Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 47

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

COI Declare balance with WP:NOTSOAPBOX

Many folks have suggested that my COI declaration is too generic, and would be better with more details about my conflict. I have concerns about balancing a useful declaration vs. issues with WP:NOTSOAPBOX, in regards to recruitment, self-promotion, and advertising.

A possible update:


Possible to also provide a link to the related Signpost article where the company was mentioned.

Any thoughts? Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     02:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you're not declaring what you have a conflict of interest with. You really need to say who you're editing on behalf of. For example, I see you edited Philabundance - is that where your conflict of interest lies, or is it in other places too? I have a conflict of interest with the Royal Navy, which is why I stick to non-controversial topics about the navy and don't edit articles related to - for example - my captain. I make this apparent by saying that I'm in the RN on my user page. The best way, I think, for you to clear this up is if you completed the sentence: "I hereby declare myself to have a conflict of interest in relation to articles about topic X, topic Y, Philabundance, the russian chap who's your boss, etc. I must say though, you're the best paid editor I've yet come across. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and Happy New Year! I'll work on a new version of the declaration and post it soon.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     15:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
A new version is now online. Please see the link in my signature:     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     05:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That's definitely an improvement and I'm inclined to agree with the Cavalry that you are setting a standard for paid editing openness that I don't think we've seen before. Do you think you can recommend that your adoptees also make similar declarations? SmartSE (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I will advise them to update their declarations along the same lines. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     10:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

DotDFS

The editor seems to be the author of two academic articles introducing DotDFS. Though he was notified from the first edit about WP:COI he continues to edit, introducing a subject which fails WP:GNG. He continues to use Wikipedia as a venue for publishing his work. He refuses to discuss the subject. Muhandes (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Poshtkohi has since then been blocked for vandalism on user pages, and DotDFS deleted per G11, so this might be redundant. --Muhandes (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Anderson University (Indiana)

I tagged this page with {{coi}} some time ago since I noticed some biased edits coming from the AU IP range. I've since been in contact with the AU employee who performed these edits, Rdillinger (talk · contribs · count), whom I've been advising on COI and related issues. Having looked at the sum total of the edits performed I see them as a net positive to the article and don't believe them to stand in violation of COI, in letter or spirit.

However, I too have a COI here (being a former AU student) and therefore don't feel comfortable being the sole evaluator on the neutrality of the article as a whole. Therefore I would request that some editors who are able to evaluate the article objectively give it a read and, if appropriate, remove the COI tag. If there are still neutrality issues, please point them out on the article talk page and/or here so that we may correct them.

Thanks, --Chris (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Kors

user is editing the article to suit them, and has deleted content from the article, I have also tagged the article with a COI tag now. --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, it was a copyvio of his website. January (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Persistent! I've reverted the content twice since. I've blocked the named account and have very temporarily semi'ed the article while trying to talk to the IP about the primary issue (copyright issue) and alerting him to the secondary (COI). Once copyvio is resolved, I'll be moving back to my own neighborhood, though. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Kaplan

The usual. A possibly notable website Her Campus has decided to use wikipedia for press releases by plagiarizing a lot of badly written material from their website and creating as many articles as possible with it. A couple of the articles are up for deletion due to the copyvios. One had a copyvio tag, the copyvios were removed from the visible portion, and the copyvio tag was removed by an administrator since the copyvios are now in the edit history... Now, a user with the same name as the article has come by and added all sorts of helpful things: her Harvard classmate's graduating years, her sorority, etc., etc. It's going to end badly, as it's already written badly. Another set of eyes with good background in dealing with COI autobiography writers would be useful. I have suggested to the editor that she reconsider whether or not she wants to writer her autobiography on wikiepdia, and I have removed most of the really bad fluff and unsourced problematic BLP material, so, really, just some COI help would be good. Kleopatra (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added user Debbiele03 and the articles on Annie Wang and Windsor Hanger to the header of this report. Both of those articles have been tagged as having copyright problems. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
As an update, the Wang and Hanger articles were deleted as copyvios, and the Debbiele03 account re-wrote them. It's still a COI nightmare, but the subjects seem marginally notable. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob Couteau

I'm not sure if this belongs here or the BLP message board so as I am a bit short of time I will post it at both. Today I came upon this user Robcouteau (talk · contribs) who is adding external links to his reviews of various authors and books - I know that is a different problem for the EL page but I am just trying to give an overview of how I got here. As I checked the edit history [1] for the article for Mr Couteau it seems to have been created by user Figlipped (talk · contribs) whose only wikipedia edits are to create the RC article. I know that Fig started editing after RC but it looks like the RC article was created solely to have a page to connect his name to the external links that were being added to wikipedia's pages. If you all deem that this page is okay then that is fine with me but I thought that it needed more eyes than mine to determine its suitability. Thanks for your time in this manner. MarnetteD | Talk 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pragyaa 2011

Possible WP:COI as user and article have the same name. User appears to be a WP:SPA as they've only edited one article. User created the article on their user page and then copied it to a new article in main space. The article may well be a valuable addition to Wikipedia, but I am not familiar with the subject and so cannot judge it. I've warned the user and tagged the article. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry Potter Fan Zone

Andy McCray, creator and webmaster of this site, has been editing the article. When I warned him of his COI and blocked his spamusername, he simply created a new account and started editing the talkpage again. I've blocked him for sockpuppetry, but want other eyes on this to make sure I'm not being too harsh or too lenient. (As an Irishman, I prefer salmon to trout, but acknowledge that a salmoning could be more painful than a trouting.) Orange Mike | Talk 03:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As per comments on the article's review for deletion page, I added sources raised in that deletion discussion to ensure the article met notability guidelines, removed some conjecture and fluff and fixed broken reference links. Harry Potter Fan Zone is a fan site run by young fans, not a business or organisation, and my intent was never to break Wikipedia protocol but rather to improve the quality of the article's sourcing (as was requested in the deletion discussion) so that it met Wikipedia standards.
Minutes after I made these changes my account was blocked, my edits removed, and a tag questioning neutrality slapped on the article. Granted, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia editing procedure but on my account page I was told that I was, "welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you". I created a new account with the sole purpose of trying to explain this very situation and to justify and ask for comments on my edits on the article's talk page. I disclosed myself and my intention to make edits which improved the article's sourcing. Within minutes that account was banned too, and my post on the talk page justifying my edits removed for "vandalism".
I think this is completely rash, and had Mike taken a second to read my post or read through the article's discussion he would have seen that it had been repeatedly requested that someone familiar with the subject matter add sources and clean up the article. My edits, are, as I see it, perfectly acceptable, given:
- 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.
- Editors who may have a conflict of interest ... are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as: Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them, making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page, removing spam.
I also resent the statement, "Andy McCray has been editing this article repeatedly" on the article's history page, particularly given I was only only identified by the username "AndyHPFZ". I understand my last name is mentioned in the article itself, but surely this whole matter could have been avoided by querying or clarifying on the talk page rather than instantly assuming sneaky motives?
"Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors ... Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest ... When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing."
I was trying to do the right thing. I never once tried to hide the fact that I was involved with the website. My intentions here were to improve the quality of a Wikipedia article - as requested - by including sources, fixing references, and ensuring the article was concise and to the point, not to self-promote, toy with the article's neutrality or anything similar. I am not here to vandalise or to manipulate truth and neutrality and just want to make that abundantly clear :) What happened to good faith?
Andy --124.171.111.192 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the second block was indeed too harsh and have dropped Orange Mike a note asking him to reconsider. However, I agree with Orange Mike in that you shouldn't be editing the article, but he should have probably made an effort to be friendlier and explain the situation and why your edits could be problematic. Ideally our articles are based on secondary sources such as the newspaper articles that you mentioned in the deletion discussion, rather than on primary sources, such as the website itself. The way the article is at the moment, it relies too much on these primary sources, for example in the list of people that have been interviewed, and this could be considered original research which is not allowed here. I'm always grateful when editors with a conflict of interest disclose it and I'm not entirely sure whether AndyHPFZ contravenes our username guidelines anyway, but Mike may disagree. I'll be happy to help you tidy up the article in a couple of days to make it more compliant with our policies and guidelines but it may end up a bit shorter than it is now. I'd request that you follow our best practice for editors with a COI and only edit the talk page in the future and if required, drop a note here asking for someone else to review a potential edit that you think should be made. Hopefully Mike will unblock your second account and we can work to improve the quality of the article. If you've got any questions about how Wikipedia works, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page and I'll do what I can to help. SmartSE (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking per this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarify: new account is blocked, not old one (whose name is still inappropriate given the edit history). Andy, I'm not trying to make things difficult here, so don't think I'm Dolores Umbridge in an orange flightsuit, OK? I will concede that I might have been a bit harsh, which is why I asked other editors to look at what had been done, since we're all flawed and fallible [except Hermione, of course]. SmartSE has given you some excellent advice, and I urge you to follow it. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input SmartSE, and Mike for the unblocking. I'll use the talk page from now on to discuss possible edits and look forward to others contributing to the article to ensure it conforms to standards. I've removed my lengthy post from the Harry Potter Fan Zone talk page questioning the account ban as there is really no need to ponder the blocking/banning issue somewhere else now that everything is clarified and sorted. --ProspektsMarch14 (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted that deletion; it's part of the historical record of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but shouldn't it be made clear that the issue has been sorted? It seems silly to have a near duplicate post on the talk page asking for comment now that we've rectified the issue here :) Articles themselves are constantly changed, reworded, have content removed and historical information is still available in the history tab. Are talk pages treated differently in regards to archiving and the removal/archiving of irrelevant/unnecessary info? (I'm still getting the hang of things around here!).--ProspektsMarch14 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Then add to the discussion, don't delete from it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Independent Greens of Virginia

The two above user names are pretty clearly related to the subject matter of the article (search the article for "Gail for Rail"--it's the slogan or something for Glenda Parker, who runs/ran on their ticket). Moreover, the recent history of the article suggests that there's more here than meets the eye, with a couple of SPAs getting involved. Colfer2 (talk · contribs) placed a POV tag on the article, three times, and these were removed by another all-too involved editor, PonchoChet (talk · contribs). Anyway, the COI is obvious to me, and I have serious doubts about the neutrality of the article and the editors involved in undoing my and Colfer2's edits. Your opinion is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Drmies has an apparent axe to grind. Drmis keeps removing pictures that have long been part of the site. appreciated. Goodfaith1 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfaith1 (talk • contribs)

  • Eh, those ridiculous photographs to the left and the right of the lead, they weren't there that long ago. But that's beside the point: there is a conflict of interest ("Gail for Rail"), and you should address that. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree that the amount of images was ridiculous - images should be used to illustrate an article, not totally dominate it. More importantly we are not a vehicle for promotion which is how the article seems to have been being used. The article is seriously lacking reliable sources to verify its contents and that requires attention, ideally through adding sources, or by removing information that cannot be verified. It looks as if a lot of these accounts are to be blocked as socks, I'd encourage experienced editors to read through and remove any promotional junk you find and if there are continued problems from socks or IPs then request semi-protection. SmartSE (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey SmartSE, did you see this, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PonchoChet? It makes for brief but insightful reading. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree w/ Drmies and SmartSE. A blantant case of conflict of interest. The page was beginning to read more like a website for the party rather than an encyclopedia article. The aforementioned sockpuppet invesitigation only reinforces the case. The overkill of images, besides making the page look tacky and less reader-friendly, clearly runs counter to WP standards - see WP:MOSIMAGES and Wikipedia:Layout#Images.--JayJasper (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is the page version containing the images referenced in prior remarks.--JayJasper (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest returning the article to its version of 28 October 2010, before the recent 60+ edits by PonchoChet and apparent puppets. That version is missing the November 2010 election results, but overall it would be much easier to start there then try to fix the 60+ edits point-by-point. That version cleaned up some previous likely COI editing. -Colfer2 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That task is done, thanks to other editors too. It is not a great article, but the most recent COI edits are cleaned up. -Colfer2 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Great job on the cleanup and restoration. Agreed that it's still not a great article but a vast improvement on the mess it had become.--JayJasper (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Live Art (art form)

Editor is a single topic editor editing a small number of articles always adding websites links of artists or other promotional material with no explanation of notability etc. Looks as if he/she is an agent promoting clients. Several polite warning and advice have made no difference to behaviour which is sporadic  Velella  Velella Talk   11:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Monica Taylor

Username is Momsmadeeasy, apparently a reference to the brand "MOMS made easy" promoted by the article she created. Article appears autobiographical or at least poses a COI concern. Zachlipton (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That username has been blocked as promotional and the article looks to have been stubbed. Anything left to do? SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Archive away. Zachlipton (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

PayPal

User:Elvey has repeatedly over the last three years accused me of a conflict of interest at PayPal. Here's a statement I made in December of 2007:

I've been retired [from eBay] since May 2002, before eBay purchased PayPal, and have not been connected with either PayPal or its parent since then; 99% of my employee stock options have been disposed of, and the remainder is earmarked for a charitable trust, primarily dedicated to arts and cultural development in rural Kern County, California, and to a lesser degree in Las Vegas, NV and New York City. [2]

I think I'm in the clear; I'd like some other opinions, though. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[Note from Elvey for third parties, added later: The discussion described above took place in edit summaries seen here [3] at January 1, 2 and 9, 2011 and then moved to jpgordon's talk page [4] before coming here.]--Elvey (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Personally I don't see a problem. I haven't reviewed all your edits to PayPal, but a look through the last 500 edits to the page doesn't bring up anything problematic. The most recent edit warring is a content dispute, rather than anything to do with a COI and I'm inclined to agree that the edits you made were sensible, we don't need a list of every single competitor to PayPal in the see also section. Elvey looks to have been a bit aggressive towards you, and it would have helped it they had AGFd and calmly asked you why you removed some of the competitors, rather than accusing you of censorship. If Elvey can provide diffs that show you removing well sourced critical information about PayPal or adding overly promotional information about it, then I'd be prepared to take a deeper look, but at the moment I don't see any issue with your edits. SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
(The link you posted above doesn't work for me btw) SmartSE (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Link fixed, thanks. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Your language and understanding is off, jpgordon: There's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, so there's no sense in complaining that I've repeatedly accused let alone falsely accused you of a conflict of interest. Rather, there is such a thing as claiming someone has a conflict of interest. You most certainly do, as you admit. Do you disagree with this argument about language?
SmartSE, I found jpgordon's initial language a bit agressive: Who are you? - as in the sense of Who am _I_ to be questioning _Him_? - as if that was relevant!). If identifying censorship is aggressive, then my language was as well. Jpgordon is often very aggressive on the paypal talk page.
SmartSE, you apply the wrong criteria. There's a problem not just when an editor with a CoI "remov[es] well sourced critical information about PayPal or add[s] overly promotional information." Our rules on what's appropriate when there's a CoI are far broader than that. It is clear that ALL edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest are strongly discouraged, with a few narrow exceptions, which AFACIT don't apply here. The main focus of Jpgordon's edits to PayPal is on shifting the article to portray PayPal in a better light, and the edits currently in question are an example of this. WP:OWN is especially relevant, IMO, when WP:COI is an issue.
Anyway, this discussion is getting far afield from the question of whether jpgordon's edits I questioned were ones that are discouraged on Wikipedia. Also of import is whether jpgordon was being deceptive and aggressive in defending said deletions. --Elvey (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
John, obviously, you care a great deal about eBay and PayPal, and that's great. Going back and looking at the edit in question again, I see it differently now. The link to the list of competitors should suffice, once the info you deleted is incorporated. remain unable to make sense of it without coming to troubling conclusions.
BTW, I note you didn't link directly to the discussion, so I added links near the top of this section.--Elvey (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right that a COI isn't always that simple, but in a situation like this, there is no reason why Jpgordon shouldn't edit an article about PayPal, because as they have disclosed they have little, if anything to gain from editing the article. I asked you to provide evidence to show that his edits are problematic, but I guess from the lack of any evidence that there is no evidence. You've made accusations but they appear to be hollow, if I'm incorrect then please show how he has been "shifting the article to portray PayPal in a better light". Looking at this thread you started on the talk page it looks as if you have a bit of an axe to grind against PayPal and that may not make you the best judge of whether Jpgordon is editing appropriately. The article is hardly a corporate whitewash at the moment, with a mention of WikiLeaks in the lead (WP:UNDUE), a section on criticism and another on litigation. (Just for the record, I'm no particular fan of PayPal, they withheld ~£100k in payments for an event I helped organise, but I like to read everything from a NPOV here). SmartSE (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no conflict here. IronDuke 01:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

IP POV campaign

An IP has appeared who appears to be on a heavy POV campaign to exclude Georgia from West Asia. The IP's contributions appear to be exclusively aimed at this goal. Perhaps an experienced editor could investigate. It appears there might be a relationship between the IP and Polgraf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) if one looks beyond the 'warning' Polgraf placed on the IP's talk page and examines their shared arguments on Talk:Georgia (country). Looking deeper it appears that the IP and Polgraf may be Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as they appear to have the same agenda (amongst other things - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2). EmirKaraman (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts is a better venue for this as there don't seem to be any COI issues. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well this has nothing to do with ethnic or religious conflicts. From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." The aims of this individual IP appear to be a COI with the aims of Wikipedia, as the IP clearly has a single-purpose POV mission. EmirKaraman (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Generally COIs are when editors have some way of gaining due to the edits they make, rather than it being a POV problem. I was just mentioning that board as somewhere you are more likely to find someone with experience of dealing with issues like this. Not many people swing by here unfortunately so if it needs to be dealt with, another venue might be better. SmartSE (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

UTF-8

Garazy is running builtwith.com. Almost all of his contributions to Wikipedia consist in placing links to builtwith.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CeanS (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 January 2011

Possibly this should be mentioned at WP:ELN (external links noticeboard) because people there are familiar with links that might be WP:REFSPAM. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I've dropped them a note and pointed them towards this thread. I've also checked for links to builtwith.com and it looks as if most had already been reverted by other users, but I've finished the job off. Replacing references like here to your own site is definitely frowned upon and shouldn't be done. SmartSE (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I just realised I only checked www.builtwith, but there are still >25 links to trends.builtwith, I'm not sure whether it is a reliable source or not. Any opinions? SmartSE (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added an IP who added a lot of links, last February. SmartSE (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember basic procedure

I've recently discovered that my church has received significant attention in multiple independent reliable sources as a historic site, so at some point down the line, I'm planning on writing an NPOV and properly-sourced article about it. As a longtime editor, I'm well aware of WP:COI and wish to be as transparent as possible, but I'm not generally aware of the procedures that are best to follow. Would it be considered appropriate to write the article in userspace and leave a note here asking an unrelated party to review the article and move it into mainspace if warranted? Nyttend (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you've declared your potential conflict (which you mostly did here), then userspace draft seems like a good idea. For an unrelated party review, better places might be Wikipedia:Requests for feedback or Wikipedia:Articles for creation.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     10:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
In your position I don't think making a userspace draft is necessary as you don't have anything to gain from writing an article about your church and (I assume) would be writing it with the primary aim of improving the project. To me this is the crux of the COI policy, regardless of possible links between the editor and the article. From what I see at DYK, most historic churches are notable, so as long as you make sure everything is sourced and not based on your experience then it should be fine. You can disclose that it is your church, but I don't think there is any need to and you may not want to, to maintain your privacy. SmartSE (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Gjshisha

The actions of Gjshisha (talk · contribs) seem to be directed at promoting someone G.J.Szekely. In particular, this user on several occasions have edited other articles by adding references to Szekely's works, even when such references are either non-notable or even irrelevant. Examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], etc.  // stpasha »  06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Library is on Fire

Clearly and openly editing on behalf of her client and his projects. "Can this be fixed so I can restore it to my client's page?" Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Pierre-Louis Parant

While searching Google to try to find more sources for this article, I noticed that on what is currently hit #9 here, although the Twitter link does not actually work, the title matches the name of this article and the username in the URL matches the author of the article. This suggests to me the possibility that the article may be written by the subject himself. I'm a newbie here, so I'm not sure how to proceed in this situation. Any advice? jcgoble3 (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The lack of secondary sources - reliable third-party coverage - places doubts on the notability anyway, making the COI irrelevant. 217.44.19.143 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've taken the article to AFD. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ageing - author promoting own works

Promotion of the author F. J. Ninivaggi. User received the standard COI warning on 18 October but has since dropped six more mentions of Ninivaggi works into Wikipedia articles. With the exception of two edits to Wilfred Bion, user's edits all seem to promote Ninivaggi works, and a search finds about a dozen mentions. User identifies himself as Ninivaggi here. --CliffC (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Xenia Tchoumitcheva

Can someone please review this situation. Cioccolatina (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA with a WP:COI relating to the subject of the article. The user may be the subject, a friend or relative of the subject, or an associated of the subject's modelling agency. There is a history of adding promotional material to the article. There is a verified history of the subject's birth date being altered for professional reasons. Apparently, someone provided OTRS with convincing bt false information. This user was involved in adding the false birth year to the article. The user now wants to remove the known birth year.
My questions are:

  • Should the user be banned from directly editing the article?
  • Should the subject's birth date be included in the article?
  • Should the article point to the conflicting sourced birth dates? Note the reference on the talk page showing that this has been subjected to public interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This was bought up before in August but nothing much happened. This isn't the place to request a topic ban and COI doesn't prohibit someone editing an article, so it is best to treat their edits at face value, i.e. by warning against removal of sourced content etc. If, as is discussed on the talk page there are reliable independent sources for her DOB being in '87 then I see no reason not to include it. Similarly if the sources discuss how she says she is a different age, then this too should be included. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jamaica Kincaid

The IP is repeatedly removing criticisms of Ms. Kincaid from her article. The IP resolves to Claremont, California, which is where Ms. Kincaid teaches. Corvus cornixtalk 02:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the controversy section because I felt it was WP:UNDUE and in particular, I couldn't see where it was being classified as a controversy. Unfortunately no one tried to speak to the IP and they ended up getting blocked. The article is severely lacking in sources, so it is possible that the IP was legitimately removing incorrect material from the early life section per WP:AUTO#IFEXIST "you should feel free to remove mistaken or unreferenced out-of-date facts about yourself". I'll drop them a note to try and get them discussing it, rather than just editing. SmartSE (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Paper

We have all been through this before. I had to re-report it as they're back at it again. There are various accounts used by Bambu Brand promoters on Wiki. This is because they use Wiki for advertising and even link their own website http://www.bambu.com/history.php to our List of oldest companies. Admins have warned them not to re-post the 1764 year without verifiable references but they can't resist. It's imperative to their branding and thus here we are again. The now-blanked talk pages of Lostsociety and ArnaudMS are filled with warnings relating to Bambu, including 6 bambu images that were taken down for improper licensing and many other types of promotional text warnings, have a look. They were asked not to insert the 1764 year again without verifiable references, however they couldn't resist and went right back at it again.

I don't think there could be stronger language of warnings on their talk pages from various Admins. At this point I think we all need to move up to the next level. They are VERY good at writing long finger pointing posts whever anyone complains about them (one should be coming below shortly) so please don't beleive anything I have written here. Instead have a quick look at their actions and warnings and decide for yourself what you think. Have a great weekend and happy Wiki'ing! Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This situation is not as simple as Nahome (talk · contribs) is portraying it. He recently requested page protection at Bambu rolling papers to stop IPs and new accounts from removing criticism he was adding. I checked the article and found he was adding material that was either not in the sources he provided, or the sources weren't policy compliant. I have a concern that he's Mrtobacco (talk · contribs), an account found to have a COI who stopped editing in 2009. They share exactly the same interests, the same writing style, and both have telephoned stores that other users said they worked in, to find out whether they really did work there. Here's Mrtobacco doing it in 2006. [9] Here's Nahome doing it in 2011, [10] and EdJohston warning him about it. [11] It appeared that Mrtobacco worked for one of Bambu's competitors.
I've added full protection to the article, have reduced it to a stub, and have asked Nahome to re-build it using only good sources and sticking to them very closely. See Talk:Bambu rolling papers#The need for good sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin I don't want to rebuild that article by myself, I think I have already dedicated enough time to this. I appreciate your involvement and am kind of asking you and other editors to do it. The more I post the more I get called names, and now you think I'm someone who I really am not. The reason I called that store was because I was asked to. I admit that I did not read the link above to see if that was the same situation for Mrtobacco, but likely that was the cause. If we are both dealing with the same sockpuppets asking us to call them and hitting us in a similar manner, you can expect there to be similar responses. I really would prefer if you and other editors get involved and edit the articles to your (not my) standards. That way you can't say I'm a competitor or anything else. I asked you many times in the talk page to please do this - I hope you will look back and see this. Then, maybe you could consider getting involved enough to write the article YOUR way (not mine). Then, in a few weeks when you've been fully attacked by the Bambu Sockpuppets someone else will be up here saying they think you are Mrtobacco and me :) If that happens I will really laugh a good belly one. Anyway again please - edit it your way and keep the sockpuppets off that article. I won't edit it - but am asking you to - your way - so there is no way - you can say - it was done my way :) Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no interest in rebuilding it; I'm there only as an admin. But I'm glad to hear you're taking time away from the article, and I hope you'll extend that to related articles so the situation is allowed to calm down. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I want to let it go but I kind of need you to confirm that you'll pick up the watching/protecting of the 3 articles in question which all related to that 1764 promotional year. Will you do that and oversee them to normal wiki standards? Please say yes so I can remove them from my watchlist. Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have the three pages on my watchlist, yes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Done, I feel the weight removed! Now I need to do some Ohms and enjoy my newfound freedom. Please talkpage me if you need anything and thank you again for the blessed release. "Free at last, free at last" Nahome (sinebotH8R) (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to update people, as several admins are involved now. I requested a CU. ArnaudMS (talk · contribs) and Lostsociety (talk · contribs) are the same. I've blocked the former for 24 hours, and the latter indefinitely.

Nahome (talk · contribs) is also linked to another account, but it involves a real name, so I won't post it. That real name is linked on the Web to a tobacco company. I'm going to ask him which account he wants to edit with, and block the other indefinitely; if it's the real-name account that needs to be blocked, I'll ask another admin to do it so I don't out him.

I'm thinking that both these users have a COI, so we should topic ban them from all tobacco-related articles. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree to a topic ban, broadly construed, on both these editors. --John (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Nahome chose the real-name account to use from now on, so I've blocked the Nahome account indefinitely; see his talk page. If we agree a topic ban, I'll let the other account know by email. I'll also email the name of that account to the other admins dealing with this, so I'm not the only one keeping an eye on him. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As a non-admin who had a bit of inconsequential copyediting to Bambu rolling papers overwritten during the recent war, I think a topic ban is a good idea. IMO, the stubbed state of the article right now is sufficient coverage of the subject. --CliffC (talk)
Whew! Late start for this American today, but I agree with all that's been said so far. The longer this went, the louder the little bell in my head was tingling that there was way too much interest in these articles for _both_ parties. Sometimes, I AGF too much. Thanks, everybody! :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with a topic ban for Nahome and ArnaudMS from Bambu rolling papers and from any Bambu-related edits anywhere, for instance at List of oldest companies. Whoever closes the ban discussion should specify whether it includes talk pages. Nahome's other account should also be banned; I'm not sure how to manage that without disclosing which it is. Evidently all admins who may be able to enforce the ban should be told by email which account it is. Since it's not usually practical to topic ban an IP, and since some IPs have also caused a problem about Bambu, I suggest at least two months of semiprotection on Bambu rolling papers to keep COI-affected IPs from editing. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As there seems to be agreement, I'll let the accounts know. I suggest we extend it to talk pages too; there was a lot of back and forth on the talk pages, including various insults. It's probably best to let it all die down. I've added six months semi-protection to Bambu rolling papers and its talk page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Politics of the Maldives

Niall Cook openly admits on his user page to be director of marketing technology for the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. The company is best known for making up the story of "Nurse Nayirah" who lied to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of incubators that were then transported to Iraq. This was done in order to gain support for the war against Iraq. Niall Cook keeps contributing to wikipedia. As this edit reveals, he sometimes uses an IP that can be tracked back to Hill & Knowlton. On top of obscene vandalism, they were found to use wikipedia for whitewashing the government of the Maldives that had hired the firm for improving its reputation that had been harmed by human rights violations. Although it was reported on several websites, [12] [13] [14] [15] apparently no one has ever reacted to it at wikipedia.
The Hill & Knowlton article is not frequented by many editors but seems to be on the watchlist of a guy who proudly writes on his user page that he had a conflict with Micheal Moore over wikipedia articles. Checking the IPs that contributed to the article about WPP Group that Hill & Knowlton belongs to one can see that several belong to companies that belong to the group or have other professional interests. Not so surprising for an article about a big media company. But how can we deal with such things? Is there a tool to check all IPs that contributed to articles where they are from so that one can check if anything worrying was done? Can IPs that are known to belong to companies be blocked from editing articles related to them so that even if they log in with a user name they cannot edit? Knopffabrik (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no way as far as I know to block an IP in a way that prevents new accounts being made, although if an article was semiprotected new accounts would not be able to edit it for 4 days which may put them off. Have you tried reinserting the apparently removed criticism with sources etc.? If they are really just censoring, the information will be put in somewhere along the Dispute resolution process. I'll have a closer look later, but in the mean time go through normal editing, present a discussion on the talk page describing your edits (empty talk page). Additionally, if there's enough evidence it may be worth submitting a checkuser between the user and IP. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of these edits are ancient, and while I agree that they some are problematic there is not really anything to do at the moment. The diff you gave about the Maldives isn't really problematic (and is from >5 years ago!) as it was removing unsourced controversial information e.g. "President Gayoom routinely uses torture, propaganda, and censorship as a means to cling on to political power." which should obviously have been sourced. From what I can tell Niall Cook is following our COI guideline to the book, by disclosing who they are and only commenting on the talk page. Is there anything that actually needs attention? SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the diff link is old and I have not yet revealed anything urgent. I don't agree that the diff link I gave isn't problematic. Changing unsourced "Political parties in Maldives was not allowed, though the constitution allowed it, until June 2005." into unsourced "In June 2005, as part of an ongoing programme of democratic reform, new regulations were promulgated to formally recognise political parties within the framework of the electoral system." while being paid by the government is about as much a conflict of interest as you can get. Given that several websites reported about it, it is not surprising that the same IP was not used again to edit articles related to the Maldives. (And more surprising that someone who reveals himself to be marketing director of a PR firm continues to use it for obscene vandalism and for comments signed with his real name.) What I am worried about is that obviously professionals use wikipedia to improve their or their clients' reputation. They will have learned from experiences like the one with the Maldives and do it in a way more difficult to detect. If they edit articles that have not so many editors - like politicians from developing countries or about PR firms - it will often remain unnoticed. And if they log in we cannot detect the origin. So at least a tool would be handy that shows where IPs come from in articles suspected to have been influenced. And in striking cases like the one above in my opinion we should at least think about checking which other edits were made from the same IP ranges, logged in or not. Knopffabrik (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Just because an IP address belongs to a company, that does not mean that one individual user using that IP address has made all the edits assigned to it. We have hundreds of employees who - just like many other companies - broadcast the same IP address on the public internet. Any edits that I have made have been made using my username (unless I've sometimes forgotten to log in, which I have then quickly rectified) and in line with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, then please present it here, otherwise withdraw your allegations. Your accusations that I have personally made anonymous edits is nothing short of WP:Harassment. Niall Cook (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't claim that all edits by that IP were made by you. By signing several edits made by that IP you just showed that those were made by you. The IP can be tracked back to belong to your company, so for the conflict of interest issue it doesn't matter if it was you or anyone else. I don't know you personally and don't care. As a professional you should know that it does not shed a very positive light on you if clear POV and obscene edits are made by an IP that you use and that can be tracked back to your company. As a director you also have responsibility for your team. As I had already written, your reaction is not unexpected to me, but instead of counter attacking I insist you should apologize on behalf of your company and change your behaviour in the future. Knopffabrik (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Knopffabrik, I completely agree that this is a potential problem and one that is hard/imposssible to deal with. However Niall Cook has not done anything wrong as far as I can tell and there are no current problems that need dealing with. If you wish to propose a way in which we could detect such edits in general, then maybe post at the village pump but this thread is not going to achieve anything. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter which person it was, and I am not after anyone personally, but there was wikipedia manipulation by a PR firm paid by a dictator. As I don't know much about Maldivian politics, I feel unable to deal with those content issues and would be very grateful if others could take a look at them.
For the more general question of how to deal with IPs and users that may have a conflict of interest, thank you very much for the link to the village pump, I guess that helps. There's already a page "Tracking attempts to spin wikipedia" at sourcewatch.org and the tool that was used to detect the Hill & Knowlton spin on the politics of the Maldives was Wikiscanner - which doesn't seem to work right now because of an update. Knopffabrik (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
If you feel there is an issue with a statement in the article that is unsourced, slap a [citation needed] on it. That would at the same time alert possible POV, but also encourage those working on the article to find a source for it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, that is a good starting point. Both articles that were found by wikiscanner already had a note that they lack sources when I first looked at them. However, in the case I saw the problem was more deleted information than unsourced information that was added, so difficult to leave a tag there. Furthermore, as I know practically nothing about Maldivian politics I don't know which other articles may be involved. I already left a note on the talk page of the articles I found. Knopffabrik (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe we should keep a close eye on the Hill & Knowlton article for any COI issues, but the present form of the article seems neutral. It includes some well-sourced negative information. Regarding the IP range: if you view the last 50 anonymous contributions from Hill & Knowlton's range, I see no problem with recent edits. There was some funny stuff about the Maldives from June 2005 as Knopffabrik noted, but edits since 2006 look OK to me. If the 2005 editing pattern were to recur, blocks should be considered. User:Niallcook clearly discloses he works for Hill & Knowlton, even in his signature above, and is attempting to follow our COI policy. I am not aware of any current problems with the article on Ahmed Shafeeq Ibrahim Moosa. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks, that was exactly the kind of tool I was looking for. So let's hope it's not just that they have learned from the revelation and do all the evil things while logged in now. And I'll try and see if wikiscanner2 gives new information once it starts working. I'd appreciate if someone who feels able to do it could take a look at Politics of the Maldives and check whether the problems caused by partisan editing still exist. Knopffabrik (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Miller

User has all sorts of warning templates on the user talk page -- ample warning, repeated edits to the Nicole Miller page. Banaticus (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User indeffed as a spam only account. SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Vitale

The original author is single purpose and COI. This is all promotional as I see it. I note that the photo was uploaded by the article subject (PAVitale) but can't find history of that user. I will notify user of this posting so they have an opportunity to explain.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • This user has also been seen at Wikiquote, where he also wrote an article of Paul Vitale quotes that may reasonablly be characterized as "spam", which article was deleted per this discussion. Herostratus (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a COI. Making a judgement on this author (Griffey35jsb) simply because he/she has not made a sizeable contribution to other articles could be an unfair assessment. There is nothing here that leans me toward favoring this person/subject simply by nature of reading this, which in my opinion is a qualification of "promotional content." As an encyclopedia is meant to do, this article educated me on someone I had heard of previously, I researched on Wikipedia and learned more about. I have since added content to this page based on my further research online. I am not a full-time contributor, nor have I personally added considerable content to Wikipedia due to time constraints and other obligations (thus making me a bit more understanding of the author). In my opinion, he is both notable and as stated, I see no COI. Bozepc1 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppetry case on Bozepc1. It can be found here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kathleen Zelman

The article Kathleen Zelman has been created and exclusively edited by User:Dana.zelman, who obviously appears to be related. I gave the standard COI warning to no result. The article is surprisingly well sourced and the subject is arguably notable, but there definitely appears to be a conflict of interest here, so I wanted to bring it to the attention of this noticeboard. Zachlipton (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Goodby

I don't want to violate WP:OUTING, though I have no personal knowledge of this situation, so I'm being somewhat vague. By all means tell me if I've crossed a line or if you have advice on how exactly to report these types of situations.

Briefly, Rich Silverstein was created last July by User:GoodbySilverstein, a role account representing Mr. Silverstein's firm, Goodby, Silverstein & Partners (in fact, the first attempt was a blatant copy/paste of his biography off the firm's website). That account was promptly blocked and the article received little attention beyond the addition of a reference to fend off a BLP prod. The user did receive information on the COI policy. Last week, User:Meaganc.phillips joined and made extensive edits to Rich Silverstein. Subsequently, she created Jeff Goodby, again a blatant copy of his official corporate biography. The article has now reemerged with many sections of close paraphrasing from that copyrighted web page. This editor's only edits are to these two articles. She has not disclosed a COI that I am aware of, but while googling for potential copyright infringement, I found evidence to suggest such a conflict. The articles aren't bad and the subjects are quite likely notable, but Rich Silverstein was definitely created by a purported representative of his agency, and there appears to be substantial evidence that both articles were extensively edited by a different user account with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Zachlipton (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Zach, WP:MEAT says "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as a single user". So, perhaps a WP:SPI would be appropriate, based on editing patterns? JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see a SPI as particularly relevant because User:GoodbySilverstein was blocked because its username represented a corporation. Users blocked for this purpose are free to create a new account, but still need to comply with the COI policies. This is explained in Template:uw-coi-username, though User:GoodbySilverstein never received that particular warning template. If we went through the SPI process and found that User:Meaganc.phillips is User:GoodbySilverstein, what would we do then? How would that be different than concluding that User:Meaganc.phillips has a corporate COI on this topic based on the evidence already available on and off wiki? Thanks for responding. Zachlipton (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ciplex

  • Disclaimer - This user has stated a possible COI with me and Vector Marketing in which we are in a editing dispute. I'll be happy to participate in any discussion on this board on that matter. However, I request that any such discussion be a separate COI report.

Per information I have presented on the AN/I board and recommendation to proceed here, I would to report a possible Conflict of Interest between AkankshaG and Ciplex. There is also other articles affected, however Ciplex is the main issue. During an editing dispute, A photograph [16] uploaded for Vector Marketing revealed a name for someone as an account executive at Ciplex, which leads me to believe that AkankshaG is an associate for Ciplex. I like to note that her editing behavior suggests that she might be being paid to create Puff Articles, and in one such article she had edited extensively, she participated in sockpuppeting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AkankshaG/Archive at that article's AfD [17] with other meatpuppets. Other editors and involved Admins have also voiced concerns of WP:PUFF.

An important note, Ciplex advertises not only website creation and hosting, but marketing services as well. Marketers often attempt to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX (aware or unaware of policy), which its established its clearly wp:not.

This is yet another attempt to intimidate me because of an editing dispute with User:Cutno/User:Phearson at Vector Marketing and attempted WP:OUTING

I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.

What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”

Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.

I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.

User:Phearson/User:Cutno didn't get the result he wanted in one ANI, then another ANI, and a sockpuppet investigation, and now he's WP:Forum shopping and trying to get a different result here. He's also tried to OUT me, which he was cautioned against by an WP:OVERSIGHT administrator. Not satisfied with that, User:Phearson/User:Cutno has tried to intimidate me from editing the Vector article by going around and nominating my work for deletion.

I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove any theorized ruminations about my RL identity.

Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally both on Wikipedia and off-Wikipedia: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

I replied to most of these accusations already in the ANI. It was suggested that I take my concerns here. For the record, I stated that I would work with Akanksha on Vector Marketing should she not be blocked. But she is not going to her POV way either, and repeating the large wall of text of allegations of intimidation here and other pages are not helpful. I'm sorry you feel offended, but I'm not happy doing this either. And if nothing comes of this, I will stop here. But I think that there is clear COI regarding Ciplex. I also have never accused you of working for Scientology, or Viziworks. And I have placed a disclaimer stating your concern about me, and you have ignored my request to begin a separate COI notice. Phearson (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
What I want is for you to stop stalking me and attempting to WP:OUT me in some effort to prevent me from editing your favorite article Vector Marketing. All of your faux politeness does not cover your dozen attempts to chase me away from your precious article. And you have no right to edit my comments here either. AkankshaG (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not just me objecting to your changes to the article, user:Ryulong has also raised an objection to your insertion of blatantly promotional material on the article's talk page. As for the stalking charge, I have acted within the law of Florida and other jurisdictions when I connected the author of the photograph with someone listed as an account executive at Ciplex. You have effectively outed yourself via the license of that photograph, and you have been called out on it. Nothing unlawful occurred here. And I did not edit your comments here, other then to put them in a box like user:tedder did at Ciplex's AfD. Phearson (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

the main argument here seems to be over the decidedly negative tone of the article regarding vector marketing. i would like to point out this is the case because literally all of the WP:RS used in the article are discussing the company in a negative light. if you read the sources, even the sources used to reference neutral parts of the article talk about the company negatively. if the sources used to reference the vector marketing article all discuss the company in a negative light, this is what the wikipedia article should reflect. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This COI is not specific to that article in which a dispute has occurred. Ciplex in particular was edited heavily by AkankshaG who as I keep pointing out, has ties to Ciplex. I've already gone ahead and AfD it awhile back, if its not deleted, a heavy review of its sources is needed, including articles connected to Von Dutch who was also edited heavily by AkankshaG. Phearson (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

While I am also concern with the edits on other articles, I went and tagged a few that were loosely connected to Von Dutch. AkankshaG is claiming further that I am stalking her and is reverting tags I have placed on them here & here. Phearson (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's clear now that User:Cutno/User:Phearson will do anything to prevent people from editing his hatchet job on Cutco/Vector Marketing. The WP:STALKING needs to stop. AkankshaG (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
AkankshaG, I am also worried that your account is being used to promote certain topics. Much of your edits since August appear to be written from a promotional bent, especially around Ciplex and Cutco articles, and this is not acceptable. If this is not your intention you should step back and reevaluate your writing style. It is imperative that you write on topics from a neutral point of view. ThemFromSpace 05:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
And its apparent that you (AkankshaG) didn't look at the talk page lately, nor look at the edit history for that particular article. As stated on the talk page, I have done very little to the article, and most contributions came from other editors. I am not particularly interested here about Vector Marketing, rather Ciplex in particular is what I'm raising an alarm about. This constant stalking charge is now becoming a disruption, since you kept posting the same wall of text defence everywhere, including the AfD discussion regarding Ciplex which at this time, is about to close. And I spoke too late, as the Afd [18] has been closed with the consensus being delete with a special present from the admin who had to stop and read the wall of text. Phearson (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Guy Bavli

I have removed the {{coi}} tag from the BLP article Guy Bavli, and replaced it with an {{underconstruction}} tag. Some improvements have already been made (See the previous COIN notice) I am in contact with the subject of the article, and they have expressed interest in helping in a wikipedia-friendly manner. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The coi tag was put back today. I left a short note on the talk page of the editor. If there are any disagreements regarding this article, then a coi tag may be appropriate. However I'm not aware of any disagreements. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     17:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The COI tag is not solely for disagreements. In this case it marks an article edited with a conflict of interest that requires clean up. I think it is entirely appropriate. --Leivick (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, large sections of the article are unreferenced and presumably based on OR by the paid editors and I'm not exactly sure we need the level of detail regarding the TV program either. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Article has been edited towards cleanup of the issues raised. Here's a diff since the coi tag was added[19] Thanks     Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)     21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Young Living Essential Oils

I'm suspicious about recent edits from ylweb (talk · contribs), both for the username and because the edits are written from a heavy COI point of view. Comments? tedder (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

After seeing this post here, I took the article to AfD here as I find no assertion of notability nor do reliable sources seem to exist to support such a claim. If the article is deleted, the COI issues can go away :) Zachlipton (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack Said

Smiddly is a WP:SPA; most recent edit with the appearance of COI was diff which had the edit summary "removing dead links." This removed low ratings and quotes critical of Jack Said along with links to three RS, in fact only one of which was dead and that one had in fact only migrated while remaining on the same website. Smiddly has twice before removed critical reviews (diff and diff).


Robinsrevenge is an SPA as well. This editor's most recent edit with the appearance of COI was diff which removed a low rating and critical quote and a working link to a RS without an edit summary and characterized this edit as minor.


From the editors here, I would appreciate feedback as to whether the messages I left to Smiddly diff and Robinsrevenge diff are adequate, or if there is anything else that should be done. (I do still have to restore the content and links that were removed back to the article and will include links to archives for the webpages as well.) The article would also benefit from additional people watching or contributing to it. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the well sourced negative reviews and they were removed again today. As it's a pretty clear COI and you left Smiddly a note explaining the problem, I left a level 3 warning, which should hopefully stop them removing it again. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the articles on Jack Says, Jack Falls, and a number of the actors connected to these movies may have COI, N, V, and NPOV issues too, but I'm not sure I want to get that deeply into it. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Palamedes PR

Gruntfuttock115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

72Point and Palamedes PR are PR divisions South West News Service. OnePoll is owned by 72 Point. Anne Jones, Cathy Glass, Gurpareet Bains and Jan Kusmirek are clients of Palamedes PR.[20] 14.139.128.14 (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have despammed 72Point and partially despammed Palamedes PR for a start. Haven't had a chance to look at the client articles yet. – ukexpat (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything to show that 72Point and Palamedes PR are sufficiently notable for standalone articles per WP:CORP so have boldly redirected them to the South West News Service article. If anyone disagrees, then I'll be happy to take them to AfD, but hopefully this way we can save unneccesary discussion. SmartSE (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Susan Lim

Editor appears to be making promotional edits to a biographical article that is similar to their username. There appears to be plenty of positive press on the subject out there, so it is not particularly simple to determine where to determine the line falls between improvement and puffery. VQuakr (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites

I believe that this editor, who has long been an advocate of inclusion of material in the above article from James D. Tabor's book The Jesus Dynasty and related works, which, as can be seen on the page of that article and at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Tabor, has been, basically, rejected by the academic community, may have a conflict of interests regarding the topic. The Ebionite Jewish Community, a neo-Ebionite group which does not, so far as I can determine, itself merit a separate article as per WP:N, is however a clear advocate of Tabor's work, as can be seen here, and Ovadyah has for some time indicated, on his user page and elsewhere, an interest in promoting neo-Ebionite groups such as that one. In recent times, as can be seen on the article talk page, I believe the only editor who has clearly supported the inclusion of such material other than Ovadyah is Michael C Price, who is an advocate for the inclusion of fringe theories put forward by Robert Eisenman. Ovadyah, who in the earlier arbitration on this article here, opposed the inclusion of such material, now seems to be defending its inclusion. The possibility of some sort of tit-for-tat arrangement between the two is one I at least consider very real. A fuller discussion of the unfortunately long history of this matter can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#Evidence of possible POV/COI on the article. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will let John Carter get it all off his chest before I reply, but I think this first trip to AN/I frames the issues a little better than an attack page. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see this is just a simple content dispute. John Carter does not want to include anything from two sources (Tabor or Eisenman) on the subject, whereas other editors (not just myself and one other) are more discerning and happy to include such material that is relevant, reliably sourced etc etc. How John Carter construes this as a COI I am unclear - but then John Carter's reasoning on this subject is odd, to say the least. For instance, how he arrives at his tit-for-tat tag teaming conclusion is baffling. I can only think he is projecting his own guilt onto others, since it was he who emailed Ovadyah, offering to tag-team with Ovadyah, to get me perma-banned. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 01:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pablo Amaringo

User promoting a not-yet-published book by an author of the same name. CliffC (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Prout

Stumbled upon this today, where someone is claiming to have created these articles as paid editing, and is offering to do more. Archer7 (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazing that they claim they can edit. The writing is horrible...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bockeee
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Triangle of Life

Doug Copp has a history of editing his own article and I could use some help in sorting the situation out. I would rather not be involved as I have received threats both legal and possibly physical from his wife. --Daniel 19:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some of the former but not the latter. Is that in a diff somewhere?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The edit was from User:Paulinacopp and is on a now deleted version of my userpage, so it is not visible to non administrators. This is the content:
"This individual has had a personal vendetta against doug copp; since, 2006. He has consistently posted outrageous lies against doug copp. Wikipedia stopped this in 2006; however, now he has started again. The American Rescue Team International and doug copp have filed lawsuits against the villains who have tried to destroy ARTI's humanitarian work. Daniel J Leivick hid behind anonymity so that we could not sue him. Now he has exposed his identity. We expect a major settlement, in our New Yrok lawsuit, by January 2009. This will give us the funds to take corrective action against these people who have caused so much death and suffering.
I have contacted some of our ARTI members who live in your area. Also, our attorney has been notified and is taking action."
It is of course completely baseless, I had never heard of Triangle of Life prior to reverting Mrs. Copp's edit. Also not surprisingly, nothing came of these threats, but I particularly didn't like the part about contacting members who live in my area. --Daniel 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah. I can understand that. She was most likely blowing hot air, fortunately. Ironic that they're into saving lives but threatening others. I'll help keep a watch.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC

CarolmoorDC, a self-described political activist in the I-P dispute among other topics, has been heavily involved in editing articles on anti-semitism, Israel, and Judaism. She has apparently imported real life battles into Wikipedia. I am involved in these discussions, acting in the capacity of an ordinary editor, not as an administrator. Please see:

All editors should be reminded that it is not outing when an editor disclosed that they edit under their own name, and self-discloses their off-wiki activities. Every editor should be aware of what topics they have problems writing neutrally about, and stay away from them. They should especially avoid disputed editing of those topics, actively having a conflict of interest, or creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such editing damages the reputation of Wikipedia. When an editor fails to self-regulate, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the problem.

The above was posted elsewhere. Editors suggested bringing the matter here for full review. Jehochman Talk 20:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The contemporareous evidence can be viewed at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media. A user simply needs to read that page to see the style of CarolMooreDC's editing. As for article space, contributions are often tendentious, repeatedly attempting to legitimize the false and anti-semitic slander that Jews control the media.[21][22][23] Moreover, CarolMooreDC never retracted her 2003 remarks which call into question the neutrality of her editing. Once an editors says something bigoted, they own that position until they renounce it. Given the alignment between her stated position and current editing, I am very concerned for WP:NPOV. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Random noticeboard discussion appears to be given more than a few chances lately...I really think that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Carolmooredc might be the next step at this point instead of yet another discussion that likely won't do anything but go stale with back and forth arguments from the same people. --Onorem♠Dil 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to spend the next month watching over an RFC that draws in the usual I-P combatants and generates a stalemate. My hope is that a few uninvolved editors will look into matters and provide feedback on the merits. Every time I post concerns people say "go here, go there" but nobody wants to help resolve the dispute by saying "yes" or "no" the editing is good or bad. Why would RFC be any different? Jehochman Talk 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
/shrug. Fair enough I guess. I just don't see much happening from one of the toothless boards. --Onorem♠Dil 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
For now I'd be very happy to get an opinion from one of the regulars here. Would somebody be willing to dig through the contribution history, article edit history, and article talk page and tell me whether they see a problem, and if so what should be done about it? This all started when I naively page moved Allegations of Jewish control of the media, and Carolmooredc came down on me[24] like a ton of bricks alleging all manner of malfeasance and ADMINABUSE.[25] Something felt very wrong about that response, and when I dug into the matter, I did not like the editing pattern I saw. Then various people started emailing me evidence of long term abuse, and telling me stories about how Carolmooredc had driven off other editors with endless arguing and wikilawyering. This is a situation that needs to be investigated and resolved. As a first step I'd like that outside opinion please. I don't want to go off causing more trouble if somehow I've misunderstood the situation. Jehochman Talk 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

CarolmooreDC response

*Of course, User:Jehochman actually includes on his User Page a link to his LinkedIn page focusing on his internet marketing expertise, which some might consider blatant self-promotion of his business interests. At this diff he wrote: I do not have any conflict of interest in this area. I am not employed or obligated to anybody regarding this topic. I've got nothing to gain or lose in the outcome. COI is a difficult question because there's no easy way to know where to draw the line. Nevertheless I have to wonder, is he using it to recruit clients through his wikipedia edits or is he editing for his clients? (Notice he provides no evidence of any such financial interests or motivations on my part.) So I think it is more likely User:Jehochman has some conflict of interest problems than that I do.
  • Other wise my main mention of my off-wikipedia activities is to reply to repeated attacks from a variety of individuals using a link to the one email I wrote 7.5 years ago in 2003 when I was upset because I was getting death threats from a pro-Iraq war/pro-Israel supporter. (As his failed ANI showed, editors did not feel this was a significant issue.)
  • User:Jehochman resorts to repeated incendiary (and terrifying to many editors) allegations of antisemitism to cover up the fact that his preferred characterization of Allegations of Jewish control of the media as a "Canard" actually is not popular with a number of editors and is not supported by WP:RS as the only or most prominent description. See this NPOV discussion where many agreed canard should be taken out of the title. Nevertheless Jehochman went and changed the title back, without consulting the talk page, which I did find annoying. Jehochman then requested move to change the name of the article to include “canard” and that also was roundly rejected. In both cases a number of editors rejected canard as the primary description of the allegations. Nevertheless, Jehochman moved out of the lead evidence that myth and conspiracy theory are used as or more frequently and by more academic and journalistic WP:RS than canard is. This is the subject of this talk page thread where another editor agrees with me. Jehochman did not respond to either of us with wiki policy arguments but continued personal attacks on me on the talk page and now here.
  • This is reprehensible behavior and I have to wonder if it has something to do with Jehochman's financial interests in editing wikipedia in a certain way. Frankly I think he should be blocked from editing this article at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
If you have a specific reason to suggest that an editor has a financial interest in editing an article then feel free to bring forward a definite and verifiable request at a separate case on this board. Otherwise please do not fling around unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo. This is about CarolMooreDC. Do you feel that you have a conflict of interest or not? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, if that's all that is necessary to say is: No. I don't get any financial or benefit from editing on this topic. I have a POV but I don't feel it is any stronger than User:Jehochmans. And I try hard to follow the rules about expressing it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of interest is much wider than financial benefit: as you can see at the top of this page, COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Does any of that apply to you?
Oh, and please do not make significant modifications to your posts after someone else has replied to them. It makes the discussion almost impossible to follow. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the previous discussion here about CarolMooreDC and in particular Atama's comment. Has anything changed since then to demonstrate why CarolMooreDC has a COI? I imagine campaigning would be the only possible conflict, but the links provided really don't make it clear how this is possible and it looks to me, as if this is still more of a POV, rather than COI issue. SmartSE (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
To User:Kenilworth Terrace: I don't know or am involved with any person, company or group - except wikipedia - that will benefit from calling "Jewish control of media" a "myth" or "a conspiracy theory" as well as a canard. (And that is the only specific issue that Jehochman has been exercised about. I have tripled the history section and cleaned up BLP issues with nary a complaint from him. He hasn't mentioned anything else that I can remember.)
It is acceptable to strike statements, isn't it, if one is in error? The content still can be read. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Striking is fine. Jehochman Talk 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
But this is an addition, not striking, and is not fine. Please don't do that sort of thing. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
We need to resolve the problem, even if it doesn't neatly fit into one of the pre-assigned noticeboard categories. Carolmooredc says she received death threats from a pro-Israeli supporter. That's horrible and I'm very sorry it happened. My concern is that her neutrality may have been compromised by this very unfortunate situation. Wikipedia is not a place for resolving nor for playing out real world disputes. WP:COI advises editors involved in litigation not to edit articles about the other party or the topic of dispute. I believe receiving a death threat is even more severely prejudicial than receiving a lawsuit. I am not sure whether Carolmooredc needs to be told not to edit this topic, or if she just needs to be more cautious about getting feedback from other editors. Her real life involvement in issue advocacy also raises a concern if she edits those same topics. Where is the line between loyalty to Wikipedia the project, and advocacy projects? WP:COI is exactly about how to resolve situations where an editor's various interests come into conflict. It's a hard, hard question. I'm not sure I have the answer, but this needs to be resolved. Jehochman Talk 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This is getting absurd. As I document at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#WP:Harassment_by_User:Jehochman, Jehochman has brought up this email about an old forgotten incident a number of times, forcing me to explain it. And now he claims that I have a POV because of an incident I’d forgotten?
As it happens I haven't been very politically active since 2007 and have focused on editing wikipedia. I do drift towards articles where there are ridiculous POV assertions and/or BLP violations supported by constant bullying of editors - and there are a lot of those related to the Israel issue. I think bullies should be banned from editing any articles where they repeatedly engage in bullying, whatever their reason. Bullying is certainly evidence of POV and COI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This (I agree with Smartse) seems more about POV disagrements then COI. If Carol has nothing to gain by her edits then I fail to see how COI can be invoked.Slatersteven (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
{To Jehochman} Are you serious? Over the last 7 years I've received so many threats on and off Wikipedia because I've been willing to take on nationalists, activists, and other POV pushers of all kinds of stripes. I actually have no idea or opinion about Carolmooredc, but the opinion that being threatened creates a COI is preposterous and antithetical to free editing. It is an idea that should be dismissed out of hand as every POV pusher will create a threatening sock and push their opponent out of the discussion. Anyone who stands up to POV pushers should be applauded. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Thank you for the applause. *bows* The problem is deciding who "stands up to POV pushers" and who's the POV pusher. Without editors willing to dig into the facts of the matter, it is very easy to confuse the two. How to sort that out? Jehochman Talk 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. COI involves placing the interests of another person, group, or ideology—with whom or which they have a relationship—over the interests of Wikipedia. We usually need payment or a role within an interested organization to trigger suspicion of COI. If we were to topic ban everyone with strong views, we'd have no one left to edit in lots of topic areas.
We have Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for articles, but not for users. What might be helpful is the creation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors). People could make reports there of users who consistently edit aggressively from only one perspective in contentious areas. It would give us a step before a user RfC for persistent POV pushing. I can foresee problems with it (increase in the number of noticeboards we're expected to watch; and people complaining that they rightly edit from one perspective because it's the majority POV), so I'm just floating this as an idea for discussion. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Slim, is this http://www.carolmoore.net/biography/ the sort of COI you are talking about? Placing loyalty to an ideology and a group (or groups) ahead of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy? Carol has founded a variety of groups and served as officer of several. She's been editing a lot of those same topics on Wikipedia. I have received numerous emails from editors complaining that she runs people off if they disagree with her points of view. At what point does editing about topics one knows cross the line into issue advocacy on Wikipedia, which is forbidden? Jehochman Talk 00:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
{Insert here} It also would be relevant to CAMERA's email mentioning Slim Virgin, under your view point. (See this wikipedia article section for context.) Note that Slim Virgin had such a proposal a couple years ago that went no where, including for reasons listed below. I could not understand why she would push such a thing, given the CAMERA email. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In response to SlimVirgin's thoughts about creation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors), I'll offer these thoughts:
  • I agree that the logistics of having another board could be a problem
  • More importantly, assuming the purpose of the board would be to "post questions here about whether users are editing articles in compliance with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy" (or perhaps "Report users that are not editing articles in compliance with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy"), I believe there the existing noticeboards provide venues for such questions/reports already.
  • I'll state my belief that every editor has a point of view about something. This only is an issue if an editor edits in violation of NPOV. For example, I have an extremely strong point of view regarding the efficacy of Pemetrexed following the the administration of Taxanes, said point of view being in the minority amongst those with opinions in such matters. As long as I refrain from editing articles to push that POV (and others I may have, some equally arcane, some not), I should be OK.
  • To state the obvious, the issue at hand (here and at least two other noticeboards) is whether one editor's edits are in violation of WP:NPOV such that they require action (from chastisement to ban). I've started to look at the edit history, and, as a complete outsider to the topic, I can't tell, as of yet. Note that my use of the term "yet" doesn't mean I'm trying to find such a violation. Rather, there's so many edits and reverts over time in the history, and so much discussion on the Talk page, that it is not something I can quickly discern. Other editors may fare better in that regard.
Cheers to all, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd really appreciate an outside opinion. As an involved editor my perceptions may not be sufficiently objective. I don't want to waste time with RFC or RFAR if such steps are unnecessary. Jehochman Talk 00:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that creating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (editors) would be rather duplicative of AN/I. Editors are allowed to have strong points of view, but need to follow community policies related to how or if they incorporate that view into articles and discussions. If an editor is able to conduct themselves appropriately in this regard, there's nothing to discuss on a noticeboard. If they cannot, we have an established system to engage the user in discussion and consensus, ranging from warnings to talk pages to informal and formal dispute resolution. If that fails, it's an incident that violates policies other than NPOV (e.g. 3RR), and so it belongs on AN/I or another noticeboard. In other words, what does a new noticeboard add? Zachlipton (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems that CarolMooreDC has not yet satisfactorily addressed the question as to whether or not she believes that she has a COI. I have asked this twice: the first response was "I don't get any financial or benefit from editing on this topic" and the second was "I don't know or am involved with any person, company or group - except wikipedia - that will benefit from calling "Jewish control of media" a "myth" or "a conspiracy theory" as well as a canard." Why such very careful statements, restricted in the first case to he personal benefit on the broad topic and then to associated groups on a highly specific point? Is it possible that she has a COI by association, in the topic broadly considered? She needs to consider for herself whether or not there is a possibility of COI in this area and I hope that she will then share the results of her deliberations frankly with the rest of us. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI has 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. In short - the "conflict" is generally one of personal gain - not simply holding or advancing opinions. Further, ArbCom has made findings that collaborative editing by groups may violate WP policies, but specifically has not found that holding strong personal opinions violates COI. Now if folks decide to increase the extent of COI to include "personal interests" then most of the WP project areas would have to be shut down, for sure. Assuming, however, that such is not the aim here, there is no reason to continue this assertion that Carol Moore has any real "conflict of interest." Collect (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to answer Kenilworth Terrace, my "financial benefit" response spoke to what I thought major concern of COI was; the narrow description of any person, company or group - except wikipedia - that will benefit from calling "Jewish control of media" a "myth" or "a conspiracy theory" as well as a "canard" was just my way of emphasizing the fact that Jehochman came after me this time for opining (as did another editor) that since myth and conspiracy theory are used as much or more than canard, he should not have removed them from the lead. So let me make it clear I am not in any way promoting the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests... I know Jehochman wrote at this diff: COI is a difficult question because there's no easy way to know where to draw the line. Maybe he does not know, but I can clearly say I don't have a conflict of interest in any article about Jews (or any other religion or ethnic group), or any article about Palestine or Israel (or any other state). CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Break 1

I've been trying to follow this mess, which has been spread over multiple notice boards and discussion pages. From what I can see, Carol has a strong POV which sometimes causes problems, but does not appear to fit a COI. If her edits become disruptive, that can be dealt with on its own. Jehochman also has a strong POV, which seems to be more in keeping with Wikipedia's policies, but has a very aggressive attitude which tends to undermine his own efforts. It does not fall into the realm of harassment but it's certainly borderline with WP:CIVIL at this point. Both editors need to reign in their emotions, edit collaboratively and allow third parties to intervene without going into these multi-page back-and-forth arguments over who is being more mean to whom. And, of course, any actual anti-Semitic edits will be reverted and result in sanctions; but, not all edits critical of Israel are anti-Semitic. This is going to be a touchy area, but this constant barrage of argument isn't helping anyone. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that CarolMooreDC has considered the matter and is clear in her own mind that she does not have a conflict of interest. Let's take this one step further if we can. Can she think of any reason why an impartial observer might think that a conflict of interest was possible? That is, is there any person or group whose interests might be seen by that impartial observer as being advanced by her edits (even though she is sure herself that that is not the reason for her making those edits)? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we're supposed to go that deeply into reading other peoples' minds, frankly. Though I will admit that family rumor has it I am 1/32 Portuguese Sephardic Jewish and my family was always paranoid about admitting it cause something bad might happen, and most of my friends most of my life have been Jewish, and let's not start on my dozens of Jewish lovers during my 40 years of sexual activity, since you asked, so maybe sometimes I go too easy in criticizing some edits in some articles when I should be complaining more. How's that for deep psychological COI disclosure?? I assume that is the kind of thing people are supposed to reveal in COI, if one is asked explicitly about ...interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests...  ?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear. I was trying to move this forward by asking CarolMooreDC to take an objective look at her own position and assess it in the way that an outside observer might see it. From her egregiously misinterpreting both me and the COI guidelines, and her giving a rather frivolous answer to a question it was completely clear that I wasn't asking, I conclude that she is not interesting in working to resolve this issue. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was a little facetious because I just can't read the mind of every person who might read every edit and disagree with me. Please explain to me exactly what you want. But I did realize that digging around in my psyche there was no doubt that on the issue of Jewishness, yes I do sometimes have a slight bias which is personally - and not politically - oriented about some things that I feel might have some personal negative implications for me if, say, Hitler Jr came to power; so I may occassionally exhibit some defensiveness from time to time. How much Jewish heritage (all down through the mother's line by the way) and/or experience does one have to have for you to take admission of such biases seriously? I did my best to answer your repeated and sometimes vague questions, even if I did express some annoyance at their repetitiveness and vagueness. I think others have expressed this whole Noticeboard entry is more a POV question, so unless you can explain exactly what you are looking for and why it matters COI-wise, it's starting to feel like harassment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Perhaps a user RfC would be the next step? It's not clear the issue is COI, but people clearly feel there's a problem that Carol isn't addressing. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you could ask questions that would make it clear to me. I just see POV warriors using an ancient off wiki email to attack me in highly disruptive editing tactics. (Everything else is editorial disagreements.) If you think it is appropriate for me to correct/update/etc. that old email in some forum - like a talk page from my user page - do tell. I am asking opinions from people and so far have two failures to answer, one "you don't have to be that detailed" (from Jehochman; but I disagree) and one "hell no." Is there an appropriate message board I should put the question of what to do up on for community consensus? (This isn't it since it's clearly been established a POV issue and not a COI one.) A serious constructive answer truly appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kennilworth's question was clear. Forgetting the 2003 email, his question was this, slightly paraphrased: Can you think of any reason an impartial observer might think a conflict of interest was possible? That is, is there any group or ideology the interests of which an impartial observer might see your edits as advancing? If so, which group or ideology would that be (even if you believe the impartial observer is wrong)?
I have a question too: do you see yourself as a good editor? That is, are articles usually improved by your edits, in your view? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems that CarolMooreDC is trying to answer questions (which are not being asked) about her POV. However, this is the COI noticeboard and the issue is whether she has a conflict of interest. No deep psychological analysis is required to address the issue, for example, "Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's start again. I do not understand this question. You wrote: Let's take this one step further if we can. Can she think of any reason why an impartial observer might think that a conflict of interest was possible? That is, is there any person or group whose interests might be seen by that impartial observer as being advanced by her edits (even though she is sure herself that that is not the reason for her making those edits)? Is my saying it is inappropriate for me to speculate/comment on other peoples' states of mind that they have never expressed to me sufficient for you?? Would you like me to strike the comments about the "defensive COI" I might have regarding family heritage which I thought might satisfy your digging around for a COI? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Saying that you refuse to comment on how your edits might appear to an impartial outsider is an answer. Unfortunately, it is an answer that suggests that you are not interested in the neutrality of your editing. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Carol, you're being asked two very simple questions. (1) Do you understand why someone uninvolved might believe you have a conflict of interest? And (2) are articles usually improved by your edits, in your opinion? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your word that this is what he's asking and answer, and the two of you can debate it if you are wrong and get back to me when you have a consensus. 1) Yes, people might think I have a conflict of interest, mostly because I'm an assertive female and a lot of guys just can't believe I'm doing all this editing without some man encouraging me or paying me for it. After all I think a lot of editors have conflicts of interest but since they are anonymous I can't check who they work for. At least in my case it's easy to check. 2) While I don't think this question gets into COI territory, I'll answer. Yes, articles are usually improved because I always use references (or the ocassional cite when I intend to add it very soon), add interesting, relevant NPOV material, etc, and delete vandalism, longtime unsourced material, and rediculously POV stuff (though the latter only after talk page discussion.) Anyone else feel free to answer those questions. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you involved with any organisation that engages in advocacy in an area in which you are also editing? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for a specific question. It helps me build my list for questions on peoples' talk pages. However, I answered that above - since 2007 I really haven't been involved in any active political organizations whose main agenda is the Israel-Palestine issue. I do read and occasionally contribute links to a couple related email lists, including Jewish ones, NOT related in any way to wikipedia, but if that's a conflict of interest that has to be declared to the world, we might as well kick off everyone from wikipedia. So unless you have something new that is truly relevant, I'm finished here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That didn't entirely answer the question, Carol. Are you involved in any organization that engages in advocacy over the Israel-Palestine issue, whether it is their main agenda or not? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I already answered your first question. The second question is totally out of line.
WP:COI says: Please read WP:COI: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
Where does it say - are you or have you ever been a member of any organization that has some minor position on the topic you are editing on? Frankly, I don't even know what groups I'm a "member" of (however one defines that) right now, though I'm sure many of them have some position or other on the Israel-Palestine issue. All members and supporters of Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians and any Israeli political party better stop editing right now. Absurd! CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(←) It seems to me that CarolMooreDC finds it difficult to take an objective view of her own edits in this area, and takes a battleground mentality. I suggest that her position as an activist makes it desirable that she consider restricting her field of operations to the three million or so articles not connected to the political and social positions she is concerned to advance. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you point to edits that you find particularly problematic? un☯mi 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what THTFY said at the beginning of this section. Many if not most editors in this area are WP:Activists. Most are probably acting just out of conviction, unless you consider very wide COI categories, like nationality or ethnicity, which we normally do not. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Rachael Lillis

First of all, I would like to apologize if I got involved in this situation. Today, the editor (who appears to be the article's subject) and is a COI as well as a SPA, appears to have been reverting fansite removals (which violate WP:ELNO) as well as a removal of the subject's IMDB link (which is acceptable per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites contains a speculative birthdate) (this happened once on Monday) and some of her credits (as listed on her official website), including an addition of an unnecessary category. As a result, the fansites were immediately blacklisted after I immediately filed a report here. I have already tagged this article as a COI, removed the IMDB link, and restored her credits according to her official website. On the editor's talk page, she has expressed concern that the IMDB link be removed and was provisionally unblocked. I am alerting the community of what happened and I hope this is not excessive. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Wikileakscrimes

Resolved
 – User in question blocked by OrangeMike. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

An obvious conflict of interest, not just in the name itself, but in that it appears to be derived from that for a website. I have placed Template:Uw-coi-username on the relevant user page, and will notify the user of this report. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMike has blocked them for their username violating WP:U. For future reference, you could have reported it straight to WP:UAA instead of here. SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Rawhide Boys Ranch

Nabor has been expanding this article to get across the Ranch's point of view; on the article's talk page he tacitly admits he's been working hand-in-hand with the Ranch management. Now he's re-written the "Controversy" section to express the Ranch's POV rather than a neutral one, since the facts don't look good for them. Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the broad characterization of the changes that I've made in the article. The changes that I've made are well supported with mainstream press and website references, are written neutrally, and are factual. If there are issues with specific changes, as well as specific perceptions of non-neutrality, then let's discuss. I've been open that I am working with the Ranch, but I also respect the editorial guidelines of Wikipedia and it's important to me that this article meets the guidelines. I had already made sevedral changes based on feedback from Orange Mike and Hrafn. The article as it was written was dominated by one negative incident in a 45 year history of operating, and the description of that incident in the "Controversy" section was not written in a neutral tone, had facts strung together illogically, and was clearly intended as biased against the Ranch.Nabor11 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Something called the "Rawhide Boys Ranch" has issues with hiring gays? Have they considered a name change? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Photography

This account has twice attempted to place links to the about.com article on Photography. The about.com "guide" to that article is named "Liz". The same acount is now questioning why we don't consider about.com a reliable source. See also User talk:PhotoGuideLiz#Conflict of interest. Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to correct a factual error that was calling a camera and a camera obscura the same thing. The reference link was to a site I write for but that was because I knew were the information was there and I had all the additional source links on that article. It is hardly conflict of interest or spam. It's not like I was making massive edits to spam the site. I made the second edit attempt because the person who deleted my original edit gave apparently refused to answer a request for clarification on reliability/reputation of sites. As expected, when I made the second edit, THEN the person responded.PhotoLiz 21:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotoGuideLiz (talk • contribs)
Hi Liz, thanks for trying to correct an error. I agree with other editors that the source that you added is unfortunately not what we consider "reliable", but I personally, don't think you're what we call a reference spammer since you did only add one link. If you have written the about.com article, hopefully you have access to a source that we do consider reliable and can use that instead. It would be great if you did. SmartSE (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect (and I do greatly appreciate your civil response) if a site that is under several layers of editorial scrutiny, follows AP requirements, is owned and monitored by the New York Times, and is written only by people with verified expertise in their areas is not reliable then the vast majority of sites referenced on Wikipedia should be struck.PhotoLiz 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotoGuideLiz (talk • contribs)

About.com is not a great source for this topic. We should give preference to authoritative sources preferably academic ones. For this information finding an excellent source should be very easy. I'm sure the information would be covered in just about any history of photography. --Daniel 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've given several reasons why About.com (any of the 800+ sites contained within the company) ARE reliable sources of information. Please explain WHY you think it is not. PhotoLiz 23:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotoGuideLiz (talk • contribs)

I've checked the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard and found a few discussions regarding about.com: 1, 2 and 3. It looks as if the consensus is somewhat murky, as to whether about.com is "reliable" and I don't feel confident in deciding whether it is or isn't in this case. Regardless, citing oneself is not encouraged, especially when there must be other sources available. SmartSE (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand not linking to oneself as a rule, I've explained why in this instance I did that. However, the three discussions you cite are far from correct about About.com. In the first the discussion is about a FORUM post by someone other than the About.com Guide (moderators are not employed by About.com). The second is purely a back and forth of "I like them" "Well I don't." The third has absolutely wrong information. SandyGeorgia states: "Anyone can write for about.com and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight; it depends on whether the author meets WP:SPS as an expert." This is completely wrong. Guides are hired just like any other authors, they must provide credentials as to expertise in the area they wish to write about, they are put through an unpaid "trial" period in which an editor works with them daily, then there is a 6 month probation period with another editor scrutinizing articles. After that authors are turned over to a long term editor who still monitors writings and steps in as needed (same as any other editor). There are strict rules on neutrality (except for sites that are designed to be one side or the other of a specific debate), style guides, and even limits set on review products.PhotoLiz 23:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC) (note I'm using the 4 trilde but for some reason it is not signing correctly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhotoGuideLiz (talk • contribs)

My interpretation of the material in reliable sources noticeboard is that about.com might be acceptable in some cases, but it's better to cite an academic source where one is available. --CliffC (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Milken family reputation enhancement project

(Copied from WP:ANI)

A sizable effort has been underway for some time to polish the reputation of Michael Milken (billionaire and major financial crook of the 1980s) and some of his relatives.

Articles:

Users: (all WP:SPA accounts which edit only Milken-related articles.)

The articles are incredibly flattering, and read like press releases. Except for the parts about the criminal convictions, being kicked out of the securities industry, etc., which the flattery operation tries to minimize or remove. I've had some minor edit warring issues with some of the above, but didn't put the whole picture together until today. --John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an important issue to raise, but the matter should be brought to WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN instead of here. --Jayron32 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure whether this belongs here, at WP:COIN, WP:NPOVN, or WP:SPI. It has aspects of all of the above. --John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added another article + editor that I noticed, here seems as good a place to discuss this as anywhere I think. I've started to tidy them up a bit, but it will take a while. As there are so many SPAs an SPI may be in order, but most have not been active that recently so it might not result in any action. I definitely agree that there is a problem though and a COI looks very likely. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Milken Tarnishing Effort Underway
You cannot read the current Mike Milken biography page without learning about the negative aspects of Milken's career. Each of the first three paragraphs contain detailed negative information about his legal troubles, and there are entire sections on this page devoted specifically to these problems. The editor(s) who continue to trash this page seem to be unable to accept a balanced account of Milken's life, and the fact that he has in fact made tremendous contributions to financial markets, medical research and education (much of which it seems is rightfully cited on this page). By continuing to use inflammatory language in these discussions such as "crook" and "notorious", the editor(s) have revealed themselves as intent upon unleashing their own POV - that because Milken served time he must be labled a criminal for life and divorced from any other aspects of his life. As I read them, many of the postive comments made on this page are factual. Perhaps these editors should explain why Milken's positive contributions should not be included? And further, they might take the time to spell his name correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwimDude (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — SwimDude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Fixed spelling above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on editing histories of the seven accounts/IPs, this looks like a prime candidate for a checkuser for socking. — Satori Son
The contributor does have a point despite any COI: the article does need to be balanced and show all aspects. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The article on the Milken Archive of Jewish Music was a basically suitable article on a notable subject; it needed some rewriting to remove some of the style of a press release, but I took care of that. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I opened a SPI case here to see if Checkuser is necessary. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The sockmaster is now blocked for one week. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Related image problems

Some of the socks have been uploading images, claiming the images are their own work. Many of those images are now marked for deletion, unless appropriate ORTS tickets come in. Some images have made it to Commons, though. File:Lowell milken UCLA Award.jpg, uploaded by Shsueh (talk · contribs), is claimed as "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses...". But the image metadata shows copyright data from a commercial photographer in Los Angeles. File:Lowell Milken Lincoln Center.JPG, uploaded by sock Paragonzen (talk · contribs), is also on Commons. I'm not sure how to deal with that on Commons. The usual Wikipedia templates don't work there. --John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Used appropriate templates on Commons to indicate licensing issue. Done here. --John Nagle (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

InterRidge

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. InterRidge (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the Coordinator of InterRidge. I have written the article for information, not as advertising.

Hi, thanks for posting here. I've had a quick look at the article and can provide some advice. It is ok for you to write the article, but you should make sure that you base it as much as you can on secondary source (what other people have said about the project) rather than what you know yourself. I've added some sources which look as if they should be helpful to the talk page and will keep an eye on the article for you and provide help if needed. This explains how you can add references to the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sapfl

Sapfl has been adding links pointing to the website of the International Labour Organization to many different articles. Sapf has the same initials as Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Added the username to template above. Their spam spree seems to have resumed this morning. --CliffC (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Noelle pozzi

A spammer whose single-purpose account is used solely for promoting her company DVDVideoSoft and its software products by (re)creating the DVDVideoSoft and FreeStudio articles and its talk pages, and spamming with external links ([27]). The DVDVideoSoft article has been repeatedly deleted (also via a deletion discussion), and recreated by Noelle pozzi, who, despite being warned on her talk page that she has a conflict of interest and being explained many times why she should refrain from doing it, still keeps nagging all involved admins and editors, giving bogus reasons to keep the page and adding links in the (now deleted) articles that fail to meet the verifiability/reliable sources guidelines, including a link to the company web forum [28] which confirms that it is indeed the Noelle Pozzi from DVDVideoSoft.—J. M. (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

VS System

For the past year, the VS System Council, a group of veteran VS players whom have taken it upon themselves to attempt to maintain this game after its creator bowed out, has been using the VS System article as an announcements board. I only myself just became aware of it when a user on a forum I frequented called my attention to it. this diff is all the text I've removed, which has been added by the named account and three IPs over the past year:

  • KardKrazy: [29] (First edit and the start of the Council section, at least in spirit), [30] (the intervening edits are all KardKrazy's)
  • 216.: [31]
  • 74.: [32], [33]
  • 156.: [34]

Note that I take no position on the state of the article before the Council moved in, other than that the Council exacerbated the article's already-unencyclopedic tone. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 05:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

English Defence League

The situation is completely out of hand. There is an active effort by users, but particularly this one who adds/removes nothing but POV to the article, to stop the progression and the neutrality of the article. He is opposed to anything factual that may make the group in question credible. See "Guramit Singh", and "attack on EDL leader/member. He has also accused me wrongly of sockpupetting and deleted a valid post by another user for no other reason that not liking his edit and believing it is a sockpuppet. He is aggressive and uses aggressive language. Please help us sort this out Alexandre8 (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the conflict of interest? Why haven't you brought Steveg79 (talk · contribs) who is clearly a WP:SPA whereas Multiculturalist although recently mainly editing this article has edited a broader range of articles than Steveg79 or you. Note to others, I also see another SPA, Straightliner2000 (talk · contribs) and I would not be surprised if we have meat or sock puppetry problems at this article.
And while writing this I see you've added to the edit warring there. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not addressing the issue. If you could read his comments and reasons for deletion you would see clearly that revisions by myself and Steveg by and large are justified. Would you care to explain to me why you think it's justifiable to abuse people and remove edits because you think that I and Steveg are sockpuppets? Alexandre8 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting the wider editor community to the serious pro-nazi pro fascist POV pushing that is going on at this article. I appreciate it. Hans Adler 11:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
completely inappropriate and offensive language. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I edited my comment. Better now? Whether you call them nazis or fascists doesn't really matter. Apparently for some reason some of them are opposed to the historical form of German fascism. Of course that alone doesn't make them fundamentally different. Hans Adler 12:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand your disgust at their group. But remember what we're trying to achieve here, so that kind of language goes absolutely nowhere since it is not sourced in the slightest. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is a POV mess no matter who looks at it. Sourcing is uneven ("Searchlight" is a political site, and should be cited for opinions as opinions, not for facts, just as one example), and is full of acts similar to what WP:Advocacy notes. Articles about despicable groups must still meet WP policy requirements, and this one appears to fall short. Collect (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect knows perfectly well that the reliability of Searchlight has been discussed several times at the RS notice board and in the case of this article is only used once anyway. The bulk of the material comes from broadsheet newspapers and academic articles. --Snowded TALK 12:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
A comment on me or on the fact that on WP opinions must always be cited as opinions? If on me, then the post is not proper on this noticeboard. I only noted one specific source - of course everyone here realizes that other sources are likely to be used. Collect (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't yet suggested any particular edits are sock puppets, I simply pointed out that the person bring this is an SPA and asked where the COI comes in. This is, after all, the COI board, and my experience is that it is often SPAs who have a conflict of interest. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I would however like to bring attention to Mulniculturalist 's accusations and his aggressive comments and edits. Some of which have accused me rudely of being a sockpuppet which is completely false. So in this case it's not always the SPA#s to blame. I encourage further investigation, thanks -Alexandre Alexandre8 (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see this comment for a snippet of the rubbish Multiculturalist is posting.

"The sole agenda of the person who posts under Alexandre8 and Steveg79 is to turn this article into an EDL propaganda site. He has form in using multiple accounts (and, indeed, has been warned about this on his talk page). He has now seen fit - once again - to leave abusive comments on my talk page. The last time he did this I warned him of the consequences and he quickly deleted the comments and issued an apology. This time I will not accept an apology. Because Snowded plays by the rules - and Alexandre8 does not - we have a situation whereby this article is now significantly more pro-EDL than it was 24 hours ago. It's a disgraceful situation that fascists should be allowed to abuse Wikipedia in this way, and Alexandre8/Steveg79 sould have his account(s) suspended forthwith. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)"

My apology was for language used, not for sock puppeting. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're on the wrong board. I've asked you to explain where the conflict of interest is and you haven't done that yet. Let me ask you, do you have any conflict of interest with this article? Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Well yes. I want to preserve its integrity and Multi wants it turned into an anti EDL propoganda page. He has pretty much admitted that openly in his comments by calling them nazi's and fascists and any asian in their group must be a token member. We will get no where if this user is allowed to make reverts to the article of this nature. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
That is an NPOV issue not a conflict of interest; not that I think you really have any evidence --Snowded TALK 13:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The discourse is there for all to see. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

While probably (based on IP location) innocent of sockpuppetry on this occasion, it is a verifiable fact that Alexandre8 has used an IP sockpuppet to further his far-right POV pushing - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexandre8/Archive. His excuse on his talk page that he forgot to log in was already shown to be dubious in the evidence I presented. A long hard look by uninvolved editors at his edit warring and POV pushing is long overdue. 2 lines of K303 13:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

and the point of saying that was.... ? God you must feel good about yourself. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

While the last comment by One Night in Hackney (signing as "2 lines") was completely off-topic, the entire report here is off-topic in the first place. Technically, a conflict of interest only becomes relevant to us only when there is strong evidence that someone is writing about themselves, a small organisation of which they are a member, or about their employer – or a similar situation. Just having a strong opinion does not count. I have considered closing this thread as off-topic, but would prefer the filer or an admin to do it. Hans Adler 14:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I just want the ludicrous situation on the EDL pages to stop and sort itself out. It that too much to ask :(? Alexandre8 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate Hans Adler's point, I have been attacked on this page and would therefore appreciate the opportunity to respond. I'm confident that the Wikipedia authorities will dismiss Alexandre8's complaint if they look into his record of POV editing and abusing other editors. I would urge them to look also at the comments he has deleted on discussion pages and individual users' talk pages in order to get a fuller measure of the man. Did he not accuse Snowded of being a member of UAF? A brief peruse through the EDL Discussion page reveals that he has had arguments with a number of other editors, and his protestations always seem to revolve around his belief that the article is unfair to the group. Here are a few examples: "It is a fact that the majority of EDL supporters are not Nazi's (sic), not anti-semitic and not Holocuast deniers". (Really - how does he know?). "Get rid of the silly POV language and write the truth". (That comment was directed at Mo ainm). "If you continue to approach all articles as "them and us" then you will rarely be able to contribute information." (That remark was to xyster). "You're a shambles". (That remark was directed at me because I had suggested that the EDL might be both anti-semitic and Islamophobic). He also says:- "I am not a huge fan of having my balls chopped off for being a homosexual under sharia law." He has, in addition, supported the unclusion of a section about an unsubstatiated attack on an EDL member, even though citation was not provided. He was even offended when someone suggested most EDL members do not know the difference between Muslims and Hindus. They don't. Whilst I have had neither the time, nor the desire, to trawl through all of Alexandre8's contributions, the following random selection of gems help to illustrate further his blatant POV: "I'm outraged at this complete contempt for any sort of freedom of speech. If you don't like what the EDL do, then tough, you don't have to like it, but it's your right to be offended." ..... "You only have to look at the leads to other controversial groups/political leaders ect (sic) around the world to see that the disagreeable things that (sic) stand for are not rammed down your throat in the first few lines. I beg you to stop butchering articles and just present fact from a NPOV point of view. I'm seriously offended at your attempts to ruin the NPOV rule legally, it goes completely against the Good Faith act." ..... "It isn't your position to say what people should and shouldn't believe. This isn't citizenship lessons. Please stop trying to ram your rubbish down people's throats." ..... "I would argue that this is b.s on an unprecedented scale. I just looked at the link you provided, and they outlined that the, paedophiles, were Muslims. They were. Truth hurts sometimes doesn't it. Even Jack Straw went on national telly and said that muslim grooming gangs were a problem. There is no way he would have said unless there was truth in that. Sure you'll come back with the wishy-washy rubbish that not all muslims are paedophiles. YEh, I know, that's sort of obvious isn't it. Doesn't change the fact that those men there were though does it?" Regarding my remarks about Alexandre8 and Steveg79, they share exactly the same POV, have the same poor grasp of English grammar, and even use the same phraseology (e.g. promoting their POV as "facts"). Alexandre8 has form when it comes to logging in under multiple accounts - and has been warned about this on his talk page. Whether Alexandre8 and Steveg79 use the same IP address is irrelevent: I could easily go into the local Southall library right now and create a new account. No one would be any the wiser, as the IP address would come up as completely different. Regardless of whether the IP addresses appear to relate to different countries, I maintain there is a connection. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC) 


--"Alexandre8 has form when it comes to logging in under multiple accounts"" - Wrong. Already been discussed. I edited whilst logged out. I have one account. This will get you nowhere. There are millions of people who use Wikipedia everyday. Of course there will be people with similar views.


-- Attacked -- If you call bringing your POV to justice an attack, then sure.

--""It is a fact that the majority of EDL supporters are not Nazi's (sic), not anti-semitic and not Holocuast deniers"." A prime example me having to debate with Multiculturalists ludicrous POV pushing. Of course the majority of the members aren't nazi's. What a nonsensical thing to suggest.

-- All these comments I have made should be seen in the context they were made as they are REACTIONS, to previous comments, whereas Multi is making new comments, about rubbish. See his attemps to give the EDL Anti semetic and Islamophobic tags.

-- Sharia Law-- Very interesting to see you support it. Most people would find that rather despicable.

-- He was even offended when someone suggested most EDL members do not know the difference between Muslims and Hindus. They don't" - Now you see what we have to deal with.

Terrible grammar? lol.


An exhausted Alexandre8 (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. You have just accused me of supporting Sharia Law - a pure unadulterated lie. Multiculturalist (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What rubbish. You quoted me as saying that since I opposed sharia law, that was a bad thing. I can only think that you support it if you're going to use that statement against me. Not very wise really. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Again, this is the wrong place for this discussion. I will note that Maxted101 (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of Steveg70, whose block has been extended to two weeks for sock puppetry. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert M. Bernstein

An individual in the employ of the subject, using the above account, appears to be in violation of WP:ROLE and WP:COI. The user has taken severe umbrage at my nomination of Robert M. Bernstein for deletion, so I'm recusing myself from further administrative actions regarding the user. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Team editing in the hair loss community

International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery was created in April 2010 by a 3-edit SPA. The article's list of what links here includes several other articles created by SPA/throwaway accounts who have few or no edits outside of creating or touching up hair-loss related articles. This suggests some sort of high-level coordination, and that the SPAs may be socks.

--CliffC (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

--CliffC (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Idaho Senate

  • Idaho Senate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I am spending the 2011 Legislative session working with the Idaho Senate Majority Caucus. Among other things, I am helping to make updates to Idaho political pages as many have long been neglected. I attempt to make all edits conform to Wikipedia policy. Please check my work.

Several of us are working on the Idaho Senate and various Idaho Senator Wikipedia pages. We have various degrees of conflict of interest. I have the most significant conflict of interest as I work for the Majority Caucus for this session, but am attempting to work within Wikipedia's guidelines and only offer factual, neutral POV edits. The goal is for interested parties to be able to find out basic information about the public figures that represent them and also to update information as Idaho politics have largely been neglected. We would welcome members of the Wikipedia community double checking and improving our work. Idahopolitico (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Little Valley (village), New York

I believe there may be a COI here: It appears that User:JMyrleFuller has used his own personal website Fullervision.net as a referece in at least two articles. User states he is an "amateur newsman" on his WP user page. I've checked the history of the two pages and the references on both pages were entered by the user in question. While I think it's best to assume good faith, I don't think it's in the best interest of Wikipedia for editors to promote (or at least appear to promote) their own websites like this. Someone should probably check into it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Subject Editing Own Article; WP:CONFLICT

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

The edit summaries are in the first person, e.g. "updated my albums to include latest releases" and an unflattering paragraph has been repeatedly blanked by the same IP. No response from the user. The article currently stands with user's edit.

Blackguard 00:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonnie Bergin

New editor editing on behalf of the subject. She needs to change her username (I've told her that on her talk page) and learn more about editing BLP articles. I've posted to her talk page and she's posted to mine, but may need more advice and probably a username block. Her latest edits are better than the ones I reverted though. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Festival of Light Australia

FamilyVoice Australia wants to update the Festival of Light Australia Wikipedia page, but we understand there might be a Conflict of Interest. We have posted our proposed edits on the talk page and need suggestions or help. Fola Nat Pres (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Need some help with a user and his edits

Nickcreevy (talk · contribs) has thrice created an article concerning on Nicholas Creevy, a photographer who fails notability guidelines. Initially, I was going to permanently block the account on grounds that the username was inappropriate/disruptive, but after thinking the matter through I think it may be better for me to leave this in the hands of people better suited to determining what the relevant actions should be in this case. I've deleted one of the three reincarnations of the photographer article and locked it to prevent recreation, but a more permanent solution needs to be found here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Halo: Reach

At WP:Requests for permissions/Confirmed, user says that they would like to fix the article on Halo: Reach as one of the designers. Perseus8235 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Perseus8235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Eh, I'm User:Perseus, Son of Zeus after the account got compromised. --Perseus8235 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Jose Mari Chan

User appears to be an SPA for the subject in question, and has been into committing COI violations since April 2009. It's either that the subject himself uses the account, or an associate, representative or perhaps an obsessed fan of his is in control of it. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nation Pollster, Henry D'Andrea

This user has created their own autobiography several times and just created an article about their own company. See this version of their user page for the reason why this is a COI. dif cheers Guerillero | My Talk 06:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

David Darom

The article's subject has edited in the past and also uploaded images from his books backed up by SPA user:Ntronb The article promotes the subjects work and books with little evidence of notability some books are self published, some references are forums. Needs someone to look at it afresh. TeapotgeorgeTalk 17:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

They admitted here that Ntronb is his daughter. The subject just appears notable, based on a couple of hits in the Jerusalem Post 20 odd years ago, but the OR issues that naturally occur when a relative writes an article need sorting out. SmartSE (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Currently their is a large corruption scandal breaking / having been reported on the misuse of funds from the Global Fund worldwide. The Global Fund is seemingly trying to make any passages providing information on these dealings disappear. I have seen similar "activities" on press reports with various newspaper / large web sites.

The Wikipedia article on the Global Fund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Fund_to_Fight_AIDS,_Tuberculosis_and_Malaria that contained such fully referenced passages has been systematically changed from an Global Fund IP address and by an user (Rbourgoing) who most likely is the GFATM staff member Robert Bourgoing (see http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/secretariat/contacts/?lang=en) from the GFATM External Relations / Media department.

Key passages that describing the uncovered fraud within the GFATM programs and other well known issues were removed by these (GFATM) users.

The users in question are 195.65.48.209 (talk · contribs) and Rbourgoing (talk · contribs).
I've left a note on the named account with links to COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Varsity letter

This user's only edits have been to Varsity letter. While adding some useful content all the refs they added were to a flickr page that contained images and a link to the Plaques and Such company website. This was brought to my attention after I was emailed by a competing company who had been blocked from using Wikipedia for spamming similar articles. -- roleplayer 18:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks a bit stale, since the links were added > a year ago and are now removed. Feel free to drop a note back here if they return again. SmartSE (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

KDON-FM

Mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. Perseus8235 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with that? SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TaskForceMajella

Editor has created article and continues editing it based largely on citations of what appear to be his own published academic papers. I'd hate to discourage an expert from participating, but this seems too close to the line. Other perspectives are of course welcome. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sign of you discussing this issue with him... Did I miss it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia‎

I have a strong suspicion User:Pkravchenko has a connection with Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia‎. The surname Kravchenko appears as a key member of the organisation in the article and this user has continually argued on longwinded policy guidelines in the AfD and refused my continual request for inline citations. the style of arguing rather than addressing concerns of lack of inline statements and mainstream media coverage to me suggests a conflict of interest (I've seen this many a time in an AfD). as per WP:AVOIDCOI, surely those with a close connection to an organisation should avoid participating in its AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The way they uploaded this logo, "Current logo of the Ukrainian Artists Society of Australia (NSW). Design by P. Kravchenko, Australia." whilst saying it is their own work appears to be a self-outing. The article also indicates a COI is likely: "Peter Kravchenko (Sydney) became its secretary". If this is the case then it would certainly explain why the article is apparently largely original research and unverifiable. I'd advise Pkravchenko to refrain from editing the article, per WP:BESTCOI and likewise to let the community judge notability at the AfD. SmartSE (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thanks Smartse, my further research, from this website, Paul Kravchenko is the Society's president. Conflict of interest if I ever saw one, of course an organisation president would want a WP article. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, User:Smartse, it does not certainly explain everything at all -- you are condemning me by believing that everything you appear to see must be part of a deliberate motive to deceive everyone. Firstly, I am not Peter Kravchenko, and secondly, you would have to prove that it is original research before you made such an allegation. I have provided images of the 3 main references that were in the bibliography on the talk page. This gives you the opportunity to OCR and to translate the articles. Until there is a wider consensus from the 'community' I would ask you to refrain from making prejudicial comments public about me. --Pkravchenko (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
My dear User:LibStar, I'm saddened that you had to work so hard to find that information, but if you had spent a few seconds looking at the Ukrainian version of the page, it would have been very clear that I am listed there as the president. You too, will have to translate the information in the sources I have provided to ascertain whether I have "advanced my interest" over the interests of Wikipedia. --Pkravchenko (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
why did you not say that when I first asked if you had a connection? WP:AVOIDCOI applies here, it is clear you want the article kept no matter what. See article talk page regarding WP:OWN. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
no question there is a conflict of interest. you have a clear interest in wanting the article retained as the president of the subject. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hair transplantation

I'm sensitive to spamming and promotion in hair-loss articles after the amount of time we wasted on the now-deleted Robert M. Bernstein and its author Rbernstein. During that period, WP:REFSPAM for "FUE hair transplant clinic Sri Lanka" was recognized and removed. Later, 112.134.115.179 (talk · contribs), an IP in Sri Lanka, added material supportive of "recent research in Sri Lanka" that I reverted. Samjonesnewcastle (talk · contribs) restored the material, claiming on his talk page "There is published data from Sri Lanka to show that with enough training and a strict extraction protocol it is possible to perform FUE on all clients. This is vital information and should be included". Later yet, 112.134.118.116 (talk · contribs), also in Sri Lanka, edited this bit of puffery about how soon the client can get back to work after a transplant. This is looking like a combination of promotion and setup for future WP:REFSPAM by later adding a citation to some Sri Lankan clinic. Earlier, Samjonesnewcastle (talk · contribs) added a now-removed external link to a Daily Mail article about a celebrity hair transplant. The article's topmost user comment is:

It take about 4.5 months for the hair to start to grow after a hair transplant. Also £30000 is way too much to pay for surgery. In some places it costs as low as $1.5 a graft and thats for the newer FUE not what looks like FUT done here. Try Sri Lanka for instance. I know as Ive had it done there and the results are excellent.
- sam jones, newcastle, England, 08/1/2011 02:41

--CliffC (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The same content you removed was replaced, but I've removed it again as unsourced and potentially promotional. The pattern of editing seen would certainly indicate some form of puppetry - it certainly passes the duck test - but at the moment it looks to be dealt with. I'll keep an eye on the article and do what I can to keep spam out - this whole area seems to be a complete mess though, making it hard to tell what is factual and what is potentially inaccurate. SmartSE (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

fircks

Claims that he is a friend of Vito Palazzolo. He has been constantly vandalizing the article for almost two years now. Adding stuff like this and this. Quaber (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone's already posted about this at WP:BLPN, here - that looks like a better venue for this to me, since fircks may have a valid point. SmartSE (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaavo/Camk43

User updates these article with nothing but marketing info. I'd tagged it with notability and CoI as the two main contributors seem associated with the company, my tags were reverted by Camk23 with "Notability was settled when speedy deletion was denied on Oct 5, 09, other issues were also raised by the same editor in past and addressed. Article is written in same style as comparable articles". I don't think saying "this article is as bad as many other technology marketing articles" is a good defence, CoI details ignored.

I'm going to step away, let someone else add this. I've put the CoI tag back on the article as I think it's true, and letting other editors handle the situation. Over to others. SteveLoughran (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Festival of Light Australia

FamilyVoice Australia (formerly Festival of Light) wants to conduct a second edit to rename the article to the new name of FamilyVoice Australia. This involves a rename/redirect. We also have a few updated changes to make and would appreciate feedback or suggestions. If anyone is willing to help us out, please contact me on my user talk page. Fola Nat Pres (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Women Airforce Service Pilots

Rrosenwald created Robert Rosenwald, Barbara G. Peters and Poisoned Pen Press, articles about himself, his wife and their publishing company respectively. Every few weeks, Rrosenwald drops by Women Airforce Service Pilots and inserts a blurb similar to this, this,this or this, that promotes books published by Poisoned Pen Press or one of its divisions. Early sighting here. One 'Jessica Tribble' gets a mention in Poisoned Pen Press as Associate Publisher. --CliffC (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Moore (environmentalist)

Resolved
 – Indefblocked for disruptive editing. Materialscientist (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The above user, apparently affiliated with the article's subject, continually attempts to insert his own point of view into the article. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alice_(programming_language)

This user has placed Articles for deletion tags on Alice_(programming_language) and other programming languages. As per his page User:Christopher Monsanto and this link and this one (to confirm his identity) it is clear his is trying to have either a) Other programming languages deleted in revenge for not having his there or b) having the standards lowered to have his language included. In any case WP:COI applies even if there are other reasons... he has shown he cannot be biased because these are the only edits he has done. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In my 5 years of editing on Wikipedia (I used to edit under a different name and on IPs), I have never created a Wikipedia page about anything I have been remotely involved with. Either way, I have made a number of non-AfD edits even on this name.
The programming language section of Wikipedia is a mess at the moment--it is impossible to browse the categories/lists and find interesting, notable languages because everyone and their mother creates Wikipedia pages about their pet programming languages. I am being bold and trying to fix this problem by tagging articles that have questionable notability and nominating articles in which I could find no reliable sources of for deletion. I've been wanting to improve other PL articles in the mean time, but ever since I spent a day or two nominating articles for deletion 1) I have been bombarded with accusations of bad faith, 2) my userpage has been vandalized and 3) and my AfDs have been spammed by special-interest groups who resort to personal attacks instead of providing reliable sources to support their claims. I want to help Wikipedia--the PL section is in need of knowledgeable editors, and as I have 12 years of experience programming and am an active researcher at Princeton University in the field of programming languages, I figure I fit the bill. The resistance I have received has been unexpected.
Seriously, I challenge you to find a specific edit where I have demonstrably acted in bad faith. I can point to several where I have been understanding and patient even after being attacked. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the pages need clean up, requesting deletion is a WP:COI and the only edits you have done. You may cite your source for so called 5 years of experience but it is irrelevant. You are requesting the deletion of pages and how strange that in every article you have requested there is consensus of KEEP. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Just give it up dude. The community has spoken, yet you still persist. Pulling every Wikipedia rule out of the book just makes it look like you have something to prove. Butting heads with the community is counterproductive and will only lead to further animosity from your peers. Put your experience into cleaning up and expanding on pages, instead of deleting them. Bananas21ca (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there is no COI here - starting an AfD on something you consider to not be notable is not a COI. Christopher Monsanto appears to me to be acting in the best interests of the project but has been unfairly been the subject of personal attacks when people should just be focusing on the content and finding sources to show that languages are notable. I don't really think there is anything to discuss here. SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As I stated, requesting cleanup, no conflict... requesting DELETION... that is when he crossed the line. As stated in WP:FAILN For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged many more articles than I've requested deletion for. The ones I did request deletion for I think are very clearly non-notable, and I think the ratio of sources given to personal attacks proves my point. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The personal attacks are irrelevant to the matter at hand. You have made no notable edits to Wikipedia except spew notable and deletion tags. You are a developer of a programming language that is not on Wikipedia. You state on your own Wikipedia page that My first concrete goal is to remove the proliferation of non-notable programming languages... It stinks of WP:COI. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've developed several programming languages either for fun or for research. As an academic, my goal is to publish in conferences and journals, not Wikipedia. Nobody in the academic community cares if a project has a Wikipedia page. As confirmed by the administrator above, there is no conflict of interest. Please stop with the senseless accusations. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The only thing that needs to be deleted here is Christopher Monsanto. Hopefully this will be speedy!Trelane (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I was going to note below nCdy's comments that I had indef blocked him for threatening to email CM's "Professor", and presumably employer, in an apparent attempt to have him desist in using WP procedure. I am noting this here since I am getting less and less impressed by these type of quaint comments as exampled by Trelane above - if there are issues with the misuse of policy, guideline and procedure then there are appropriate methods to investigate them. Attempting the use of chilling effect language gets the commentator blocked; not a threat, but a warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hell, Alice is not the only language he marked. just check the Nemerle Articles for deletion, he is an not smart one ! What are you talking about !? He doesn't care about people talk to him, he ignores everything ! and still deleting things without caring about other peoples opinions, check it yourself. Read his damn profile, and don't you think that "largest gaming websites in the world" is even non notable and research without simple knowledges about things he keep marking. no offense here. Just look his page "ALGOL is damn very notable" Oh man , really ? And Nemerle - best meta-programming .NET language with macros is not, there is no point to discuss with that guy. nCdy

Robert Copeland

Self-promotional account. JNW (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Madrasa Education: Strength and Weakness

The bulk of the edits (including overtly NPOV comments such as "This [book] is, undoubtedly, a tremendous effort of the young author that beckons a brighter future for him. The book shall stand out to be a new kind of vision throwing light on madrasas from a different angle.") were made by a user by the username Khaliliqasmi.

Incidentally, the book's author is Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi, and his Wikipedia userpage indicates he has had content-quality issues concerning notability in the past.

The book doesn't appear to meet the WP:NBOOK requirements. I've proposed that it be deleted. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

HMS Carysfort (R25)

User created a marginally acceptable article. I wandered in from New Page Patrol and gave a uw-coi-username to the user to remind them that they appear to have a conflict of interest. User has edited after the warning was placed on their page and has not taken proactive steps as reccomended by the template and to ceace editing the article for the procieved Conflict of Interest. As such I am filing to have them reminded about their CoI (and appropriate steps taken) and to have their user name changed. I am aware that the user has existed as this name for over 3 years, however this linkage seems to indicate a uw-coi-username level of issue. Hasteur (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Digging in the User's Edit log reveals that this user attempted to create the above mentioned article before and was A3ed and A7ed previously. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The old page was plainly promotional. The new one seems to be neutral and somewhat informative. Adding a link to the website in the EL section might bee seen as a bit iffy, but the site seems to be both non-commercial and useful, so I don't think this is particularly problematic. There is no requirement to cease editing an article for a perceived or even real COI, although caution is, of course, advised. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Fircks and Vito Roberto Palazzolo

User:Fircks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fircks declares himself on his user page to be "a friend of Vito Roberto Palazzolo." He goes further and says "I have done an in depth study of his story and conclude that he is the victim of misappropriated justice." His only article contributions as an editor (since May 2009) have been to the Palazzolo article. He is apparently - and I'm assuming genuinely - unhappy about the assertions in the article, as a result of which he makes wholly inappropriate edits like here, here, and here. As you can see, he is persistent.

An admin (Scott MacDonald) became involved recently and seemed to think that avoiding potential BLP violations justified Fircks' behavior: "If we have an article that is misrepresenting someone, or indeed libelling them, we can hardly complain when someone who is annoyed by that (or indeed is the subject of those libels) doesn't 'play be the rules' when pointing it out." At a later point in this discussion (and before I was aware of the conflict), I responded to Scott's comments: "If there's an assertion or assertions that violate BLP, then an editor can remove the assertions. An editor could even blank an entire section if the section violates BLP. But making the article itself an opinion piece is inappropriate and unnecessary. There are better ways to go about fixing the problems." Yet, Fircks persists.

Although not precisely relevant to the conflict but relevant to the article, if I understand properly, Fircks is maintaining that the third-party sources cited are lying or at best misleading. See here.

I'm not in complete disagreement with Scott. Certainly, potential BLP violations (because it hasn't been demonstrated that there are in fact BLP violations) are a serious issue, but Fircks's behavior, even if well-intentioned, is simply not the way to go about addressing the problem. All that seems to happen is he makes inappropriate edits and they get reverted (see here). That's hardly a constructive approach to anything.

In my view, Fircks should not be allowed to edit the Palazzolo article because of his clear conflict and bias. If he has issues with the article, he can raise them on the Talk page, on BLPN, or on any other appropriate Wikipedia forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo

Thank you for the above post, and let me explain. I am a friend of Palazzolo's and I built his website with a view, ultimately, to writing a book on him. For 3 years now I have studied his case, with him, and there is no question that I don't know the full story, from his childhood in Sicily through schooling in Switzerland, Banking in Hamburg, etc. I know that he is being defamed first of all by judges in Palermo who keep bringing these absurd cases against him and, in their wake, the Press. And following close on the heels of the Press, using their tendentious "news", is Don Calo who wrote the wikipedia page. He quotes from the Press, almost entirely. Palazzolo has only ever been sustainably convicted by the court in Lugano in 1985. And even that was highly questionable. Everything that ever came after it is illegal (teh Double Jeopardy ruling) and invariably nonsense. Demonstrably so.

But Don Cao publishes and republishes this highly slanted, defamatory stuff. He alludes to Palazzolo being a murderer, or having bribed Pik Botha (ex SA minister) using a black prostitute, or having sold arms to the Apartheid regime in SA. There is a tidal wave of unsubstantated, corrosive unsubstantiated rubbish put out by Don Calo. The kind of rubbish that makes an innocent man suffer.

Murder? Selling arms to the Apartheid regime? There is nothing in the article that accuses Palazzolo of these facts. But since you claim to know him so well .... - DonCalo (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So - it has to stop - we can and will argue this one out, point for point, it will not rest until Palazzolo is given the freedom that he, as a free man, is owed. Our civilization and the integrity of Wikipedai hangs on it. So that he doesn't have to put up with slurs and allegations and inuendo's from a coward he has never even met and who can't be bothered to stop and check his sources.

I hope you can understand what I am doing and why I am doing it. Palazzolo's case is about fact, which I have, and not slander and fiction, which is all that Don Calo has. Don Calo's rubbish must be removed until we have resolved and agreed what Palazzolo actualy did, until we have seperated fact from fiction and slander. Fircks (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My edits of Palazzolo's wiki page

Further to which - in my edits of Don Calo's page I have taken and answered each of his allegations and slurs. If this argument goes on on the talk pages then Palazzolo will continue to be defamed on the wiki front page. As you know Wikipedia carries considerable weight and so the defamation runs deep. Fircks (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Fircks's long detailed description of his relationship with Palazzolo, his antipathy for the press, and his objectives here amply prove that he should not be allowed to edit the article. To permit him to do so would turn Wikipedia and its principles on their collective heads.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
That does seem like a reasonable request, although the users detailed knowledge if presented and supported on the article talkpage would likely be beneficial, perhaps if requested not to edit the article anymore he would agree to assist on the talkpage only. The same BLP issue runs through wikipedia's whole field of people connected to or accused to be connected to the family - a large portion of which have been written by User:DonCalo, who must be quite a brave person... - as there are titillating and accusatory reports and op-eds in the press as this section of people appear to be considered fair game in the press. User ScottMac opened a thread at the BLPN to seek assistance for this BLP but it is a major job cleaning them up. Off2riorob (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My long detailed description of my relationship with Palazzolo? Indeed, I know him very well and I know everything about him. No smoke and mirrors, no hiding behind a laptop, nothing unverified, unproven or un-substantiated. I can answer every allegation made against him. My antipathy for the Press? You don't have to be a genius to know what they do. Wiki prnciples? There is only one, which is verification.

It appears that Don Calo slanders a lot of people. I rest my case. What can you do against people like that? I suggest the following: I would will answer all his "allegations", if it pleases you, on Talk. Someone must adjudicate, however, and we must alter Palazzolo's page to reflect the truth. Can we do this soon? Fircks (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO from my experiance here - wikipedia is often like a slow train coming, truth is something that is a doubtful reality here, we report as best we can , neutrally and hopefully in line with WP:BLP - If Palazzolo asserts there are falsehoods in the article and that he is being misrepresented he should contact the foundation via email and clearly state the content and any sources and detail he may have to correct it. If you want to help improve the article my suggestion is use WP:RS books or press and work through the article section by section, and use discussion on the talkpage, a laborious task at best but perhaps the best way. An easier option would be to never look at the article again. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
How to enforce the integrity of the article on Palazzolo

You recommend I contact the foundation by email. Can you give me the email address please?

As to the article I have worked on it, as you suggest, section by section, and answered every single allegation and smear. But to no avail. I think we both know that Don Calo will not budge and insists on publishing this defamatory stuff. Can I simply keep on changing his article, with my answers to his defamation, and publish it?

Where can I publish my answers to his allegations? So that, perhaps, you can adjudicate? It makes for a long article, so I need space.

Because Wikipedia is a "slow train coming", we are snookered. It will take too long to put right the wrongs that Don Calo has wrought. Wikipedia appeals to people's integrity! Sadly inappliccable in Don Calo's case.

What can our lawyers do? Can we charge Don Calo, and subpena Wikipedia? It must be their responsibility for the defamation of a living person. Fircks (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • - Wikipedia:BLP#How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation - If I was you I would write something concise or have an official representative write something with as much evidence as you have in other reliable reports, books and such like, about any exaggerations or falsehoods that have been inserted to the biography, under some situations the foundation will as I understand consider deletion from the project but as I have seen this is in rare situations. If defamation has occurred a request to the foundation for the editors personal details is a possibility. Best of luck. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC

Thank you for your advice. I will get onto the foundation and make our case, with our lawyers. It's pretty clear that Wikipedia should address something of this order which, using newspaper articles, defames a living person.

You guys are doing good work for Wikipedia which is a kind of flagship to internet empowerment. So it needs nurturing. Fircks (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Rabinowitz

☒N Not a conflict  7  07:33, 15 February 2011 (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.

User [email protected] (talk · contribs) has nominated Chaim Rabinowitz citing various policies. Curious as to how a user with a prohibited user name per Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses {"E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames") could be proposing an AfD (AFD discussions are all make or break policy discussions) it seemed utterly incongruous that a user in violation of WP policies should be "imposing" WP policies. I first raised this matter at the AFD itself, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Rabinowitz "Off-topic attack on the nominator's choice of username elided" but was told by an involved admin to take the discussion elsewhere. Looking at the above user's talk pages this matter was discussed before with him, but it was "defended" on grounds that he was "grandfathered" in. I then tried taking the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:[email protected] where discussions where still in progress when an admin abruptly closed off discussion as "Resolved" on the MISTAKEN assumption that a "block" was being called for, when that is not the issue or the requested action. The core issue being raised here is that there is a clear conflict of interest when a user is excused from adhering to current WP policies while he feels free to "impose" WP policies in AfDs. Some admins continue to defend that the user was "grandfathered in" and cite old discussions. But the fact remains that current WP policy clearly states that "E-mail addresses and URLs are not valid usernames" and it puts unsuspecting users in the position of having to respond and deal with a user who functions "above the law" as it were. There should never even be an appearance of non-adherence to WP policies that requires constant admin nanny-ing at times when they come to the defense of this user. What is called for is not a block, but a rectification of the user's name and for him not to be allowed to instigate policy debates such as AfDs when he opens himself up to COI criticisms as has happened before requiring admin intervention in the past to "defend" him. The time has come to either ask him NOT to get involved on policy-related debates such as AfDs or change his name so he can be recognized and dealt with as any other user who is expected to abide by all WP rules and policies without exceptions. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The user will be notified. IZAK (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The user has been informed of this discussion [35]. IZAK (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The AfD has been notified of this discussion [36]. IZAK (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Suggest you close this yourself and cool off a bit. A) this is forum shopping and won't be well received, and B) even if his username was in violation of policy it would not be a COI for him to enforce other policies.  7  06:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you see my point though? IZAK (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Can a user be seen to be in violation of WP policies while he is at the same time "enforcing" WP policies? It's worse than a COI because it's an invitation to an accusation of hypocrisy: One set of rules for one guy another set of rules for others -- and he has a "special service" that when you question him then some of his protective admins come along out of the woodwork and tell you yesterday's laws that have nothing to do with today's. Isn't that absurd and bound to cause chaos and consternation if used all-around? IZAK (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't see your point. That username has been reviewed numerous times and found to be acceptable becuase it was not in violation of the policies as written at the time the account was created and because the user has done nothing promotional with their username. But even if there was a problem with the username that is a separate issue, and would be dealt with separately and wouldn't prevent them from reverting vandalism, making other edits, and even AFDing articles.  7  06:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
When admins protect him they set in motion what in turn has unintended consequences of re-inforcing the said user's POV when that is not what the admins mean. So the user uses it to his advantage in the following way: He makes controversial moves, other editors try to figure him out, they see the obvious violation of his user name, he then runs to admins to "defend" usage of his user name which then allows him to get his way by seeming to have admin support for his controversial moves when all they are supporting is his user name, as one admin endearingly calls him "Robert" as she cites old deleted policies in his defense etc etc over multiple scenarios! Then feeling self-justified and self-righteous he feels free and emboldened to launch tirades against anyone who stood up to him in the first place! It's a tricky ploy, and so far it has worked wonders for him, and needs to be STOPPED! It is absurd and bound to cause chaos and consternation if used all-around. IZAK (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
IZAK, I'm not trying to protect him and I don't know him. I am telling you that a) his name has been judged by the community not to be in violation, b) it's not a COI to have a username which is okay (per a.) and make other edits that are allowed of all contributors, and c) you seem to be forum shopping. If you have a problem with his POV or other aspects of his edits then report them to the appropriate place, but you clearly aren't going to get the outcome you want by complaining about his username or a COI based on his username.  7  06:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi 7: I also don't know this user and I am not saying you protect him, but Alison below sure does, she calls him "Robert" all the time. If there is a policy then even the community must abide by it! Otherwise please tell me where exemptions are available on WP. I went to ANI and they cut me off for the wrong reason, and now I am at COI, that's no different than going to 2 talk pages on WP, so stop exaggerating please. All the issues are conflated so everyone tells you to go to the next place. Everyone passes the buck. It's easy to push users of with excuses but it's much harder to face up to the challenges many time. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I guess if you can't get him for his username on ANI, you can always try somewhere else until you get the result you want , eh? This has to be one of the most egregious forms of wikilawyering I've seen in ages. Seriously, he has a conflict of interests because his username isn't to your liking and is against what you feel policy is/was/whatev? Good grief already :/ And I don't "endearingly" call him Robert, as you put it; it's his RL name, and he uses it here regularly. Yes, I've known RMS for years on WP, and have blocked more of his sock accounts back in the dark ages than any other admin, and I'm seven years on Wikipedia myself (tomorrow - wow! :) ). I've campaigned for his banning, and campaigned for his unbanning - successfully in both cases, I might add. I've also been his mentor. Right now, I really don't see where you're going with this username wikifoolery and when I start to see SHOUTING, I know it's not going to end well - Alison ❤ 06:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alison you should remove yourself from all discussions concerning this user because you come across as his protector. Let him talk for himself. The discussion at ANI was cut off for the wrong reason. I am NOT looking for a block, but I AM looking at how this user is functioning, and you lack the requisite objectivity because you keep on referring to him as "Robert" when we don't know who he is, while you seem to be very palsy with him. You also inject an emotional defense based on attacking me that is not justified. Take a few steps yourself from defending this guy, ok. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He first mentioned his name in one of his very early edits, 5 or 6 years ago. It's no mystery. Also, it seems that it is YOU that is overwhelmed with emotion, while Alison is simply explaining facts to you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs: So if his name is Robert he should have been requested to change it to that since he has no problem with using such a straightforward uncomplicated legitimate WP user name, to avoid the constant misunderstandings that result from his problematic Email name. Alison is not explaining "facts" she is telling me that mistakes have been made, and I am focusing on those mistakes and requesting that they be rectified for the benefit of WP. IZAK (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A little WP:AGF if you don't mind, seeing as we're talking rules here. He's called himself 'Robert' on here for many years now, so less of the creepy 'palsy' and 'endearingly' terms, okay? It's not appropriate. You've brought this inane discussion from an AFD to ANI and now to WP:COIN. Where's next then? - Alison ❤ 07:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Even his block log shows the history there. Look at this excerpt where he was indefblocked, it went to ANI and it was immediately reversed. Why are we here at all, discussing this in three separate places now? 

(del/undel) 07:52, 29 May 2009 Cobaltbluetony (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "[email protected] (talk | contribs)" ‎ (username grandfathered in due to agreement on 2.5.09 on WP:AN/I)
(del/undel) 07:31, 29 May 2009 Cobaltbluetony (talk | contribs | block) blocked [email protected] (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ ({{usernameblock}}) (unblock | change block)

Seriously - we've been over this before and the community has spoken. Repeatedly - Alison ❤ 07:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alison: I don't care about his past blocks or his mistakes I am dealing with the here and now. You have been too busy with him and you are the first to defend him. Everything about the situation is unbalanced. You know him but you don't know him, you banned him and you unbanned him, he made you crazy and he made you happy, and now you obviously agree that he can have a user name based on past exceptions while others cannot have any exceptions made for them. That's how this all started: How can a guy who lives by an "exception" invoke an "AfD" and in it (the AfD) there are arguments that are rejected because they are "exceptions" and not the rule. Either there is one set of rules for everyone or there isn't. WP is not a reform school or a ship of fools with one set of evident rules for one user (because no one knows that he has the special rights to his name but you) while everyone else must struggle to live by the rules as they exist now. Are you getting my drift at least? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not getting your drift at all, actually. What I am getting is your annoyance at his AFDing your article, so you've decided to take him to the cleaners over his username, and wikilawyering over three separate project pages to ensure you get your way. That much is clear - Alison ❤ 07:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
IZAK, please stop forum shopping and just drop it. Your complaint has been seen in multiple places, and you are refusing to acknowledge what every other editor is pointing out to you. It's not a violation. Please move on and stop being disruptive. Dayewalker (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2011 (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.
Obviously, this question has no COI associated with it. However, the pivotal "grandfather clause" in the username policy was deleted from the page in December of 2007, apparently in an attempt at streamlining. I've asked Alison and the ANI audience if something should be done about that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Now clarified. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Jolly good. Hopefully that will put an end to this matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alejandro Alcondez

I stumbled on this odd situation at Media copyright questions where I helped out an editor who had a question about some photos. After I fixed up the images I noticed the photos were of Alejandro Alcondez the subject in the photos. Upon doing more searching I discovered one of their head shots Alejandro Alcondez Portrait B/W links to, as of right now, February 15, 2011, User:Cgomez007/Alejandro Alcondez. That has lead me to post here as it seems extremely odd that an "official" actor website would link to a "work in progress" Wikipedia page. USER:Cgomez007, who created their account July 16, 2008, appears to only be here to promote the actor with the creation of the article, deletion discussions for the article, contacting editors about the article and adding to the user space version of the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Alcondez and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Alcondez (2nd nomination). Beyond the COI, and clear SPA concerns I wonder what the connection is to the actor and their website. Thanks. (EDIT: As there is a no "outing" policy what I can say beyond the above is that in doing further searching I found out the uploader/article creator is claiming to be an "Administrative Assistance At Alejandro Alcondez Pictures" and has also authored bios of the actor.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

David Charles (physician)

A person stated (by themselves) as Dr. Charle's assistant has been adding material to this article. I've discussed the issue with them at User talk:Anna.vandy. However, there is now an IP that tracks to the Vanderbilt Medical Center (where Dr. Charles is employed) that is continuing to add material, one edit of which [37] re-added copyrighted material copy/pasted from his profile at http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/neurology/faculty/charles.htm. The image added to the article is also taken from that profile. The image was uploaded to Commons, with no proof of permission. I've tagged the image there, and notified the uploader both there and here. Some other eyes might be useful. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim Sweet

On http://twitter.com/thesweetdeal12, the user appears to be Tim Sweet. Also, an IP, 129.2.18.188, appears to be him too. Users not notified. Perseus8235 17:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sapient Corporation

Not sure if this is actual COI, but if it is, it has been going on for a long time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OFIS Architects

Created their account on February 4, 2011 and between that date and now have upped numerous images and created the above article. I stumbled on this image: File:03 four leaf clover nursery.jpg. It uses a self license ("I, the copyright holder of this work...") that release it into PD however is sourced to www.ofis.si, authored by OFIS Arhitekti and copyrighted "©Ofis Arhitekti d.o.o". So I did a look at the users other uploads and found they are all credited to various people, and all carry a copyright notice despite claiming PD. It is also when I saw their only contributions are to OFIS related articles. I am starting to tag the images with {{di-no permission}} as they are sourced to someone other than the uploader, however given their edit history it could be this is an employee of the company. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It does look like a pretty clear case of COI to me. I've PRODed both the biographies as there is no indication that they are sufficiently notable for inclusion at the moment. The company is clearly notable though, but the article needs a fair bit of clean up to stop it looking like an advert. It would be good if we can get them to release images under creative commons licences if they are able to, as we could probably use them in other articles. SmartSE (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
FYI - I see you left a message about their image uploads, I already raised the issue: File permission problem with your uploads. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Per standard practice I have redirected the individuals' articles to the company article, which I have tagged for deletion as spam. It's way too much like advertising copy IMHO (and I see a lot of that IRL).--ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I think OFIS Architects is a notable and internationally known company and clean up would be more useful for Wikipedia than deletion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I just declined the speedy for it, and did some copyediting for tone. I gave some advice to the editor, and, as SmartSE suggested, let him know about Commons. I think the ed. has potential, and do not want to discourage him from contributing. Some of the buildings are probably individually notable . DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I've read through a lot of the discussions of the OFIS page etc. The image licensing was a bit difficult to get my head around but I will sort that within the next day, so thanks for the advice on that part. A couple of things I'd like to ask though in reference to what was deleted, it appears most of it has been kept however this was deleted

"The beginnings of OFIS’ activities dates back to the nineties, which was a particularly exciting yet difficult period for the former Yugoslavian republics that were undergoing intense self-re-evaluation and reinvention from scratch, economically and culturally. In terms of architecture this meant that most of the larger architectural offices had to be scaled down or went bankrupt and so creating an empty space for younger groups or individuals to participate in architectural competitions."

and I'm not too sure I understand why? Is it only that it would require a reference? Also the sections, selected exhibitions, lectures, competitions were deleted is this a reference thing as well or is there another reason.

I'm also not too sure why I understand the project gallery was deleted, was there too many images or were these seen as promotional? Sorry for all the questions, but just trying to get to grips with this. Emd001 (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the stuff in the box above because it looked like original research to me and rather unencyclopedic. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok well I think I may try and reword/reference it as I think it is a pretty integral part of explaining how there early work came about as it was quite a rare situation. Emd001 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman

Apparently, someone affiliated with the subject of the article does not like the article (earlier this week, an IP kept removing well-sourced criticism). The subject does appear to be reasonably notable, and the current article meets WP:BLP in my estimation, but additional input would be welcome. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Philip Weller

Editor's user page states he or she opened the account for the purpose of publicizing the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Awwmarketing

Adding comments promoting works of the UK architects AWW, replaced the entire disambiguation page AWW with marketing text -fortunately auto-reverted- and are generally inserting comment in S/W england city pages about how wonderful their buildings are. They may be, but someone whose username implies they are part of the company (itself a username issue) should not be the one to add them. People have reverted some of these changes, but they add variants back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard D. Gill

For transparency, I just declare that I have had some discussion on the Gill's user:talk page. He recently noted a minor error in my (extrapolation) from information from the mathematical genealogy project, which I corrected. The interaction is very recent, and my editing has been trivial (tonight). Nonetheless, I wish to note this contact.

I'm not going to link diffs, because of being tired. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hugh McFadyen

This anonymous editor has repeatedly tried to blank critical sections of Hugh McFadyen, the Leader of the Opposition in the Manitoba Legislature. While I can't say the article was the most NPOV article we've ever put out, he/she is removing anything remotely negative and isn't responding to warnings and requests to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. In addition, this IP has a history stretching back some time of similar edits to this and related articles. In and of itself, this wouldn't be that remarkable, but I happened to run a whois query on the user's IP: 

lipton:~ zach$ whois 139.142.210.215
...
Bell Canada GT-PRA-BLK1 (NET-139-142-0-0-1) 139.142.0.0 - 139.142.255.255
MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE BUILDING INFORMATION SYSTEMS GT-139-142-210-208-CX (NET-139-142-210-208-1) 139.142.210.208 - 139.142.210.223

In other words, the editor is editing from the Manitoba Legislature's own network. Is this a Canadian version of USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia? What, if anything, do we do here beyond the usual vandalism response? Zachlipton (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing the answer also. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They obviously have a COI and so far have not edited according to our guidelines. If it were to continue, you should report the IP to AIV while noting that the IP is registered as such and maybe reminding the admin to contact the communications committee who deal with things like this. If they wish to make edits according to our guidelines then it may be possible for them to edit, but they should read and follow WP:BESTCOI. I'm happy to provide help if I can. SmartSE (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Quintessentially Group

First, sorry, this is a bit long:- Last month I blocked a couple of promotional accounts using various sub-brands of this Quintessentially group as usernames, and deleted their userpages as advertising. Several other admins took care of similar users on the same day (9 users total). Today I came across a Quintessentially... article, and discovered a whole little garden of them, the results of a campaign which seems to have begun at the start of this year:

Of the editors involved, I believe Prdharmer and PRDH are the same person (I want to avoid WP:OUTING here) and Plugugly1 may be another person associated with the company. I believe the parent company may be somewhat notable, although the current references are not helpful in establishing this; the sub-brands almost certainly do not need individual articles, most of which seem to be of the form "<Foo> is part of the Quintessentially Group which does <bar>" and little more. I find it difficult to AGF with what seems like nothing less than a blatant promotional campaign. My inclination would be to delete or redirect all of the sub-brands and try to source the main article (Quintessentially Group) and perhaps cut down the lengthy list, which in my view could be covered by "provides a variety of concierge services to clients". I'm not convinced the subjects of the biographies are particularly notable - the sources seem mostly to be promotional pieces - but can look for sources. Obviously, it's not appropriate for editors to be working on these articles in this fashion if they have an association with the company. However, I wanted to get some more opinions before I start doing anything. I'll let the editors concerned know about this posting. (Some more info in my userspace). Thanks --Kateshortforbob talk 14:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I and others have nominated a couple all of the subs' articles for speedy deletion per A7 and I have redirected the individuals' articles to Quintessentially Group. I guess the subs could be similarly redirected if they are not speedied. I also chopped out the list from the main article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, all deleted. I'll leave a welcome message on the user's talk page to counteract some of the speedy notices.
An unusually blatant spamming exercise. Some people really seem to think we are a free publicity noticeboard. I have zapped all the subsidiary companies per WP:CSD#A7. I suppose the group just about squeaks through WP:CORP though one of the independent refs (about a party they threw) is a bit press-releasey. I have doubts about whether the three directors are notable enough even for redirects, but I'll let someone else take a view on that. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt admin action. I have also prodded the Group article for the reasons stated in the notice. – ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
A few more needing attention
--CliffC (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies and actions, everyone. It's good to get a few other opinions on things like this :) --Kateshortforbob talk 11:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Added Riverpp (talk · contribs), an SPA who popped up yesterday and tried to add back the long list of subsidiary companies to the main article. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_47&oldid=1147947321"