Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 42

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James Gomez: Possibly created by subject himself

Article about James Gomez seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it is highly possible the article was created and mainly maintained by the subject himself. Evidenced by an IP trace [[1]] which shows the IP originating from Monash University Australia at the campus where the subject is working/teaching (as stated in the article itself). The account is also Single Purpose Accounts as it have not contributed to any other articles.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This shows the edits that have been made since 130.194 started to edit the page, the article was already mainly written years before this so I can't see how "it is highly possible the article was created and mainly maintained by the subject himself". It looks like the only problematic edit was adding the list of publications but this seems to have settled down already. Overall, I don't think the edits are too problematic, although it is discouraged, there is nothing to prevent people editing their own articles so long as they stick to editing guidelines, as far as I can see only WP:ELNO has been contravened which isn't a massive problem. The other edits seem to be minor changes which are fine by the COI guidelines. Smartse (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. My original worry was that Wikipedia was being abused as a means to channel internet traffic for a personal purpose, but there should be little chance of that now that the excessive externally linked self-publications are removed. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Boomerang Generation and others

Swhitbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added external links to several articles which point to entries on the blog of http://www.psychologytoday.com/. I have asked whether the user has any affiliation, but have not gotten any response yet. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: I pieced together some more clues from the editor's behavior and determined that they are (or at least, indirectly self-identify as) a blogger for that website. I posted a note asking them to review COI policies. Is that good? I haven't really encountered this sort of situation before, and still consider myself to be a relatively new editor. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say you did the right thing. I would go farther and remove the links. Blog links are usually not acceptable per wp:el. Rees11 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion & The Real Global Warming Disaster

Violation of Sanctions Enforcement Ruling. Closed as part of GSE. Do not reopen. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Resolved
 – Unactionable; forum shopping; personalizing dispute. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I request that User:William_M._Connolley should be topic banned from these articles due to a conflict if interest. He is mentioned less than favorably in both books and his edit historys in both appear to me at least to be disruptive. His most recent edit being This An experienced editor like WMC knows better than to put POV unsourced material into an article, yet he has anyway. I believe he is biased against these books due to the way he is described in both of them and a topic ban is required mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

COIN cannot topic ban a user from articles. Since these are covered under the WP:GSCC the best place to request topic bans is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, which you presumably know since you are "banned from bringing further complaints against User:William M. Connolley until 12 april." Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
We have also discussed a similar case previously. We do not allow authors to eliminate legitimate criticism by badmouthing their critics (thus creating a presumed COI). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
@ Hippocrite, no i did not know that, in fact you requested at this board that Rtol be topic banned from the Pachauri article [2] @ Stephan, that may be true in some cases, but not i think in this one mark nutley (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Mark, you don't see the difference between assisting someone in implimenting a request that they cease doing something and forcing someone to stop doing something they don't see as problematic? Further, I am well aware this board cannot ban someone, which is why I brought it here for review - you may note that in the section you reference (but didn't quite link to) I ask that more editors review things, not just that Rtol be forcibly made to adhere to the agreement he himself proposed. With that, I close this section as unactionable. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed your close, as you did in fact ask for Rtol to be topic banned [3] Your words I would ask that he be topic banned from Rajendra K. Pachauri I would rather have a few other editors look this over before it is closed, thank you mark nutley (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Be done now. You're forum shopping and personalizing this dispute. If you continue this harassment of WMC, there may be repurcussions. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

{EC} Everyone who's commented so far is an involved editor. Can we have some uninvolved editors examine the issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I am uninvolved; this is being handled at GSE, where this is merely evidence of Marknutley's violation of his ban against "bringing further complaints against User:William M. Connolley until 12 april". This is closed; do not continue this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion and The Real Global Warming Disaster (reopened fairly again)

Please make your comments at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement where this is being discussed, and do not duplicate complaints. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I request that User:William_M._Connolley should be banned from these articles due to a conflict if interest. He is mentioned less than favorably in both books and his edit historys in both appear to me at least to be disruptive. His most recent edit being This An experienced editor like WMC knows better than to put POV unsourced material into an article, yet he has anyway. I believe he is biased against these books due to the way he is described in both of them and a topic ban is required. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

: Do not proxy for a banned user. You are likley to be blocked if you continue. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Retracted. Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Who is the banned user? Do you know something i don`t? mark nutley (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You are "banned from bringing further complaints against User:William M. Connolley until 12 april." Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nvidia

This user has the exact name as the company Nvidia. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the editor has edited directly with a conflict of interest, but the account ought to be blocked per the username policy. You should mention it at WP:UAA instead. jæs (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Shane Salerno

It's highly likely this article, Shane Salerno, was/is written by the subject or a party close to him. I've made some attempts to edit the page and suggested sources but the page itself is very promotional, something that should stay out of Wikipedia at all costs seeing how that theme has permeated every other facet of the internet. Thanks in advance for any help. Jim Steele (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article certainly needs help. I'm not sure there is COI but it is overly promotional. I tried to make some changes but was reverted. Rees11 (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This guy's paid publicist is running amok. Help! Rees11 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a quacking COI, but Michael Jackson fans edit the Michael Jackson article, but its a low level article, personally I would prefer to educate the editor a bit, the article is better today than yesterday, whatever. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. First of all thanks to Rees11 for doing the work after I noticed this page, randomly brought to my attention, in dire shape. And yes--this guy's publicist (or he) is on the warpath (or deadline before next project?). Someone mentioned to me the guy's IMDB bio was eerily similar to his wiki page. So I saw [4]. Then I saw the formatting, obviously made by an amateur (it takes one to spot one) and the garish quality of the whole thing. So my intetion is to change this for the better. In the process, some of it will be axed. Go figure. Yes, it is a low-level article, but isn't the whole idea that every page merits good quality, Micheal Jackson or Joe Schmo? The reverting of our edits is more than a nuisance to the process...

Jim Steele (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello All--

Re: Shane Salerno page. This is a page - like the other screenwriter pages I have edited - that I have worked very hard to improve. To be clear, I am not a publicist, nor the subject but this did not prevent Rees11 from saying I was a "paid publicist" which is inaccurate and also libelous. I was pleased that a senior and highly respected editor like off2riorob said on this page that the work I had done had improved the page at issue and it is important to note that off2riorob was a major help in that. He properly formatted all the citations. off2riorob also stated on this page that this so-called "controversy" from two users is much ado about nothing. I am grateful to off2riorob for agreeing to look into this matter as I believe the record is quite clear on this matter.

Simply put: The issue on the Shane Salerno page comes down to two users - Rees11 and JimSteele9999. Rees seems to think the page reads like an advertisement. This is a very curious (and somewhat ridiculous) position for Rees 11 to take given that Rees11's user's page contains the following:

a. Glowing reviews of Rees11's website

b. A link to buy Rees11's Surf music CD. No joke. He's selling his CD on Wiki.

c. 100 photos of Rees11

d. Rees 11's amazon wish list of gifts for him and his family.

e. A link to Rees11's wife business.

f. Newspaper articles with glowing quotes about Rees11's family.

I wish I was joking. I am not.

Rees11 is the king of promotion and should not be attacking anyone on this subject. Maybe if I had bought him the watch he wanted on his Amazon wish list he would have left my edits alone. Also, as his contributors page indicates, Rees11 has a regular pattern of reporting anyone that reverts his edit or disagrees with him. He has reported dozens and dozens of users.

It is also curious that Rees11 took away the paragraph about WW2 submarine commander and Congressional Medal of Honor winner Eugene Fluckey and then posted multiple times about Richard O'Kane (Fluckey's biggest and friendliest competitor in World War II). Why would a posting about Fluckey be less worthy than one about O'Kane? No explanation, just another report.

As for JimSteele9999. JimSteele9999's choice of Wiki screen name is very interesting. "Jim Steele" is Holden Caulfield's alias in The Catcher in the Rye. Shane Salerno has a forthcoming documentary coming out about J.D. Salinger that has been written about in many publications. One of the first things JimSteele9999 cut from the Salerno page was the entire graph about the forthcoming Salinger documentary. He said on one user page that it did not exist - despite HUNDREDS of articles about it on the internet. As a result, I added a link to one of the major articles and he deleted the whole paragraph again. I added another citation and link to a different Entertainment Weekly article and he deleted that as well. Interesting that someone using Holden Caulfield's alias as a Wiki screen name would be so intent about removing properly formatted citations about a forthcoming documentary. Strange indeed...

I think JimSteele9999 plans to continue cutting any references to the Salinger documentary which is why he wrote on this page that he was going to make more changes and "in the process, some of it will be axed."

It will be interesting to see what he cuts and more importantly WHY. Why would you cut anything that is properly formatted with a legitimate citation from a reliable source like Entertainment Weekly or Variety or The Hollywood Reporter? It is also telling that JimSteele9999 is not doing this on any other writer's page. Only this one.

Finally, JimSteele9999 has an issue with the different headings on the Salerno pages despite the fact that this is common on hundreds of writers' Wiki pages. It helps break up the material and makes it easier to read. The fact that JimSteele9999 does not like this is not a credible reason to change it. And again, he is not changing this on any other writer's page but this one.

If the goal is to truly make a page better, then by all means work honestly toward that goal. You can accomplish this by polishing and refining sentences and by adding proper citations. It is NOT accomplished by cutting a page in half without any explanation -- that is vandalism and nothing more. It cannot be allowed and it must be reverted and reported every time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAWW123 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please focus on the issue (is Shane Salerno in a reasonable condition and is there a WP:COI problem?) and do not discuss other editors (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA: you have failed to show any connection between Rees11's userpage and the issue here, and your above comments probably should be removed). Also, in your edit summaries (diff) do not use the term "vandalism" in connection with a content dispute (see WP:VAND). I may have time later to comment on the actual issue, but I cannot see anything in your comment relevant to this page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
For JAWW123... That's not Rees's user page. That's Rees's off-wiki page about himself and his family. Wikipedia policies don't govern what an editor does off-wiki. Frankly, the article is written as if you're writing for Entertainment Weekly, not an encyclopedia. Also, be very careful about words like "libelous", Wikipedia has a zero-tolerance policy on legal threats (see WP:NLT) and giving the impression that you're willing to take legal action against other editors or Wikipedia itself results in a block until the threat is retracted. (Not saying that you've done so yet, just letting you know.) -- Atama頭 09:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be a conflict of interest on both sides of this article, it would be better if both sets of editors did not edit the article. The article is not so bad now and I can't see any reason to remove great swathes of it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I called you a paid publicist. I did not mean it as an insult and I regret that you were offended. Rees11 (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jaww123, please refrain from long invectives regarding other editors on this page. Rees11 has what is called an off-wiki page, and in no way is promoting himself. Regardless, that is neither here nor there. The intent of this page is to determine if there is a conflict of interest here with the page in question. I think my point that this [5] and your edits on the subject's bio page are eerily alike and warrant concerns over COI. Rarely do screenwriters have rabid fans that edit articles with such tenacity. Jaww123, you started up a Wikipedia account just last week, so I think it goes without saying you should take your time around here and read what other experienced editors have said. Both Reese111 and Off2riorob fall into that catagory so dispsense with fawning over one while castigating the other because it won't help your case.

The article still needs to be paired down. An example that may help you is the other screenwriter's page you mention. Does each project have a seperate header for "easy reading"? No, nor does it need to. Since you mention them, compare Robert Towne with Shane Salerno. Both are pages you have edited. The former is what I call an article with good quality, succinct and neutral. The latter still has the presentation of an advertisement and suggests pretentiousness.

It's also been brought to my attention that your edits and John7512 share similar editing trends and history, were started up at the same time, and have the same intention. Note, you should read WP:SOC to get an idea how sockpuppetry is not allowed around here.

As for your strange association between Holden Caulfield and my user name, if you've read The Catcher in the Rye closely and carefully you'd have noticed the main character had many aliases. Yes, Jim Steele is one of them. It also happens to be the name of a former footballer.

Again, please take your time before posting as you do not seem to be listening to reason and this is not the first time I have suggested you refrain from spurious accusations of vandalism. Once again, familiarize yourself with the policies here before taking action. Lastly, just about the worst thing you can do around here is throw around threats of litigiousness. Consider this a warning that "libelous" was not a judicious word choice on this board, to say the least. Jim Steele (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just move along and leave the article to editors that are not involved, it is cited a fair bit and totally ok, move along. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
JimSteele asked me to have a look. Frankly, I see in several editors' contributions some edits that are good and some that are not. There is only a certain small number of ways to arrange the material, and that both the IMDB and WP do it chronologically seems inescapable. It's not a good idea to insert multiple expressions of praise, even if sourced--normally the work speaks for itself, as it does here. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with the inclusion of sourced material about current projects. But I think that off2riobob's advice above is exactly right. Now is the time for the previous editors to disengage, and others to work on the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeff3000 and Bahá'ísm

There's been a determined deletion effort by Jeff3000 in the creation of Unitarian Bahaism. Jeff3000 is apparently the number one contributor to articles on Bahá'ísm yet has no COI declaration on his userpage.

Here's a few of articles in which Jeff3000 is the top contributor:

  1. Bahá'í Faith - 566 revisions
  2. Bahá'u'lláh (founder) - 234 revisions
  3. Báb (cofounder) - 110 revisions
  4. Persecution_of_Bahá'ís - 108 revisions
  5. Universal_House_of_Justice - 39 revisions
  6. `Abdu'l-Bahá - 39 revisions

Other articles that I've looked at Jeff3000 is in the top 3, with likely many others in which he has contributed significantly.

A new user, Martin lavallee created the article and less than two hours later Jeff3000 redirected it to Bahá'í divisions without discussion. After restoration and discussion by User:203.109.215.212, Jeff3000 again redirected the article without consensus. I had put a Newpage tag on the article minutes after creation and made a proposal that the article be allowed to develop for a week before raising an Afd. Jeff3000 redirected it a third time then started an Afd discussion.


Obviously Jeff3000 has some kind of interest in Bahá'ísm and User:Seeker alpha806 (203.109.215.212?) has made the accusation of "censorship as practiced by Baha'is of the Haifa faction." There has also been creation attempt of articles Unitarian Bahai Association that have met similar resistance. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Stillwaterising is not being accurate in his representation of me. Yes, I am interested in the Baha'i Faith and I have not hidden that interest, but I actually try to make sure any Baha'i content on Wikipedia fits within all the Wikipedia policies including abiding by Wikipedia's verifiability policies, not depending on self-published sources, or primary sources, and making sure sections on Baha'i thought are not outside of WP:UNDUE. Most of my work in the above noted articles are used to add citations from reliable secondary sources, rather than primary source material or POV material from both pro- and anti- sources. I give a couple examples here, mostly from my recent contributions, but going through my contributions will see that same unbiased work:

These are just very recent contributions shows that I remove content that is pro-Baha'i if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies. And I didn't bite the newcommer as Stillwaterising notes. I didn't write to him at all, so I don't get where Stillwaterising is coming from. A little good faith would have been nice to come from him. In fact, if I have bitten any newcommers, it's probably the random Baha'i editor who comes on Wikipedia and add pro-Baha'i material that doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies of no original research and undue weight. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeff3000, if somebody were to go into the various Bahai articles on Wikipedia and add well-referenced material providing alternative views of Bahai history and teachings that are not supported by the official Baha'i Faith organization in Haifa, Israel, would you allow those changes to stand or would you seek to delete them? Surely you have noticed that there is very little information in Wikipedia providing alternative viewpoints about Bahaism, its history and teachings, even though books and scholarly articles have been written which provide such alternative perspectives (i.e. non-Bahai or non-Haifan Bahai views). If you want the Unitarian Bahaism article to be deleted and have tried to delete it twice, and not only that but you didn't merge any of its information into the Baha'i divisions article, and you also deleted two attempts by people to put a mere sentence or two about Unitarian Bahaism in that article (a place where it would seem very relevant to add it) -- as is shown by the recent history of that page -- then can you honestly say that your editing of Bahai articles is totally unbiased? Shiningdove (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
If the statements where published by third-party reliable sources and met the undue weight policy then yes. Note that the undue weight policy basically restricts the amount of Baha'i content on various Wikipedia articles because most reliable sources don't speak about the Baha'i Faith in those contexts (for example on the Love of God example above), but the undue weight policy also applies within Baha'i articles themselves, where tiny minority views also don't get the same representation. From undue weight, "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." and if you look at scholarship about the Baha'i Faith such as those published by Cambridge University Press or Wilfred Laurier Press or others such as the Encyclopedia of Religion or Encyclopedia of Islam which have noted authors, they do not speak of these non-Haifan Baha'i views that you speak about at all. Anyone can create blogs and other self-published sources, and so Wikipedia has the reliable sources guidelines. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
A further comment to the above. I didn't merge the content to the other article, because all the sources were self-published, and were not from reliable sources (blogs and personal websites don't make reliable sources, nor do they indicate notability or importance). The page where I redirect the page to, already has mention of the 1930s group referenced by reliable sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, the page you redirected it to has very little information about Unitarian Bahaism and what it does have is totally one sided, and does not include any of the third-party published sources that do exist which describe Unitarian Bahaism (the historical version of it and how it came about) in a way that is not hostile to that religious movement and its founder. The Baha'i divisions page does not even make a reasonable attempt neutrality in regard to Mirza Muhammad Ali and his Unitarian Bahai religious movement. Sources are available in published books, articles, even a magazine (digitally reproduced on a scholarly Bahai website) which was published by the followers of Mirza Muhammad Ali, all of which present a totally different point of view about everything about him and his religious views, including many basic facts. The facts themselves are in dispute, and different sources do not agree on the facts. Scholarly non-Bahai religious writers such as Edward G. Browne, William M. Miller, etc., have written and published texts which call into question most of what the sources that support the official Baha'i Faith point of view assert as fact. Whether Unitarian Bahaism is going to be discussed in its own article or in the Baha'i divisions article, it needs to be discussed in a neutral way that references not only pro-official-Baha'i Faith sources but also sources that hold an alternative point of view. Shiningdove (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Dove, there's no evidence connecting that earlier episode with the "community" this article discusses. Nor is there any evidence connecting Ali to Unitarians. That's just bizarre.
Miller was no scholar. He was a Christian missionary. And Browne's work on Babi/Baha'i predates the period you're discussing here. So, these particular accusations of yours are a red herring. MARussellPESE (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Miller's book about the Bahai faith is extremely well sourced with copious primary source material. He was a basically neutral writer, a Christian minister who had some sympathies with the Bahai religion but who also had some criticisms of it. His book presents a lot of facts, and some positive and negative opinions of the Bahai faith as well. Miller's book is no less scholarly than books about the Bahai faith by Bahai authors such as Taherzadeh. If you don't want Miller's book to be used, then you'll have to agree that no books written by Bahais should be used either -- which would eliminate most of the sources for the various Bahai articles on Wikipedia. As for Browne's work, Browne does discuss the conflict between Mirza Muhammad Ali and Abdul-Baha in some of his writings. Shiningdove (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
"Miller's book ... is extremely well sourced. ... He was basically a neutral writer." Nonsense. Miller was a missionary on a mission. His work was debunked thirty five years ago. Read his bio for the neutral perspective on his work on Baha'i.
The William McElwee Miller article on Wikipedia is itself biased against his work. One of the major sources referenced in that article who supposedly "debunked" Miller's work is Douglas Martin, a member of the Universal House of Justice, the highest leadership institution of the Haifa-based Baha'i Faith organization. It would be the equivalent claim of if a Catholic pope or cardinal "debunked" a book about Christianity that was written by a Buddhist who learned Biblical Hebrew and Greek and spent a great deal of his time studying early Christian historical sources in the original languages, simply because such a book expressed some views about Christian history that contradict the official positions of the Catholic church. If you exclude Miller from being referenced in Bahai articles, you also have to exclude Douglas Martin, Adib Taherzadeh, and all other BAHAI sources. Which means that all of the Bahai-related articles on Wikipedia would be reduced to bare bones, since a large number of the sources for these articles are pro-official-Bahai polemical sources, in many case people who have served on the UHJ or other high Bahai institutions. As for Miller's work being debunked, nonsense. Miller's work refers to all kinds of primary source material from people who were intimately involved in the history of the Bahai religion -- both people who supported the way the religion officially developed and those who had different views and wanted it to go in a different direction. Just because conservative Bahais don't like these sources or what they had to say doesn't mean that they are illegitimate and unworthy of consideration. Miller was in fact a Middle Eastern scholar. As the article about him correctly states, "As a part of his missionary work, he learned Persian and strove to genuinely understand Islam, particularly Shi'a Islam, Persia and Persian culture." In other words, this man who wrote a book about the Bahai faith was somebody who knew a lot about the religion and culture from which it emerged, could read the language in which most of its scriptures were written, and actually read and referenced many primary sources -- including sources that support the official narrative of Bahai history and interpretation and sources that contradict the official narrative. In short, the Miller book is well researched and by a non-Bahai scholar, and it doesn't just present the official Haifa organization party line about the Bahai religion, but strives to present all sides of the story. The fact that you are so opposed to Miller's book being used as a reference in Wikipedia is evidence of the fact that your religious affiliation prevents you from supporting neutrality and objectivity in Wikipedia articles about your religion. Shiningdove (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Browne addresses the conflict between Abdul-Baha and Ali. It was then-current. But, that has nothing to do with an absent connection between Ali and Unitarianism. MARussellPESE (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Muhammad Ali and his followers called themselves "Unitarians." There are several reliable, scholarly sources that refer to this. The reason they called themselves Unitarians was because they argued that Bahais should only follow God and the scriptures, rather than the authority of successors of the Bahai prophet. They argued that Abdul-Baha, the leader of the Bahai faith, was joining himself as a partner with God, which in the Islamic tradition that all the Bahais came from is a very serious charge (see Shirk_(Islam)). It's true that they were not Unitarians in the Western Christian sense; they were Unitarians in the Islamic sense of the word. Shiningdove (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
If you have non-primary third-party sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, I have no problem with you go ahead and adding content. For example look at Iranica which does discuss the topic quite well ([6]) William Miller's book, is not only self-published, but it has been described in reliable sources as being a polemic, which makes it a questionable source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Jeff3000, your assertions about Miller's book are false. First of all, Miller's book is not self-published; it is copyright 1974 by the William Carey Library. Miller's book is probably the best book available for a factually objective summary of Bahai history and teachings. Yes, most Bahais dislike it, precisely because it presents a balanced perspective and uses some primary source materials that the official Baha'i Faith organization regards as heretical, in order to show both sides of the various conflicts that occurred in Bahai history and interpretation of the religion. Most of the sources used on Wikipedia for the Bahai articles here are far more polemical than Miller's book -- polemical in favor of the official interpretation of Bahaism and admitting no possibility of alternative viewpoints. Shiningdove (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, i just sent the following message to deconstructis regarding inclusion to 'abrahamic religions'

  • "== Baha'i is Abrahamic ==

This is an abrahamic religion, so why shouldn't it be mentioned. it has enough followers, with some figures as high as 8 million. they are widespread and are the 2nd fastest growing religion in the world, with indications it will take over Judaism as the worlds 6th largest religion by the 1930s. There is no undue weight whatsoever as you are suggesting in my opinion, and im not even a Baha'i."

what do you think?Jigglyfidders (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

All, Jeff3000 has made no effort to obscure his affiliation with Baha'i. Neither have I, nor any of the other Baha'is editing here.

But, of the regular Baha'i editors here, Jeff3000 is the last person to accuse of COI and POV-pushing. I've seen him rewrite the several articles, including the main one, almost entirely to eliminate as many selfpub refs as possible.

The vast majority his edits amount to removing: fluff, Baha'i POV, and poorly sourced material. Stillwater's enumeration above doesn't begin to address that.

The article in question is horribly sourced. Full of OR and websites. This is exactly the kind of thing a diligent editor should be trying to keep out of Wikipedia if it's not going to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Stilwater should have done some groundwork, maybe at least talking to Jeff3000, before dragging him here. MARussellPESE (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at [Removing a section on the Baha'i Faith] and I'm impressed on how Jeff3000 handled it. However, Jeff3000 does not declare any affiliation with Baha'i on his userpage or anywhere else he has cared to disclose. If he has made "no effort to obscure his affiliation with Baha'i" there why isn't this on his userpage or any talk page I've read? I'd be willing to dismiss this inquiry if Jeff3000 declares the exact nature of his interest in Baha'i. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't hide that I'm a Baha'i and have stated so on multiple talk pages, and used to have a Baha'i userbox on my userpage (I actually created it), but after the whole Wikipedia userbox fiasco (probably four years ago) where userboxes were being deleted left and right, I removed most of the userboxes from my page. The reason why I don't put it on my userpage now, is that I have had threats made to me in the past from editors who claimed they were Muslim. As you know Baha'is are persecuted in some majority Muslim countries. A couple of these editors said they would come and get me in Canada. Thankfully they were blocked when they were reported, but for my own peace of mind I though it may be best that things that can lead to harassment not be on my userpage, but like I have mentioned before, there are lots of places on talk pages where I do state that I am Baha'i, but there are lots of places that I state that my first adherence while on Wikipedia is to Wikipedia's policies, and I've made sure that usually pro-Baha'i content that gets added is either culled, reduced, or made applicable through the use of secondary sources, and my record above shows that. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to be flippant, but what are they going to do - kill every Jeff in Canada? How come you didn't reveal this on Talk:Unitarian Bahaism? If you had there wouldn't have been a need to have this COI inquiry. Do you think it's possible that in order to maintain your reputation of neutrality you may be more inclined toward deletion? It's very hard to detect bias in your own edits. It's best to declare your COI and stay away from controversial edits. And if you still want to contribute, which isn't recommended, your declared COI will help other editors to be more aware that you may have a bias and call you on it if they see one. In Talk:Unitarian Bahaism Smkolins the impression that you were a general interest user, but you're actually the top contributor on the topic. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
They'll try to kill every Goeff in Canada. Sorry, could not resist. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, it might be surprising to you that I don't use my real name either. When you're the subject of threats, then you can decide what level of personal detail you expose to on your userpage. However, that said, as I mentioned, I don't hide that I'm a Baha'i in discussions, and there is no part of WP:USERPAGE that states that you must state your beliefs on your talk page, especially when I don't hide them during discussions. I'm an individual editor with some knowledge, and when on Wikipedia I act first as a Wikipedian, as my contributions show. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You seem adamant about following Wikipedia policy, so why not follow WP:COI as well? That's the guideline that states it is highly recommended you declare your your close relationships on both your userpage and the talk page of the article you are working on. - Stillwaterising (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:COI 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.", but that's not true as evidenced by my contributions. I remove pro-Baha'i POV on view as evidenced, and I don't hide my affliliations when requested. In regards to who is flippant? I didn't reveal this on Talk:Unitarian Bahaism because I wasn't given the opportunity. Stillwaterising asked for conflicts of interest at 8:28, and then without giving me the opportunity to respond there, filed this complaint at 14:19. Virtually all of that time in between those two edits, I didn't have access to the Internet. I checked Wikipedia quickly in the morning and made two quick edits at around 9:30 [7], [8] that were mostly formatting, and then left the house. I didn't have time to go through all the talk page discussion and edits to respond to any in depth inquiry. And of course, the first thing I see when I do log back on in the afternoon is this complaint, and I responded then. So let's assume some good faith, as evidenced by my contributions. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's actually look at WP:COI, it states "Adding material that appears to promote 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". Well it's clear I'm not doing that. The next sentence states "When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." which again doesn't apply to me because I'm not promoting myself, but I guess StillWaterising is talking this as a larger connection to any personal interest or hobbies that I have. I don't think COI is the problem here because everyone will be active in spaces that they are knowledgeable. But regardless, let's assume that that part applies. The next sentence goes on to say: "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources". And that's exactly what I do. I remove primary sourced material, especially pro-Baha'i on view, and try to use secondary sources from academic publishers. And as I mentioned I don't hide my beliefs to all but the passing editor who looks at my talk page, and there are good reasons for that. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are lessons to learn for both of you:
  • Jeff could put a Baha'i userbox on his page.
  • Still could consider talking to editors first. You shot from the hip here and missed.
Beyond that, I think this one's closed. MARussellPESE (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's Your Sign Award

  • Here's Your Sign Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article includes a section entitled "First Television" that is worded entirely as an advertisement for a production company. In addition, the article has been edited numerous times by a person with the account name of: "Firsttvasst" which would seem to suggest that someone from said production company has edited the article to include a self-advertisement of this type. Other articles edited by this user have had similar issues, and the article Country Fried Planet includes the same advertisement-type style section entitled "First Television". Jdawg4444 (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) User:Jdawg4444

It's puff - delete on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you've done that. Luckily the editor hasn't edited since March of last year. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

City_Harvest_Church

|edit]] | [[Talk:Association_with_Controversial_Healing_Evangelist_Benny_Hinn |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Association_with_Controversial_Healing_Evangelist_Benny_Hinn |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Association_with_Controversial_Healing_Evangelist_Benny_Hinn |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Association_with_Controversial_Healing_Evangelist_Benny_Hinn |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views)


COI with members of the City Harvest Church congregation repeatedly deleting a whole article regarding it's verified close association with a certain controversial Evangelist figure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 5Proof (talk • contribs)

Mm, not really. The section has been deleted by one user who is a member of the Church, in addition to several who are not (myself included). At the root of this, however, is not a COI issue, it's a coatracking issue. An article on a Church should not contain a biography on a person who is associated with it. That's what his own article is for. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to add on, as I follow this article and also New Creation Church's article too, Ahnan seems to have some issues with both CHC and NCC and hence adding lots of controversial events. 5Proof is a very recent user and might just be a puppet. For the record, I am not a church member, nor a Christian. I only want to see a fair wiki article. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a member to any churches. I have nothing against CHC and NCC personally. CHC and NCC, prior to me even knew who they were, were already generating controversies on the Straits Times. Preaching prosperity gospel is already controversial by itself. Hence, it is not surprising that these churches generates controversies from time to time too. My objective is to make sure such controversies are properly recorded for the public to know. Xaiver0510, is there a problem trying to seek the truth and reveal the truth to all? Or do you have a personal problem with me? Ahnan (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Sighs.. I feel that you 'scold' me over the web based Wikipedia. I see that you replied to me a lot recently. I was really very stressed and tried to explain why the irrelevant and plagiarised (see CHC's wiki page[edit history date & time: 11:06, 5 April 2010 ] and Benny Hinn's wiki page) articles should be deleted.Kimberry352 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm merely stating facts. If you feel that I'm scolding you by stating facts, then I've got nothing else to say. And I've already explained why the association of Benny Hinn to CHC has to be put on record for the public to see. And I have explained since the Singapore public don't know who Benny Hinn is, some explanations are necessary to show that he is a controversial character to begin with. Ahnan (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you're merely stating facts. However, I had a feeling last time that you 'threaten' me to be taken to COI issue if I continued deleting the copied articles that I found irrelevant. And I already explained what the difference between the irrelevant and relevant content. Since the Singapore public don't know who Benny Hinn is but yet these copied articles** are not relevant to CHC, then the public shall click the link (hyperlink) of Benny Hinn's wiki page under the controversial section of CHC's wiki page to know more about Benny Hinn's controversial articles which exclude CHC. Otherwise, the relevant verified controversial articles can be added in CHC's wiki page's controversial section.[1]**: Apr 2001 (HBO "A Question of Miracles" show), Mar 2005 (Ministry Watch), Nov/Dec 2006 (BHM; CBC TV), Feb 2010 (Benny Hinn's wife's divorce)Kimberry352 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

.................................................

Kimberry352 has finally revealed that he is a member of CHC Ahnan (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
maybe true but I am yet to decided if I'm CHC attendee or member. I also attend FCBC alternately weekly. For your info, I consider to leave CHC only if it preaches false doctrines and there is no effort for me to raise issues. Kimberry352 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Even if you are a partial attendee, there is still a COI here. You should have disclosed this fully right at the beginning. Ahnan (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
No commentKimberry352 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Mod, speaking frankly, I'm feeling being forced by a well-known person Ahnan to respect what he has done -- adding irrelevant offtopic articles about Benny Hinn into CHC's wiki page. These articles ( articles dated on Apr 2001 (HBO "A Question of Miracles" show), Mar 2005 (Ministry Watch), Nov/Dec 2006 (BHM; CBC TV), Feb 2010 (Benny Hinn's wife's divorce) ) exclude from CHC. I know that he wants to raise awareness about the plight of CHC's association with Benny.
Anything wrong raising such awareness to the public? Ahnan (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hm..I don't mean anything wrong with it. It's so right to let the public know. However, again, I explained that the articles should be relevant and include both CHC and Benny so that the public will see these articles in CHC's wiki page. If the article were to be included in Benny Hinn only but to be excluded from CHC, then if the public has the right to know what's fussy happening about the association between CHC and Benny, then maybe both CHC's & Benny's pages should be separated and the hyperlink of Benny Hinn's wiki page should be suggested to be displayed under the controversial section of CHC's wiki page. Like what I said again. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Putting differently, it is said that some of the public do not know about Benny or his association with CHC very well. I think that if the public feel that these articles should be added into CHC's wiki page, it's okay now.. I should respect Ahnan's action although these articles seem far off from the CHC's wiki page....but there is a need to edit them so that they will be more relevant and be up to the point. Otherwise, just add the hyperlink of Benny Hinn's wiki page to take the people from CHC's wiki page to Benny's wiki page for more controversial articles. What do you think? *Note: I've reverted the deleted manually with offtopic tags. Pls take a look at CHC's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:City_Harvest_Church#Benny_Hinn Kimberry352 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel that some explanations of Benny controversy on CHC page is necessary so that people, at a glance, would know that associating with such a controversial person to begin with is a controversy by itself. Ahnan (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that some explanations share the relationship between CHC and Benny Hinn could be considered to be accepted into CHC's wiki page. Like they have to be relevant and should have a connection with the subject at the issues (CHC's association with Benny). 18:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

.............................................................

FYI, I recently reverted the deleted controversial articles manually as requested by Ahnan although I found them irrelevant. After that, I respect what has been done in CHC's wiki page lately. Pls see the latest post at CHC's talk page (as of 11 April about 8.45+pm Singapore Time). Kimberry352 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, but based on Ahnan's edit history, it seems to be a single purpose account created specifically to comment on New Creation Church and City Harvest Church, coupled with his personal quote "To seek the truth... and to see that the truth be told..." which puts his claims to having nothing personal against the churches a bit unconvincing. "Truth" can be subjective to the editor in question. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, I see myself as an online activist, trying to ensure that we have a balanced view of things. I may have started with NCC and CHC but that doesn't mean I will stop there. As long as I see something that is not right and alternative view need to be expressed, I will do it. Now back to CHC, the issue here is - is there a controversy by associating itself with Benny Hinn and using Benny Hinn to help raise funds? In my view, I think it is controversial. Hence, I would recommend that such truth be let known to the public. So, you are unconvinced that such truth is not the truth and should be suppressed? Ahnan (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
May I know how you get the 'truth'? From the Straits Times? And other online and offline media reports e.g. Malaysiakini, Telegraph and Wall Street Journal? As for the ST (Straits Times), I feel that not all the ST journalists may write 'mixed' reports of speculation and truth from different interviewees. Not all the people in ST forum share honest or false types of information such as feedbacks. Choose the right and validate it if it is a reliable source by using supporting evidences. Otherwise, identify other sources that do/may not prove this source. [Sorry for being offtopic but just to tell u - trivial matter] Kimberry352 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: The user is now dangerously close to accusing me [[9]] of being from the church of the article in question just because I summarized the article to remove irrelevant information from the article [[10]] with reasons given in the talk page [[11]]. This is not the first time this editor has attempted to do this to someone else[[12]], and has a history of attacking users even outside the boundaries of Wikipedia as seen from the following conversation on his talk page [[13]].Zhanzhao (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm merely asking you if you are a member of CHC? If you are, say yes. If you are not, say no. What's your problem? If by merely enquiring if you are a member of CHC and you said I'm "attacking" you, then I seriously think you need to see a psychiatrist... Ahnan (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
As a fellow editor, it would do you good to judge my edits according to their adherence to wiki spirit and policy, instead of second-guessing whether I am or am not from the church in question. It should only comes into question if I am editing against Wiki policy. Which if you doubt, you can easily raise it as a separate COI issue. If you bothered to check my edit history, you will see that this is merely the latest topic I am contributing to, and I have been consistent in my editing methods and principles. But on the same note, based on your persistent same question on anyone who opposes you on the edits, I would question whether there is a COI issue with you instead.Zhanzhao (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I will like to update that user Ahnan has declare that he has trouble with NCC and CHC [14]. I have merely mentioned that he may have some issues with both churches and the next thing I have is an accusation that I have a problem with him.

...........................................................

Speaking seriously, I don't dare to delete the controversial irrelevant plagiarised articles** about CHC's association with Benny Hinn again after Ahnan warned me. I reverted the action of deletion manually before other Wiki users edited them lately.
**: Apr 2001 (HBO "A Question of Miracles" show), Mar 2005 (Ministry Watch), Nov/Dec 2006 (BHM; CBC TV), Feb 2010 (Benny Hinn's wife's divorce)
Btw, I stress to explain here again:
(1) Firstly, if the controversial article were to be relevant to CHC, then it must include both CHC and Benny (e.g. Benny asked CHC congregation to contribute money during Asia Conference 2008) and thus it's okay to add it in CHC's page.
(2) Secondly, if the controversial article were to be irrelevant (offtopic) but verified, then it is supposed to include in Benny but exclude from CHC (e.g. Benny's wife divorce in Feb 2010) and thus it should be added in Benny's wiki page only. If Ahnan feels that the Singapore public must know this controversial issue, then what i think of suggestion is to place the hyperlink of Benny Hinn's wiki page under the controversial section of CHC's wiki page. That's all..Kimberry352 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

...................................................

I would really like to emphasize that everyone in Wikipedia should respect others. If possible, negotiation and agreement will make it better. Compromise, Manipulation and Co-option or Co-ercion are not the best or the most ideal methods. Kimberry352 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment User Kimberry353 has admitted to having a connection to the church. That said the edits made by that user with regard to this specific issue are in agreement with several other editors who have no obvious connection to the church for example [15], [16], and [17] (the last diff showing one of my comments — I knew nothing about this church till recently when I saw it come up on this COI notice board). User Ahnan, however, appears to be a limited purpose account. Looking at this user's contributions we see numerous edits to this article, the one for New Creation Church and a few for Lim Biow Chuan. Kimberry353 is acting in Good Faith and has not violated COI with respect to this issue. Several editors who appear to not have any connection to the church have reached the same conclusion. If anything users Ahnan and 5Proof are engaging in coatracking. SQGibbon (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Kate Griggs

Rather hyped (and badly formatted) article with username suggestive of COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi article - editor is himself Reza Pahlavi

And since his edits are self-promotion and autobiographical in nature, I suggest that both user RezaPahlavi and 24.86.12.165 be banned from editing the page. Also, I suggest that the page be semi-protected.

Thanks. PR (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

not that most of the edits are good, but somehow I doubt he did them himself. It's more likely just a problem of PEACOCKery, and violation of our username policy "Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not", both of which can be dealt with. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Janellemariestevenson/Santana Row

Edits appear to be promotional and unsourced. Contributor removes maintenance templates, and a Google search reveals [18] that they have the same name as an employee with the real estate developer of this community. 99.156.68.203 (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Malene Espensen

Well, they've been blocked (softblocked, which means they're allowed to create a new account if they want). They were blocked due to WP:REALNAME. I doubt that the editor was really Malene, my guess is that this was just a fan. But the copyright violations were also troubling. We'll see if the editor creates a new account or just gives up with this softblock, which considering all the other problematic editing may not be a big loss. -- Atama頭 16:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User:SEN. PJM

Presumably Paul Massicotte. All edits are to that page, back in November. And now an IP is edit warring to revert to this User's preferred version. Woogee (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have died down for now. If it starts up again, let me know, or make a request at WP:RPP. I think semiprotection is the easiest and most effective way of dealing with the problem. -- Atama頭 16:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

CarbonFix Standard

User Carbonfix is a SPA whose name indicates a clear COI. Their version of the article reads like an advertisement and may be a copyright violation. [19] Edward321 (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them. Their username is a violation of WP:ORGNAME (which they were warned about) and their edits are blatant spam. The copyright violations are just icing on the cake. -- Atama頭 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bakers Delight

John Vandenberg has left some great advice for the editor on their talk page. It's always good to see someone who not only acknowledges their COI but asks how to improve an article and wants help from the community. I wish everyone worked that way. -- Atama頭 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Shlomo Sawilowsky

This was raised a month ago - see archive [20] - but I think needs it further attention. Two disruptive IP editors with an apparent COI ...

... were blocked as socks after investigation: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edstat/Archive. The sockmaster, Edstat, is now back after a block with a very pushy presence and the same appearance of COI (plus various disruptive behaviours such as WP:POINTy "experiments" [21], overall wikilawyering/WP:SOUP style of interaction, and what appears to be retaliatory picking at math bio articles by another editor critical of the content of the Shlomo Sawilowsky article). Attention would be helpful all round. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The HON Company

Margarete bagshaw

Possible autobiography; gallery is same as that operated by article's subject. COI and copyright issues. 99.156.68.203 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an autobiography. The editor in question self-identified as Dan McGuinness, see here. Dan is the husband of Margarete Bagshaw. Clearly there is a conflict of interest. He should be informed of OTRS in order to clear up the copyright problems, and should consider changing his username (as it is advertising the gallery). By the way, Bagshaw seems pretty notable, I'll add some coverage to the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 00:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As you say, notability doesn't seem to be an issue, but the coi and use of text straight from the gallery's website are red flags.... 99.156.68.203 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia

TK-CP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I was going through the recent changes last night and stumbled upon his userpage. There, as clear as day, he says he is a "Senior Administrator" at a conservative website "Conservapedia." I spoke to him on his talk page regarding the COI, but only seemed to want to question my authority and then essentially make up some "where does one draw the line" excuse. It seems to me the two ideas are incompatible here on Wikipedia, which is supposed to have no bias. I would take it there but as I am still new, and would prefer to avoid arguments. Any help would be great. Thanks -Tommy (msg) 10:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a conflict unless there is a showing that he has a vested interest in the success of Conservapedia AND in the failure of Wikipedia. We do not ask that our editors only contribute to us. Conservapedia is, to some extent, a competitor, but the existence of this project does not preclude others from having similar projects if they like. If you can show that he's doing things like asking editors only to contribute to the other project, well, then we'll talk. But his mere presence, even as a "Senior Administrator" (whatever that means) there is not enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Bias is not a conflict of interest. Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice that on TK-CP's talk page, Tommy, you only discuss his editing of the Conservapedia article (which he apparently discussed with an admin) but here you seem to be discussing his right to edit WP in general. Why is that? Also, why did you not advise the editor of this thread? Avoiding arguments is good. Avoiding argument by not telling the other editor what's up is not good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, I saw only a couple of direct edits to the Conservapedia article and a fair number of talk page contributions, with his status over there disclosed on his first edit to his userpage (his first WP edit). I see no problem here even if there WAS a COI.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, Im fairly new. I only found this page because Wikipedia searches its pages as you type in the search field. I also never implied he couldn't edit Wikipedia in general, just that article. Obviously everyone has their own bias. And I brought it here because I said there was already tension brewing in the conservapedia talk page. I overlooked the fact he was spoken to by an admin. I was also unaware of how to tell him about this.. I should say, the standard way of how to. --Tommy (msg) 13:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. Your statement above could be easily understood to indicate that the prohibition should be to the entire site. It is good that new editors are looking out for the site. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I just thought a COI would have merit, as I interpret it, because that site is.... pretty over the top I must say. --Tommy (msg) 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Everyone is entitled to views. He disclosed his status there in his first edit. He's engaged broadly on the article talk page, and made 2 edits to the article itself, both of which were appropriate. Even if there were a COI, he'd be within guidelines.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for the help --Tommy (msg) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And BTW, I looked over there and I agree with your views of the site. I would not be caught dead there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Narayana Engineering College

Would someone mind having a quick look at Narayana Engineering College where I am pretty sure you will agree with my assessment on the talk page (a new editor is attempting to use peacock terms and an excessive number of external links in a new article). An IP has now reverted my edits and I would like a third opinion. No need to monitor the page unless you want, but there's only me and the author at the moment and I would like another opinion to justify my continued removal of the peacock text. It's very likely a COI issue (and the IP is probably the author) but I don't think it's worth getting bitey at this stage. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted them again, I concur with your opinion about the language. The IP is making the same changes that the other account was doing so I'm sure they're the same person. I'll keep a watch on it and I'll see if there's some way to get the editor to communicate. -- Atama頭 16:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mahindra Satyam

There is apparently persistent deletion of negative information from the [Satyam] page. User [[22]] hasn't edited many other pages, and has received other similar complaints. Edits are predominantly to remove damaging info about financial troubles, but also include actual information like a twitter account for the company. Seems like PR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carleas (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Blue Streak Security

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Streak Security.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that the "ad" in "Adlok" is a coincidence. For one thing, "Adlok" is sometimes used as a surname (just Google the name). Someone using the username "adlok" used to post on the forums for Blue Streak Technologies, but their forums are broken and I can't see the nature of the posts. So the connection for this person to that company is there, but the nature of that connection is uncertain. -- Atama頭 23:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Shadowbhia

Resolved
 – Author outed himself, but articles deleted. -- Atama頭 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this editor did basically out himself as the candidate. However, both articles he created have been deleted, so there shouldn't be much of a concern at this point. -- Atama頭 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Phreaking

On this page, an editor named Venushka made this edit adding the name Venushka H S to the list of notable phreaks. Obviously the reference was to a dead link--the article was A7 Speedy Deleted. I reverted this second edit, now from an identified user with a fairly obvious COI. Earlier today, an edit with the exact same content was added by an IP address. Presumably it was the same person. I reverted that too as being unsourced to a non-notable person. This has the looks of a potential edit war with someone with a COI trying to post something on WP.Trackinfo (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think they've given it up, they even requested a name change to distance themselves from it. Hopefully now they'll find something else to do. -- Atama頭 16:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

user:Argtalent and Ronni Ancona

User:Argtalent both logged in and as an anon (I presume they are the same person) has been removing a lot of information from the Ronni Ancona article, without explanation.

They now claim top be Ronni Ancona's agent and to be editing per her request. Some of the changes are fair enough, e.g. changing the description of her nationality from Scottish to British. However, there is also a large amount of information that is being removed, including some that is referenced. If they are Ms Anonca's agent, then it seems there is quite a conflict of interest. Could someone more experienced than me please advise them about what they should be doing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ARG Talent is a talent agency in London (ARG stands for Artists Rights Group). The agent chose a name in clear violation of WP:ORGNAME. I'm softblocking them, they're free to create a new account that conforms to our username policies, and I'll also give them some advice on how to conform to our COI guidelines. -- Atama頭 17:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

SHAZAM (software), edited by User:Wikieconometrician

This editor added an article in software made by a firm he works for. He has disclosed this link on his user page. What troubles me, is his linking activities and an rv of my edits. 018 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer and Australian Cattle Dog

We have an editor in the Dog Whisperer article who has introduced staged photographs of their own dog, in poses to suggest disparagement of the television program. The editor's dog appears to be an ACD or Australian Cattle Dog — an article which the editor contributes to heavily.

The editor arrived at Wikipedia with a full blown ability to edit articles, only edits primarily a few articles about dogs, especially the article about Dog Whisperer and Australian Cattle Dog. The editor has heavily reworked the Dog Whisperer article, mostly finding ways to include not so much balancing information but disparaging information, going so far as to suggest that a proper intro to the History of the television program lies in retelling the facts of a lawsuit disagreement with a disgruntled producer — and now adding the staged photos of their own dog.

I really don't know what's going on here, but, I'm reluctant to get into it with the editor. In the past the editor has brought up anything possible that be construed as negative about me, including that I once participated in sockpuppetry — which is true, was a long time ago, and doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. The reason I engaged in SP was because I didn't know how to handle a disagreement (not with this editor) appropriately. Which is what I am trying to do here. For the most part, I stay away from the Dog Whisperer article, coming back now and then to see how the article has been "shaped."

Here is the editor's comment on the photos, from Dog Whisperer's discussion page:

The images are just adding a bit of interest. I searched for existing images but could find a good one with the required permissions, so I taught my dog to "watch tv" and "cover your eyes" and snapped the piccies. There is one watching with interest and one not watching so I think it meets NPOV Guidelines. Happy to discuss inclusion/deletion. Marj

The photos are actually pretty funny, but when asked to remove them because they're not NPOV, the editor suggests in their "edit remarks" that they somehow make a balanced article: "Showing both sides is exactly npov)" 842U (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that to stage piccies of your own dog covering its eyes... or not... isn't an attempt at creating an encyclopedic, neutral, balanced article. It is a way of furthering your own interests, a disparagement of the television program and a promotion of the breed that the editor, owner of an Australian Cattle Dog, just happens to write (with glowing peacockery and without reference) is a courageous and tireless worker, an intelligent and athletic companion and a loving and playful family pet. in the intro to Australian Cattle Dog. 842U (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? 842U (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the case for lolcats (or loldogs in this case). The closest guideline for this situation is WP:NOTBLOG. I'm not sure how much WP:COI plays into this, except that the editor is posting their own dog's pictures on the page. The other editing of the articles doesn't seem to have any kind of conflict, although NPOV may be a concern as you've said. I had expected this to be a new editor based on your description of the situation, but this is an editor with over 500 edits who has been with Wikipedia for more than a year, so it's not just a case of someone misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. One final thing, when you create a report about an editor on this noticeboard, you're encouraged to let them know, in almost every case it's much more helpful to have the other person's perspective and to ask them questions, not to mention that it's just courteous to do so. -- Atama頭 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Courteous as it may be, I can't bring myself to go head to head with the editor again. I end up getting personally attacked and nothing changes. After bringing up the issue on the discussion page, the editor hasn't offered a single reason for including the photos, instead choosing to attack the messenger. I've deleted the photos from the article, citing NOTBLOG — we'll see what happens. 842U (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: Please add your own comments in your own paragraph and do please do not intersperse your commments into mine. I have moved the interspersed comments to your own paragraph. 842U (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO EDIT MY COMMENTS? MY RESPONSES WERE PLACED UNDER THE POINTS THEY RESPONDED TO, INDENTED ACCORDNG TO THE CONVENTION AND EACH LINE SIGNED. YOUR EDIT OF MY WORDS DESTROYS THE INTENDED MEANING. Marj (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll inform the editor, and then they can attack me. I'm an administrator, getting attacked comes with the territory. -- Atama頭 04:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
At a reviewer's suggestion these statements were repeated from within the article where they are referenced. Marj (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Australian Cattle Dog was reviewed by Casliber, an administrator with 67,000 edits, who determined that it was a fair representation without bias and that my photographs (of my own dogs) were appropriate images. Marj (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Am I also being accused that my photographs on the Dog page are a Conflict of Interest? Marj (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
User842U removed them, pseudonymously, without discussion. There was no request. Marj (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
At a reviewer's suggestion these statements were repeated from within the article where they are referenced. Marj (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Australian Cattle Dog was reviewed by Casliber, an administrator with 67,000 edits, who determined that it was a fair representation without bias and that my photographs (of my own dogs) were appropriate images. Marj (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Am I also being accused that my photographs on the Dog page are a Conflict of Interest? Marj (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to attack anyone, and am not about to start. I have no vested interest in the images - if they linked to ACD breeding kennels (I don't have any dog related business) I might be justly accused of COI but what are the interests that are supposedly in conflict. I have nothing to gain from the promotion of the breed, if these photos do in fact promote the breed. I asked for a discussion of the photos - but there has been no discussion, just removal and accusations. I thought the photos were funny, and added a bit of interest to the page. No disparagement was intended, and while you might possibly read that from the eyes covered image, how can it be said of the first? I noted in the caption that they were staged. But if anyone had asked for them to be removed I would have done so. I objected to an editor using an IP address as a pseudonym to delete them without discussion. Marj (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Smith and Corder have publicly stated that they originally promoted Millan as the "Dog Whisperer" and produced a pilot program by that name. This information is given in the article as an "allegation" but it on the public record so is part of the history of the program. Marj (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand the accusation "arrived at Wikipedia with a full blown ability to edit articles" Can someone explain how this is a problem? I coordinate two wikis, and contribute to three others and did so before editing wikipedia. Marj (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I am a dog owner, with a large collection of dog books, and a Professor in Film and Media studies. I edit articles where I have some expertise. How is this a problem? Marj (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess my point is that if you have — not a novice, but a a knowledgeable, capable editor — inserting highly promotional but unreferenced conjecture, puffery and peacockery into the introduction of an article about Australian Cattle Dogs, for example, and then inserting their personal pictures of an Australian Cattle Dog for no reason (other than they are personally interesting to that editor) into virtually the only other article they edit, then there may be a conflict of interest. Especially when the editor stages the photographs to be disparaging, to show the dog covering it's eyes at the subject of the Dog Whisperer, an article about which the editor has already worked extensively to introduce a gracious plenty of disparaging information (e.g., introducing the history section with lawsuit information) — then it seems possible that the editor has a specialized interest in dogs, their personal dog, the Australian Cattle Dog breed... and is using both articles to promote their personal interest. At the very least, the knowledgeable editor could just leave their personal disparaging photographs out of the article in the first place... or understand that the photographs by virtue of the guidelines of Wikipedia don't belong... or understand that removal of the photographs does not have to meet their personal mandate for discussion... especially when the "discussion" immediately takes on a tiresome, attacking, contentious quality. 842U (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I ask, again, that you not interject your comments into mine. Please respond chronologically by placing your comments at the end of the section. This will make it easiest for everyone to follow the conversation &mdash' and will show other editors the same courtesy you'd like shown to your edits. See WP: Discussion Page/Talk Page Use: "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to" 842U (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The discussion here mirrors the contentiousness of the Dog Whisperer Discussion Page. Why is this discussion so aggravated and contentious? It's probably not because of Australian Cattle Dogs. It's important to point out in COI and POV disputes, underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. When an editor has a COI, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden. Thus, for example, if I'm a university professor and my university has a curriculum where my colleagues routinely use this television program, Dog Whisperer to demonstrate a particular point of view... or of I make my living teaching a class that uses the Dog Whisperer this way... then I have a conflict of interest; I would, in good faith, declare that COI, and... refrain from editing. 842U (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me start by acknowledging that Marj's work in helping at least two dog-related articles to reach GA status is very much appreciated. I'll admit that I've tried getting more than one article to that state and haven't managed to succeed yet, so your article development skills are better than mine. I'm not sure why there would be a concern about your editing the Australian Cattle Dog article, the improvements you've made to that article are wonderful.
The photos added to the Dog Whisperer article, on the other hand, are confusing because they're not encyclopedic, and we usually don't try to make articles funny to make them more entertaining. We do have humorous essays but article space is supposed to be developed to be informative, rather than entertaining. (Well, we do try to avoid making things boring, but we don't need funny pictures to do that.) I think that's why this concern was raised. But while I think the images don't belong, I also don't think they're that big of a deal.
Now that we have both parties here discussing the matter, I think some of the burden has to be put onto 842U. You claim that there is a COI, and that Marj has "inserted highly promotional but unreferenced conjecture, puffery and peacockery" into the ACD article. I really need to see diffs showing that, because I have trouble believing that an editor who has improved an article to the degree that it has passed a quality review could be considered to have edited in such a disruptive manner. Furthermore, you claimed earlier that you were "getting personally attacked" by Marj; do you have evidence of that as well? I haven't been able to find Marj being anything but courteous. As to the COI, I don't see it at all, owning a breed of dogs and liking that breed is very far from having a COI. You might argue that showing your own dogs could be self-promotion, except that Marj doesn't identify the dog or the dog's owner in either of the pictures, so I don't see how even that weak claim could be made. -- Atama頭 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Marj certainly has done a great deal of work on the two articles, and many of her edits are incisive and spot on. On the one hand I can agree that the photo's aren't that big a deal. As I said, they're funny. On the other hand, the reason we're even discussing the pix is because they can be construed as gratuitously disparaging the subject of the article, because they serve no purpose in clarifying the article — and because without providing any reason why the photos should be in the article, Marj had not allowed them to be removed. These are important issues... but the photos also serve as the tipping point that throws the conflict of interest into transparency.
For the record, Marj added captions to her photos that actually did identify the dog in the photo's as an "ACD" (without piping the abbreviation to the Australian Cattle Dog article — for whatever purpose that served).
And for the record, the specific example of conjecture, puffery and peacockery was cited above. Here is her unreferenced edit: [24].


Today it is a versatile breed: a courageous and tireless worker, an intelligent and athletic companion and a loving and playful family pet.



That is exactly the kind of statement that isn't allowable under verifiability guidelines — the kind of edit she wants so clearly to avoid (see quote below) in the Dog Whisperer article. As another example, the ACD article ends with a news section, crafted by Marj beginning here, that offers a plethora of pro-breed anecdotes... but Marj couldn't find a single item critical of the breed? E.g., an ACD biting three children... the editor who indicated on her user page that she is a member of the Association of Internet Researchers? She certainly has had no difficulty finding critical information about the Dog Whisperer.
And here is perhaps the crux issue. Marj indicated that she is a professor, using the Dog Whisperer article in her classes :

Hi. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but I think it is important that the page on the program is as objective and 'scientific' as possible. I will not touch the Cesar Millan page, it can be as sycophantic as you wish. Indeed I have given you information on the discussion page that you can use there in any way you wish. I have only added authenticated research, including recent awards and other positive comment. I have been deleting unsubstantiated opinion.
I am a University Professor in Media and Cultural Studies, and we study Dog Whisperer in class so I have a vested interest in ensuring this page is accurate.



So she writes an article so she can use it in her livelihood? That is precisely what defines Conflict of Interest. The insistent inclusion of her own disparaging and unnecessary photographs of her dog and her favored breed was a tipping point... and somewhat blatant given that she insists the Dog Whisperer article be as objective and 'scientific' as possible, while allowing the Australian Cattle Dog to begin and end with puffery. 842U (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, there was some kind of tacit suggestion in the above quote about the Cesar Millan article, a quid pro quo of sorts suggesting she'll stay away from an article I had edited, and essentially warning me, attackingly, to stay away from Dog Whisperer. 842U (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The contrast in editing by Marj between Dog Whisperer and Australian Cattle Dog is an application of double standards, fueled by a conflict of interest. We do not encourage professors to write articles so they can use them as they see fit in their livelihood, especially while puffing up articles devoted to their pet interests, no pun intended. 842U (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the dog pictures are necessarily disparaging; on the one hand they're cute, and on the other hand they're confusing. I don't know that the second one is trying to imply that the show is causing the dog distress, or if the dog is reacting to a "command" from the Dog Whisperer...? Either way, the photos don't seem to belong and I don't think that Marj is raising a big stink about keeping them so I think that as long as they're kept out of the article that it's not an issue.
I'm not sure about the COI with the Dog Whisperer. An argument could be made that if Marj's interest in editing the article is to benefit a class, then that might be considered a conflict of interest. But at the same time, what is the nature of those edits? If the goal is to make the article "accurate", then this might rather be a situation where an editor's outside interests coincide with the interests of Wikipedia. That's certainly a stronger COI than complaints that Marj is promoting their own dogs, or is a fan of the breed. I'm not sure that it's a concern at this point. I don't read a quid-pro-quo from the quote you gave, but it does at least hint at a bit of ownership, in declaring that "this is my article and that is your article". Whether that was intended or not, I don't know, I'll allow Marj to clarify.
As to the Australian Cattle Dog article... There may be some peacockery there. Later on in the article the breed's virtues are mentioned with citations, but in the lead it seems to stand out as giving an opinion about the breed. -- Atama頭 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
(edited) There are many aspects of this that are confusing, but the COI is openly declared. By Wikipedia standards, when approaching an article where one has a vested interest, one would be completely open in that declaration, and assume tremendous care in editing an article..(edited)
As confusing as this is, if there were a shred of good faith left on Marj's part, she would let me remove the positive comment that I once made on her talk page... before she accused me of sycophantic editing... which she has twice replaced, citing that her talk page... is hers.842U (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That's actually bordering on a personal attack, those words were never stated by Marj and you're attributing ill-intent that I don't see a justification for. I think you're taking this far too personally. The statement about "sycophantic editing" was uncivil, and she should probably apologize, but your response is far, far worse. I'd suggest redacting your false quote in italics. -- Atama頭 21:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Marj did eventually apologize for the sycophantic comment -- I use it here because I believe the behavior she was accusing me of is the very behavior that seems currently blatant in Australian Cattle Dog. And, thanks, you're right, I can see where the quotes are a way of attributing something that is not there. What I am saying is that in my opinion there are some problems: a declared conflict of interest, a deep negative bias toward the television show, misplaced ownership of the article, a reluctance to accept guidelines on neutrality, and lack of good faith. 842U (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This comment (since removed) is openly offensive. Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My history. In December 2008 I undertook a staff development course through the University of Manitoba Emerging Technologies in Education One assignment for that course was to edit the Lifelong Learning page, which I did. Twelve months later I was teaching a course Digital Culture which included several weeks looking at collaborative information which included wikipedia. The focus was the process; students didn't need to learn how to edit wikipedia, so I picked a couple of pages that needed improvement, where I had access to references, and I started editing. Students followed the process, and reflected on it. Much of what I was doing was locating and formatting references. But on Dog Whisperer I encountered an editor who just deleted anything they didn't agree with, without explanation, let alone discussion. While I know this happens, it was de-railing the discussion on collaboration. In addition in my work on references I found many that were bordering on fraudulent; misrepresenting the source, and not referring to the information cited. Again this happens, but in this course I wanted students to be reflecting on majority practices. When the editor deleted the same authoritatively referenced information without explanation for the second time, I wrote the quoted note. The tone of my note does reflect my frustration at that point, with 842U editing my talkpage, changing my comments in other forums to ridicule me, and arbitrarily undoing any edit I made on Dog Whisperer, though using various IP addresses to hide their actions. Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have 7,500 images on a photosharing site that are all licenced Creative Commons and are hence used in a large number of Wikipedia Articles illustrating everything from European cities to Australian birds Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article criteria A good article is illustrated, if possible, by images. Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What is 842U's interest in Australian Cattle Dog other than WP:Hound? Marj (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  • At what point does continued accusation and personal criticism, repeated across a number of Wikipedia forums, without substantiation, become harassment? Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, the biggest problem I see is that the two of you have a problem assuming good faith about one another. Most especially on 842U's part, but a couple of comments made by Marj (born of frustration I'm sure) haven't been constructive either. I'd almost suggest a mutual non-interaction, but you're both trying to contribute to the same article so that wouldn't work. You're both good editors, 842U has had a number of DYK acknowledgments, and I think you both have good intentions at the article but just different points of view. Have either of you considered dispute resolution? I see commentary on the talk page of the article just begging for the opinion of other people but you two are the only significant contributors this month, and I see what almost looks like cabin fever causing you to go for each others' throats. Getting more eyes on that page should be a healthy thing. -- Atama頭 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a good idea. Ugh is right. The point of this is discussion manifold, and I really appreciate you're being willing to somewhat arbitrate, Atama. I'll cool down and take a breather. My point in opening this discussion was to go around Marj to have a discussion about problems I see — strongly feeling this situation would not come to light any other way — and while feeling immense frustration, knowing this would be the smartest way to get counsel.
I have been basically fed up with unproductive discussions with Marj: from her attacking me at the outset, refusing to answer direct questions on the discussion page, and her openly laughing at my opinions on the discussion page. I don't think it's at all fair for an editor to openly, for example, state they believe Cesar Milan "is almost universally criticised by the scientific community of animal behaviorists, by veterinarians, by animal welfare groups, and by modern dog trainers including worldwide members of the APDT,", refuse to offer any support for the belief (which is as about as far from neutral as you can get when approaching an article about his television show) and then proceed to nevertheless shape the article about his television show. And then have that same editor use the article it in their livelihood — without openly declaring that? To the point, again, where after seriously returning to the article after staying away for nearly two months.. I find Marj introducing the history of the television series that went on the air in 2004 with information from a lawsuit in 2006. It just feels to me that Marj has been gaming the system.
Like you said Atama, there have been very few eyes on the Dog Whisperer page... but when the discussion breaks down, there are not many good directions things can go in.
I'm not suggesting I am or have been perfect here — but I'm not framing a Wikipedia article and then using the same article in my livelihood; I haven't failed to declare a possible conflict of interest — which may have played a key role in the the level of heatedness here (see WP:COI). I haven't taken near Ownership of the article, introducing photos of my pet into the article for no clear purpose.
Where I think I've failed is in getting upset. I am guilty of being very frustrated, for expressing myself poorly — and I apologize for my earlier harsh comments. My instinct to come here and get assistance was good. I will consider whatever advise you might have for me, Atama. And I'd prefer if, in the process, my issues with Marj and the direction of the article were considered respectfully. 842U (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post which doesn't make any more sense now that the previous times you posted it, but: What is this Conflict of Interest that you are still accusing me of? Is any teacher who uses Wikipedia in their classes unable to edit? Marj (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't whether teachers may edit articles. The question is whether teachers who declare a clear bias against the subject of the article, who plan to use an article they craft on Wikipedia in their classes, should A) Declare the exact nature of how they plan to use the articles and the nature of their point of view...so that they don't indulge in unintentional bias, and should B) refrain from making edits that thwart the articles neutrality, and C) give due respect to other editors' specific questions and concerns. From WP:COI:
If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.
If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously.
These are Wikipedia rules. And you've resisted, circumvented and thwarted nearly every single concern and suggestion I've made. You must know by now that the intro History section of the Dog Whisperer has been crafted in the worse possible light. You yourself questioned whether your photos belonged in the article. Why be tendentious with me about this? Is it possible that you so want the article to reflect the point of view you have in mind for your students, that you are unwilling to yield to another point of view? That would be the very danger of a conflict of interest.
Back in February, picking one point with you, I had grave misgivings about your insistence on including the Lisa Jackson Schebetta information in the article — it certainly wasn't obvious on the face of why anyone should care about this source... she's not notable, the source wasn't linked, her qualifications and associations weren't disclosed: on the face of it, the only reason to include her was because she was critical of DW. I tried every possible route to have you understand my point of view: that including the article written by a "theater major" writing for the an animal rights group (associated with Libnow.org, Steven Best and the Animal Liberation Front) was problematic without disclosing those points and possibly not a reliable source... you finally acquiesced, by including in the article at my insistence the nature of Lisa Jackson's Schebetta's qualifications and associations. To show my good faith that I had no problem with including the info while disclosing her background and associations — I went so far as to make your source a hyperlink. And now, today, as the article stands, you deleted that information about her background and association. Why? Because you don't want to the reader to be informed completely about the nature of the criticisms of the show? Because no other editor but you gets to participate?
I included the quote which you see adjacently in the article, which you subsequently withdrew, because it wasn't notable. My contribution is a direct quote from the central figure of the show, about the show, speaking about the program format and with references... and it isn't notable enough? But you can include photographs you staged of your ACD turning away from Cesar Millan... because they are interesting?

Q:What happens after you've rehabilitated the dogs, trained the people and turned off the cameras?
 A: They can't blame the dog anymore.

Cesar Millan, 2006 interview[2]

So, I'm left with the impression of an immovable object. Yes it is frustrating and I have said things that could offend you. I apologize if I've lots my cool at times. Nonetheless, rather than my making my point any further that you may have a strong COI, why don't you be completely forthcoming here about your point of view as a teacher of the Dog Whisperer, how you use it in your classes, what those classes are, (aside from just Media and Cultural Studies), and if you have or may be inclined to craft the Wikipedia article to substantiate the subject matter/point of view of your classes — possibly thwarting other editors and the Wikipedia guidelines in the process?
And now, you place a POV Check on Cesar Millan. Is this just a coincidence — or is this some kind of retaliation for my putting a check on Dog Whisperer? 842U (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
No, no coincidence. They should be examined together, given the connection between the subjects of the two pages. Marj (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • My occupation is on my talk page, and I told you personally what I did for a living.
  • I used the editing process with my Digital Culture class, not the content of the article. We were discussing the collaborative construction of information and the authority of knowledge. I was not teaching students about the Dog Whisperer.

Course Description: Wikis and blogs, podcasts, YouTube, Facebook and iEverything; increasingly our culture is mediated by information and communication technology. This course will examine the ways that the new technologies are affecting everyday life, culture, institutions, communities and identity. Grounded in cultural studies, the course will explore a variety of case studies from several methodological approaches, using specific projects to connect theory and practice.

  • A Ph.D. in Theatre's article published in a peer reviewed journal is a reliable source of information on the program format. You took the matter to arbitration, but would not accept the decision. I wanted to include it because it was the only article I found that dealt with the program as a "television program" talking about its format... until you found the article by the program's scriptwriters, when I reduced the information from Lisa Jackson Schebetta to a sentence.
  • I asked in the discussion forum (keeping the quote there so it could be returned) whether the quote was sufficiently notable to be on both the Cesar Millan and the Dog Whisperer pages.
  • I don't have a bias against Millan or his methods. I have William Keohler's and Vicki Hearn's books, The Monks of New Skete, Karen Prior, Jean Donaldson, and many more. I believe that the more you know about the tools available for a particular task - like dog training - the better decisions you can make about which ones to use.
  • My goal, as I state on my user page, was to make the Dog Whisperer page about the television program. It was an almost exact copy of the Cesar Millan page when I began editing.
  • My major problems with you were that you would just delete what I was adding, without discussion, (your stats show only 6% of your edits are on talk pages, so it's not just on Dog Whisperer) and I believed your selective use of references to prove your point, even if it misrepresented the pont of view of the author, was unethical. Marj (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I used the editing process with my Digital Culture class, not the content of the article. We were discussing the collaborative construction of information and the authority of knowledge. I was not teaching students about the Dog Whisperer.

Conflict of Interest is well defined, and using the WP talk page, as well as other pages such as RS amd NPOV pages in a class — without advising other editors that you are doing so — is a conflict of interest, and in my opinion a breach of trust. As with any COI, you could easily have, perhaps unintentionally, heightened the contention on the DW talk page for your class's purposes and not the expressed purpose of Wikipedia.842U (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You have quoted me as advising you. I was not using the talk page, as I said we were looking at the construction of knowledge, not at discussion and contention. The class worked from print-outs of the content page. Every time I answer your accusations, instead of apologizing you launch a new round of accusations. Marj (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not a "new round of accusations." It's an ongoing discussion about your possible COI. You said on my talk page only that "I am a University Professor in Media and Cultural Studies, and we study Dog Whisperer in class so I have a vested interest in ensuring this page is accurate." You did not openly disclose, until this discussion, to me or anyone else that you were using the editing process somehow related to the Dog Whisperer show (but not using the article or talk page?) in a class about "collaborative construction" or "authority of knowledge." It seems to me like a COI — but that's precisely why we're here discussing this. It would seem less possibly a conflict to study the editing process in an article... that you are not editing. And I hope I'm not the only one here who can see that if you're studying "authority of knowledge" that it might get even inadvertently tendentious.
Just like you said about DW: "Tension, conflict, fast dramatic change, winners and losers, make for great television." I guess that if you have a class to sell, it's not a huge leap that these elements might make for a great class.
My concern about possible COI remains — so I am not apologizing for continuing this conversation. If you want to collaborate further, and that's what Wikipedia is about, then it is in your interest as much as mine to clear up the COI concern. In particular though, I thought I had apologized above when I yesterday said "I apologize for my earlier harsh comments" — which I had already deleted. I also thought I had offered you the olive branch this morning both here: In good faith and here: Neutrality... 842U (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I am interested in uncovering conflicts of interest, yes. Marj (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Scoot

COI and massive POV editing from User:Samir000

He claims to be the owner of Compression Ratings, a person who is known to be the author of NanoZip as well. COI actions:

  • massively rewrote the benchmarking section of Lossless data compression to give WP:UNDUE prominence to his site, elevating it to same level as another better known site, and claiming that all other sites are unreliable. Note that he added a citation for that, but the reference does not verify his claim that other sites are unreliable.
  • He is also the author of NanoZip. In the AfD for that article he invoked his own benchmark site as an argument for keeping the software artile without disclosing the he is also the author of the software. I've informed him of WP:COI in that AfD, only to see the edit in the other article thereafter. Hopeless case.
Wholly unintentionally. I also would have preferred to keep away from editin NanoZip due to WP:COI. I invoked the site because earlier, similarly Mahoney invoked his site writing article about his program PAQ which is similarly WP:COI. Samir000 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert him on the first article, but I don't have time for wikiwars. Someone else needs to keep an eye on him. Admin intervention is likely to be required. Pcap ping 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Pcap mixes two separate things. Deletion of NanoZip everybody can understand since it's notable only in the context of file archivers, not in the context of Wikipedia. A wholly different matter is his editing of Lossless data compression by inserting links to various benchmark sites that are not transparent. My reasons for the corrections are very clear. Of course his benchmark sites are unreliable sources if we have no means to verify the results. I can document this further if there is any interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir000 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mix them, I listed them. If you have a beef with the sources used to list those other sites, then argue that they should not be used in the article, but it that case all sites produced by a particular source should be removed, not just those you don't like. Your site is only listed in Mahoney's booklet, so if you have problem with his presentation/reliability (by his inclusion of sites you don't approve of), then there's no other source even mentioning your site, so it should be removed as well. Your cherrypicking of the two lists, and uncited claims that the competition has inferior benchmarks somehow are POV unsupported by either sources cited in the article. If you want to make the claim the other sites suck, add it to your own site, and perhaps someone will notice. Pcap ping 23:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm totally doing this non-profit. I wouldn't use the word competition. I was merely trying to point out that all the links you introduced use private test data making them unreliable source, it is simple as that. See http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/ for elementary guidelines for benchmarking. Furthermore most of your links are totally obsolete and unmaintained. My site is new one and so only the brand new Mahoney booklet mentiones it. Samir000 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Also note that I didn't remove any of your links. I merely cut out the misleading introduction per link for reasons given in the article. Samir000 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Far Eastern University

I just wanted to request extra eyes on this. The article is currently fine and the contents are neutral, but that's because I keep selectively deleting and dumping the copyvios into subpages. :)

Nutshell: since 2005, this article has been disrupted repeatedly by rotating IP and registered editors with copyright violating text that is promotional and in some cases verifiably fraudulent. It was listed on the copyright problems board in late 2009, where it came to my attention. I worked with the contributors of the article (mainly User:Rmcsamson, who has valiantly tried to protect it for 5 years) to clean it up then and have several times since had to come back to remove the same material, much of which can be seen at [25] and [26].

Extra eyes are requested because (a) I'm heading off for a couple of weeks in the middle of the month, and (b) I contributed content in the course of the earlier cleanup. I do not consider myself involved with the article and will handle copyright problems accordingly, but because much of the content currently in the article was written by me, I will not risk becoming involved by intervening with poorly sourced, promotional text (presuming it shows up in copyvio-free language :D). If I start defending the article against that, I won't be able to use my tools for the copyvio issues, and these recur frequently enough that my tools are needed. There aren't very many of us who work that department, so I can't just pass it off to somebody else. :)

Anyone (admin or otherwise) willing to keep an eye on the article for a month or so until this latest round of effort to propagandize the article settles down? I'd really appreciate it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles relating to University of Wisconsin

It looks like this single purpose account is on WP with the sole aim of editing University of Wisconsin pages to best promote the Universities.

He has been warned twice here by an admin and here by me but contiues to edit in the area so would welcome someone with more experience looking at the articles.

Codf1977 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not promoting. I'm adding well-sourced information. On the other hand,User:Codf1977 is taking every effort to delete the info that the artilcles should have. For example, [27][28][29][30][31] and many others disruptive behavior of his. In his eyes, Wikipedia school articles shouldn't have a "Rankings" section and shouldn't have subarticles. Revws (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Firstly "promoting" and "adding well-sourced information" are not mutually exclusive;
Secondly NONE of those edits of mine are disruptive and
Thirdly you failed to address the question - do you have a WP:COI with the University of Wisconsin articles ?
Codf1977 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

NO. I attended University of Illinois at Chicago. Revws (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Attending is not the only reason for a connection. It is worth noting that Revws's first off University of Wisconsin topic edit was 3 mins after the above post where he/she moved a {{too many photos}} tag from University of Illinois at Chicago to University of Wisconsin–Madison with his/hers very next edit. To me his/hers WP:COI just quacks. Codf1977 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing Conflict with ChrisO and BLP subject Don Murphy

Exactly one day after an explosive showdown between producer Don and author Erik, ChrisO inserted false information about Dons father-in-law into article Susan Montford. ChrisO has been the subject of a months long thread on Don's message board seeking a reward for his identity. Author ChrisO knows this and nevertheless chose to enter the false information, and indeed edit the article at all. A ban from all Don related articles is proposed, at least. BassandAle (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And you're aware of all of this because?   Will Beback  talk  18:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
why would it be hard to be aware of it? ChrisO is outed on Don's site. Susan's article is changed this morning with false informaton by Chris O. Why would I NOT be aware of it?BassandAle (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This is of course complete bollocks. I edited and watchlisted Susan Montford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a person of independent notability - to update it after noticing that it hadn't been touched since January 2009. I got one detail wrong - that SM was the daughter rather than the second cousin of a famous sports commentator. BassandAle also got it wrong [32], claiming that she was the niece of said sports commentator. I checked and corrected the article.[33] There really is nothing more to it than this. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the person being reported here (ChrisO) is probably the only person without a COI in this matter. Clearly Bassandale has a conflict. If there are problems with a person's biography, WP:BLP/N is the proper venue, not here. -- Atama頭 18:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
For clarity's sake, I should add that as far as I know Susan Montford has never complained about, commented on or otherwise done anything concerning her biography. I invite anyone to have a look at it to see whether there's anything that could be considered remotely objectionable in there. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem isn't what IS in there it is of course what people like you do next. That's why there isn't an Erik anymore. You are out to upset Don and should not be near anything to do with him BassandAle (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
How, exactly, is this an "attack on Murphy"? --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that Erik account User_talk:Erik has retired. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it would set a bad precedent if we say that biography subject can force an editor to stop editing by outing them. If the editor in question is making bad edits then that can be handled in other ways.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, BassandAle... You come here essentially blackmailing an editor by mentioning that there are people trying to out them on an off-Wiki site and saying that they "nevertheless chose to enter the false information". I suggest you clarify that ASAP, because those kinds of threats have zero tolerance on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not a native English speaker but blackmailing requires me to demand something in return for something else you don't want to do. ChrisO has a conflict with Don. He inserted incorrect information into Don's wife's article this am and only changed it when I forced him to. ChrisO should not be editing Don related article. Blackmail? As I said I am not an native English speaker. What's your excuse?BassandAle (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You inserted incorrect information into Don's wife's article, which I corrected. What's your excuse? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Except I didn't. She is his niece. BassandAle (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that? The cited source says that she's his second cousin. I'm not saying you're wrong - but we can't operate on the basic of undocumented personal knowledge. The biographies of living people policy specifically rules out editors' personal knowledge as a source of facts. We operate on the basis of what has been documented in reliable sources. That's as much for biography subjects' protection as it is for ours. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
well I haven't changed it back have I? I know that because I know Susan. I understand that truth and accuracy is not your goal. But hey, go look at earlier versions of the article- it was correct back then. BassandAle (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Montford&oldid=73838909 BassandAle (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"I am not a native English speaker but blackmailing requires me to demand something in return for something else you don't want to do." Yes, that's true, and you're demanding that ChrisO not edit articles related to Don Murphy, and have given no justification for such demands except that Don Murphy doesn't like him. That doesn't fly here. Also, have you previously edited Wikipedia as SharkJumper? I notice that your account was created just a day after that account was blocked, and your very first edit was to take up right where SharkJumper left over before they were blocked. -- Atama頭 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully ask you to stop antagonizing me. I have demanded nothing and proposed that a conflicted editor avoid conflict. The justification is clear- he has been outed by Don and therefore has animus towards him. Sharkjumper was Don. I am Gaston. Stop your unwarranted attacks upon my person. ChrisO isn't claiming blackmail, which is a crime. You are>BassandAle (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll reiterate what I said before, that the only person with a clear conflict of interest here is you. Wikipedia tries very hard to be as accurate as possible in biographies of living persons, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to obey every demand made by the subject and their friends, relatives, and representatives, and has no tolerance for threats against either the project itself or its editors. The one problem that you're raising such an undue amount of noise about was a simple mistake that was corrected by that person after they made the mistake, and they acknowledge the mistake. If you were able to show that ChrisO was engaged in a campaign to consistently falsify biographies or otherwise use Wikipedia to defame people, then action would be warranted. All you have shown is that yourself and Don don't like ChrisO and have hounded at least one other editor away from the project. If you think you're going to find support in those efforts, you're sadly mistaken. If you have legitimate concerns about ChrisO's edits, or other people's edits, and can show where such disruptive edits have been made, I'll be happy to look into them and offer warnings and/or blocks as needed, or bring it to a more public forum myself. If all you have is a request for a topic ban because an article subject doesn't like the editor, the answer is no. -- Atama頭 17:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Be self righteous all you want. The postings above are clear and cannot be twisted by you. The conflict has been pointed out and raised. You don't get to make decisions all by yourself, thankfully. So the answer is far from a no . BassandAle (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. -- Atama頭 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Good luck in life. BassandAle (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The History Press

St.themill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been adding books published by The History Press to various articles, even when they don't meet WP:FURTHERREADING. Some of the users edits to The History Press article, have a promotional tone. I've added a COI notice to the user's talkpage, and a COI tag to the History Press article but the user has removed the tag and continued to edit the page. The username appears to be derived from the name of the company's HQ. Grim23★ 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras

A new account, BYSO (talk · contribs), has significantly expanded Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras, adding uncited peacock information. Yes, it's one of the best youth orchestras in the United States, but we need someone else to say it before you put it in the article... As I once auditioned (unsuccessfully) for the group, it would be good for uninvolved people to chime in as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike has softblocked the name as a violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Al-Khalili‎

Presumably it is him, but if it isn't then he's being impersonated, in which case it needs to be stopped.

But if it is him then he is editing the article Jim Al-Khalili‎ and removing/changing/watering down verifiable information. e.g. [35]. I mean he did write in a national paper that he is non religious, and he's now removing it from the wikipedia article for some reason, more than once. It's all a bit hmmmm.- Wolfkeeper 17:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Former Volunteer/Employer

Proclaims to be a follower or a close friend and uses his own site/book to support the bio. Wikidas© 08:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can, or should, be done about it, but the conflict of interest does seem to be pretty clear in this case. -- Atama頭 17:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Chris Cohan

User Zagalejo and others with vested interest have abusively edited the Chris Cohan page to restrict its representation as only positive. The most radical changes and involvement coincided with news of a pending sale of the NBA team Cohan owns. Chris Cohan's public image directly correlates to his efficacy in the sale of the Warriors.


See the "just wait until he gets fired" comment in the edits.

Implying that once Cohan is not associated with the NBA then Zagalejo will not protect his public image.

Let me explain something. I didn't even know Cohan was planning to sell the Warriors. I don't follow the Warriors very closely. I've only had that page on my watchlist because of this. I interpreted "soon-to-be ex-owner" as meaning he will be fired soon, which, in retrospect, doesn't make much sense; I must have had him confused with the general manager. But when I saw the edit, I interpreted it as a malicious, unsourced rumor, and thus reverted it. Maybe I was a bit hasty.
To clarify what I meant in my edit summary: I was saying that we should wait until Cohan was actually "fired" before saying that he was on his way out. (Again, that doesn't actually make sense, since he's the owner, but I was momentarily confused.) I wasn't saying that Warriors fans were free to go wild with the article once he left the team.
I'm not being paid by the NBA, though I don't know how to convince you of that. I certainly wouldn't remove the page from my watchlist just because Cohan sold the team. Look through my contributions history. I've reverted vandalism and done other cleanup work at many pages on ex-NBA figures. I'm not trying to protect the NBA's image; I just don't want the bios to look tacky. Zagalejo^^^ 01:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe you. Just understand that Cohan's business has been caught in other venues performing anonymous misrepresentations and manipulations of the public discourse. With that in mind there is a certain suspicion of the modes in which the public image of he and his product are represented. As well as a sensitivity to the way in which those representations are received. I'd be happy to cite it on wikipedia if you like. ; ) FamilyJoels (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that anyone so high in the chain of command at the Warriors as to know of an incipient firing would a) spend his time whitewashing Wikipedia and b) would blab.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


I thought he was a PR rep for the NBA acting on Cohan's behalf until the sale is over. Other than that, you are right, and that is why the Warriors hire third party PR firms to do their dirty work after some embarrassing incidents. With the pending sale of the team this is Cohan and Rowell's last chance to get season ticket money. The announcement of the sale itself coincided with the lock-in date. It's the most convoluted season ticket sales gimmick ever in that it is predicated on the potential of a new owner. Since you find it so unlikely I'll go ahead and link one (of many incidents) in which Warriors PR was caught astroturfing. It's not the exception. Here's the link: [[36]]

Dog Whisperer and Cesar Millan

User:842U has edited 1,424 unique articles in wikipedia, with a total of 14,772 edits. Of the 2,535 pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs 842U has edited 5.

This pattern of edits would seem to suggest a special interest in Cesar Millan on the part of 842U - which could potentially be a vested interest. Marj (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done: My work is unrelated to the field of dogs or television. I work in a field related to engineering. I don't use any Wikipedia pages to promote my work. I own a dog. And three cats. I had a dog when I was kid, before CM was born. It was a mut. The dog I have now is not a Pit Bull or a Rottweiler. I've watched the Dog Whisperer (with CM), It's Me or the Dog (with Victoria Stillwell where I've made less than a half a dozen edits — would that help my percentages?) and Dogs 101 (sometimes featuring N. Dodman, the man who says CM set dog training back 20 years). My dog is pretty well behaved, but I got the dog before I'd heard of CM. I don't receive the network that Dog Whisperer is on; I received one of the DVD's from a past season as a Christmas present. I've watched the Dog Whisperer on Hulu before, too... maybe five or six times. It's a pain. I don't work for a company that has anything to do with CM's work, the show, etc. I do not use the page on the Dog Whisperer or CM in any way, shape or form with my livelihood — nor any other page — although I have referred to articles sometimes to get answers related to work questions. I'm not Mexican, nor am I a naturalized citizen. I don't have any associations with dogs through my work — except for sometimes, on occassion I take my dog to work. One of the three articles I've edited related to CM is about his dog that passed away. Marj gave me the idea for that with her edit here. I recently read a book about a dog, and made an article about it: The Art of Racing in the Rain. I also edited heavily the article about the movie that inspired the book, State of Dogs as well as the article about Garth Stein, author of The Art of Racing in the Rain, which was featured on DYK. My interests are pretty wide broad. I have a special interest in cars and motorcycles. My work is completely unrelated to either of those fields. Of all my edits I am most proud of the section of the Augusta National Golf Club article dealing with the 2002 membership controversy which for a section about controversy has been itself free from controversy — and which, I think, really demonstrates how to write about controversy in a balanced way. I don't Golf, live in Augusta or know Hootie Burke or Hootie Johnson. I'm also very proud of the Chicken Tax article I created, which scored something like 14,000 hits when it was featured in DYK. I eat and like chicken. I tend to get interested in something, go whole hog, and then improve and follow the article. I like hogs just fine. I try to often read the Wall Street Journal we get at work; you'll see a lot of references I insert come from the WSJ. I once indulged in Sockpuppetry, it was brutal all the way around, and learned a lot from the experience. I recently found a sockpuppet in an article. I recently found a company that was Refspamming also. I've eaten Captain Crunch and SpaghettiOs (not together) and then turned around and edited those articles. Lock me up.
I will answer any questions anyone would like to pose me about the interest I have in CM or any connection it could possibly have to my livelihood. If all this fits a pattern of special interest or vested interest in dogs... I'll be a monkeys uncle. In the meantime, I'm going to take a two-day rest from this. 842U (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't get Marj's line of reasoning, it looks like mud-slinging to me. If 842U has edited over 1400 articles, I can't see that there's a particular interest in anything. ;) -- Atama頭 00:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1400 articles are primarily related to transport. The five dog related articles are all on Cesar Millan. 842Us systematic abuse, ridicule, harassment, accusations and slander go beyond mudslinging. I will not be editing wikipedia in future. A request for images (ironic huh?) led me to see your comment. Marj (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

NatDemUK

The above editor has a history of tendentious POV editing in regard to racist and/or fascist groups in Britain. Here the editor admits to being a member of the BNP, an article which has a long history of members and/or supporters editing tendentiously. I'm pretty sure this editor has also admitted to being a member of other organisations they edit, I'll ask Snowded (talk · contribs) to chip in as he has more experience with this editor than me. 2 lines of K303 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well he finally admitted what several of us had suspected, namely that s/he is a member. He can be a member of the party and edit, but needs to use sources and stop editing on the basis of his/her personal opinion. S/he tends to make a series of factual edits then suddenly throws in a couple of POV ones and therefore requires constant monitoring which is a pain! On the positive side, no edit warring. Not the most problematic editor but could improve would be my opinion. --Snowded TALK 01:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You make have spoken too soon regarding the edit warring....although previously there has been some slow-paced edit warring and general lack of discussing controversial edits that have been reverted. Some outside input about this editor would be appreciated though. 2 lines of K303 13:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Room

I don't see a conflict of interest established here. People tend to edit around their interests, especially initially. We assume good faith. Reading glasses' response to you on his talk page seems entirely appropriate to me. If I interpret what he says correctly, he's studied Isaac Rulf intensively and wants to make contributions in the area.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, if someone asked me if I had a conflict of interest in an area where I did not have a conflict of interest, I would just say 'no' rather than avoid the question and make accusations of bad faith against the questioner. Dlabtot (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The one time I was accused (without basis) of COI, I'm afraid I was less than polite (though still civil) with the other party. Why not fight this one on the ground that "cultural references" are trivia, which of course they are, and that they should not be included unless commented on by secondary sources?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really concerned with the politeness issue, I simply asked whether the editor had a conflict of interest, and did not a receive a positive nor a negative reply. Common sense suggests something when that happens.
I have made the argument you suggest, many, many times, although I don't consider it a fight. If you wish to comment at the talk page your input would be welcome. I'd rather not get off topic at this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree about the common sense thing. You mean the guy is editing WP in knowing violation of our policies but is so wedded to the truth he can't lie about it?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I take it back. I don't really know what common sense tells us when someone is evasive rather than forthcoming. I doubt anyone who knows me would use the words 'common sense' when describing me, so I suppose I'm not in any position to define it. But I certainly didn't mean what you inferred, which is why I didn't say that. Dlabtot (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
People need not evade here, since it is hard to check up on them. They can simply lie. In which case I don't know what the problem is. Isaac Rulf died over 100 years ago, it would be hard to stand in COI regarding him. You might applaud his work, or denigrate it, that doesn't mean you have a COI. Right now, we have no information that says this is a conflict. We lack subpoena power and Jimbo borrowed the waterboarding equipment, so unless he tells us there is a conflict, we're basically stuck.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) Wehwalt is correct, there are only two ways that we establish a conflict of interest. The first way is that they admit it openly, the second way is that they reveal it inadvertently. Usually the latter is accomplished through username choice or assertion of authority. They might pick the username "Joepsmith" and you see on LinkedIn that Joseph P Smith is the name of the PR representative for the company they are promoting on Wikipedia. Or they declare in a discussion that what they want to add to the article is true, and they know because they work there. But absent an on-Wiki "smoking gun" or admission of the connection, we just don't know. People can edit with a POV, and often do, when there is no COI involved. If I have no connection to KFC except that I hate their fried chicken, and keep declaring how bad their food is in their article, I have no COI but clearly I'm editing with a POV. There's even a separate noticeboard for editors who edit with a POV. -- Atama頭 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading_Glasses here... I'd like to point out that Dlabtot suddenly took an interest in my editing history after a contentious dispute and this mediation. As a relative newbie, my edits so far are mostly on things I'm aware of from life. Please scrutinize any of my edits on their merit, and my editing as a whole. Really. But I hope that Dlabtot's own involvement (which he left unmentioned) is also noted. Also please note I am working through proper channels, requesting mediation and RfCs, not exactly sneaking around to promote my own interest, whatever that would be. Thanks. Reading glasses (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

User:12.151.35.132 at ArcSight

12.151.35.132 (talk · contribs), which is an IP from ArcSight, is editing the already-ad-speak article into an even worse version. I've reverted and issued a COI warning. Woogee (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

GroupLens Research

GroupLens Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The above article has been created and heavily edited by members of GroupLens Research. It needs a review of sources, most of them are self-published and the few independent ones don't mention GroupLens Research or not substantially. It should also be mentioned that several members have pushed for the adoption of Wikipedia:Research as policy and the related Wikipedia:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group. Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

El Nuevo Herald

El Nuevo Herald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Also The Miami Herald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editor seems intent on removing content involving controversies surrounding this newspaper. I have not been able to get the editor to explain the deletions to see if it is due to inaccuracies in the article or whether they simply want to avoid mention of the controversial material. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

ETA - the editor in question is User:Cgomezpina Jminthorne (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnadonovan and Royal Dutch Shell

I know this has been brought here before see

But he has just created a new artical Royal Dutch Shell market manipulation that I think needs some attention. Codf1977 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Added article below missing from the list. --Johnadonovan (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Erick Arenas

Sea of Cowards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as edited by Erickarenas. Appears to have added self to external links, and it was reverted. First edit reverted by ClueBot was not obscenities, but rather another external link. mechamind90 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Niagara Falls, Ontario and Cathy Marie Buchanan

  • Cathymbuchanan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Editor has added material appearing to be of a promotional nature to both the Niagara Falls, Ontario and Cathy Marie Buchanan articles. Deconstructhis (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, although I would say this is a very mild situation, and is more a case of not properly understanding our procedures. I have refactored text added in the two articles to what I think is reasonable. I don't think any further action is needed, although normal monitoring of the articles would be in order. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday Was a Lie and User:Beyond My Ken

filing user has been blocked per WP:DUCK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Yesterday Was a Lie as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Something odd is going on here. I made some pretty simple edits to an article (Yesterday Was a Lie). I changed the tense to past (it said April 2010 was in the future), replaced a dead link with citation needed, replaced another citation needed tag with a accurate citation, and added a couple reviews of the DVD release which seemed appropriate. I also removed one or two weasel word sentences, because the information in them was the opposite of the information in the respective citations. An editor named User:Beyond My Ken reverted every thing I did with no explanation. I tired to ask him why and his response was to open a sock investigation into me and not tell me. He didn't answer my question about what was actually wrong with my edits, because there is no answer. This editor states that people (and me) are "downplaying" negative reviews. But actually it looks like he is trying to downplay positive reviews by casting them as "negative." If you look at the article history you can see that he keeps inserting things into the Variety review that are not actually in the citation, and that he has removed a link to Rotten Tomatoes which shows that the Variety review was counted as "positive." He also keeps introducing invalid citations to supposed negative reviews (a dead link and a link to an unrelated article in a different newspaper!). So it seems this person has some type of bone to pick and is pretty preoccupied with introducing fake information about reviews into the article. I think an admin needs to investigate this person to see if they have some type of bias regarding this subject. I think he got caught with his pants down trying to include wrong information in the article and now he's trying to change the subject.Vulcanism (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I am correct. According to his talk page, User:Beyond My Ken has a previous username of User:Ed Fitzgerald. His biographical information is here. This matches this and this. I do not think someone affiliated with this film production should be permitted to edit the article.Vulcanism (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)\
This is disturbing... User:Ed Fitzgerald was blocked by User:NuclearWarfare for abusing multiple accounts; however, the very next day NuclearWarfare re-directed the user page to User:Beyond My Ken, shown here . WHAT IN THE WORLD?! That makes absolutely no sense, why would an admin openly allow the user to sock puppet to another account. Something odd is going on here. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
In Mr. Ken's defense, on the ANI board he did just post some links to his talk page re: past edit wars he has had, and how he believes he has been set up to look like he worked on the film. However regardless of this, it does not explain the blatant false data and fake citations he keeps putting in the article. Vulcanism (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see [38] and [39], especially [40] 2nd item. User:Vulcanism is, without any doubt now, the latest sock of User:Sorrywrongnumber. Beyond My Ken Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
There is now no doubt that User:Beyond My Ken is getting desperate in his attempt to evade scrutiny over the fake citations and altered quotes he introduced into the article in question. Vulcanism (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
For such a new user, you know your way around all of the boards to report people pretty well. Gonna tell us who you really are before SPI gets involved? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It takes about 5 seconds to figure out how to file a report. In any case, Mr. Ken opened an SPI into me as soon as I touched his article, so there's already one pending. You're welcome to chime in at SPI. This discussion here is about User:Beyond My Ken and the fake info he keeps adding to the article, so please stay on topic. Vulcanism (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Would be nice to have been alerted of this rather than having to find out from a third party, offwiki ping. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive208#Ed Fitzgerald and his sockpuppets. NW (Talk) 03:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, wait a minute, what does User:Vulcanism being a sockpuppet, or not, have to do with the issues that are raised here? This is the COI board. If he's a sock, than ban him. But I don't care whether he's freaking Saddam Hussein; the issues he and User:A3RO raise are extremely troubling. Even if User:Beyond My Ken has nothing to do with this movie (which I think is unlikely at this point), why on earth did he make this edit? It seems only intended to introduce misinformation. 67.23.70.5 (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If he's a blocked user returning to disrupt (as seems the quacking case), this whole issue should be closed. As with all sockpuppets of banned editors, if you feel strongly about their edits or the questions they bring up, you're free to bring them up yourself under your name. Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree he should be blocked if he does turn out to be a sock. But I'm looking at his edit history and I don't see any disruptions, so you can't argue that he "returned to disrupt" (if he is in fact a sock). On the contrary, as A3RO pointed out, Beyond My Ken actually IS the return of a blocked user, returning to disrupt. This edit is 100% disruptive and I think its telling that he isn't giving any defense or explanation for it. So by your logic, Beyond My Ken's SPI report against Vulcanism "should be closed" too. In truth I don't think either should be closed. Let's keep the discussions open based on their merits, not based on the reputational status of those who filed them. 67.23.70.6 (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that Mr. ken has successfully done what so many criminals do; divert attention away from their crime by impeaching their accuser. Before you know it, the guy caught red-handed is no longer even being scrutinized. Instead, the person who CAUGHT him is. Well played, Beyond My Ken. Well played. Tell you guys what, I'll gladly retract my COI complaint if somebody else would like to take over filing it. But the problem is, no doubt Mr. Ken wil instantly accuse that person of being a sock as well, and once again successfully divert attention away from his indefensible edits. Vulcanism (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken

The above was apparently locked due to the reporting user beingaccused of being a sock. I'm filing it myself on its merits.
User:Beyond My Ken just re-did the disruptive edit on the page in question! Look at this. He put two citations back in that link to nothing having to do with the film, erased part of the Variety quote, and put a sentence back in that makes no sense. Can we please have some type of explanation for this, other than accusing everyone else of being socks? (I know, I know, by saying this, I'm gonna be called a sock, too) 67.23.70.4 (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Moutray2010 here only to publicise clan Moutray

Moutray2010 (talk · contribs) is only creating articles (7, one moved to userspace [41]) about this clan or adding information about this clan to other articles. He created an article that was so much longer than any of our other articles it was moved to his userspace, see [Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Clan_Moutray]. A number of these have been tagged for deletion, all are bad for multiple reasons. He's also aggressive, which isn't helping him. If anyone thinks that they can help this editor understand about the COI problems, that would be a start, although the articles themselves are quite a problem. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No comment on whether this is a COI issue or not but this editor does have a track record of believing that they have the personal right to do as they please. Any questions about articles they've created are met with aggressive name calling and threats.--RadioFan (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I read through his edits and found a track record of insults and pretty much a disregard of any and all policies. User probably deserves a block soon. — Timneu22 · talk 17:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
He's been blocked by another Administrator for 72 hours. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Differential evolution and Particle Swarm Optimization

I think the above mentioned user used the pages to self-promote his parameter tuning methods. 78.251.8.143 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Masimo and Nellcor

Masimo is a manufacturer of "noninvasive patient monitoring technologies" and Joe Kiani is its founder and CEO. Nellcor is a competitor. This came to my notice when user MasimoCorp reported user NellcorPro at AIV for vandalism on the Masimo and Kiani articles. I have indef-blocked both users, because although MasimoCorp's only edits have been to revert NellcorPro, it too is plainly a role account.

The history of these articles is worrying: they are the product of a long series of SPAs; the Masimo SPAs have also from time to time not been above vandalising their competitor Nellcor. I have only listed above the ones active in the last year or so.

I am posting here to ask people to watchlist these articles in case the mutual vandalism war breaks out again, and also to see whether anyone feels like going through the Masimo and Kiani articles, evidently largely the product of the company's PR department, to see whether they need de-spamming.

JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Merrimack College

I believe that there is a Conflict of interest on this article by Barbagallom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has been adding information that appears promotional. Most of the edits are copied and pasted from Merrimack's website/promotional materials without attribution. A few IPs and I have mentioned this to her (I think "her", at least) but she has refused to discuss the edits in question and has continued editing this way. On an older revision of her userpage she stated that she is working for the Merrimack PR department and was told to edit the page by her boss. I think this might qualify as a conflict of interest, so I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at this article. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the user has blanked their user page, but this version claimed the user is a "Merrimack College student who is also the Intern for the Marketing and PR department". I'll watch the article, but I'm not familiar with this area (colleges – just how much fluff is appropriate?). Question: Am I right in thinking that Merrimack College#Facts and Statistics needs severe pruning? Perhaps just remove the whole section ("Ethnic Profile"?) as unsourced? Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you on this one, the article could use some pruning/rewriting. I removed the "Ethnic Profile," about 30% was unknown so I don't think that was very informative. It could really use some better sourcing, which is tough for a small school like this. Hopefully I'll be able to spare some time to work on this further. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean Coffey Article

Sean Coffey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This appears to be a one-sided campaign PR piece consisting exclusively of glowingly positive statements about the candidate, with no citations to support many of the most sweeping claims, thus violating both neutrality and verifiability. It appears to be written almost entirely by 3 people whose edits on Wikipedia have been limited to writing this article, suggesting a conflict of interest (i.e., a PR team).

This page is full of dazzling statements which are not objective, and coincidentally are not supported by citations either. For example, the first sentence, which is both extremely positive and entirely unsupported: "John P. ("Sean") Coffey is a retired Navy Captain and former federal prosecutor recognized as one of the most successful trial attorneys in the United States." Almost the entire article is written in this fashion, violating both the NPOV policy and the Verifiability policy.

Actually, this page does not seem to contain a single non-positive statement: everything in the page is either direct praise of the candidate, or "background" information designed to cast the candidate in a favorable light to voters.

Most problematically, 99% of this page was written solely by 3 Wikipedia accounts, each of which has only been used to write this page and link other pages to this page with favorable comments. For example, by linking other candidates' pages to this page--for example, by saying "one of his competitors is Sean Coffey, a former prosecutor" and without linking this page to the other candidates' pages. I.e., the writers are one-sidedly advertising for Sean Coffey's campaign, without any regard for neutrality. This is a violation of the COI policy. While I recognize that candidates need to campaign, Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia, not an advertising platform.

I'm afraid I've never handled a situation like this before, so I seek your expertise here...what is the proper way to fix this?

-Pegasus-BSG62 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

rockstarjen -- appropriate for him/her to be editing Chis Gorog?

Rockstarjen is only active in editing the pages of Chris Gorog and his former employer, Napster. From Rockstarjen's user page: "Rockstarjen is Jennifer Wilbur of Rockstar Communications[1], a public relations consultant based in San Diego, CA." It would seem to me that she should specifically declare whether or not Chris Gorog is a client of hers and, if so, she should consent to stepping back from an article that reads like a resume. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

California Jam

Resolved

These edits Here by This Editor, about himself. Blatant COI Mlpearc Pull My Chain Trib's 02:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And now this message left at my talk. Mlpearc Pull My Chain Trib's 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

History of Erie, Pennsylvania

Resolved

Hello, while patrolling recent changes, I noticed Kisestrawkolodner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) add this link to the History of Erie, Pennsylvania article; the user name matches the name of the company at the link added. Northumbrian (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:CORPNAME with a nice note asking them to open a new account and be mindful of our COI policy. It's only a soft block. Thanks for being vigilant.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonnie Berard

I see that Nonnie Berard was made by herself. They think Copyrights allowance is going to save the page from deletion. It was marked for deletion but never deleted. Nonnie Berard was the one that made the page. Note: Nonnie Berard isn't a singer. it's some 14 year old kid trying to be heard. --66.142.142.140 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pvcomedy

Pvcomedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User account was created to edit the article about herself. Northumbrian (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jneil

If Orangemike doesn't see a connection between Handmaid's Tale and The Rainbow Cadenza then he hasn't read one of these novels, which should disqualify him for editing either page. The connection is evident and obvious to anyone who's read both novels. The Rainbow Cadenza was first published in 1983, and Handmaid's Tale two years later. Similarities between the two books are striking.

As for the neutral point of view, I would be delighted to have some objective third party edit these pages, but not someone whose own personal prejudices are disguised as impartiality.

I wasn't the one who posted the incorrect quotation from the publisher's catalog page and attributed the quotation to me. Is the neutral point of view rule here to be used to punish someone from correcting an incorrect quotation attributed to themselves, and punish them for attempting to make corrections so as to improve accuracy of citations?

I will continue to keep undoing these unfair and prejudiced actions until someone who is actually neutral takes an active hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jneil (talk • contribs) 23:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Jneil (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Neil, of course I've read both novels; I'm not some mundane, I'm the Socialist/Wobbly that SEK3 used to love to twit when we ran into each other at cons. (Man, I miss those arguments!) I still don't see the connection; but I'm willing to let some third parties kick in on the topic. The advertising copy for Credenza, on the other hand, cannot be restored; and you really don't seem to understand that I'm being consistent with our principles when I say you have to step back from your constant conflict-of-interest edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm skeptical that you read The Rainbow Cadenza, when you write the title as "Credenza." Since the visual lasegraphic "rainbow cadenza" is a major sequence in the novel, referring to a credenza -- a piece of furniture -- suggests to me that the derivative elements of Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale aren't the only things you missed.

But since you're a socialist Wobbly, your prejudice against my work -- which is pro-free-market and unapologetically individualistic -- and desire to exonerate the lefty Margaret Atwood from socialistically grabbing ideas from my novel to use in her own -- is quite understandable.Jneil (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a joke, son; I'm not exactly the first fan to make the obvious pun. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a look at the version with the allegedly "shameless block of advertising copy" and confirm that the allegation is correct. That kind of text is never appropriate on Wikipedia. If Jneil has a question, please ask, but bear in mind that edit warring will not be successful. Your expertise is welcome, but you do not have knowledge of standard procedures here, so you should read some of the links at your user talk page, and ask. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The block of text from the publishing website was there before I corrected it. I would be delighted if I didn't have to insert myself and my historical first-hand knowledge into what's supposed to be a body of accurate knowledge, but apparently has as one of its primary rules eliminating the contributions of anyone who actually knows anything firsthand, instead relying on secondary and therefore less accurate sources. This is the most cockamamie back-asswards excuse for building a repository of reliable human knowledge I've ever heard.

Most experts in all fields of human knowledge are alive today. If you can interview Margaret Atwood for the Margaret Atwood-related articles you shouldn't rest until you've done it. If you can get Hawking to write on astrophysics you should beg him to do it.

Instead, people who have no espertise run around Wikipedia eliminating all actual contributions by people who actually know about them and redact them, citing rules on "neutral point of view."

Neutrality doesn't come about by eliminating people with first-hand knowledge and resulting opinions.

Neutrality comes about by including ALL opinions.

I am on the verge of cooperating with the annihilators among your Board of Invincibly Ignorant Amateurs by going into every reference with my name in it and purging all references to myself and my contributions.

I've been contributing my professional services as an act of goodwill and I am quickly becoming very uncharitable.Jneil (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


Looking through your contributions, you are primarily editing pages where you have a stake. You may see this as being forced to insert yourself because others left you out, but if something/someone is notable, it is inevitable that a third party will eventually see the gap and fill it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of already agreed upon knowledge. It should never be a place for disseminating brand new information. So an editor would be, in fact, discouraged from interviewing Margaret Atwood specifically for a wikipedia article. Rather, the interview should be conducted by a reputable third-party for an established publication. Then the information from that article could be summarized at wikipedia (with proper citations, of course). Stephen Hawking is obviously free to edit the article on astrophysics if he wishes. Even he, however, would be asked to be very careful if he were to edit an article on himself or any of his books.

Neutrality is an attempt to shy away from agendas or unproven opinions. "Including all opinions" is a fine goal for a forum or other venue of discussion. It is needed for progression in a field. It is not, however, appropriate for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia's role is to record conclusions already agreed upon by consensus. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm done here. You can have your little playground. I will no longer be contributing to or editing anything on Wikipedia, and I am going to do everything I can to eliminate all the numerous links I've been making to it. Jneil (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's rather a shame. We'd much rather you simply understood what the constraints are on making Wikipedia work. The rules aren't customized for the expertise of specific editors simply because a reader cannot know who the editors really are. A pseudonymous identity cannot convey an authority in which to trust. Instead we rely absolutely on WP:Citing sources to support all significant assertions made. Readers can WP:Verify for themselves if the cited sources provide that support should they choose to do so. The interviews which you propose would be fine endeavours elsewhere, but they are excluded from WP under our WP:No Original Research policy. Once published elsewhere, they could certainly be used as references here. LeadSongDog come howl 22:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Jneil appears to have gone home; but another editor, User:Guymacon, has taken up the cudgels, and keeps re-inserting the same block of advertising copy, and accusing me of edit warring when I remove it again. This is not about ideology, it is about keeping Wikipedia from being a venue for advertisements and publicity blurbs. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is unsuitable and should be deleted on sight - I've got eyes on the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Zoomanagement

Zoomanagement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Adding their company as promoters to concert tour articles. Northumbrian (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it was taken care of the minute after I posted this. Thanks. Northumbrian (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Massimo

Fabritius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be "H.E. the Prince Massimo, Prince Don Fabrizio Massimo Brancaccio"[42] and is adding that claim to Massimo He started by removing sources to insert his unsourced claim.[43] A couple IPs repeated Massimo's removal of sources to make the claim, while adding a source that gets vastly less GScholar hits than the one he removed.[44] [45] [46] [47] Fabritius then repeated the same [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] eventually adding a sources before his birth and the websites of some private clubs (that don't seem to mention his claims) to "prove" he is the rightful head of the Massimo family. The page was locked and good deal of time spent on the talk page trying to explain Conflict of Interest and Reliable Sources to Fabritius, which he ignored.[68] Edward321 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Beale and User: Xday

User: Xday, an apparent single-purpose account whose only contributions have been to the Theodore Beale article and a small number of closely related pages, has been removing all mention of Beale's recent comments on Neanderthal mating and "subspecies of Homo sapiens" from the article every time I try to add them back in. Xday appears to be acting as though he owns this article, since he has in the past reverted other users who attempted to contribute. Due to the SPA nature of the account, it seems like there may be a possible conflict of interest with this user, who appears determined to scrub all mention of Beale's racial views from his article. He also falsely accused me of adding unsourced information, when in fact everything that I added was corroborated by the sources. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he did it again today. I believe a checkuser may be in order to see if this user is, indeed, Theodore Beale or someone employed by/closely related to him. As I see it, if you have a conflict of interest, you are required by Wikipedia rules to disclose it, and if you don't, you're guilty of dishonest editing. Xday has neither confirmed nor denied having any direct links to Beale, but it looks as though he very well might have such a COI (due to the fact that it is a single-purpose account, as well as the username's strong resemblance to Vox Day, which is Beale's nom de plume). Stonemason89 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
A statement is not an argument. And "subspecies" is not "race". (edit summary for his recent reversion of my edit). Talk about Wikilawyering.... Stonemason89 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

PixelCreative

PixelCreative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The account's only edits have been to create and maintain Pixel Creative Studios. Northumbrian (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Apizzarelli

Apizzarelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Two edits total, one to Alan Pizzarelli. Northumbrian (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

St. Paul's College, Sydney

Alan Thomas Atkinson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Editor Alan_Thomas_Atkinson claims in edit summaries to be the "College Historian" see Diff. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Kingston University COI and NPOV

I believe that the above IP editor has a COI with Kingston University (Controversies section) and would like some other editors to have a look and help. Codf1977 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that 67.84.177.67 now edits as Dbasemgr69. -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no connection with Kingston University. I don't know where you get your information, but you are very much mistaken. If there are any COIs here, it appears from your posting history that it is you who has such a conflict.Dbasemgr69 (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's your list of contributions, Dbasemgr69. There's this to an article on some baseball player, there's the one above, there's miscellanea about the "controversies" of Kingston University, and there are three edits to an article on a single boxer, Jack Kid Berg. Berg? Ah, but see this: yes, Berg is directly related to Howard Fredrics. ¶ It appears from my posting history that it is me that has such a conflict? Well well. Here's my posting history; I look forward to reading your analysis of it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is also a conflict of interest with the user Mattyjroberts. He is quite transparent on his user page under "Potential Biases/Conflicts of interests": "I studied at Kingston University in the United Kingdom Media, Cultural Studies and Film". But a quick Google search leads to a comment (numbered 11) on a story from a "Matt Roberts" who studied the same subject as our wikipedia editor.
"I have been quite vocally critical of Kingston University and from my experiance of Kingston University the three areas that have attempted to keep me quiet about this have been..." Pandabearcollective (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Interstingly the more damming statement "I also got suspended from my course (for two weeks) for not giving my term time address mysteriously after I criticised the university on facebook..." so a clear COI. Codf1977 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The instance of my suspensions has been right to have been brought up; I have been suspended for criticising the university over an accomodation dispiute.- Which is correct but the fact is the only COI issue is that I want students to make an informed choice about their course and nothing to with the presence of Hizib ut tahir on the campus-

The current wikipedia article has some serious flaws and some of that is blatent biases in the wiki in the main body and the controversy section. I have been editing slowly unsourced statements and biased weazel words out of the article but I havent touched the controversies section since WP:Protect was placed and taken off of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjroberts (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Following Hoary comments about Dbasemgr69's COI, user Dbasemgr69 is back editing the Issues section, please can some other editors swing by and help out. Codf1977 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have no COI. I am concerned that the COI report is being abused by Hoary and Codf1977 to gain an undue advantage in content disputes, and possibly to harass me, in direct breach of WPCOI policy. Editors, please keep this in mind when you 'swing by' to 'help out.'Dbasemgr69 (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems that a former student with a grievance against the university and the university itself are both editing. I am watching the page and WikiProject Universities has been alerted. If both involved parties will step back for a while NPOV can be restored. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask who the editor from the university is ? Codf1977 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Pandabearcollective probably is - at least at the moment it is an SPA taking critical material out of the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I had missed that. Codf1977 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Have placed a COI notice on Pandabearcollective's talk talk page and directed him/her here. Codf1977 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, don't forget the former teacher with a grievance against the university. -- Hoary (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also adding Catface1965 as in January 2010 Catface1965 with this edit removed a notice about a image file Beatonsummons.jpg - a quick google points to [69], as a non-admin I am unable to confirm if they are the same file, where the file was used or what was said by Catface1965 when they uploaded it. However it goes to show possible COI and also a likely connection with Dbasemgr69 as a result I have created a SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catface1965. Codf1977 (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill Moyers and User:PATdiane

PATdiane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making numerous (primarily minor) edits to the Bill Moyers article. The user has stated in an edit summary that she is an employee of Bill Moyers. The edits have been mostly noncontroversial, but they are all unsourced, and in one case she removed a statement of fact with a source. What are the ground rules for an employee making edits to the BLP of their employer. Should the editor reveal her level of interaction with Moyers (while avoiding specific identification of the editor)?--Drrll (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the editor with a {{uw-coi}} and a link to this discussion.
The edits look minor, but sourced information shouldn't be removed nor contradicted with unsourced info. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the editor shows good faith by disclosing the appearance of conflict of interest, and I agree that the edits are non-controversial and indeed seem to be helpful improvements to the article. The one deleted reference[70] was a reference to a web log "http://billkeithbooks.com/wordsmith", which likely could have WP:RS reliability problems or WP:BLP problems. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the deletion if it violated any rules; I'm new here. However, when I visit the link, I find no mention of Bill Moyers, so I didn't think it an actual "source" confirming the statement, which also happened to inaccurately state Mr. Moyers' role at SWBTS (which I clarified) and relationship to the bookseller. It seemed to me that the statement and link were posted to the Moyers wiki to promote a Web site, a practice that I assumed Wikipedia discouraged. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. As I disclosed in a note to editors sent to the general email query, in the discussion section of the Moyers wiki, and in my edit summary comments, I have worked with Bill Moyers in various capacities over the past 10 years. Thanks for your patience. PATdiane (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lynchmarklynch

User:Claire Paxton-Rider/EllaChi

PR firms using Wikipedia to publicize their client... No offense, but this is outrageous. Monitoring article + user. Netalarmpoke 06:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
According to her latest post on my talk page, she's helping the subject's manager publicize her client, but she's not a publicist ("I work for her Radio Plugging company - we call it PR as it is a type of public relations. I am doing her label manager a favour by attempting to create the page. I am not a publicist, therefore am an impartial 3rd party") so she says!!!! The cluephone is not ringing, apparently. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not a publicist, I am a plugger! Apparently, there is some subtle distinction here that people who don't shill for a living cannot discern. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Saraapril in Club Penguin

User:R Charlie Caccamis

Kappa Sigma and WP:OWN

I would appreciate additional input at the Kappa Sigma article. For the last two years, its content has been regulated largely by Kappa Sigma fraternity members. Attempts to include information from non-fraternity sources (such as a New York Times article) or public information that the fraternity wishes to suppress (such as a published motto or a prohibition against atheist members) often result in edit-warring from Kappa Sigma members.

Can sworn fraternity members (as many as four Kappa Sigma brothers in one talk page discussion) agree amongst themselves and point to their agreement as "consensus" for their fraternity's article? WP:COI says that "edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged." That is clearly not being followed in this article's case. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would think they can, subject to our WP:COI guidelines. Students of a school, members of an organization, etc. edit their affiliation's articles all the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
But not to the point where they tag team in order to form some kind of "fake" consensus(not saying that is the case here, but it could be). And by the way, for disclosure, Wehwalt, are you a Kap Sig? (sort of kidding, but not if you really are) --Tom (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No. I did not pledge any fraternity.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I do think they can edit, but they should declare their COI and not edit war to sanitise the article. I noticed when searching for sources on religion an abundance of sources about incidents involving this frat, but none are mentioned in the article. I've included many sources on the talk page, the article is clearly not a neutral representation of the fraternity. Fences&Windows 14:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

3 IP addresses from Universite de Quebec a Montreal on Code-switching

  • Code-switching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - On 17 May 2010 an IP user from 132.208.27.47 added a reference to a recent (2010) book by Elyane Borowski to the page Code-switching. This IP address is assigned to Universite de Quebec a Montreal. On 20 May IP user 132.208.26.158 (also UQAM) edited that page to change the format of that reference. Elyane Borowski is a faculty member at UQAM. I removed the reference, since simply listing it doesn't add anything to Code-switching, and left a message at User talk:132.208.26.158. Later that day IP 132.208.25.230 (again UQAM) re-added the book. I suspect that an editor from professor Borowski's university is adding the reference in order to promote the book. Cnilep (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
IP user 132.208.25.230‎ has added the reference a third time, despite warnings at User talk:132.208.25.230‎. I have reverted the edit as vandalism and left another warning. This is approaching 3RR, but I am reporting it here to avoid splitting the discussion over multiple fora. Cnilep (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the book "L'alternance codique : le cas des bilingues portugais-français à Montréal" doesn't add anything to the code switching article. The book is about code-switching, and thus seems a pretty reasonable addition to a bibliography. While it may be Borowski, or a colleague, or a student who has added the reference, our guidelines don't forbid editors from citing themselves or adding helpful material written by people they know if trying to help build the encyclopedia is the primary goal. Let's assume good faith until proved otherwise.
However, there is the question of whether the book is significant enough to be included in a "selected bibliography". That's a content dispute which should be discussed and resolved on the article's discussion page. In the meantime, edit warring about its inclusion is inappropriate, and this isn't a case of vandalism either. I suggest you open a discussion on the article's talkpage about the book, and get the opinion of other editors about whether it should be included in the list or not. --Slp1 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You're quite right that it wasn't vandalism; I was reaching for "rollback" and hit "rollback (VANDAL)" by mistake. My apology for the error.
I still contend that, although the book in question is about code switching, simply adding it to a list of titles does not improve the article. That said, I will refrain from editing the article again until this issue is discussed at Talk:Code-switching. I will wait for another editor to argue for the book's inclusion, or will argue against its inclusion if it is again added without an edit summary. Cnilep (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

User:GPHemsley, Adam Kontras, and IP address 98.151.17.229

These users are trying to create some notoriety through use of a Wikipedia page. I have noticed in passing the continuous revisions, and reverting of pages relating to the topic of Video Blogging. Seems that any time an editor changes an article of calls attention to a change that has been made by either GPHemsley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Adam Kontras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that user is either attacked, or simply reverted. After some investigation, I have discovered, without too much effort, that these users are friends, and seemingly GPHemsley is some sort of promotor of Adam Kontras, which is also the subject of the edits. IP address 98.151.17.229, verified through its talk page, is also that of an Adam Kontras. Previously there was a Wikipedia page devoted to Mr. Kontras, written by GPHemsley, that was deleted in an AFD for not being a notable character, It seems that there is a continuing and concerted effort to establish notability based entirely on Wiki editing. The connection between these two editors is readily available through a simple google search on their names [71] This is an obvious attempt at self promotion and advertising.175.45.136.87 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more informative about this "continuing and concerted effort" as it has outlived the deleted Adam Kontras? (I do see this edit but I see little or nothing else in the last few days.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What the anonymous user neglected to mention is that he is Charles Groves, a known and repeated sockpuppet vandal based at the user Freakee73 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who has a self-admitted personal vendetta against Adam Kontras. There is an extensive (and, annoyingly, growing) archive at SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freakee73/Archive. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That is another thing that I have noticed... anyone who is editing on anything related to Kontras, is attacked in such a way. This is the reason for my desire to remain anonymous in this. If something cannot stand on its own merits, then it should be removed, I was just pointing this out to someone who could do something about it. The 'concerted effort' I spoke of spans a time beyond the past few days. The history should bear this out. This is clearly a conflict of interest, based upon the edits, as well as the attacks on other editors. 71.63.111.177 (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, person using different IP numbers, let's put aside the question of whether or not you are the author of this silliness. So provide an annotated list of diffs that span a time beyond the past few days. -- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the merits of the information being posted on Wikipedia, and verify for yourself if this information is up to the standards that policy indicates and demands. As far as any 'silliness' seems that that myspace page validates what I am saying. Legitimate editors are being attacked for editing as far as it relates to the subject of this person that is claiming to be the 'first internet video blogger', and having videos, go 'viral' when there is absolutely no reputable sources of information that say this. There is only self referenced information, some vague mentions in obscure foreign media. Further, the information that is and has been posted has been generated, by the subject of this information, and/or his 'guru' GPHemsley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is beyond anything personal, this is about integrity. Honestly, the one page on [video blogging] has a section named timeline where most of the information appears to be people placing things out of vanity, and not factual information. Since this is a noticeboard on conflicts of interest, this is the only proof of such that is necessary [72] the attacks may come...Come on 'Guru'175.45.136.87 (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I find this latest paragraph of yours unsupported and incoherent by turns. In this diff -- which I found (you have supplied none) -- we're told "2000, January 2 - Adam Kontras launches the first video blog". This comes with five footnotes. One is said to be in Filipino, which I cannot read; I therefore cannot comment on it. One is http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://4tvs.com, which is obviously meaningless. One costs money that I'm not prepared to pay. One is unsourced and looks dubious. But one looks at least moderately good to me. This information is removed in this edit by some IP; the edit simultaneously does other bizarre things such as remove {{Citation needed|date=May 2010}} from the bald assertion 2003, March 1 - Larß Riske launches the first German videoblog THE NETSHOW based on television's late night show. -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I could have pointed to that better I suppose,,,,You have examined the claims and came to the same conclusion that I had. With the exception of the last footnote that you mentioned looked moderately good to you. This is a reference from a book, where Kontras was mentioned in one paragraph of a book from a not necessarily notable author [73] It appears to be self-published and comes with this disclaimer "This book includes information from numerous sources and gathered from personal experience. It is published for general reference and is not intended to be a substitute for independent verification by readers when necessary and appropriate." [74] This is clearly within the area of original research. That same section of the [Video Blogging] page has several other issues. Again, this is not the point. The person that published the original claim that Adam Kontras is 'the original video blogger' (a claim that I believe is false to begin with) was GPHemsley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is some sort of hype man for Adam Kontras, which is clearly a conflict of interest, thus I posted it on this noticeboard, where I presume something may be done about it. Further, Kontras and Hemsley should not be reverting edits simply because they are not in the best interest of Kontras. The sources should speak for the claims made, and if the claim is weak, their opinions should be irrelevant to the matter. 175.45.136.87 (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The disclaimer you quote looks to me like mere boilerplate. Yes, the publisher's website suggests that the book is self-published. On the other hand there's enough there to suggest that the writer generally knows what he's talking about. So there's weak evidence for the claim. You say that The person that published the original claim that Adam Kontras is 'the original video blogger' (a claim that I believe is false to begin with) was [GPHemsley] but you don't deign to provide the diff. What's your comment on this diff? -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I assumed that he was the original publisher based on other edits, and revisions, such as this [75] on Steve Mann who developed the technology that made video blogging even possible, to me that appears to be the first. Or it could be whoever developed the RSS format. Point being the claim to the title 'first video blogger' and the debate being stifled by those with a conflict of interest. Here it states that Steve Garfield is the 'father of video blogging' [76]. These were listed in the timeline as such, but reverted by either Kontras or Helmsley depending on the day. And, whatever happened to the listing for Adrian Miles he appeared to have a place in that history as well, although poorly referenced. Just playing a bit of devils advocate with that one. There is some self interests at play here175.45.136.87 (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Then discuss the substantive issues on the article's talk page like a sensible fellow, and increase your chances of being taken seriously by getting a user ID and writing while you're logged in as that ID. -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I shall then endeavour to do so. I am guilty of attacking when attacked, I shall acquire a neutral stance and keep with that then.CFGroves (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Centpacrr

Per his user page, Centpacrr is the owner of a website on the Central Pacific Railroad and is connected with a network of railroad buffs, whose works he publishes on his site. For weeks, he has been trying to insert language and links into the Stephen Ambrose article that are favorable to his railroad buff buddies and that promote his website. His attempts are too numerous to list - please check the history of the Stephen Ambrose article.

His arguments regarding the reliability of his website as a third-party source can be found here and here. His latest tactic is to claim, falsely, that his website has been endorsed by other organizations and government agencies. See: [77].

Centpacrr has also planted the titles to two books he edited into the Central Pacific Railroad article and several others. See: [78] He has been warned about his conflicts of interest numerous times ([79], [80], [81]) on both his talk page and in edit summaries. His self-interested, COI editing has been very disruptive. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't forum shop. Stick over there with that discussion on RS/N, please do not begin again here. It isn't even archived yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It may not be archived yet, but discussion ended there 4 days ago. Plus the issue entails more than the reliability of a source. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Still, what you are asking for is for all intents and purposes a repeat of the discussion over there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. As mentioned above, Centpacrr's edits include a long history of planting links to his website in articles and adding titles of volumes he edited to reference lists. See, for example: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], and dozens more. Promoting one's own works is a clear conflict of interest, and although Centpacrr's conflict colors his view of what a reliable third-party source is, the issue of his self-promotion and (lack of) neutrality goes well beyond the Stephen Ambrose article. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of notifying Centpacrr of this discussion. I should also note that on Talk:Stephen Ambrose, Centpacrr agreed to delete the sentence you apparently objected to and stated he was moving on to edit other articles, so I remain very dubious about your request here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying Centpacrr, but I had already done that before he archived his talk page. If Centpacrr thinks that the problem consists of a single sentence in a single article, then he really doesn't understand the situation. Considering his long history of edit warring, both with the Stephen Ambrose article and others ([90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]), I remain very dubious about Centpacrr's claim that he is moving on. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I notice that since the IP editor started this new "discussion", he/she also now seems to have embarked on a campaign of trolling through every one of the 7,000+ edits I have made since 2006 in order to remove every link, reference, or citation he/she can find to pages residing on CPRR.org alleging that their existence constitutes "Conflict of Interest." (As he/she still choses to do this from behind an arras of complete anonymity, however, there is no way of knowing what COI he/she is bringing to this exercise.) The pages that he/she is deleting and/or replacing with sources of his/her own are virtually all of verbatim transcriptions or facsimiles of original historic source materials many of which are also annotated, illustrated, and contain many links to other original source materials and relevant web pages located on other sites. (He/she, for instance, has already replaced [98] with [99], [100] with [101], and [102] with [103] in the past couple of hours.) This behavior is both disruptive and again shows his/her continued failure to assume any good faith on the behalf of other editors while insisting that such an assumption always be afforded to him/herself no matter how he/she behaves. Centpacrr (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This demonstrates clearly how much you really don't get it. It's not about YOU. It's about the quality of the sources. Original sources are always considered superior to transcriptions. In most cases, the changes I made substituted a transcribed source with an original one. In one case a poor quality pdf was replaced with a higher quality pdf. Unlike your edits, they are not "sources of my own." They're original sources available largely on Google books. To call a reference to a work at Google books COI is ridiculous. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • First, by sources of "his/her own" I mean sources of "his/her own choice" as opposed to sources which constitute a conflict of interest. That being said, please address the following questions:
  • If your position is truly to always favor an "original" over a "transcription," then why did you replace [104] which contains a large photographic image of an 1860 broadside of the actual original document (the 1860 Republican Party Platform) accompanied by a searchable version of its text, with [105] which is just an unsourced "transcription" of the document? As your choice clearly does not conform with your own "rule" of using a verifiable original over an unsourced transcription while the CPRR.org one does, how then is your citation a "better source" then the verifiable original? Really?
  • Presumably you would agree that the most useful linked references are those that provide the most direct access to the information being sought. If that is true, then way did you replace [106], a verbatim one page transcription of the brief several paragraph 1864 Executive Order of the President fixing the point of commencement of the Pacific Railroad transcribed directly from an original copy of Senate Ex. Doc. No. 27 (38th Congress, 1st Session) in my library, with [107], a 778-page pdf of a 1907 privately published volume containing unsourced transcriptions of many hundreds of Lincoln's "speeches, letters, state papers, and miscellaneous writings" which a reader would then have to tediously search through on his/her own in order to find the desired information? How then is this a "better source" then the transcription made directly from the original 1864 Senate Executive Document that I had linked to? Really?
  • And why did you replace [108], another verbatim transcription made directly from the article as originally published in The HISTORICAL MAGAZINE and Notes and Queries concerning The Antiquities, History, and Biography of America. (Third Series, Vol. I, No. II; Whole Number, Vol. XXI, No. II) February, 1872. (Morrisina, N.Y., Henry B. Dawson) pp. 85-92, which I have in my library, and to which was then added a number of illustrations, many annotations, and links to various maps and many other sources of related information located on third party websites, with [109], a 502-page pdf of a reprint that contains only a secondary transcription of the raw text of the Godfrey article from an 1876 anthology of materials collected and republished by the Maine Historical Society, and also does not contain any of the illustrations, maps, and links to third party sites? That being the case, how does your option provide Wikipedia's readers with a "better source" that the 1872 original I linked to? Really?
  • For reasons unknown to me, you seem to always favor the approach of forcing Wikipedia's readers to follow arcane rules of "process" instead of just providing them with the most easily followed direct path to the greatest amount of specific, reliable information being cited as the source. As you are so fond of saying, Wikipedia should be written to provide a general audience with easy access to verifiable, reliable information. Why then do you replace linked sources that do exactly that (i.e., provide direct access to original materials) with ones that do not? Instead you are providing a maze of convoluted paths and sometimes even constructive dead ends.
  • As you are also fond of saying, let's also "call a spade a spade" here as to the only objectively apparent reason that you really seem to be objecting to the sources hosted on CPRR.org is not because there is anything actually wrong with them, but it is because I am the one who posted them originally. If they had been added by any other editor, would you still have replaced them? Or is this just another example of your again not "assuming good faith" (as you clearly are not) on the part of your fellow Wikipedia editors? Really?
  • I'm afraid that your approach and actions much better reflect another thing that you like to broadly ascribe to any other editor with whom you disagree about anything, but are instead clearly experiencing here yourself: "sour grapes."
I already explained why I changed the references, but apparently you either didn't read my explanation or didn't understand it. It's because you have spammed well over a hundred articles with links to your own personal website and with references to your edited books. Posting information that is favorable to oneself is called a conflict of interest. The WP guideline 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." Centpacrr's insidious spamming is a clear case of self-interest taking the fore over the best interests of Wikipedia. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The silence of 75.2.209.226, the anonymous IP user who started this thread, and his/her failure to address any of the questions posed immediately above is noted with both interest and puzzlement. As he/she created the thread, however, his/her continued failure to respond must therefore be accepted to mean that he/she actually has no basis upon which to contest the substance of the issues raised by the questions and therefore concedes the issue. Centpacrr (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Concur, though I wonder which noticeboard this will next pop up on.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Beats the hell out of me, but I'm sure that he/she will come up with someplace else to carry on his/her campaign. (This one is at least the fourth board already.) If there is no reply here from the anonymous IP in two more days, I will restore the long standing citations to the original source documents (which the anonymous IP has removed again, this time calling them "spam") that were on these various Wikipedia pages for up to several years without an objection ever being raised by any other editor. Centpacrr (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No objection here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The "fourth board"? This appears to be a case of "the Big Lie: The more you tell it and the longer you drone on, the more people believe it. Perhaps you can sucker some people in, but the fact is that this issue has been on two boards, since it's a problem of both the reliability of the source and a conflict of interest.
The facts are that:
  • original source documents were already added by ImperfectlyInformed, who left this edit summary: "rvt - restore and tweak to say railroad historians consistent with sourc. Is that OK? I don't see how the reference is inaccurate."
  • ImperfectlyInformed also found a recent revision of the last paragraph of the article a good compromise, stating: "It seems like the IP editor has done some good work and we should have a good compromise here."
  • Despite what a neutral party saw as a reasonable compromise, Centpacrr continued to edit war, making ten changes to the paragraph in question, and still demands more.
  • ImperfectlyInformed also chided Centpacrr on the Stephen Ambrose talk page for adding inappropriate sources: "Please read WP:OR. If you can find a source which says the the second edition incorporated all corrections, you can add it, but otherwise it's gotta go." and "I removed the original research. Please do not readd the statement that the 2002 edition incorporates the corrections unless you find a source which directly and specifically says that, as required by the original research policy."
  • I'm not sure this was a good discussion to open. While I agree that Centpacrr's addition of links to his website could be problematic, in this case the CPRR does seem like the best link to use. Google Books is less consistent about often does not show the original document. Where's the harm in Centpacrr adding his website if there are no questions that the documents are hosted legally on there, freely-available and legible?? If Centpacrr hadn't been so open to disclose the relationship, we wouldn't be having this discussion. On the Stephen Ambrose issue, I think the compromise language was fine, but then Centpacrr removed it, perhaps because the info on the second edition incorporating the corrections was debatable. Perhaps it will be added again - I still think it deserves to be included. I also don't think we should be systematically removing the links to the CPRR unless we can find sources which have the similar quality images of the documents rather than Google Books transcriptions. We could speculate that perhaps the IP editor has a conflict with regard to Google Books, but I think we can all agree that it wouldn't be of much point. I think at this point we should close this discussion and move on with our lives, and hopefully the IP editor and Centpacrr can agree to closure. II | (t - c) 06:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The "explanation" that the anonymous IP user actually gave earlier was that: "Original sources are always considered superior to transcriptions. In most cases, the changes I made substituted a transcribed source with an original one." and then he/she did exactly the opposite by substituting unverified third party transcriptions which do not identify the source of the document was from which they were made, for those hosted on CPRR.org that were made directly from identified and verifiable first generation original source documents. I would appreciate it, therefore, that instead of his/her offering up yet another straw man argument, if the IP user would simply answer the three specific questions asked as to why he/she substituted unverified transcriptions for those made from verifiable originals in violation of the very guidelines that he/she claims to be following in his/her previous "explanation."
  • The links that I have provided to pages on CPRR.org, a railroad history site to which I have been contributing for eleven years and fully disclosed my relationship on my Wikipedia user page when I registered here in 2006, are to original source materials posted on that site. They were not cited to advance any outside interests of mine other than providing the best possible verifiable resource for the readers. Unlike the anonymous IP user, I have fully disclosed my relationship to the free, non-commercial railroad history website. Since the site first went online in February, 1999, it has been visited well over 2,000,000 times, and has been linked to by a wide variety of organizations such as the Library of Congress, the California State Railroad Museum, PBS, various University, library, and other research centers, etc. as a reliable source of information on US railroad history.
  • I removed the one sentence I placed on the Stephen Ambrose article not because I thought it was not relevant, but because I was tired of being harangued about it by the IP user and figured if I took it off he/she would just go away. Unfortunately that did not prove to be the case, however, as he/she then decided to troll through the 7,000+ edits I have made to Wikipedia since 2006 to "weed out" any other reliable and verifiable references or citations that I have added to Wikipedia articles that link to documents and other historic railroad materials hosted on CPRR.org because he/she has decided that all such links -- no matter what they contain -- are by his/her definition nothing more than "spam." I have truly found that having to deal with this whole kerfuffle started and perpetuated by the anonymous IP user for almost three weeks now to be a completely unnecessary waste of my time and effort. Among other things, his/her comments are relentlessly condescending and show an utter lack of his/her making any "assumption of good faith" on the part of myself or any other editors, although ironically he/she constantly insists that all others must blindly assume good faith on his/her part. I have been happy to spend many thousands of hours of my time over the last decade plus (not to mention thousands of dollars of my own funds without the expectation or desire of getting any remuneration therefore) in developing CPRR.org with another family member (a retired University of California professor with two Doctoral degrees) who is its owner and webmaster. The only reason that I have made this huge personal effort is to make as much information as possible about the Pacific Railroad as freely accessible as I can to anyone interested.
  • As I have the final manuscript for another railroad history book due to my publisher in less than a week, I would like to get back to that and not have to keep defending myself and the CPRR.org links against the unrelenting attacks of the completely anonymous IP user who appears to be far more interested in imposing his/her particular view of what constitutes "spam" and "conflict of interest" while completely ignoring the concept of assumption of good faith on the part of his/her fellow editors.
  • All it would take to resolve this is to restore the long standing links to the original source documents hosted on CPRR.org that the IP user continues to unilaterally delete, and for the IP editor to end his/her campaign of any further purging of similar links on the grounds of his/her own views of "conflict of interest" when no such conflict exists. Centpacrr (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


As I explained earlier, most of the citation substitutions were to images of the original works, instead of to transcriptions. At least one was to a pdf version that was of much better quality than that on the cprr.org website. A preference for original versions of works is a maxim of historical research and is so reflected in source citation. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, sir or madam, you have completely missed the point and failed to address the questions posed above relating to using originals (which I did) versus unsourced transcriptions (as you did), to-wit:
  • A) The link for the 1860 Republican Party Platform (which was originally added to the page on March 8, 2009, by an IP editor located in Illinois who is unknown to me) is to a page which contains a large photographic image of the actual original document as printed and distributed at the Convention in Chicago in May, 1860, which is also accompanied by a searchable version of its text, while your link is not to an original at all, but to a modern "transcription" of the document for which no source whatever is provided. How is that a "better source" than the original added as a source fourteen months ago by another editor?
  • B) My link to the 1864 Executive Order of the President fixing the point of commencement of the Pacific Railroad is a verbatim one page transcription of the brief several paragraph Executive Order transcribed directly from an original 1864 U.S. Government produced printing of Senate Ex. Doc. No. 27 (38th Congress, 1st Session) from my library, while your link is not to an original document at all but to a 778-page pdf of a 1907 commercially published volume (The Century Co., New York) containing unsourced, unverified third party transcriptions of many hundreds of Lincoln's "speeches, letters, state papers, and miscellaneous writings" made and printed 43 years after the fact which a reader would then have to tediously search through on his/her own in order to find the desired information. How is that unsourced commercial transcription a "better source" than one made from a verifiable original Government printed and distributed document for which mine was the source?
  • C) My link to the 1872 article The Ancient Penobscot, or Panawanskek by John E. Godfrey is a verbatim transcription made directly from the article as originally published in The HISTORICAL MAGAZINE and Notes and Queries concerning The Antiquities, History, and Biography of America. (Third Series, Vol. I, No. II; Whole Number, Vol. XXI, No. II) February, 1872. (Morrisina, N.Y., Henry B. Dawson) pp. 85-92, which I have in my library, and to which was then added a number of illustrations, many annotations, and links to various maps and many other sources of related information located on third party websites, while your link is to a 502-page pdf of a volume of unsourced printed transcriptions including the raw text of the Godfrey article in an 1876 anthology of materials collected and republished by the Maine Historical Society, and also does not contain any of the illustrations, maps, and links to third party sites. That being the case, how does the unsourced secondary transcription you linked to provide Wikipedia's readers with a "better source" than one made from the 1872 original I linked to?
  • There is such a thing as intellectual honesty, so please address these three specific questions which provide verifiable evidence that directly contradicts your claim that your "citation substitutions were to images of the original works, instead of to transcriptions" when clearly none of them are. Centpacrr (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Just curious, Centpacrr, do you ever get tired of listening to yourself? 75.2.209.226 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps if you had not started sixteen different threads about me (see above) in the past two-and-a-half weeks this could have all been avoided. Centpacrr (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In accordance with the neutral third party analysis of User:ImperfectlyInformed above, and the failure of the anonymous IP user to address the issues on their merits as given the opportunity to do so by the questions posed above on May 20 (and again on May 24), I have restored the original links (which had been in place from anywhere from 2006 to 2009) and deleted the links to the unsourced transcriptions that he/she unilaterally replaced them with. (I have also explained the reasons for each restoration in the respective talk pages of each article.) In light of the above, any further interference with these or other similar links, or the replacement thereof with unsourced, unverified transcriptions and/or the like, by the anonymous IP editor on the specious grounds that the long standing originals are "spam" (curiously upon investigating the edit history of the Wikipedia articles to determine when the CPRR.org page links were first added I also found that I was actually not even the editor who originally did so for two of the three CPRR pages in question) or his/her replacements are "better sources" will be considered to be disruptive, bad faith editing and be treated as such. Centpacrr (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Insert footnote text here
  2. ^ Johnson, Morieka V. (4 April 2006). "Dog's best friend". Cox News Service.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_42&oldid=1142605591"