 19:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Asset recovery

  • Talk:Asset recovery - I edited this page, but wanted to get another editor to review the changes on it to avoid COI after reading the conflict of interest guidelines. I work in the asset recovery industry. The edits I made to the asset recovery page were to develop the page to include the basic parts of asset recovery. Athaenara reverted the edit temporarily and suggested I post here so someone could review it. I want to avoid the appearance of evil. Thanks Gwheato (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This looks OK to me. Keep from mentioning companies or the like, and you've made a pretty fine addition to Asset recovery. I'm happy to back up the addition. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


COI Medical degree

Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

William M. Gray and User:William M. Connolley

Resolved
 – Not a COI. See BLPN for more discussion on the specific issue. ArakunemTalk 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeking an opinion here on a potential COI issue. User:William M. Connolley is a member of the RealClimate blog, which, while being a respected blog, is still unpublished and unreviewed. Two years ago, WMC and his colleagues wrote an extended criticism of Gray on the RC blog. Most of it was scientific, but it also questioned his scientific practices and criticised Gray for his "seat of the pants" approach.

Recently, WMC edit-warred to keep an external link to that criticism (which he himself wrote with the rest of the RC team).

Now, regardless of what anyone feels about the RC criticism (and I happen to agree with it, BTW), do we really want to allow any editor to write something critical on a blog, then edit-war to link it from the BLP of a political opponent? There is already well-sourced criticism of Gray's views in the article itself, so there's really no need to include the RC link, especially when it's the author of the RC piece that is warring to keep it.

Is this not a textbook example of why the COI guideline was created in the first place?

Maybe I'm overreacting, but that's why I came here to seek input. ATren (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the suggestion of COI is irrelevant (as it so often is). What's at issue here is the portion of
talk
) 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
That question is already being addressed on BLP/N, but I believe the COI issue is different, because I think this creates a dangerous precedent. WMC can essentially fast track his viewpoint into Wikipedia: he writes a RC piece, then comes here and links to it, without it ever being reviewed or edited by a third party. And linking it in a BLP further adds to the concern, because it effectively gives an editor the ability to use Wikipedia as a platform criticise his ideological opponents. I think that's dangerous. ATren (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SarcasticIdealist that this is not technically a COI issue. The big issue here, apart from the BLP issues, is as you rightly pointed out ATren, that WMC can write whatever he feels on the blog, then link to it here to support an assertion. This usually falls more under the realm of
reliable source. Blogs usually are not, but this one may be an exception. The discussion at BLPN seems to be the main discussion, so its probably best to keep it all in one place. ArakunemTalk
14:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I consider RealClimate to be a
WP:RS
on News organizations:
"For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."
It is precisely because of these limitations of normally reliable news organizations that a treatment of the topic by experts is so useful. The attribution to the RealClimate article in question is not William Connolley but "group". William's expertise and contributions to articles on climate change are valuable to Wikipedia, and I do not see them as a conflict of interest. We are fortunate to have a knowledgeable editor.
However, RealClimate is self-published.
WP:COI or is otherwise harmful. Mishlai (talk
) 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, a subject-matter expert is not in a COI when editing articles related to his experience. Quite the opposite, that sort of attention is immeasurably helpful. Closing this, as there is clearly no COI here. BLPN will sort out the article specifics.

Obviously its of no interest :-( but the article in question is here. Note that calling Gray seat-of-the-pants is not criticism [46] and Atren is well aware of this William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The tone of the entire piece is highly critical, and I view the "seat of the pants" remark as insulting in that context. This is not a friendly feature which amuses at Gray's maverick attitude, it's a detailed criticism written by ideological opponents which calls into question his knowledge and his methods. I am not surprised that you don't think of it as criticism, because you wrote it and therefore can't be completely neutral in evaluating it - which is exactly why I think you should avoid warring on your own material, especially when multiple other editors express concerns. ATren (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

user:83.254.214.192

user:83.254.214.192 was editing the article 'Pichat' but since 83.254.214.192 was the IP address of the Web Server for a company called Pichat, the article Pichat was speedily deleted for non-notability and blatant advertising. However, this user was not only involved in promoting his own company, his edit record also shows that he has been actively engaged in targeting rival software products and deleting information about them from articles whilst at the same time adding "Pichat", as can be seen by examining this article before and after his involvement in it. When confronted with the COI both on his talk page, and here

  • he denied point blank any involvement with software products and Pichat
  • moved the Pichat web server, so that his IP address seems to belong to another organisation
  • and joined Swedish Wikipedia, where the very first article he created was for Pichat! as can be seen here

So much for his claim that he had no involvement with the company. It seems that removing the Pichat article from English Wikipedia won't stop him from self-promotion, but of more concern is the possibility that he will continue editing articles where there is an obvious conflict of interest, and where he tries to alter or remove information about his company's competitors. I guess there is a strong likelihood that he will simply move to another IP address so I don't know if there is any effective way to deal with this person. 90.59.248.88 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Education

We have a Landmark affiliated editor who appears to be whitewashing the article,[48] which has now been protected. What shall we do about this? Problem, or not a problem? Jehochman Talk 07:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Alex is a longstanding responsible and civil editor who has made worthwhile contributions to many articles on Wikipedia. He has always been open about his affiliations with Landmark, and open to discussion of his edits in a civil manner. There are longstanding problems with POV editing by both Landmark supporters and detractors, but it appears to me that there has been very little concern expressed about the latter (many of whom point-blank refuse to declare their interest or viewpoint). I would welcome the opinion of genuinely neutral editors on what would be a appropriate structure for a fair article. I have tried to get constructive discussion going on the article's talk page many times over the past 2 or 3 years, but it has invariably been derailed by a tag-team of activists who will not be satisfied with anything less than an outright attack-piece. DaveApter (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The article currently appears reasonable. There's the long history, from "est" to Forum to Landmark. Criticism is mentioned. There's not much mystery about Landmark; they put a bunch of people in a big room and harangue them for hours as a form of self-improvement.[49] This may be good or bad for the people involved, but it's not quite a cult. --John Nagle (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the problems with the article is that the Criticism section ends with selective quotations from opinion pieces to close the section suggesting that the Forum is not a cult, and is innocuous. I'm not arguing one way or another on the allegation as to whether it is a cult, but on reading the section it in effect dismisses the validity of any criticism. Yes Nagle, criticism is mentioned but it is marginalised, where even some of the references (e.g. the one by Steve Jackson) are used to provide only corporate overview information; none of the criticism of the Forum (and there is plenty) in that article is raised. It's as if the pro-Landmark POVers have compromised with the anti-Landmark POVers to allow a few critical references in but only if the quotations included from those references are pro-Landmark. ProlixDog (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Another major problem with the article is that it contains extensive use of references to corporate information, making the article in effect, little more than a publicity document for the company. Many references to the website are duplicated. ProlixDog (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The use of the referenced article in "Independent Scientific Studies and Academic Publications" is highly dubious, and in that reference it is pointed out that the study was statistical and could not be used to imply causality (that LE results in better locus of control). I therefore question to what purpose does this study's appearance in the wikipedia article serve? I think that very little can be concluded from the study and that by having it in the wikipedia as it stands it bears with it a real risk to be misinterpreted as an indication of effectiveness of Landmark. ProlixDog (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As the admin that protected the article, I went over it and did some verification. Comments about this can be found on the talk page of the article. There's some issues with synthesis and fabrication, though I've not yet gone through the history, so I don't know who added what. As ProlixDog noted, there's an over-reliance on the company's website and very selective quoting. AJackl removed the COI tag from the article himself. I don't think that was appropriate. Having a COI doesn't restrict one's right to edit an article, but others need to be aware in order to ensure there isn't a bias in the editing.
    vecia
    03:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) appears to be deleting sourced criticism, including jury's finding and judge's comments in the Jason Scott case: [50]. Before: [51] After: [52]

Subject previously asked for our article on him to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rick_Ross_(consultant)

BLP/N thread: [53] RS/N thread: [54]

Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) has been warned for potential COI violation on his talk page by Blowdart (talk · contribs).

I have reverted the edits; the facts deleted were relevant, cited to scholarly sources, and backed up by court documents hosted online.

Comments? Jayen466 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: He made a comment at his talk page in response to Blowdart (talk · contribs), saying he will stick to talk page discussion. I think this can be marked as resolved. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Jayen466 08:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Kay O'Hara

SPA account that created the article Kay O'Hara in January 2007. It was deleted on October 1 2008 with the comment "non notable individual, article is a link farm to commercial sites". It was restored on 19 October 2008 at the request of Mrtphotography. Although the article has subsequently been revised, it still has issues such as links to Ms O'Hara's "sponsors". I applied a COI tag to the article when I noticed that several photos for Ms O'Hara are credited to one Mr T Photography. User:Mrtphotography has today added a disclaimer that they are not the same person. I find my AGF a bit strained at the moment due to unrelated issues and would appreciate some input on this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk
) 14:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ShareNow

Cirt (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jtsports92 and Joey's sports blog

Resolved
 – Author requested deletion (see AfD). — Athaenara ✉ 02:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User Jtsports92, a coi spa, is upset that the article he has persisted in adding to promote his sports blog has been deleted (four times, as per {{db-web}} and {{db-g11}} speedy deletion criteria).

A google search for either "joeyssportsblog" or "joey's sports blog" does not support notability (fewer than ten hits).

The last time an indignant author complained to me about a similar deletion, I opened an AfD which resulted in a consensus to delete. I've no doubt an AfD for this one would have the same result, so I'm handing off the ball to this noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 01:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Campbell (journalist)

There has long been a slow-burning edit war over various parts of this article: two main sections have been whether or not the subject of the article may be referred to as a "historian", and whether or not the subject contributed to a book called "Weird England". Both of these pieces of information have been repeatedly reinserted, despite protests of unverifiability on the talk page.

The current IP address of the user reinserting all this information is User:83.67.217.135. Looking at that user's edit history (99% edits of the article in question, 1% other articles that mention him) and short-temperedness, it becomes obvious that the user is Stuart Campbell himself. The Weird England issue has now been resolved: he finally named the pages of the book that credit him, and we have taken his word for it and cited them.

He has now allowed this to die down, and quietly reinserted the "historian" information in the first paragraph. He has provided a "source" - which, incredibly, is a link to the Wikipedia article for Retro Gamer, a magazine which apparently called him a historian in July 2007. This is of course unverifiable in practice, and goes against other editors' insistence that such a hotly-debated piece of text will require a strong source.

In general there is also a long history of minor self-aggrandising edits to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.5.130 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also the fact that, a few versions of the article ago, he removed some extremely well-referenced text which would put the lie to his claims about what FairPlay's game-buying boycott did to GAME's share price. --Jumble Jumble (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A. Edward Moch

Excuse my placing my comments on the main article, but I think it need to be put there.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Aedwardmoch. I notice that you edited an archive file of this noticeboard. I've undone your changes, since there is a warning at the top of each archive page not to edit there. If you want to raise a new issue, please explain what this is about. The article called A. Edward Moch has been deleted and salted (protected against re-creation). There is an explanation on your Talk page that we frown on users writing their own biographies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sourcing for Norman Cota, Jr. also needs improvement (there's a disclosed COI, as he says he's a family member - [55]) and it's pretty bizarre that at Norman Cota, "Various Internet interviews, comments and opinions from Alfred "Ed Moch" Cota. (Alleged) Biological Grandson of Gen. Norman D. Cota" has gone largely unquestioned as sourcing.
COI apart, a cluebat re WP:RS and WP:V looks in order. Aedwardmoch (talk · contribs) is also bringing a lot of unsourced anecdote to Talk pages on historical articles. The whole edit pattern is a bit peculiar; this user appears to be trying to write his (presumably) relatives into major roles in recent history, such as coining the term "Cold War" [56]. It's like the Wold Newton family. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

EdgeCast Networks

Combine

talk
) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I tagged the appropriate article and user. I'm debating whether to bring it to AFD or not because of the poor assertions of notablitity. One of the two sites linked to was a press release, while the other was a short statement revealing that Disney invested in them. Themfromspace (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

  • Order of the Arrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A group of members of the Order of the Arrow (many of them boast their OA membership on their userpages) have been systematically preventing the inclusion of information they consider "safeguarded" by the organization. They attempt to wikilawyer away the use of any reference to OA secrets. Spirit76 (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
—
few or no other edits outside this topic.. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk
) 04:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

64.85.234.166 and Mr. T (Based) COI and edit warring

Articles

Accounts


I have been currently involved with five edit wars with user Mr T. (Based) over the plot summaries of the five Syphon Filter rticles. I have restored the in-depth plot summaries and have attempted to trim down said summaries to the best of my ability, only to find said attempted edits reverted by Mr.T (Based) under the summary "It is too long." I have seen at least three games having similarly long summaries, and felt that Mr T. (Based)'s intentions was to assume bad faith, regardless of me asking to help out in slowly trimming out said summaries instead of hitting the "undo" button. 64.85.234.166 (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

possible COI

Resolved
 – Bluesan blocked indef

User:220.145.106.186 User:220.145.241.102 User:Bluesan

All have only edited the article Dan Goodwin. Adding tons of unsourced info, not really adhering to a NPOV, plus User:Bluesan has uploaded several images that are copyvio's and keeps reuploading them after they are deleted. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Bluesan indefinitely for repeatedly ignoring warnings and reuploading images under different filenames (clear evidence of
gaming the system). Since the IPs can't be used for upload, and haven't been used in a few days, I'm leaving them alone for now. Daniel Case (talk
) 19:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Udom_N._Tantiprasongchai

Resolved
 – Blocked indefinitely

I came across this user whilst reading about aircraft overruns. It appears he is the chairman of a Thai airline which has been the subject of numerous complaints and investigations over the past few years. A number of the user’s edits indicate that he is here solely to falsify information within articles relating to his business in clear violation of

WP:COI
. The two major types of action are:

While some of the user’s edits may have been justified and in fact even helpful, these are relatively few and have been minor at best. He has acted in defiance of at least two warnings issued by User:The Rambling Man.

I have attempted to clean up what inappropriate edits weren’t reverted, and have issued a more comprehensive warning on the user’s talk page (based on my knowledge from when I was editing WP on a regular basis). However, given this appears to be a SPA with a clear COI and willingness to knowingly insert false information, I feel that an indefinite block may be more appropriate. I will leave it to the broader community to decide, if anything this user must be closely monitored and taught about WP policy. 121.216.77.134 (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely. I see no evidence that he has shown any interest save his own in three months here as an editor. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:John taylor management

Username (

Joe Brown (singer)
, while not egregiously promotional, does raise the possibility of whether Mr. Brown is a client of JTM or not, which I have so far not been able to determine. Any further investigation would be welcome.

This originated at

WP:UAA, and I have already warned the user about our policy on role accounts, as I said. Daniel Case (talk
) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Coach3177 and Wikadm coi and edit warring

Articles

Accounts

Coach3177, a

edit warring. — Athaenara ✉
23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


reply
I have no idea what wikadm is my concern is that you are deleting honest information regarding the Arbroath Lifeboat in an article relating to Arbroath. The Lifeboat is an integral part of Arbroath and its history. TBH I have n o interest in the angling issue but was asked to insert a piece while I was adding the Lifeboat info

Actually I take issue with your reference to single purpose account so I have removed the reference and conections which could possibly insult the rnli Coach3177 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:17-23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments, please do not change the content of messages posted by other users. I have restored my message as originally posted. — Athaenara ✉ 23:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points are confusing to me here,
1. you took the time to edit the post and yet did not reply.
2. by adding a date and comment to my post you broke your own rule of editing others post!
BTW: I removed the comment re RNLI for your benefit as well, you are connecting a reknowned organisation with a libeleous accusation.
Now back to the original question... what problems do you have with the addition of information about a voluntary rescure organisation, which is a registered charity based in Arbroath and part of the culture and infrastructure of that town as well as the community. The link to the stations non commercial website is their as an information reference to give people more information and sea safety guides for the local area. It is unpractical to include all the Arbroath community information from that site to wikipedia. I cannot see where there is a COI with this lifeboat information. I also think that someone not based in Arbroath with no idea of how integral the lifeboat is within the Arbroath community should not be changing or deleting its information. Coach3177 (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The results of a google search to identify the COI included a talkangling.co.uk discussion in which "Coach77" was a participant. I do not know what "RNLI" is or how it may apply here. The use of
subst {{undated
}} is within the guidelines, as is its removal if you wish, and a reply to a post is certainly allowed.
This noticeboard is for open discussions about conflict of interest issues which are of concern to many neutral Wikipedia editors. It is not a one-on-one battleground. — Athaenara ✉ 00:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)



--Coach3177 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC) says...
I keep answering and looking for confirmation that my entries in the Arbroath page are now acceptable, the fact that you have a COI with my Angling input is not in dispute, as stated above, although not involved with them I once took a fishing trip with them before I had my stroke and decided to inform other anglers of their website and the good service I got, when I was editing the lifeboat info I was told I should add a bit about the angling.
My concerns are that you have linked me with some other user and your references to the lifeboat.
I would therefore ask you to edit your original post to remove those references.
The fact you admit to not knowing what the

RNLI
or Lifeboat is and yet you saw fit to remove its entry is insulting to the purpose of wikipedia and seems to be an abuse of administrative rights.
With reference to this being an open discussion forum; it seems to me like I'm the only one discussing. And after reading through this area it seems not to be a disussion area but more of a dumping ground for Admins.
I am open to talk about this subject but you seem unable to string together a decent reply to my points. Coach3177 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Coach3177, I've taken a look at the contributions which seem to have caused a problem, and it seems to me that the problem was with the Arbroath Angling article which did not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion since Wikipedia isn't a tourism or travel guide and isn't supposed to include opinions on whether a company provides a good service or not. Because of that it's unlikely that an article on Arbroath Angling in the style that you submitted would ever be acceptable for Wikipedia. Having said that there are other Wikis such as WikiTravel which would welcome the article. I would recommend that you submit it there. Now turning to the lifeboat, it's a different story. An article on the Arbroath lifeboat would definitely be a good addition to Wikipedia since it has a long and significant history. I recommend that you concentrate your efforts there.
However before you start it would be helpful to you to take a quick look at our instructions on contributing. Wikipedia has a certain style of writing and while it's not mandatory to follow it, you can save yourself a lot of grief if you do. The thing is that this is a joint effort between thousands of people and we all have to be careful not to step on each others toes. Following the rules set out in Five pillars of Wisdom can at least ensure that you are following Wiki-etiquette. Sadly it can't ensure that other people follow it, but at least then if it comes to a dispute you can demonstrate that you were in the right! In my experience, you have to develop a laid back attitude, or at least a thick skin, <grin>.
Anyway, Welcome to Wikipedia! If you need any help let me know by leaving a message on my talk page. There are a few of us Wikipedians with strong Arbroath connections and we help each other out. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Derek, Thank you for an informed response, that's exactly what I was looking for!
Its a pity it wasn't dealt like that hours ago, as you made it perfectly clear, thank you. Coach3177 (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the
RNLI
bit. Anyone on the British coast will know its significance.
It always rings alarm bells if editors are over-keen on adding links to particular commercial enterprises. So things at the level of "especially nice angling trips on the Skylark" are out, especially if there's username evidence of forum spamming by a "Coach77" elsewhere (see the cache at talkangling.co.uk, sea-fishing.org, anglersnet.co.uk, planetseafishing,com, fishing-forum.info ... need I go on?
This edit is most certainly an improvement, but it still has a slightly promotional edge. For instance, reliable third-party published sourcing will be required for the statement that "Whether casting from the harbour, cliffs or deep sea fishing from a boat Arbroath has access to some of the best fish on the East Coast of Scotland". Who says? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Winter/Wintour baronetcy

Please read the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

School of Law, Christ University

WP:OUTING. Help with this would be greatly appreciated. lone_twin (talk
) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Lyalya Bezhetskaya

Lyalya Bezhetskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to violate COI as the major contributor, Burlesqueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be a single-purpose account for the subject of the article to promote herself via this article and Burlesque. Zalktis (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see that "first ever burlesque dancer" is a claim of notability, even if it were to be verifiable. It's already been speedied once, so I'm nominating it for AFD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Clear COI

Resolved
 – Deleted at AfD. ArakunemTalk 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bkado has just removed the prod I put on the article he wrote, Brent Kado, without explanation. (He's been warned by other editors about removed "speedy" notices.) I feel the article is clearly a vanity autobiography. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly allowed to do so, even with a COI, with no explanation. I see he removed the CSD templates as well, which isn't so good. However, the logical progression is to go to AfD, which will certainly settle the issue one way or the other. ArakunemTalk 20:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Upgraded to AFD as suggested: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Kado. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, I've done some POV pruning to the article. ArakunemTalk 21:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Statedcnr2 (talk · contribs)

Statedcnr2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Appears to be creating articles on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. On the user's talk page, states "the director of the program approved the language on the website and article". On Talk:Office of Conservation Science the user states "Some in the office are concerned about the page being edited by other users since we are a state agency and the information we are presenting represents the state. There have been some other PA state agency pages that were changed and incorrect information was provided. Can we have this page protected so only we can make edits (once the page has been established)?" McWomble (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jameson and TPH have been working with the user(s) on the various policies and what can and can't be done. User's repeated use of the {{helpme}} tag on several pages strongly suggests they wish to understand policies and cooperate with the community. Watching more, especially the latest article, but it looks like some friendly coaching is all that should be needed. I think the issue of a possible role account should be looked into as well however. ArakunemTalk 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Payne / User:Polticaltexan

The edit history of

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like that of an autobiography. The activity of Polticaltexan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to point to the fact that s/he is someone closely linked to Stephen Payne, the subject of the article. For example, s/he adds information and images that third parties may not have access to. Note that Polticaltexan appears to be a single-purpose account created exclusviely for promoting the presence of Stephen Payne on Wikipedia. —Zalktis (talk
) 07:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Zalktis, I understand your point about Stephen Payne and that my edits reflect a possible WP:SPA, I'm new to Wikipedia and am fascinated by the implications of this story but I've been pretty clear that I think that this isn't just some bumbling "caught on tape" mtg. -- that this is a fairly big issue of our nation's foreign policy being conducted by hired guns -- so I don't see how you could see my edits as a possible WP:AUTO as I have tried to push this "underground foreign policy" with all of my edits -- I think that the edits that I have made (and properly sourced) reflect a drift toward that (still neutral) pov (and yes, I added that Think progress collage of photos because it clearly shows that Payne isn't just some powerless fly by night) -- I am interested in this article because of the vast implications that it could lead to, but I welcome anyone else to work with me to add to it as well -- this article shouldn't focus on an edited videotape asking for a library contribution -- it should focus on US foreign policy being conducted by "hired guns" with no or at least unknown authorization... which is a fascinating concept -- I'm sorry that some feel that I have an WP:SPA, but I'm just interested in the concept. -- In my opinion, the article, as it stands right now, reflects both the viewpoint that Payne was caught on tape asking for library contributions AND that he has been doing alot of back room diplomacy as well (see the "see also" link on the Payne article to the Logan Act) -- there are alot of unanswered questions here that an autobiographer wouldn't be asking -- like what ever happened to the promised congressional investigations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polticaltexan (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Alexuspol, Real vmx, and Vmx

Resolved
 – Articles deleted at AfD. ANI thread underway on user's posting behavior. ArakunemTalk 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User, with an obvious COI as noted here, engaging in disruptive editing on the article pages and on the AfD (see

MuZemike (talk
) 23:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-admitted COI, but the articles in question have now been deleted. I think the user is genuinely unclear on the criteria for articles and the deletion thereof. There's an ANI thread now on the nature of his posts at the AfD. He seems to be taking it very personally, and hopefully won't get to the point where he's blocked for disruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The ANI thread is here, but it looks to be resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

24.234.68.105

This user seems to be a sock puppet set up to derail a new article that has been agreed that it has proper refrences but does still need some work. The article currently has been marked for deletion and when that happened this user popped up to contest my standings on wiki. I am a wiki contributor and have made some good adjustments to articles and have had 1 deleted (I was too new).--JMST (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to
WP:SPA. Be careful of the vandalism charges that you raised over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys (2nd nomination). A comment like that suggests you are not yet familiar with how Wikipedia works. EdJohnston (talk
) 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Carl Stephenson (producer)

Please see the article's history. Someone claiming to represent the subject continually objects to the article on undisclosed "privacy grounds" and substitutes his amended version (using various disposable accounts). The amended version has improved, as the user is working out how to use wikimarkup and sources, but information is still be removed for reasons I can fathom. I'm exchanged e-mails with the user, but I'm still none the wiser. He seems to think we should publish his "official version". I'm normally very sensitive to respecting privacy, but.....? And is he even notable - an underwatched afd got no-consensus. He refuses to post to the talk page, but managed to find mine [62]. Anyway, help requested.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't see anything in "your" version that looks like a violation of privacy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone who edits an article seven times a day, removes content, and won't explain their reasoning, can be blocked for Wikipedia:Edit warring without any deep analysis. I have left a 3RR warning for User:Cischelalicuat. The musician Carl Stephenson is probably notable so I won't criticize the outcome of the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • There's now also User:Cischelalocuat who is restoring the edits by the similarly named User:Cischelalicuat. Given the number of test edits they make before simply cutting and pasting the previous version, they appear to be new to editing. This flatly admits the COI. I've tried outlining the points of dispute at the artile talk page but got no response except reverts to the poorly sourced publishing house version. Euryalus (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled into this late and reported him/them to
WP:3RR. If that's not the proper forum, feel free to take it somewhere else. I believe this needs admin attention. Dayewalker (talk
) 10:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kira Salak

Spinoff from current Wikiquette alert

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Miranda is randomly removing legitimate references by Editor Jake Sturm concerning alleged spamming of Kira Salak citations. The Google cache here finds that the official Kira Salak website had a recently-removed credit that the site was "created by Kira Salak and Jake Sturm". Gordonofcartoon (talk
) 19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Conflict of Interest

I am a professional website designer and it is true that I did contribute to the construction of the Salak website. I found Salak's articles to be well researched, well written and informative but unfortunately, on the National Geographic webiste, only the first few paragraphs of most of her articles are available to readers. There was no place on or off the Internet to find the entire articles. As I believed that the articles should be available to the general public, as they are good references, I suggested that they be put on her website and I would assist her with this. The only question here that I am asking in this forum is the following: Are the articles appropriate reference materials and are the articles where I inserted them appropriate?

Thank you very much for taking your time to contribute to this forum.


JakeSturm (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are the articles appropriate reference materials and are the articles where I inserted them appropriate?
Whatever anyone's views on that, the problem is not just whether they're appropriate references; but that, given the conflict of interest, you shouldn't be the one making the call about their inclusion. Personally, I agree with
User:Miranda's view that the edit pattern looks distinctly spammy. For instance, at West Africa, of all the references to pick for historical citations, you pick two of your client's books [63]
.
I recommend that you go with
WP:COI guidelines, which say that if there's a conflict of interest, you should propose inclusion at the Talk page and let others decide if it's appropriate; not, as you've done, add first and then defend it. Gordonofcartoon (talk
) 21:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Guujaaw

Talk:Guujaaw for advice/warnings given, which have not been heeded. Guujaaw is a potentially valuable contributor, and highly influential over other potential Haida contributors, so I've tried to be dipomatic; but until he learns to play by the rules/guidelines his edits "tend" to be contrary to wikipedia policy/guidelines....Skookum1 (talk
) 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To further note that User:Guujaaw has repeatedly marked sweeping changes as minor edits; I have just asked him to stop doing this.Skookum1 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Skookum1 has made some useful updates, and User:Guujaw has not come back to edit the article since 3 November. Maybe the warnings had some effect. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is Guujaaw, the same person as that mentioned in your page, and of corse I would be concerned to se that I am described in this site at all, it wasn't me who entered the description in the first place, but it is I who would know the content without any need for citations.....and indeed, you are right, I didn't read the rules of the game. There was deletions because, they were not right, I am not Gary Edenshaw, have not been for 25 years, formally at a potlatch and 'legally' on my drivers license and passport. I chose to set the Edenshaw name aside because it is a very important name that I do not need to use, it came to me through my father who was adopted by the Edenshaw family, and I remain very close to that family especially the current Chief Edenshaw. My father was the son of the Chief of Massett Chief Seegay, my uncle is the Chief of Skedans, Edenshaw is their name, Gary is from the baby book or somewhere unimportant and as I said has been discarded, the other names Giindajing, is my kid name meaning arguementative questening the answers etc. Haawisdi is the name I use at Skedans Potlatches, they are not first and second names and listed in that way, ...Guujaaw, is the subject, and I tried to straighten that out, I stuck mainly with the format and info therein, Any "peacock" stuff was to say that My skills are in strategic negotiating, which is important, please be assured, I don't need to sell myself, I simply tried to fix a half cocked description which didn't understand these complexities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guujaaw (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by editor with possible conflict of interest at Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

User:Fru23 began a series of wholesale deletions of several sections of this page, w/o any discussion on talk and little or no edit summary. In a chat discussion this user claimed to be affialted with the O'Reilly Factor. He has since "sort of" retracted that admission.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Delaware North Companies

Here's a positive one, for a change of pace. Cwhit3134 (talk · contribs) has just asked for review, by an editor without a conflict of interest, of this request. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Request looks good to me. Another opinion would be nice to get a consensus (Whether the "reads like an ad" tag can be deleted). ArakunemTalk 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dtiberio

This comment by admin VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) explains the issue pretty well. Would appreciate others looking into this, thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The COI is clear, and we're in the "Why was it deleted" phase. So far a couple admins have been trying to explain ADVERT and COI to the user. I agree that a couple more uninvolved admins should review the article and chime in to Dtiberio's talk page to show that it was not admin abuse-of-power, as is the prime allegation right now. (I don't get to see what was deleted, so I don't think its appropriate for me to chime in on the "blatant advertising" that DT is disagreeing with.) ArakunemTalk 17:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

this is absolutely not true. my page did not promote a product or service. it did not mention the product or service. it mentioned the company, and spoke about the company, and who the company is affiliated with. I advertise on national tv and have millions of viewers and don't need the 1 click a day from wikipedia to "advertise" my company. you have not responded to my multiple requests to defend your statements because you have no defense. this is admin abuse.

it is very clear that the page is not "blatant advertising". just because you have not heard about my nationally recognized company does not mean that I am "advertising" it via wikipedia. in fact, if you search the web, you will not find cheapbooks on many blogs, links to book price comparison sites, etc, because it is NOT part of my marketing strategy to use "free advertising" resources when I have access to national TV and radio, as well as print magazines such as Bookmarks or Romantic Times or ALA, or newspapers such as the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Fort Worth Star, etc.

see my print ads here from well-known newspapers: <http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=15912&id=521247625 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtiberio (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dtiberio. A number of admins have responded to your concerns elsewhere, for instance at
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not accepted as a defence for your actions. EdJohnston (talk
) 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we remove spam links from other's messages (paid ads do not establish notability anyway)? Also, For those looking for it, the copied version (without deletion tag) can be found here if you wish to review why it was deleted. (I actually think Jenna made some improvements from the version that I and others saw when we marked it for deletion, might just be formatting though). A detailed explanation for deletion can be found here. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The second version I deleted was different than the first version, but both were appropriately tagged for CSD. And I agree that all spam should be removed from all posts.
vecia
01:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ShockerHelp, User:JMST, and Shocker Toys

Obvious COI here between username and article. Article is up for deletion at

MuZemike (talk
) 00:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The AfD you mention was closed in April, 2007. The current AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys (2nd nomination). You can't tell the players without a scorecard! There is at least one strong enthusiast who is anti-Shocker and another who is pro-Shocker. I think ShockerHelp is the anti-Shocker guy. He is the nominator of the new AfD. JMST, who defends the company, claims to be merely an enthusiast for their products, but has received many COI warnings. The two editors appear to know each other from some forum about the company's products. Neither one is a model of civility. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot that this was a 2nd nomination. Will add the other user onto the list, as well. I was just stating the bloody obvious at my quick glance of the AFD.
MuZemike (talk
) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have added to a few articles besides Shocker Toys. And I was defending my article not the company as I think it has a right to exist. I am a toy collector and collect all kinds of toys block figures being my favorite. I personally do not know ShockerHelp and just wanted him to stop his vandalizim of an article and his wiki cyber bullying!--JMST (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment There seems to be a new COI who is very vocal about his COI on the Shocker Toys deletion page User:Sybilmpd.--JMST (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Note — AFD has been closed as a keep.

MuZemike (talk
) 21:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rucker Park

User:Peterrobertcasey, which seems to also be User:Prcasey03, is apparently Peter Robert Casey, part-owner and manager of a basketball tournament held at Rucker Park. He seems determined to make the park's article as ad-like as possible. He's also included links to his own blog in the article. I've warned him about COI, spam, and autobiography; but I'm mentioning this here as well. (Not sure what, if anything, to do about the sockpuppetry, since neither account is blocked.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Watching the article. Your latest pruning seems passable, though there's still a few uncited "famous"es floating about, but those may very well be warranted given the apparent history of the park. Also regarding the 2 users, the PRCasey account's last edit was 7 Nov, while the Peterrobertcasey account was created 11 Nov. My guess is he created the second account to be more specific, especially since he seems to go by all 3 names on his site and blog. As long as he keeps to just one account I think he should be ok. ArakunemTalk 16:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dking/Dennis King

User:ClarkLewis blocked indefinitely as sock of Gnetwerker, confirmed by checkuser
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved
 – User:ClarkLewis blocked indefinitely as sock of Gnetwerker, confirmed by checkuser

Dennis King is an advocacy journalist who has an account here at Wikipedia. His principal interest is

talk
) 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dennis King is an expert on the subject of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, and 'ClarkLewis' is one of two accounts that have recently popped up making troubling edits of articles related to the LaRouche movement, following the banning of a vast array of socks of the permanently banned user Herschelkrustofsky. John Nevard (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Dking has already been discussed on this noticeboard several times before.
There is nothing new in this latest posting, made by yet another account that promotes a pro-LaRouche viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it only took Dking's team-mates 4 minutes and 22 minutes respectively to show up. That's pretty quick. But if we're finished shooting the messenger here, it is indeed the case that Dking is an appalling blatant example of COI. --
talk
) 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Has the originator of this complaint bothered to read the previous discussions, or even to notify user:Dking? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Why not to address the concerns on their merits rather than cast aspersions on the reporter of the concern? Either the comment has merit, or not. If the latter, just explain that and leave it at that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to keep going over the same complaint over and over again. I seem to recall that you take exception to anyone pointing out your own conflicts of interest. Why the double standard? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
My point, Will, is that there is no need to
poison the well in these circumstances. Rather than fan the flames, you could simply have stated: "There is nothing new in this latest posting" and leave it at that. And do not get me started on a discussion about double standards, please... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Given that this complaint is nothing but an attempt to poison the well against a contributor who has a better conception of how Lyndon LaRouche's ideas and organisation have evolved than anyone except the man himself (and indeed, possibly more than him), it is hardly undeserved. John Nevard (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Will Beback: if you will examine my initial post, I reported that I had asked Dking to follow the guidelines at

talk
) 20:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that adding material which to promotes the "interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." Before you throw stones at King can you assure the community that you have no conflict of interest of your own? That you have no relationship to the LaRouche movement and that none of your friends, associates or family have any connection to it either? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can offer such assurances, and no, I'm not "throwing stones" at King, I'm asking him to comply with
talk
) 21:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Possibly because he's trying to drive the discussion in a meaningful direction, towards the conflict of interest that editors adding fringe LaRouche material have been agreed to have so many times in the past, rather than the long-agreed lack of one in Dennis King's case? John Nevard (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This matter is not resolved until Dking's behavior has been properly addressed. It should especially not be closed by an editor who is encouraging him to misbehave. --
talk
) 16:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Editing by banned users is forbidden. If you have a problem that hasn't been resolved then I suggest you start fresh thread that isn't tainted. This one ought to be deleted outright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take on Dking's COI. He violates these sections of the policy:

Self-promotion "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates."

"1. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages." (Dennis King is an obscure individual who uses Wikipedia for self-promotion. Dking's editing generally revolves around adding links to his personal self-published websites, http://www.larouchewatch.com,http://lyndonlarouche.org/, and http://dennisking.org/ (the last one is defunct.) Diffs: [71], [72],[73] ,[74] ,[75] ,[76] ,[77] ,[78])

Close relationships "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." (Dennis King is the most extreme of LaRouche's critics. He sees LaRouche as evil incarnate, and his edits at Wikipedia are relentlessly biased.) --

talk
) 18:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that DKing does have a strong COI and does appear to be an SPA. I recommend banning the account from all LaRouche articles. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dennis King is an expert on LaRouche, and the policies are clear on the issue of self-published material by experts. (1) Self-published material from experts in the field whose work has previously been published by a reliable source is allowed; (2) It is not allowed in relation to biographical material on a living person; (3) Courtesy links to self-published websites are allowed if the material being linked to has been published by a reliable source i.e. if the website is simply displaying the material and is not itself the source of it.

Therefore, Dennis King's books may be used as a source on LaRouche and the movement in general. His websites may be used as a source on the LaRouche movement or LaRouche politics in general, but not on LaRouche himself or any other living person. And his website may be used as a courtesy link to his book (to the version of the book that was published), so long as the webpage he links to does not contain material about a living person that isn't in the book. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your points are off-topic. The issues at hand are self-promotion and biased editing. --
talk
) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, I would have thought neutrality was inherent in the interpretation of what counts as expert. There are many sites and people that are undoubtedly "expert" in the sense of knowing lots of information about a topic, but if their interpretation of that information is biased to the point of extremism (e.g. attack sites, conspiracy sites)
WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources says they should only be used, and then with caution, as sources about themselves. Gordonofcartoon (talk
) 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
King is not an extremist with a website. He is an investigative journalist with published books from mainstream publishers on the subject of Lyndon LaRouche and his organisation. -- Nevard 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Question: Does
Views of Lyndon LaRouche qualify as "on the LaRouche movement or LaRouche politics in general" or "on LaRouche himself"? If it's meant to be the former, ought it perhaps to be renamed? --Random832 (contribs
) 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The movement's a political cult. Members aren't allowed to say they think LaRouche is wrong about something. SlimVirgin talk|edits 03:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • How does this make an otherwise non-BLP-acceptable source ok for claims about what the man himself believes? Regardless of it being a political cult - they aren't a reliable source about his beliefs either. How about "Views of the LaRouche movement"? --Random832 (contribs) 03:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't quite follow. The situation is that self-published material may not be used as a source of biographical material about living persons, unless the living person is himself the author/publisher. It doesn't matter what the title of the article is i.e. it needn't be a BLP. This means Dking may not use his self-published work as a source on living persons, but he may use his books. He may also use his self-published stuff as a source on LaRouche-related issues not directly about living persons, because he is a LaRouche expert. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That's exactly what I am saying here - we're actually in agreement. Will, on the other hand, seems to want there to be an article with material about these views for which Dking's websites can be used as a source. For that to be allowed, the article needs to NOT be biographical material (and the article, as it is and titled as it is, definitely is biographical material.) --Random832 (contribs) 17:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Random, I think you may be putting words in my mouth. I've been arguing to allow the use of materials published in reliable sources. Where have I said, in the last year, that materials which exist only on a website should be used? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • [E/C] I'm not following Random832's point. Which source is non-BLP-acceptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • SV said it, not me. "His websites may be used as a source on the LaRouche movement or LaRouche politics in general, but not on LaRouche himself or any other living person." --Random832 (contribs) 17:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure what SV meant by that. I'd have thought that LaRouche movement sources would be sufficient for the actions and views of LaRouche, to the extent that any self-published sources are sufficient. They should not be used to support extraordinary claims or undue self-promotion, just like any SPS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Will, BLP says that self-published source material may not be used as a source of biographical information about a living person. If Dennis King says in his book, "LaRouche believes X," that may be used, because it's in a book published by a reliable publisher. If King says the same thing on his website, and only on his website, with no external references, that may not be used. Not in any article, no matter the title. Even if we had an article "Views of Dennis King," we could not use his website to talk about LaRouche i.e. we could not say "One of Dennis King's views is that LaRouche believes X." Not if the website is the only publisher. SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say that one look at Dking's website [79] effectively answers the question as to whether he is an SPA or has COI related to Larouche (in case it gets changed, the subtitle on that site currently says, "Dennis King brings you:"). Someone stated above that the works Dking has authored meet the definition of reliable sources. I don't dispute that. But, I think it's evident that Dking himself needs to stay away from those articles. So, I'll repeat that Dking should be banned from the Larouche articles. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • What is the evidence that you're talking about? Can you a specific link or text here? As for the larger point, does writing something about a person off-Wiki create a bar to writing about them on-Wiki? If an editor is found to have made a joke (or a compliment) about Sarah Palin on a blog, does that mean they should be blocked from editing that article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Cla68, can you please provide diffs to edits by Dking that show a pattern of consistently failing
      WP:NPOV? Even if Dking were biased off-Wiki, it's his on-wiki edits that we're concerned with. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
      07:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What Dking writes about LaRouche off-Wiki, i.e., in his personal website, is relevant because Dking's activity at Wikipedia is all about promoting his personal website, which is a violation of the COI guidelines. For examples of Dking's editing which fail NPOV, here are two recent ones:

  • In this edit[80] Dking removes sourced material which indicates that the former head of West German Military Counterintelligence has provided independent verification of LaRouche's claims that he participated in "back-channel" talks between the U.S. and Soviet governments. In his next edit[81] Dking inserts his own unsourced editorial comment that no such independent verification exists. These two edits taken together provide a representative example of biased editing by Dking.
  • This edit[82] provides another example, where Dking simply removes sourced material which he doesn't like, announcing in the edit summary that this is the case. --
    talk
    ) 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
First off, we should note that Dking's edits were a response to edits made by the sock of a banned editor. He didn't start the conflict, and he was serving a legitimate purpose of protecting NPOV against a known POV-pusher. Second, some of those edits that he was undoing cast aspersions on a third party using only LaRouche sources, which are dubious. I think if you want to make a case against Dking, it should not be as a result of an editing dispute with a banned user. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It's always the other team's fault, isn't it? But in this case, the material that was deleted by Dking has been in the article since at least March of 2005, so your justification for his edits needs a little work. --
talk
) 02:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This idea of "teams" is not conducive to collegial editing. The fact is that the article contains many problematic passages that ought to be revised. LaRouche sources are basically self-published and should not be used for assertions about 3rd parties. Dking was removing those LaRouche-based assertions. If an editor removed a description, sourced to a LaRouche publication, of Walter Mondale as an agent of Soviet influence would that be an NPOV violation? Where in NPOV does it require that we use dubious sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
PS: Here's where the contested passage was added: January 19, 2005 by user:Herschelkrustofsky. I don't think that removing that passage counts as a violation of NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The contested passage is an opinion, in quotes, attributed to the subject of the article, not a statement of fact. Therefore the sourcing is correct and Dking's deletion fails NPOV. Note in the edit summary where he attacks "false even-handedness."[83] --
talk
) 16:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a summary of the edits to
Views of Lyndon LaRouche
by editors of note (out of a total of 1153 edits, only 60 made in the previous year):
426: HK and his socks
85: Cberlet
80: Slimvirgin
70: Will Beback
44: Dking (7 in the past year)
So HK has made about 37% of the edits, and Dking has made 3.8%.
Here's a summary of the edits to Lyndon LaRouche by editors of note (out of a total of 3589 edits, 242 made in the previous year):
1030: HK and his socks
245: Dking (28 in the past year)
192: Cberlet
137: Slimvirgin
178: Will Beback
So HK has made about 40% of the edits, and Dking has made 9.4%.
Dking has only made fraction of the edits to these articles, which were mostly written by HK. In the past year, Dking only made a combined total of 35 edits to both articles. Proposing a topic ban on the basis of 35 edits, the worst of which merely removed information added by HK and sourced to a LaRouche publication, seems extreme. While it's not surprising that Leatherstocking would pursue this, that doesn't explain all of it. HK is an admin on another site, and I'm sure he's used that soapbox to agitate for actions against the longtime foes of the LaRouche movement and HK's own perceived enemies. I hope that editors here aren't carrying water for a banned POV pusher from a fringe movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The number or percentages of Dking's edits is irrelevant. What matters is whether his edits are biased and self-promotional. Please make an effort to stay on-topic. --

talk
) 16:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to focus only on COI, and not on whether editors are using good sources, you ought to be insisting that all apparent LaRouche supporters be topic-banned. Perhaps you could start with that, given that they make the bulk of edits to those pages, then we could look at Dking, who doesn't edit them much at all. SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Grsymphony

I recently reverted an edit that this user made to the

talk
) 01:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not self-promotion. When one creates an article, one should try to link it elsewhere. It sounds rather like he linked it to a place where it was inappropriate. You might suggest that the user consult
WP:WEIGHT.--Anthon.Eff (talk
) 13:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Freedomain Radio
Outside our remit. This forum is for situations when someone with a conflict of interest is editing articles that already exist. Looking at the deletion history - [84] - I see it was created and deleted as non-notable in the past. It might be re-creatable if there's strong evidence of it having acquired notability since then. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolfberry

User:Fram needs help in a dispute at Talk:Wolfberry#Self-published book
, which looks a COI issue. Paul144 is reverting the removal of a self-published book - Wolfberry: Natures Bounty of Nutrition and Health - and pushing for its inclusion as a reference.

A look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Antioxidant shows Paul144 to have self-identified [85] as "a contributor to a few of these {online publications), e.g., http://www.npicenter.com/news/DrPaulGross_articles.aspx". The link goes to a bio of a Dr Paul Gross, aka The Berry Doctor, "senior author of a 2006 book on the goji berry entitled Wolfberry: Natures Bounty of Nutrition and Health" ... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that a gross = 144, the identification seems rather obvious... Anyway, yes, I could use some help.
Fram (talk
) 21:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I left some comments there, and a more direct approach to evaluating the book against policy, rather than the "sps may be used under certain circumstances, so lets argue about what those circumstances might be", and so on. ArakunemTalk 23:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with you about the book, and have commented at Talk:Wolfberry. However, I think this goes a lot further. If (as it appears from the self-identification) Paul144 is Paul Gross, "The Berry Doctor", whose job is promoting exotic berries, COI and neutrality issues need looking at in the whole area of editing articles about these berries. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was trying to come up with a way to bring up the fairly obvious name coincidence, coupled with his statements from the above Arb case, without seeming too WP:OUTING-ish. Your statement that if he is Gross, that he should be recused from discussion on the book's inclusion, is spot-on. Once that connection is made, then I agree some additional scrutiny on related articles is in order (as the COI policy tells conflicting editors to expect). ArakunemTalk 00:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
As to the general issue of COI and berries, the sort of thing where concern might be appropriate is edits like this to Anthocyanin that introduces one of his own promotional articles - about an "International Symposium on Berry Health Benefits" of doubtful notability (7 unique Google hits) - as lead topic and reference for the Research section. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Notability comment redacted: it doesn't Google because it was misnamed in the Gross reference. There's evidence of linkspamming to this reference too - see Linksearch - not to mention the majority of these links to Paul Gross articles added by Paul144 to various plant and fruit articles here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
To put it more simple: links to his works (articles or books) on berries and superfruits have been added to 17 articles (perhaps more, those are the ones currently remaining).[86]. An article like
Fram (talk
) 08:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
And even if the sources are fine individually, the whole pattern is POV-pushing of a marketing stance - "Science Shows Berries Are Gooood" - by giving undue weight to cherry-picked (hoho) primary sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I just noticed that Paul144 outed himself a second time here previously in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Gross where, on being asked specifically about his connection to the subject, said he was the son of Frank Gross.[87]. That article cites a CKTimes reference - Frank Gross Memorial Banquet honours memory - with pictures of Paul144 / Paul Gross that are recognisably our Berry Doctor. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum 2: borderline legal threat by e-mail reported to

WP:ANI. Gordonofcartoon (talk
) 17:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't look anything like a legal threat. Not even at midnight in a blizzard. -- Zsero (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. I guess it depends how you read "take to administration". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum 3: Google site:berrydoctor.com Wikipedia. A number of pages use as external validation articles majorly edited by Paul144, like this one on goji berries ("See the Wikipedia articles on wolfberry (goji) and superfruits -- check out the References in each article!"). That looks a very misusable relationship with Wikipedia.

I'm also concerned about Paul144's expunging evidence that explains the potential COI. [88].

WP:OUTING hardly applies when someone has already disclosed their identity, and information about a book and company background splashed on their respective websites is not private information. Gordonofcartoon (talk
) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Reprise

So, we have an editor who creates an article on superfruit with 24 references (not used inline), including four to articles by Gross.[89]. A few days later, Gross creates on another website a different article on superfruit, without footnotes, but with at the end a list of the same 24 references (including even the numbering).[90] Our article has sentences like "more than a dozen industry publications of functional foods and beverages have referred to various exotic or antioxidant species as superfruits (4-24), yet this category presently does not have a working definition." The Gross article has "More than a dozen industry publications for functional foods and beverages have referred to various exotic or antioxidant species as “superfruits” (4-24), yet this category presently does not have a working definition."

If this is not the same or a closely affiliated editor, then Gross is a shameless copyist, writing an article where he copies the refs and whole sentences from Wikipedia. But whatever the case, this external article is itself used as a reference on Wikipedia by the same editor in at least 6 articles[91] (or rather 7[92]), including the one it was originally taken from. The ref is added the same day it is published on NPIcenter[93].

Basically, this user has been spamming Wikipedia with references to a self-published book and a number of articles in industry journals. No matter if he is the same person or someone else (the editor does not want to be associated with Gross in Wikipedia discussions...), I don't believe this is acceptable behaviour, or that these are acceptable sources. There is enough information over these berries available that we don't have to rely on unreliable information. If that means that the articles will have less information on all "superfruit" aspects of these plants, so be it. We will catch up once science has done so.

Fram (talk
) 13:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fram, you're all consumed in an invective froth over my simple desire to educate with scientific facts rather than marketing hype prevalent in the consumer market for superfruits and berries.
Here's the skinny:
  • the wolfberry book is the only one available based on objective science. It cites research literature extensively, makes no unfounded health claims and adds considerable new information to the wolfberry literature, such as nutrient tables, horticultural practices and a history of traditional Chinese medicine involving wolfberries.
  • the book was written out of intellectual interest only, is non-promotional of specific wolfberry products and returns nothing to me but modest revenues only to the company that paid for book production (has no
    WP:COI
    for me as a Wikipedia editor)
  • the NPI Center and Wikipedia articles on 7 superfruits with citations to Gross are based on objective science, were volunteered and written out of intellectual interest and educational intent only, had no expectation of income and have returned no income (have no
    WP:COI
    for me as a Wikipedia editor)
  • the Wikipedia article on
    superfruits
    is based on published industry and marketing analyses by journal reporters, objective science cited extensively and challenges to unscientific myths and marketing hype prevalent in the consumer market for superfruits and berries. Its intent is to provide truths for encyclopedia readers who likely are seeing misleading statements and false health claims about superfruit products in the consumer industry. I created it, continue to update it, and would love to have constructive feedback about it.
WP:COI
: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." How can this apply to the Wikipedia wolfberry or superfruit articles?
I had the courtesy to offer explanation and request a private dialog with you by using Wikipedia email but you did not have the courtesy to reply. You'd rather stand on your soapbox here and toss toxic bombs like I am a spammer, I engage in unacceptable Wikipedia behavior or am a shameless plagiarizer. You have your chance now to speak directly here -- we can vent your vilification.
This discussion has received
WP:RS feedback by Squidfryerchef[94]--Paul144 (talk
) 17:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The "courtesy" was a message that you don't want your COI to be made even more public than you have done already, not an invitation to private discussion, in which I'm not interested anyway. But since you have thrown all civility aside, let me put it plainly: you are a spammer. However, I have nowhere indicated that you are a shameless plagiarizer. On the contrary, I have indicated that if you are not Paul Gross, then Paul Gross would be a shameless plagiarizer. But if you are Gross, then you can not be an objective observer of the articles and books, and of their merits. You are everywhere inserting Gross' articles and Gross' book. If his book is the only one about a certain scientific subject, and that book is not peer reviewed, not reviewed afterwards by any reliable sources, and not used as a reference in any scientific works, then it is not an acceptable source for scientific information on Wikipedia.
Let's check out the non-promotional, intellectual only efforts: Gross has written a book (linked here a number of times). This is done on behalf of RichNature[95], the company behind Wolfberry.org, a shop for wolfberry products (and for Gross' book), and a company which is linked from Gross' berrydoctor pages[http://berrydoctor.com/broadcast/2006/AcaivsGojiORAC.htm at the bottom, there are two links for Goji, one is Wikipedia, and the other is the RichNature shop).
RichNature itself uses two references: your book, and the Wikipedia article[96].
But all this could by stretching the good faith still be explained as an independent researcher referencing a commercial site, and that commercial site referencing this author, without any real business relationship and without any financial reasons. However, would we find that you are more closely affiliated with Rich Nature, things would probably change. Something like Gross being the Canadian representative of the company (see page 78 of the 130), perhaps?
Fram (talk
) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who don't want to wade through the PDF, the document is the Canadian Intellectual Property Office Trademarks Journal, April 16, 2008 — Vol. 55, No. 2790.
1,325,391. 2006/11/22. Rich Nature Nutraceutical Labs, Inc, address redacted UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Representative for Service/ Représentant pour Signification: RICH NATURE LABS, C/O DR. PAUL GROSS address redacted BRITISH COLUMBIA.
But we shouldn't even have to delve this deep. Going back to basic guidelines of
WP:COI
:
COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups ...
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:
Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with
Note that "conflict of interest" is not defined in terms of income but as "to promote your own interests" - anything that derives you benefit, whether commercial, intellectual, religious, egotistical, whatever. Creating an article about a close relative - see Frank Gross - is a classic conflict of interest situation. Even if there's no financial affiliation and/or income, editing relating to a book of which you're the author is also a clear COI. The Berry Doctor has a particular story to tell about berries in a way that's clearly promotional - look at the style of the website [97] - and it's similarly a conflict of interest to edit Wikipedia in close synchrony, as Fram describes above, and to link to his own articles as references, since it's directing Wikipedia toward the aim of telling that story. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Fram, I'll see your Trademarks Journal entry and raise you AAA Superfruits, Canada.
Manufacturer, Trading Company, Agent, Distributor/Wholesaler ... We broker raw material supplies and purchases for numerous superfruits from Asia, Australia and Brazil ... As added value, AAA Superfruits is managed by a PhD scientist and author of books, industry articles and conference presentations on superfruit nutrients, phytochemicals and medical literature ... Contact Person Mr. Dr. (sic) Paul Gross.
and
Legal representative/Business Owner: Berry Doctor Corp. [98]
A purely intellectual interest in superfruits? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by a neutral administrator

I think, perhaps, Paul144 is most likely Paul Gross, as noted at

the duck test. In any case, I feel a lot could be fixed here if the account in question - whoever it belongs to - stops linking to anything linked with Paul Gross. Linking to anything that you're involved in - even as a reference - is a very dangerous path to walk down, and will get picked up on quite easily. However, it also appears that Paul144 is a good editor, and to lose him would be a loss to the project overall. Paul444, in light of the above conversations, I'm going to ask that you edit topics that aren't related to Paul Gross, his companies, or his works. Let someone else insert the references, once they have consensus. At the moment, the material doesn't have consensus, and as such, it shouldn't be included, reliable source or not. If you think I've completely misread this talk - it's quite hard to follow - please let me know! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk
) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask that you edit topics that aren't related to Paul Gross, his companies, or his works
Given the AAA Superfruits connection (see above) I think that should be extended to any superfruit topics too. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll now remove all links to works by Gross, as they are clearly intended as spam.

Fram (talk
) 11:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:FrankLloydGallery

Resolved
 – per below. ArakunemTalk 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has been adding a large amount of peacock/pov information and plagiarized text on artists that are represented by a company known as Frank Lloyd Gallery. (

talk/contribs
20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment The user has acknowledged here that he is Frank Lloyd himself. Themfromspace (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Update: the user just admitted to being a representative of the subjects of those articles (diff), so it's a legitimate COI. —
talk/contribs
20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow, you saw that quickly. —
talk/contribs
20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The COI is pretty clear here, but note that this does not prevent him from editing the article, as long as he stays neutral and verifiable. As for the copyright issue with using text from his web site, if he is the copyright holder, he is allowed to use the same text here, though he will be releasing it under GFDL if he does so. See
Wikipedia:Copyvio#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. I'll leave him a note letting him know this, and as long as he understands the implications of doing so, the text itself is not considered a copyvio. It still may have issues with Peacocking, but once he posts it under GFDL, it may then be modified to stay wikipedia-friendly. ArakunemTalk
17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Update -- This user has been unblocked and changed his user name; he has read the policies on COI and NPOV and has agreed to keep his edits neutral. The user requested that this report now be archived; I don't know what the rules are on archiving these so I'm just leaving you regulars a message here. Thanks, —

talk/contribs
01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

James B. Golden

Resolved
 – Deleted at AfD. ArakunemTalk 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamesbgolden (talk · contribs) - conflict of interest with this article: James B. Golden. User has been notified of COI and his Bio is up for deletion over here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James B. Golden --Flewis(talk) 10:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Lorenzo43

Resolved
 – Blocked for spamming. ArakunemTalk 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

NewUrbanMale.com

Resolved
 – red ink means it's been deleted
If the section is copyvio and was added by one person at one time, then its possible to remove it all at once. If the entire article is copyvio, it can be speedied. Themfromspace (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Veecort and ITT Technical Institute

Veecort is an editor with an established vendetta against the school ITT Tech. His opinion on it is clearly stated on his userpage. He also runs appears to be affiliated with the anti-ITT tech message board "ItTakesTime.com" and has repeatedly linked it on the article's talk page. Editors disagreeing with him are accused of being "company shills" and "pitcher plants". See also this edit, which contains all the above described behaviors, and this edit demonstrates his attitude/behavior about the school. McJeff (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Neotu

User:Neotu is a SPA who created the article on the Neotu art gallery. He has admitted that he was had a major role in the creation of the gallery, but he keeps removing the COI tag placed on the article. On User_talk:Fabrictramp#NEOTU he has defended his moves, saying that the term "conflict of interest" is very offensive where he is from. He seems pretty adamant on keeping the article tag-free as evidenced on my talk page, and Fabrictramp's. I thought further discussion was due in order to establish a wider consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been peripherally involved already. I've tried to explain what the COI tag is and is not, and that it just alerts COI patrollers to keep their eyes out for any POV. Not being a French speaker, I can't say either way about how the term COI is perceived in that language. Since the user is willing to have a text tag saying essentially the same thing, but without using the actual term "Conflict of Interest", I'm willing to take him at his word there. As far as the article goes, it is relatively factual, albeit uncited. There's 1 peacock'y line in the designers paragraph, but the rest of the article seems relatively neutral. As mentioned, I've been involved already, so I'll defer here to other responders. Just filling in some blanks up to now (see my talk page for the full convos). ArakunemTalk 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I can echo everything Themfromspace has said. I am a French speaker (used to live in France, but not in Paris and I never encountered this gallery), and I know of no such issues in French with the term. However, everyone reacts to phrases differently, so this may be Neotu's particular take on the phrase. (Interesting that it took him 6 days to bring that up.) Trying to look objectively at the article (which I may not be able to do, given how much this editor has tried to provoke me), the first paragraph is definitely fine, but the Designers, Exhibitions and Bibliography sections are a bit excessive and are the reasons I think a COI tag should be on the article. Yes, those sections are simple statements of fact, but in such detail and length that they become unencyclopedic.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note I notified Neotu that his username was against guidelines and he's currently seeking to have it changed. He put in a request for "Neogejo" (another company he's affiliated with) and that request hasn't been acted upon yet. Just a heads-up that his username will soon be changing. Themfromspace (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is
proposed for deletion. That would allow five days for further work to be done on it. If you don't have time to read the article, this one sentence will give the flavor: Neotu promoted excellence in contemporary furniture since its conception in 1984 until it ended in 2001. That's about all you will get, except for a bunch of lists. No objection if someone wants to attempt an article rescue, but you'd need to start from practically zero. EdJohnston (talk
) 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Neogejo is not the name of a company. It is my AVATAR as a writer in e-writing, poet in e-poetry and as a designer in Graphic and Website design you can check/search on Google: Neogejo and/or Gerard Dalmon. I do not agree when it is said that the Neotu article is an "art gallery catalog". So far the article gives a list of Designers who had worked for the Gallery. A chronology of the exhibitions, and a bibliography which could be very useful for people for want to make research on the avant-garde furniture design in the 80's and 90's . I am welcoming any contributors to bring critics regarding the past activity of Neotu. To make comparison with other art gallery please could you check the article

talk • contribs
) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please find below a list of external links refering to Neotu. This could be an excellent material for future contributors who would like to bring more content in the introduction of the article

etc... —Preceding

talk • contribs
) 02:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

These articles are a start. At least there are some verbal descriptions of the furniture. It would be good to see some pictures. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on this article since beginning of November. It is not finish. Also I am a beginner in Wikipedia, these are my first steps. I agree pictures of furniture are missing. But I do not how to add them. Anyway you can see a selection of furniture which are a part of the French Museums collections. This is a tiny selection of what Neotu Gallery has shown and also MANUFACTURED. Because before being a gallery Neotu was first an avant-garde furniture manufacturer.

  • Just one more question. Do you know in Wikipedia contributors or experts in Contemporary Furniture? I could get in touch with them to ask advice and see if some are interested to collaborate to the Neotu article. —Preceding
    talk • contribs
    ) 12:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Now it's getting down to specific content discussion, probably better to take that side of things to Talk:Neotu. These are useful links.
That said, I think we still need to be careful to keep on the right side of
User:Neotu is here to "try to trace the history of Neotu galleries" and at Neotu.com is a holding page with "Coming soon the future website of Neotu which will trace the history of the galleries" [99]). Maybe it's a mutual interest that does no harm, but it feels like conscription to do someone's homework unless it's very clear that Neotu is not the arbiter of content/tags/etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk
) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My user name is no longer Neotu. It is now Neoge. I will delete the neotu.com link in the external links section since you think that this might be a problem. neotu.com site is in progress. When completed this site will provide a list by designers of photographs of the pieces that Neotu has shown and/or manufactured. That will be more than 1000 photographs organized as a data base. The site will provide also as PDF all the catalogues of Neotu from 1984 to 2001.--Neoge (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased that Neoge is considering ways of improving the article, and his direction sounds reasonable. Before we close this discussion, the current contents of the article still seem to be over-promotional, and I do not believe it should be kept unless the unhelpful lists of exhibits are greatly reduced. I invite Neoge to say if he would agree to such shortening. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of the exhibits is short and was not finished... Between 1984 to 2001 Neotu uses to have at least 6 shows a year only for the Gallery in Paris. Just make the math. I though that was a interesting information to bring to the public in this Encyclopedia. But if "everyone" there thinks that this list of exhibits has no interest, is too long or whatever, I am ready to delete it. I am giving up. I do not know who I am talking to. Everyday there is a interlocutor who has a new point of view, a new suggestion... So I am really lost. I invite you, if you have not read already this novel by Franz Kafka The Castle (novel) to read it. I have this feeling of being "K." the protagonist of the novel who "struggles to gain access to the mysterious authorities of a castle who govern the village where he wants to work"... Please try to read this book. The reading might reveal you how sounds the "Wikipedia bureaucracy" for a novice arriving in your "Castle". Yours --Neoge (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think we are as good as
WP:COIN). Your work could be redeemed if it were truly informative, which it is not. There are no pictures of actual furniture in the material you've added! You cite many exhibit catalogs that are probably not real publications, since they can't be ordered from a publisher. The whole article seems like a tease, because it claims that this is an important gallery, but we have no idea why our readers should care. If you have the rights for any pictures, and are willing to clear them through our system, I could work with you on that. Our copyright rules are quite serious, and do require some patience. EdJohnston (talk
) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a relevant
WikiProject? Neoge, could you perhaps post references for your gallery there and ask somebody else to write about it. Your chance of success will be improved if you help Wikipedia by writing about other art topics that interest you. Jehochman Talk
09:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably WikiProject Visual arts; I've posted a note there.
BTW, I've restored the standard COI tag and added an Expert tag. The point of such tags is allow people who might help to find articles with the tagged problems. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To EdJohnson I did not make any comparison between Wikipedia and Franz Kafka. The only comparison was between K. (the protagonist of the novel "The Castle" by F. Kafka) and myself who feels as K. struggling with Mysterious Authorities. Regarding the bibliography that I provide: I give 90% of the ISBN. If you have time please check them. The books are real and not from a library found on Second Life. If you are curious about the books you can order them from Amazon or Alibris etc.. you can also consult Google Books just put Neotu in the search, you can also go the Library of the University of Michigan which has a lot of books and publications regarding Neotu. This link Pompidou Center la galerie Neotu" is it real? Or is it something born in my imagination? I am afraid that "Wikipedia bureaucracy" is very suspicious when something new (artistic topics for ex) is brought to it and believe me I feel very comfortable with the Internet. Yes I will put some pictures of the furniture online when I know how to do. But do you really think that pictures are more real than writings, references or books? I am also surprise that you write and doubt that "our readers should care" about Neotu. Do you know so precisely "your readers" to know so exactly what they are looking for? If think that the interest of Wikipedia is to bring a lot of information regarding different fields which are not common or trivial subjects. This is the real WEALTH of this Encyclopedia. --Neoge (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To Jehochman: there is some one who is an expert of Neotu. Her name is Ms Constance Rubini. She works at the Decorative Art Museum in Paris. She just wrote an long article in AZIMUTS#29 - ISBN:9782912808073 regarding Neotu. But I am not sure that this person is familiar with Wikipedia and can add something in the article. Nevertheless her book is for me an excellent source of information. --Neoge (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This section is sourced entirely by forum posts on a fansite by DrSturm (talk · contribs) who is also a poster on those forums.Mr T (Based) (talk
) 17:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

user Cathorserobot, website speakaboos.com

Resolved
 – User self-reverted links, website link can be dealt with on its pagetedder (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I am the user in question here. Wanted to explain that I was unaware of how specific the conditions were for external links. I saw a variety of different links to interviews and videos of various works by the actors whose pages I posted on, and similarly thought users would be interested in their work for Speakaboos. I have since undone these external links. As for Speakaboos, I believe it is very notable as a new children's website and I believe that the article is well-cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathorserobot (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added a note to your talk page pointing to a guide for adding ISBN links to include book references in articles. --GraemeL (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I consider this resolved- the user has replied and is aware of COI now. Notability of Speakaboos can be taken care of on its page. tedder (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suburban Express

Obviously COIage going on here, as admitted in the article's

MuZemike (talk
) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

POV content by suicide victims father

Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The parents of two of the suicides at Deepcut have for some time been making POV insertions in this article using either IP contributions or single purpose accounts. One of these Des James (talk · contribs) has now created an explicit account with the declared intention to reflect accurately the facts as they stand.

I have previously sought to identify the risks here and have this morning been more explicit.

I would be grateful for some other eyes on the article.

ALR (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A second new account is now inserting significant POV material in the section about another of the suicides. Vonny2005 (talk · contribs)

ALR (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Difficult. Obviously he deserves the utmost sympathy (and you've handled it extremely diplomatically so far): but when you put together a major COI, original research, unjustified removal of sourced content, borderline personal attacks [100] ("ALR should declare his/her obsession with this case"), assumption of bad faith [101] and accusations of bias [102], it is getting to cluebat time. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look over it.
ALR (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I see the edits have stopped for the moment. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Heads up on CJ Follini

This was bought to my attention while reviewing the article's AFD. This article has been extensively edited by the subject. I pointed this out in the AFD discussion, tagged the article with {{autobiography}}, and posted my concerns on the talk page. After this, editing switched to another account with no other edits besides this article.

Since the AFD was closed "keep" (it really couldn't have been closed otherwise) what it needs at this point is more eyes on it and the attention of a few more uninvolved editors. Besides the taggers, the article is only being edited by

SPAs. --Ron Ritzman (talk
) 14:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Glover
It might be better to see what they say at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - I've cross-posted it there. That aspect looks borderline to me, as he may be within his rights to remove it as contentious and unreliably-sourced (i.e. it's not corroborated so far in newspapers other than the tabloid Mirror).
However, the material on works and style added by User:Andrew Glover looks a distinctly peacock-y synthesis. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bennett Lebow

The following users: 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3, against whom a sockpuppet report has additionally been filed, appear, based upon their postings, to be affilated with at least some of the companies: Vector, New Valley; and also Mr. Bennett Lebow, whom they have directed their remarks toward. It is my BELIEF, based upon the following evidence, that the above user(s) are, as mentioned before, affiliated with this person and these companies, and are merely using Wikipedia as the equivalent of a "public relations brochure" and means to bolster the image of at least Mr. Lebow, as is evidenced by the other investigations that have been requested.

Please note that nearly all of the remarks made by 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3 as noted in their contributions are directed to the above executive and the affiliated companies: Mr. Lebow, New Valley, Vector, and Liggett. Given that these are not "popular" subjects, it is extremely unlikely that an editor without a conflict of interest as noted above would make these remarks.

I believe that the remarks that I have made, that have continually been deleted by all three of the above users, should be locked and made permanent, especially in view of the fact that other Wikipedians are essentially attempting to form a consensus by reverting to my edits; and also the fact that even Kansas7474 has admitted they are accurately sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alygx026 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The filing user here is extremly anxious to return to edit the page which I protected due to his edit waring with these possible COI's. There is a checkuser case pending which will likely clear all of this up. I do not see that a SSP case has been filed, at least it is not showing when I look. JodyB talk 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
My SSP was filed yesterday, although it was not properly saved (this is the first time I have done this) so I refiled it today.

Alygx026 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ [104]
  2. ^ [105]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27&oldid=1148695679"