Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 48

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shocker Toys

The two editors above have been back and fourth under proxy IPs editing the Shocker Toys article to skew the company in a bad light. When someone adds a positive change they go into a rage and state that the change is not within the wiki rules or make up some excuse. The article should have both facts ranging from the companies mistakes to the companies’ triumphs if they are backed up by facts and notable resources. The bottom line is it seems that the two users above would like the article to read the way they want it to read without any other editors contributing. By getting angry and loud and reverting all positive changes that clearly show a sign of COI. How can we keep the wiki article in proper balance without it being skewed by these two users? Can any higher level editors check into them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 February 2011

Please don't try to out other users. It's against policy, so please don't try it again. I've tried editing the page and discussing changes to it before, and looking at your contributions it looks like you have a history of getting into fights with these people yourself. Again, I've tried editing that article, and agree entirely that there's a conflict of interest. However, there seem to be not just a group of people trying to present the article in a bad light, but also sockpuppets from the company themselves. If what you're saying is correct, I still don't see a conflict of interest. However, if someone working for the company is trying to hype their own product, that would definitely count. (Don't take this the wrong way, but a case could in fact be made against you, seeing as your IP comes from the same area where the company is said to be located and, judging from your contributions list, your frequent defense of the company in question.) I'm not trying to personally attack anyone here, but it definitely seems to go both ways. The reason I stopped trying to edit the article is because everyone seems to constantly trying to make claims either for or against the company itself. It's a mess. But if you want a CheckUser to look at the IP addresses, you're free to open a case here. Friginator (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ellie Goulding

User:97.90.124.232 is an SPA, and to judge by their edits and talk page comments, has a COI problem. The frothy tone and content of their edits suggests a desire to create a fan page, and their talk page comments are telling: "If you have distaste for her or her music," s/he objected to my edits, "then don't view her page, it's clear you're not a fan and therefore you've managed to change the entire tone of her article." When I pointed out that I have no opinion on Goulding and that changing the article's tone was exactly what I was shooting for, s/he responded: "Then you really shouldn't be concerned with her article. The changes and suggestions you've made lessen her as an artist and diminish her accomplishments. Someone who doesn't care for the music shouldn't be worried about how she's portrayed." When asked to identify one accomplishment excluded by my edits, no answer was forthcoming, and as if to make my point in one quotable sentence, the user criticized my edits for "mak[ing] her page sound much more encyclopedic." The user also retaliated against a merge proposal involving several tangents to the article by blanking my user page, which does little to prove good faith. Individually and collectively, this all screams COI.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits the IP has made to the Goulding article, but I'm not really seeing a COI to be honest. I couldn't spot anything particularly obvious such as inserting marketing speech or that much unsourced OR which most COI editors do. It looks more likely that they are a fan, in which case it's more of an issue of teaching them to use reliable sources which they may not know about. The article could certainly do with some work, but personally, I don't think this editor is causing too many problems (other than blanking your userpage).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs)
  • That's poor behavior certainly and violates Wikipedia policy, but it's not really evidence of a COI. I'm seeing a fan who has no sense of NPOV and encyclopedic tone, but not someone with an actual conflict of interest (e.g. a representative of the artist editing for promotional purposes). Why not leave a short personal note on the user's talk page with some basic explanation about NPOV and reliable sources and see whether any of that gets through? If not, you or another editor can give a block warning and enforcement can be sought through the AN/I discussion on the issue. Zachlipton (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't read COI so narrowly. A user has a conflict of interest when there is "incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." If an editor's aim is to produce a soft-focus puff piece about a person and their work, I think that's a COI problem regardless of their motivation—i.e. whether they are a fan, employee, parent, etc. To be sure, when we're talking about a fan, the COI problem tends to be submerged in an NPOV problem, but I don't think the COI problem dissolves, and when an editor is an SPA, it makes sense to deal with the editor as a COI problem rather than just their individual edits as an NPOV problem.
I have given the user a second warning, and if it happens again, I suppose I'll have to take it to AIV. (ANI is apparently uninterested in anything janitorial rather than pontifical; I have had a request open about this user for five days, and it has been ignored while newer requests—requests that give admins an opportunity to burnish their egos in a paragraph or two of pontificating—have received dozens of replies.) But I still think we should deal with the user as a user rather than just their edits.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the fine hand of a professional P.R. person in all this, somebody who has a pretty good grasp of Wikipedia syntax and style. No fan is going to go to all the trouble of creating all these pages, replete with references (though many of them are not at all WP:Neutral). But I think Simon Dodd (or somebody) has done a pretty good job in making the piece more encyclopedic. I have added it to my WP:Watchlist and will be another editor to keep an eye on the piece to see that it doesn't go too far afield. I have absolutely no interest in popular music, but I do like to improve the encyclopedia. I don't think the IP has to be blocked. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I see a stealth marketing campaign at work here. – ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Charlottetown Rural High School

The user listed, Pei high schools is clearly 99.9% editing articles relating to his username. The UAA for the user has been denied as it's not blatantly promotional, but the username suggests an obvious conflict of interest somewhere - PEI for Prince Edward Island, and most of the stuff edited is purely to do with Prince Edward Island's High schools. Can this please be looked into for any clear-cut COI? Thanks BarkingFish 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't actually care if someone with a connection to a subject edits it. For example, students are allowed to write articles about the schools they're attending.
What we care about is someone abusing Wikipedia to unfairly promote themselves or their school/business/product/etc. If the work being done meets Wikipedia's policies, then there's no problem here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Gravitis

This user admits to running the company Gravitis here that article has been deleted and is making edits to the article like this one here article deleted. The IPs 93.42.227.113, 93.42.224.31, 93.42.228.143, and 93.42.221.14 make similar edits (like diff article deleted) all geolocating to Italy (where the company is based) and have similarly not-quite perfect English (I suspect they are all Unotretre or at least work at Gravitis). Additionally Unotretre is making edits to the freeboard article like this which is unsourced (in spite of me requesting one) which seems to just be promoting his company. I left a COI warning on his page here which he hasn't responded to nor has he stopped his editing. All the pages Gravitis, freeboard, and Freebord, have COI and promotional issues that I'm trying to sort out but it's difficult going with Unotretre and the IPs actively engaged in pushing the Gravitis name. Eventually some of this stuff is probably going to be merged/deleted/moved but before that happens I would like to make a good faith effort to at least get these articles somewhere close to Wikipedia standards. Additionally I have made several attempts to communicate with Unotretre and the IPs but am getting little response. One more point, Unotretre created the original Gravitis article. SQGibbon (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Question from a neophyte on this subject matter: why are Freeboard (skateboard), and Freebord separate articles? If they are are about the same or very similar subject matter they should be merged. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
At one time they were together but it looks like an editor separated them out as one article is about the brand name Freebord and the other one is a generic usage (apparently there are several companies that make boards similar to Freebord's now). As to whether they should stay separate or be merged, I'm not sure as I don't really understand the subject all that well. All the articles have problems so I was hoping that once they're all cleaned up then it might make it easier to delete/merge/move them as needed. SQGibbon (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
May I have created the page, but you have actively acted to ask the deletion of that page only, while the related companies who did significative things for the sport are correctly left there: so I ask ANY administrator or to undelete it "as was" without red boxes, in order to have the time to complete it as wanted, but also I have canceled here the name because as being it a registered trademark we do not want to litigate with UNKNOWN users, or the new administrator The Bushranger who deleted it without reading what I mentioned you: in defect I will ask this Administration to consider the patent infringement, as we do not want from a search task this still results. User:Unotretre
Erm. I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying exactly here? Especially with your "we do not want to litigate" comment?- The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, this just keeps getting better and better. In my inbox:

"You would rather put Gravitis article up before monday, unblock User Unotretre, cancel the conflict of interest reference naming Gravitis, or we open formally legal actions against The Bushranger and SQGibbon because GRAVITIS is a registered name in Italy, I denied consensus to appear in an unfair discussion, and when you google Gravitis it still compares a red cancelation, damaging the worldwide name of Gravitis and ALL Distributors. In defect on monday morning I will present formal denunce because wikipedia is visible in Italy and the patent allowed us to advice you for a patent infringement."

I've redirected Gravitis to Freeboard (skateboard), but as for the rest...well. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer Talk 17:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Posted about this at AN/I. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
When I look at the history of Gravitis, I see nothing but the creation of a redirect; I'd have to search the AfD archives to see that it had been deleted no wait, that doesn't work either.[7] Eventually I found the log [8] "Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". But the same policy A7 says "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." Viewing [9], Gravitas is a magazine, not eligible for A7, and also a skateboard (File:MapSeries 2.jpg) with artistic flourishes. So this shouldn't have been speedy deleted this way - though admittedly it is unlikely to have passed AfD due to Wikipedia's unreasonably harsh standards for corporate notability. In any case, I see no reason why the former edit history of Gravitis shouldn't be undeleted and made viewable by other editors, though, due to abuse, the case can be made to protect the redirect. If the editor had not resorted to legal threats, I see no reason why he could not have contested the deletion, or restarted an article and made out a clearer case for significance. I see very few edits for User:Unotretre, and from the size of the article, I doubt the deleted edits amount to much - basically, I think that an incautious Wikipedia process has trammeled down and permanently alienated a newbie editor. I understand that COI and legal threats are serious, but there was a time when this situation could have been defused. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The history of Gravitis isn't clear but from what I gathered it started off as a CD magazine but now sells specialty skateboards and parts. At their website I see no evidence that they produce a magazine anymore. As for Unotretre he's not exactly a new editor. Since Gravitis was deleted all his edits to that page (and that he created it in the first place) no longer show up in his contribution history. That said he's also made use of many different IPs along the way. Multiple attempts were made to discuss these issues with him on his talk page as well as the talk pages of the various articles he edited but nothing came of it. As for defusing the situation before it blew up I'm not sure how that could have happened. His edits were clearly a conflict of interest (running Gravitis, creating and editing that page, inserting Gravitis links in related articles) and he refused to acknowledge this or alter his behavior. Reporting him to this board needed to happen and that it appears this action is what helped the situation reach its current unpleasant form is not a reason for not reporting him in the fist place. It's still possible for someone to recreate the article with good sources but it's pretty clear that Unotretre will not be able to overcome the conflict of interest and be part of that process. SQGibbon (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Gravitas is a magazine? The article said plainly "Gravitis is a manufacturer of professional freeboards, skateboards, board bungees and other sporting goods." It's a company and thus eligible for deletion per CSD A7. 86.159.91.236 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The magazine bit was added later by the COI editor. That said, I have looked through the diffs and there is a diff that could possibly make a reasonable (admittedly unreferenced) stub. I've restored the article to that status. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter B. Gustavson School of Business

Uvicwiki has been editing extensively about this school, which is a department of the University of Victoria, and sprinkling redirects like confetti. I have deleted per WP:CSD#A7 a long promotional article about a student society (and eight redirects to it). I am not sure about the business school; the article is not too promotional, but the precedent per WP:OUTCOMES#Education is that "Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field... or produced a number of notable graduates", and the references are all but one to its website or the University's. Maybe some independent ones could be found to establish notability, though the first couple of pages of a Google search are pretty well all press-release based. I greatly doubt whether the Distinguished Entrepreneur Award is notable enough for its own article, but I invite other views. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither article is sufficiently notable. I would nominate them both for deletion. It's clear that Uvicwiki is promoting the department. The list of "notable" alumni from the school is really silly. To the extent that Wikipedia is a measure of notability, only three of the long list are not redlinked and they point to the wrong people (I'll fix that).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure whether the school is actually notable or not and I'm usually more inclined to let those things go (though someone else is welcome to investigate and nominate for deletion of appropriate), but I just took the award article to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavson School of Business Distinguished Entrepreneur of the Year Award as I can't find any real claim to notability and it was obviously created for promotional purposes. Zachlipton (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I had a search for sources for the school, but everything I found seemed press-releasey and to do with the renaming. I have removed the "Notable alumni" section, as those are intended for bluelinks to alumni notable enough in Wikipedia's sense to have their own articles, and none of them were. The article is tagged "notability" and "primarysources"; I am inclined to leave it and see whether sources get improved, though I also would not object if someone took it to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

John Goodsall

Article is being heavily edited by a user who claims to be the subject and who has objected to some of the content in the article. Kansan (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this: "JOHN GOODSALL HERE. The info below is correct. If anyone wishes to add to OR DELETE FROM this page please contact me for approval at http://www.facebook.com/johngoodsall." A clear attempt to WP:OWN the article - it appears the JG has already been informed that he can't stop others editing - see bio talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
He is also editing as Infospaz (talk · contribs) and misusing the minor edits tick box. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle

I've noticed that Doric Loon (talk · contribs), having created Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, is inserting it en masse as a reference in articles where it has not been used. I'm concerned because the book is only just published and not clearly of encyclopedic note. I do not see strong evidence that the user works for Brill, but the user shares Brill's publishing interests, evidences a connection with Holland, and has created enough interwikis to trigger concern in any reasonable person that more than topic enthusiasm is involved; but I will post a notice on his page and request comment on the matter. I wish to keep it a public matter, because once this is clarified either way there may be other encyclopedic concerns (such as notability and citation concerns). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ADD: The editor appears to be the author.[10]. For the moment I've removed many of the insertions by rollback, but that doesn't take care of them all and it appears there'll be a wait before 'what links here' will be updated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Haha - looks to be about as clear an instance of self-promotion as is possible - even self-outed! Why advertise your new book, when you can add zillions of refs to it in WP?! But, as you say, it's early days yet for notability etc., regarding which it would be useful to be able to see the list of contributors to the book, apparently on p. 1728; but this isn't included in the sample pages, and I ain't about to go and buy myself a copy any time soon. Anyway, well spotted. Nortonius (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this - I had been wondering if and where to discuss this. I do have a potential conflict of interest as I am one of the scholars who worked on this encyclopedia. I don't think it is a real conflict, though, because the edits I have made have been restricted to what is neutral and uncontroversial, but I am trusting other Wikipedia editors to reverse what I write if I step over any mark. I have read the guidelines on COI; these clearly state that I am allowed to edit here, and I am doing my best to stay within the limits. The point is that this encyclopedia is the first reference work in English ever to cover these chronicles, and for that reason most Wikipedia articles on chronicles were lacking any bibliography. What I have done is simply to add EMC references where Wikipedia has unreferenced articles, so that others can access the information. I will be very happy to receive guidance on this, but as you will see, I am a very well established Wikipedia user, and I think my record will stand as one who has the interests of Wikipedia very much at heart and is not pursuing a personal agenda. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Woops - edits crossed - I only saw the first comment. Yes of course self-outed, I'm being perfectly frank about who I am and what the issues are here. I have a Wikipedia reputation to keep, so I'm ceratinly not doing anything on the sly. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough - one would have to be a bit of a loon to be that unsubtle! But it doesn't look good, at first sight. Any chance of seeing that list of contributors? Nortonius (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"Loon" is good! :-) --Doric Loon (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the request for the contributors. The editorial team are listed here: [11]. I could get you a PDF of the complete contributors list, though I'm not sure how to get it to you. Is it going to make a difference? --Doric Loon (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Really, I asked out of curiosity: I have uncomfortable memories of dealing with editors adding their own self-published work to WP, which is rather beyond the pale as "original research". But, this is old news now, as it seems perfectly clear that this is far from being the case here, so never mind! Thanks anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You are inserting it in hundreds of articles as a reference where it was never used as one. As you are editor of the work, you will benefit financially from increased sales that will result from such visibility. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, no, if you know anything about academic publishing, you will know I don't make money from this. But that's not the issue. I am going to hold back on any more edits where this is concerned, at least for the moment. I would be grateful, though, if you would not reverse my edits so far unless you think they are wrong. The above issues don't invalidate good work. I'll be happy to discuss the details of my edits. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As it happens I do know something about academic publishing, and it is not true that such a matter is either certain or likely. But neither I nor Wikipedia know the details of your contract, and we're not going to rely on your word on the matter here (the CoI problem is still there whether your claim is true or false anyway, because an author benefits from the promotion of his own work whether or not promotion leads to direct financial bonus). What we do know is that you were inserting your own book into hundreds of articles--referenced and unreferenced despite your protestation above. I am not as experienced in CoI matters as some other editors here, so the course of this matter won't be determined by me. With that said, it seems clear that references to this book, where they were not used to construct an article, should be removed from articles; you'll maybe have noticed I have not removed the reference where it obviously was used in genuine article building. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec) The trouble is, it looks exactly like a spam effort. Unfortunately, whether those edits are "wrong" or not is, in that sense, rather irrelevant. Use in everyday article building is, as Deacon of Pndapetzim suggests, another matter. Nortonius (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Now, I see that your rollback has undone all my recent Wikipedia edits, not all of which were anything to do with chronicles or emc. This does not seem helpful, especially since in the process you have taken bits out of conversations on talk pages etc. I am going to ask you to undo that. You can see I am being very up-front here. So let's try for a good-faith assumption. If we can for the moment leave my edits as they were, I will agree to do no more on this without some kind of consensus, and we can discuss my edits and undo any which the community doesn't want. But we ought to have others contributing here before that is decided.
As far as the question of what has been used is concerned: in many cases I added information from the EMC and cited it as the source. Sometimes I had added the info earlier, before the EMC appeared, and was only able to add the sources now that it is out. In other cases I have simply listed it as bibliography. That is all in accordance with guidelines. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Most of it isn't in accordance with wikipedia policy, which is the point. And, yes, sorry ... I did get a few of your innocent edits by accident; reverted myself in these cases (I think), unfortunate side effect of having to perform so many removals. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. However, you will have to be more specific when you say most of it is against policy. Are you still talking about COI, or are you now talking about the edits themselves. It sounds like the latter, but I have made 7000 Wikipedia edits over the last 7 years, and I am very confident that any one of these chronicle-related edits would have been accepted as fine if anybody else had made them. And my reading of the COI rules, is that under those circumstances, I can make them too. I could be wrong about COI, but I'm not wrong about those being standard and useful edits. As for the sheer number of edits (dozens, not hundreds, but still!) I see now that that might look like spam, but I am just sitting on such a mine of relevant information, and my enthusiasm for the subject and for Wikipedia makes me want to put it in - my only motive.--Doric Loon (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is, it's about COI - I'm no expert on that either, I have read the rules but not for a while, and I don't have time tonight. But, I do have a gut feeling that there is a clear COI here - for example, while only you can know if your "enthusiasm" is your "only motive" in making those edits - loon or not - how likely is it really that you do not stand to gain from them, if not financially in the short term, then financially or indirectly in the long term? Note that I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous, I'm merely pointing out what seems to me to be a core problem, on which the community has to decide. In the meantime, I'll try to keep an eye on this one, see which way it goes. As you say, if "anyone else" had made these edits - by which I mean several or more independent individuals, over weeks, months or longer - it might well be that they "would have been accepted as fine"; the point is, they weren't, and prima facie they aren't. Regards. Nortonius (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

@Doric. Having spent some time removing your 'citations' manually, I have found that the vast majority are either tagged on to articles as fake references,[12][13][14][15][16][17] as 'further reading',[18] or as a 'citation' of a frivolously obvious statement already in the lead of the article (often already cited!).[19][20] The fake/pointless references I find particularly unimpressive. I've left articles you've created with the reference. You created just under 25 of these, and I note that all of them are one liner 'stubs'. Given what I've seen elsewhere and how little effort went into the content of the articles, I'm tempted to think you created these articles solely as an excuse to promote the reference involved. In all cases I can see, instead of using the book in good faith to expand an article, you've been interested merely in referencing the book providing minimal content. If that is so then the vast majority of your edits in this topic area in recent times have been edits solely to promote your book, uncomfortably close to the behaviour of single purpose promotion accounts. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Note' User has also created an article, the Medieval Chronicle Society, for an organization of non-obvious notability that he himself leads(/presumably founded). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see both sides here. The typical quality of referencing in these articles is very low - the first few I looked at used exclusively pre-WWI sources. But little if anything is being added to the articles. Where a source has not actually been used, it should normally go in Further reading, although I can see a case for updating the ref to basic facts from say 1866 to 2010! At the same time I'm sure the book is a valid addition, as further reading, to a great many of these. But equally in many cases there will be more recent editions of the chronicle or other works & articles that would actually be a better addition. In some cases the text is so poor, or EB 1911, that citing the new book as a source does not reflect well on it! I hope Doric Loon will go over these again, actually adding materials, & other sources from the bibliographies to FR. Btw on the new articles the categorization is lazy; Category:Chronicles has many sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm an expert on chronicles as well as a longstanding enthusiastic Wikipedian who has worked here on many things. WIkipedia needs experts, so I hope nobody will say I shouldn't work on articles in my field, but what else am I going to cite than the latest, largest reference work in the field, which I happen to know inside out? I have taken the point about giving the impression of spamming and I will be much more careful about that in future. But look at the actual edits. They involved much more work than Deacon suggests. A couple of examples:
  • Here [21] the article had two items muddled. I sorted it out, and gave the EMC as a reference.
  • Here [22] the article had missed the fact that there are two chroniclers of the same name who are constantly muddled. I pointed it out and gave references to two EMC articles which clarify.
  • Here [23] the article gave dates which seem to me to be wrong. I corrected and gave the EMC as a source.
I don't think it is right that these edits should be reverted because I have an involvement with the EMC. (And note, I didn't actually write those EMC articles, so it is the work of colleagues, not my own, that I am citing here.) What I have been doing is going through Wikipedia's articles on chronicles and checking the basic data. When the data was wrong, I corrected on the basis of the EMC. When it was correct, I left it, but if the correct information was unreferenced I added the EMC as a reference which could have been used - let's face it, that's all we can do when we are fixing an unsourced article, because we can't know what sources other Wikipedians actually did use; that is not "fake referencing". When there was no article for what seemed to me to be an important chronicle, I created a stub, like Academic Chronicle, which as you see has already been taken up by other people and is growing nicely. This is solid, standard Wikipedia work. And I have put a lot of time into this.
Obviously I need more advice on how to do deal with the COI issue in future. But unless the community really wants me to stay out of my area of expertise, many of these reverted edits will have to be restored.--Doric Loon (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
In fact the "two people muddled" one, Thomas of Otterbourne, already distinguished between them, with a modern reference, text which your addition ignores. I wasn't impressed with the edits of either of you here, & have rewritten, using only the existing content. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry JohnBod, you appear to be in error, as I didn't edit the article except to remove the advertising. Did you check the reference out before you reinserted it? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That was the edit I didn't think much of, given the state of the article. No, I did not check the reference, which given that the main point is that there are two different articles, I still do not think necessary. If you are going to use my username, try to get it right, although I know from experience you find this difficult. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with that edit, and frankly it's a little undignified and disruptive to bring your long-term grudge against me into this forum. You should probably check the reference out too, as its original insertion into the article did nothing but advertise. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So these are the one liners I was talking about (and note the concentration towards the beginning of the alphabet):

  1. Albert von Bonstetten (content: Albrecht von Bonstetten was a Swiss historian of the later 15th century.)
  2. Chronica XXIV Generalium (your content: The Chronica XXIV Generalium is a Franciscan chronicle written in 14th century France.)
  3. Jüngere Hochmeisterchronik(content: The Jüngere Hochmeisterchronik or Cronike van der Duytscher Oirden is an important and much discussed chronicle of the Teutonic Order. It was written in Holland in the late 15th century, and rewritten in a later Prussian version.)
  4. Anna von Munzingen(content: Anna von Munzingen was a German mystic of the 14th century. She wrote a "chronicle" of the experiences of her nuns.)
  5. Auchinleck chronicle(content: The Auchinleck Chronicle is a national chronicle in Middle Scots, written in Scotland in the mid-15th century. It is an important source for late medieval Scottish history.)
  6. Al-Azraqi (content: Al-Azraqi was a medieval Islamic commentator and historian.)
  7. B. de Canals (content: B. de Canals was a 14th-century Spanish author of a Latin chronicle. The initial B. may possibly stand for Bernat.)
  8. Al-Balawī (content: al-Balawī was an Egyptian historian of the 10th century AD (4th century AH))
  9. Johann Bämler (content: Johann(es) Bämler (1430-1503) was a printer and bookseller from Augsburg.)
  10. Niccolò Barbaro (content: Niccolò Barbaro was a Venetian physician, and author of an eyewitness account of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.)
  11. Filippo Barbieri (content: Filippo Barbieri or Philippus de Barberiis (1426-87) was a Dominican inquisitor and historian from Syracuse. He composed two, or possibly three chronicles in Latin prose)
  12. Barhadbshabba Arbaya (content: Barhadbshabba Arbaya was a sixth-century Syrian historian, whose History is important for the arian controversy and the dispute between Cyril and Nestorios)
  13. Barlings Chronicle (content: The Barlings Chronicle is an important late 13th or early 14th century Latin chronicle from the Premonstratensian Barlings Abbey in Lincolnshire, England.[1] It is closely related to the Hagneby Chronicle.)
  14. Hagneby Chronicle (content: The Hagneby Chronicle is an important late 13th or early 14th century Latin chronicle from the Premonstratensian Hagneby Abbey in Lincolnshire.[1]. It is closely related to the Barlings Chronicle.)
  15. Bartholomaeus of Drahonice (content: Bartholomaeus of Drahonice (ca 1390-1443) was a Bohemian soldier, and author of a chronicle of the Hussite revolution)
  16. Bartholomaeus of Neocastro (content: Bartholomaeus of Neocastro (ca 1240 - post-1293) was a Sicilian jurist, and author of a chronicle called the Historia Sicula.)
  17. Bartholomäus van der Lake (content: Bartholomäus van der Lake (d. 1468) was a German clergyman and author of a chronicle of the city of Soest)
  18. Bartolf of Nangis (content: Bartolf of Nangis or Bartolfus peregrinus was a French historian who died shortly before 1109. He wrote the crusade chronicle Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnatium.)
  19. Bartolomeo della Pugliola (content: Bartolomeo della Pugliola (ca 1358-1422/5) was an Italian Franciscan who wrote a history of Bologna.)
  20. Bartolomeo di ser Gorello (content: Bartolomeo di ser Gorello (1322/6 - ca 1390) was an Italian notary who wrote a town chronicle of Arezzo.)
  21. Schwabenkriegschronik (acceptable stub)
  22. Marco Battagli (content: Marco Battagli or Marcus de Battaglis (d. 1370/76) was a historian from Rimini in North Eastern Italy.[1] he wrote a universal chronicle in Latin.)
  23. Baudouin of Ninove (content: Baudouin of Ninove was a Flemish historian active around 1294.[1] His Chronicon runs from the birth of Christ to that year.)
  24. Rahewin of Freising (content: Rahewin of Freising was an important German chronicler at the abbey of Freising in Bavaria.[1] He continued the chronicle of his master, Otto von Freising. He died between 1170 and 1177.)

In most of these cases your reference has more characters than the body of the article itself. Your contention that you have been adding substantial content in good faith with this work I find to be false (though it is true that you have contributed to Wikipedia in other ways); in a few cases you might be able to argue utility in isolation, but the greater picture is more persuasive. Both Medieval Chronicle Society and Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle will probably be nominated for deletion, and you are not permitted to restore your 'references'. Now, that is not to say we don't welcome informed and well-referenced contributions to Wikipedia; I myself am very interested in promoting the presence of medieval historical writing articles on Wikipedia and would be delighted to see this happen. I will be happy to look at individual examples and indeed I have already restored the reference in Academic Chronicle. Your book looks to be a large and very reliable source for often obscure topics, and would be a great resource for a Wikipedian expanding coverage in the area. I encourage you to contribute, but if you are using your own work make sure you are contributing to promote expansion of topic rather than your own book. Make sure that you are seen to be doing so too, as you should not expect your edits to be given the benefit of the doubt or be subject to the assumption of good faith. You haven't really been doing that at all. Ignoring the hundreds of fake references, with one possible exception none of the articles you created really informed about the topic. As a gesture of good faith towards the community I suggest you use your book (which is a series of contributions by people who're often among the main experts on the source in question) and any other reliable sources to expand the articles above, but refrain from adding it to articles without substantial use of it being made. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK Deacon, it is now time for you to pull back a bit. I've been very courteous to you so far, but you have overstepped a lot of marks. For one thing, as the person who brought this matter as a complaint, it is not for you to pronounce as judge and jury - you said yourself at the beginning that it had to be decided by others, but the others who have written here have not given you a resounding endorsement and you are barging on anyway. I am also troubled that you went on deleting edits after this discussion had begun, as there is a principle of not tinkering while a conflict is being resolved - probably you would have got to delete them anyway, but that's not the point. Your consistently aggressive tone is particularly unfortunate, given that I was trying very hard to do the right thing - when somebody asks for help and advice you don't just keep hitting them with the same big stick. What's most hurtful is the repeated attribution to me of motives which you cannot possibly judge, and your candid admission that you don't accept the good faith principle, which is simply not worthy of this forum.
I am not going to contribute here again. I am not going to take part in the discussions about the deletions you have just requested. And I am not going to edit any more articles on chronicles. But it is also time for you to stop browbeating people and let any remaining decisions be made by other users, preferably admins.
Just as a point of information, I did not found the society, and had no office in it at the time I wrote the article on it. Since it has been a major academic society for two decades now, I think that both COI and notability issues are rather different with that article than with the other things we have talked about. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I think you've misunderstood a few things. Firstly, I have encouraged you to participate, and I do encourage you to take up the suggestion of the last post; both Wikipedia and yourself would benefit from the expansion of these articles to a useful level, which should be trivially easy with the source at your disposal. Secondly, WP:AGF states clearly that the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Promoting your own work like this is contrary evidence, and I am merely saying that further apparent promotion will likely be received negatively, and indeed should be. Thirdly, how this matter is settled will depend on who gets involved and I would prefer other more CoI-experienced admins to get involved; however I should be clear that I see my role here as administrative, and will take any action necessary to prevent further policy violations. Lastly, I've so far only drawn logical conclusions from the evidence in front of me, which includes both the edit history I've reviewed and your own comments here. Wider participation is welcome. What problems do you have with the solution I've offered, which still allows you to use the work for genuine article building? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I see no problem with the one-line stubs Doric created based on the EMC, with the correction of material with accompanying inline citations from the EMC, or with the addition of EMC to unsourced articles if the content of the article (or at least all sentences sourced to the EMC) were indeed verified by Doric through the EMC. These three activities help build the encyclopedia and I cannot see how they are problematic, even if they are self-promoting. Stubs are acceptable if reliably sourced. If a user creates a series of stubs all cited from his own book (which is not quite what happened here), that's fine. It's fine by me even if his reason for doing so is self-promotion. The legitimacy of an edit (e.g., the creaion of a stub) is not determined by guessing an editor's motive, but by analysing the change to see if it was constructive.
I do not think it should be added en masse to bibliographies in articles where it was not used, nor should it be added as an inline citation to the lead sentence of an article in which it was not otherwise used. Both these latter activites look like spamming and self-promotion. They are not constructive because the trustworthiness of the encyclopedia, as well as its verifiability, requires that sources cited actually be used, not merely encountered. "Spam"-type editing is hard to undo and generally results in discussions of the appropriateness of the added material. After all, Wikipedia is built (in part) by consensus. For instance, I think this discussion shows that we are unclear about "Further reading". —Srnec (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think there is a fine line being trod here - from certain angles, and in particular instances, it looks ok, but from others, less so. But I have to say, I do think this kind of issue could be avoided if an editor who thinks s/he is sitting on "such a mine of relevant information" did the usual thing, which is to actually use it to create and expand articles - otherwise, it tends to look like spam. I haven't taken the firmest line in this discussion, but nor have I entirely sat on the fence - mainly because spam is tiresome, and I would think an experienced editor would know that, and have a "feel" for whether or not what they were doing was appropriate. In view of which, and as far as I can see, Deacon of Pndapetzim has been firm but not unreasonable, and the more protestations of innocence I read, the less convincingly they come across - sorry, but that's the way I see it. Srnec makes good points too, IMHO.
BTW Srnec, can you clarify what you mean when you say that you "cannot see how [some edits] are problematic, even if they are self-promoting", and that "[it's] fine by me even if his reason for doing so is self-promotion", but then follow it by saying that "[certain activities] look like spamming and self-promotion… [which] are not constructive"? Genuine question, I'd like to know! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure. "I cannot see how they are problematic, even if they are self-promoting" can be taken absolutely. That an edit is self-promoting does not make it ipso facto problematic. To show that an editor's edit is self-promoting does not make the edit unconstructive or unencyclopedic, and therefore, not a problem that needs to be dealt with. Thus, "[i]t's fine by me even if his reason for doing so is self-promotion." When I said that "[t]hey are not constructive" I was referring to those activities and not to "spamming and self-promotion", although, spamming—and I didn't make this clear—is inherently unproductive in a way that self-promotion is not, just because of the collaborative nature of this project. Basically for the same reason incivility is. If I wrote a "reliable" book and used it a source for a slew of new articles, this would be, in a sense, clear self-promotion, but it is hardly a problem.What I find problematic with Doric's actions you able summed up when you said, "I would think an experienced editor would know" what spam looks like and that his colleagues won't like it. Since "trust but verify" seems to me to be an essential aspect of the editing side of this project, we should take care to maintain our trustworthiness by making all our editing "above board". When a series of edits looks spam-ish, red flags go up, since spam is almost always about pushing an agenda. Even in this case, Doric's enthusiasm for medieval chronicles was his agenda, and he was definitely pushing it. Fortunately, that agenda is consistent with Wikipedia's goals, but Doric, as an experienced editor, should have tempered his enthusiasm in order to "use [his resource] to create and expand articles", as you say. I think we're in agreement as to what went wrong and what Doric should have done. Srnec (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Got it - yup, I think we're pretty much on the same page with that, and, thanks for taking the trouble to explain what you had in mind. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that Doric Loon's goals align with Wikipedia's goals, then there is no conflict of interest.

On the one hand, Doric Loon wants to write a stub and add a (particular) high-quality reliable source to it. On the other hand, Wikipedia wants to have that article written, and to have some (any) high-quality reliable source named in it.

Where's the conflict? Don't we all want basically the same thing?

By contrast, merely adding WP:General references or WP:FURTHERREADINGs to a well-developed article would not seem to advance Wikipedia's goals (because, while general references are permitted, we have a goal of increasing our proportion of WP:Inline citations, and Further reading additions fall under the same WP:PROMO standards as WP:External links). Of course, if the article is actually {{unreferenced}}, then this behavior would again become desirable, and the situation is entirely different for inline citations added to material that is (or should be) tagged as {{Refimprove}} or {{Citation needed}}.

I think it's important to remember that this isn't a civil court. People cannot have absolute statutory conflicts of interest. If what you want to add is compatible with what we want to have added, then there is no violation of our actual, written COI policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Should not any article relying only on sources from say 1866 qualify for a "refimprove" tag? None of the sample I looked at could remotely be called "well-developed". I said above that "I can see a case for updating the ref to basic facts from say 1866 to 2010", assuming good faith that the facts have actually been checked, which I am happy to do, as although in one case (above) the existing very short text did not seem to have been carefully read, in others the basic facts had been corrected. The research done recently on how students actually use WP has led me for one to increase the use I make of FR, & COI apart, I would not agree that the articles I looked would not have been better for this book being added to FR. But I agree there is an issue here; some expansion of fewer articles would have been a much better approach. I hope doric Loon continues to work on this area in this way. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
@Srnec and WhatamIdoing, I agree roughly with all this. Wikipedia would benefit by co-operating with the user in question. It is good that we all agree that he should be encouraged to do so. I am not sure I share your view, Srnec, that the 24 articles in question are of any benefit to the 'Pedia as it still stands. The user created these articles using his own work as the source, but he was not utilizing the source. He was merely stating obvious things about the topic in question: e.g. Albrecht von Bonstetten was a Swiss historian of the later 15th century. and appending the source. The agenda, though theoretically consistent, hasn't practically been so as every time he has abandoned each article for another before contributing anything of substance. As many users are put off from building articles unless they get the credit for creation, this is possibly not even a marginal net gain. As Nortonius hinted near the beginning (and as everyone has agreed since), the user could easily promote his work as a side-effect of building content; it's precisely because he has avoided doing so that we have a problem. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I'm not sure what we do about this, I share Deacon's concerns here. Loon's edits do indeed look by and large promotional, and these articles are troublesome. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vector Marketing

* {{user:Chicago2011|Chicago}} I like to report a conflict of interest that was announced only after questioning by me on Chicago2011's Talk Page [24]. He has announced that he is here on Wikipedia to edit articles on behalf of a marketing firm that represents Vector Marketing. Ryulong and I are currently in discussion with him regarding this, but if you'll look back at the link, you'll see that he tried to delete Ryulong's input. Plus, this user seems to be using another editor's COI article that was reverted earlier (see below for backstory), which makes me feel uncomfortable to deal with this editor, and I question whether or not that this editor is here to build a NPOV encyclopedia.

I'd like to note that this article and its sister articles have been targeted in the past by Vector/Cutco employees attempting to puff up the article and/or erase the controversy section in the article. They also liked to argue in long text format about their POV, and attack other editors.

One such Pro-Vector editor, AkankshaG Did exactly the above [25], and was dragged to a separate ANI and then a COIN when I found out she was promoting an unrelated article Ciplex outside of the wiki. All the while, she had socked [26], and accused me of Stalking over and over [27].

Now, the reason I bring up AkankshaG is because if you look between the article revisions by Chicago2011 and AkankshaG, you will see that they are nearly identical. Including the original Pictures posted from Mywikibiz. The only way that Chicago2011 would know about these pictures and the article by AkankshaG is one of two ways:

  • AkankshaG was indeed paid by Vector to place the article, and now have delegated the task to a professional PR firm (Chicago2011).
  • AkankshaG is Chicago11 (SPI will be conducted because of the similarities of the article, per WP:DUCK). SPI

I also like to point out that there are articles created by Chicago that are currently under AfD scrutiny that are arguably promotional in nature. I will not go into detail as these are most likely to be voted delete.

TL:DR, Chicago2011 is PR editing on behalf of subject's article, Chicago11 not acting transparently, Article has history of POV problems, Chicago11 edits too similar to another POV editor AkankshaG, other articles attribute to promotional style, For the community's review, hope for the best, Phearson (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • It Appears that this editor has decided to blank his talk page and create another account to avoid scrutiny hereUser Talk:Chicago2011 Phearson (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Phearson, I wonder if you have recently read the WP:COI policy. In particular, I'd like to call this sentence to your attention: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests..." (emphasis added). So your claim about "not acting transparently" is not actually a violation of the policy, even if it were true, which it isn't, because the editor directly told you that he was working for a PR company to improve (as his client saw it) this article.
Similarly, there are no rules that prohibit a user from abandoning one account and starting another (except when the one account is blocked or the person is banned, neither of which apply here). As the (declined) SPI request indicates, users change accounts all the time, sometimes for trivial reasons like losing a password.
Also, WP:PAID failed. There is no policy against being paid to improve an article.
So the only possibly valid allegation you make is that this editor is unfairly suppressing negative information about the company.
You and Ryulong, on the other hand, seem to think that an encyclopedia article on a company should be 75% about whether their sales staff is treated fairly, and 0% about the company's corporate history. I understand why you want to have as much information as possible about the controversy, but can you tell me why adding sourced, apparently neutral information like "Vector Marketing expanded into Canada in 1990" is bad for Wikipedia? Are you removing positive contributions solely because you don't think that this person should be permitted to make any changes of any type? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I cannot answer for Ryulong, but for me, not at all. When Ryulong stopped reverting Chicago2011's revisions, I began to review the article and added edits here and there and reviewed sources the new sources that were introduced, then questioned the factual accuracy of two items in the summery box. I at that time accepted the article with some revisions until Tedder came about and reverted back to what it was before the changes by Chicago2011, due to the fact that it was the same style that AkankshaG had introduced, and was troubling to the regular editors there, given the severity of last time we had a dispute. For me not to accept Any positive things of Vector Marketing (including those of cited historical significance) would make me a very bad Wikipedian.
  • I am aware that WP:Paid failed. I am aware that it failed in fact, twice. And I had explicitly pointed that out when I created the essay WP:PEW (which, will need revamped obviously). I was mentioning that Chicago2011 was acting non-transparently when she first began to edit articles in a promotional way without announcing that he had a COI, nor discussing with the other editors about his proposed changes.
  • If I could speculate, I think that all the regular editors at Vector Marketing (including myself) are particularly paranoid about major changes made to that article, given the history of disputes that have occurred there, with the last one, a breaking point with AkankshaG, which was extremely nasty and left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
  • I suppose, that we all need to take sometime to re-review the applicable policies. And It appears that Chicago2011 has returned with a pleasant gesture of working together on the article. I will do so, and I encourage the the editors to assist.
  • And lastly, if the case was that the user forgot his password, I'm sure there is a policy I read somewhere that had to indicate that the new account was a legitimate second account. Even when small things such as SPI and COIN are pressed, abandoning the account just to avoid these things makes it all the more reason that the editor may have something to hide. I quote the saying "Would a innocent person run?".
The rules about alternate accounts apply to accounts that are operating at the same time. You are permitted to create a new account every single hour of every single day, if that's what you want to do, so long as you stop using the previous account when you create the new one. The concern is only if you're using multiple accounts at the same time (and the primary concern is the risk of votestacking). Even when you have multiple accounts in simultaneous use, you're not required to make public announcements about the accounts. If you want, for example, to edit with your real name on most topics, but under a pseudonym for a controversial subject, then you are not required to tell the world that User:SecretIdentity is the same person as User:JohnQPublic.
I understand why you might be paranoid. Permitting whitewashing isn't in Wikipedia's best interests. But in this case, I think you'll be better served by focusing on the content, rather than focusing on the contributor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Phearson (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Harveys (handbag design and manufacturer)

I am the original creator of the Harveys article. I do not feel the COI on the article is fairly placed going by the guidelines of Wikipedia and would like for it to be reviewed. A previous editor is using deleted references against the current article and makes it very easy for readers to find of my real life identity on the article talk page. She also quoted the owners of the company as referring to me as " the lovely..." and those words were not used at all. The blog post she saw it in was taken down and she was going by memory. She also places a advertisement warning on the piece, and incorrectly changed the name of the article. The article follows all guidelines for that as well. I am trying to follow every rule and guideline Wikipedia sets forth and I am having trouble with certain editors who do not seem to be following those same guidelines. Thank you for taking time to review this article. SJayQ (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this message. I'll invite Nancy (talk · contribs) to join us and explain the alleged problems. I am concerned from the talk page comments that Nancy may have thought, among other things, that publicly disclosing COIs was somehow required by policy ("you are very much making it one by not being transparent about your associations"). All of the talk page comments seem directed towards asserting that you are a bad person for being connected to the subject, rather than any objection to the actual sentences and sources used in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If anything I posted implied that SJayQ was a "bad person" (whatever a "bad person" is) then I unequivocally apologise that it could have been interpreted as such; it was certainly not my intention. To the substance: I really don't give a fig about whether SJayQ has interviewed the Harveys or not, what I was questioning was her later active denial when she had already posted the evidence on-wiki. I am unlikely to be online again today - it is a beautiful English Spring day and I'm out out to remember what sunshine is like :) - and anyway, I really don't have anything more to say so please feel free to take whatever remedial action you wish. Best, nancy 09:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC) `

I never meant to say I didn't write the previous deleted reference interviews. I was just stating that I had no associations with the Harveys that would prevent me from writing a Wikipedia entry for the bags. I never met them, I was not paid, or asked by them to do it. I did it on my own, and wanted to publish the information for others that would read it with the best of intentions. I just felt like you were digging a little too deep to uncover sources that were not even part of the current piece. With that said what are others thoughts on the COI on this article? Also is there anything wrong with the title being "Harveys Original SeatbeltBag"? As this is the more common name most people would associate with the entry. SJayQ (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I interpret Nancy's comment as an agreement to remove the COI-alleging tag from the article. I have done so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to all involved in resolving this matter SJayQ (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

International School Bangkok

New user account has the same name as the school the article it edited is about. XinJeisan (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

COI is about content. I dont see a COI, just a fine article, from a reasonably informed POV- and one editor now lost to WP. There is no "rule" about similarity of User-name to Article-names; the relevant prohibition covers commercial promotions and those which tend to "give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have". Did you have another? But...Seeing as how the user is less than 24 hours old....Don't you think this novice actually deserves your WP support? May they RIP (Return In Policy).
Meanwhile.... I noticed this on someone's related user-page while looking for understanding. Did we read it? I apologize in advance, but - yours is today's example of How NOT To Treat New Editors.
Who wants to see a stack of warnings and policy references resulting within minutes from their first contribution! How would you like that? I'd rather someone just told me to get lost, b/c that's something I could fight. I'm sorry, but new articles are not any place to hone your WP:Policy blitz. Take on an editor your own age if you want to police. Better yet, if you mean it, if you have what it takes- try taking on one or more of the thousands of sloppy fan articles, those with a rabid, foaming community. They will learn you to edit with heart. Please dont take any of this personally. There's a lot of nasty interests at war online as western society implodes. And there's more support needed over at WP:Username_policy#Dealing. But the policy is to build articles and editors, not eliminate them. That's military work.
Not sure what you are talking about. There isn't a stack of warnings. There is a welcome template and a template suggesting the editor be wary if they have a conflict of interest. Which seems pefectly reasonable given the name of the user and the types of edits done. I also didn't delete most of the edits User:Internationalschoolbangkok made but instead put them back into the original article. Also the editor had already made another edit before you commented, as well.
However after a quick google search I see the user just cut and paste page into the article, which would be a copyright violation and probably should be removed as well.XinJeisan (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sacred hoop

Directed here from WP:UAA. An admin believed the username isn't blatant enough for attention there. I disagree, but in any case, here it is. elektrikSHOOS 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem that you're alleging. Is your complaint that the editor might be interested enough in the subject to (1) write an article about it and (2) use something like that as his or her username?
This is not a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia cares when people harm Wikipedia to promote their own goals. If their goals and our goals are compatible, then there is no violation of the COI policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The deleted article in question was overly promotional in tone, and the username is very, very similar to the article in question. In any case, this report can safely be closed, as the user in question was blocked by Orangemike (talk · contribs) for being a promotional account. elektrikSHOOS 19:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, that sounds like a clear problem. I'm glad to hear that it has been handled already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunk Island

At Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, user wrote: "I am the marketing manager of Dunk and Bedarra Island"; he/she is trying to turn these articles into tourist brochures, with an endless gallery of pictures of the luxury accomodations. Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, they are nice places to have a holiday on...just have to watch for copyvios etc.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

TekTrak

Though there are sources, this article reads like an advertisement. I'm not sure if its the way its written and honestly, I'm not even sure it's notable enough to have its own article. Just looking for opinions before I mark it AFD based on WP:SPAM or WP:CONFLICT. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this yesterday and again today and I think it is just about ok. It's received plenty of independent coverage and is written reasonably neutrally and I think it is just as likely that Cgangita is a newbie who uses the app rather than someone with a COI. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

GNUSTEP live CD

The GNUstep project is a free software implementation of Cocoa (formerly NeXT's OpenStep) Objective-C libraries (called frameworks), widget toolkit, and application development tools not only for Unix-like operating systems, but also for Microsoft Windows. It is part of the GNU Project.

The user in question is apparently the creator of a Linux distribution of the same name, as evidenced by the copyright notice at the bottom of the external link inserted ([28]). As far as I can tell, this OS is not an official part of the GNUstep project. It also does not appear to yet be notable, I've not been able to find any third-party reviews on Linux sites that qualify as reliable sources.

User has been adding a section to the GNUstep article about the OS and then repeatedly adding a link to GNUstep to List of Linux distributions, which is not appropriate as GNUstep is not a Linux distribution, it's an implementation of Cocoa. I've informed the user about our conflict of interest policy - that he should not be writing about or linking to his own project, but he's ignored the warning. Yworo (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Optimering

User:Optimering is an editor who edits exclusively about the works of a young researcher named Pedersen who so far as I can tell has been published twice. As another editor put it 'The Table of Contents of the Pedersen thesis (which Optimering has inserted in several articles) has striking similarities to the articles Optimering has written'. Optimering is adding references to Pedersen's thesis and links to his website, hvass-labs.org, to multiple articles. The one linked above, Luus-Jaakola, was created in response to notability tagging on Local unimodal sampling, which is Pedersen's variant of Luus-Jaakola. Optimering is edit warring to keep in a reference to the thesis and a paragraph about Pedersen's parameter modification of Luus-Jaakola.

I would really like some more eyes on this situation, because Optimering has just stated that he will not discuss this any further and will simply revert all edits to his preferred version. - MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There's also a note about this situation at Talk:Algorithm. I'll leave a note at WT:WPMATH to ask for more help in resolving this edit war.
I think it reasonable to assume that WP:SELFCITE applies, regardless of whether the editor chooses to say so publicly. (That is, even if the editor didn't write that thesis, the community is likely to apply those rules.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Optimering has left several personal attacks against MrOllie on several talk pages. I ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)) quote from the latest at the LS article:

"If you have no deep knowledge of [[metaheuristics|metaheuristics]] in general, no experience and expertise with LJ specifically, and if you haven't even read the original paper on LJ, then why are you even editing this article? You and MrOllie have managed to destroy this article and waste my time. I'm not a psychologist so I honestly don't know why, but I have come to the end of what I will tolerate. Wikipedia is not a message board nor is it a school where you can 'Ask The Professor.' If you have no competence on a given subject you should not edit the article."

  • I have notified Optimering of this discussion, and invited him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me like the discussion on this issue is mostly at Talk:Luus–Jaakola. --John Nagle (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This dispute is really about several articles: Luus-Jaakola, particle swarm optimization, differential evolution and meta-optimization.

Following proper academic procedure I will stay out of this to allow for a neutral review and just briefly summarize my side of the story.

The dispute with User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz started over a tiny misunderstanding about a navbox, see Template talk:Optimization algorithms, which apparently was a great personal insult to K.W after which he/she launched an attack not only against me, but also seeking to denounce named individuals, universities, journals, and an estabilshed research field in its entirety, over several talk-pages incl. User talk:MrOllie and User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#A_regrettable_dispute. These derogatory remarks and attacks were particularly low because Kiefer.Wolfowitz is an anonymous editor. Please trace the dispute history and you will see that my final outbursts (cited out of context above) were probably warranted.

Regarding my dispute with User:MrOllie and his/her allegations about COI/UNDUE content, it has been going on for a long time. I have previously suggested (welcomed!) that outside experts be recruited, see e.g. User talk:Ruud Koot#Recruiting outside experts, which I have also encouraged MrOllie to do. According to Google Scholar there are many thousand publications about particle swarm optimization and differential evolution, and more being published daily. It takes a lot of knowledge and effort to condense that into an encyclopedic article. You will note that particle swarm optimization and differential evolution were in shambles before I started editing them. They are now largely written by me because no other editors have come forward to make major and competent contributions. I'm now struggling to comprehend why editors such as MrOllie who have obviously not read one single of the many thousand publications still think themselves competent to vigorously enforce their opinions about what is relevant, neutral, well-sourced, etc., and just delete text at will, often leaving the context in disarray and meaningless. Even if I were who MrOllie thinks I am, self-citation is allowed on Wikipedia if it is relevant, neutral, well-sourced, given proper weight, etc., see WP:SELFCITE. It is furthermore clear that MrOllie has targeted me specifically because he has not deleted a number of blatant self-promotions of trivial work on e.g. particle swarm optimization. Nor has MrOllie objected to the obviously unsourced, unduly weighted, and WP:OR that Kiefer.Wolfowitz had inserted into Luus-Jaakola, which MrOllie was certainly aware of. So MrOllie has clearly targeted me for WP:HARASS.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz now continues where MrOllie left off and K.W has recently removed a reference to a phd thesis in meta-optimization stating that it is 'unpublished'. He did not remove another phd thesis from that very same article, so he is clearly biased as to what should remain in the article. Also, phd theses are verifiable and reliable sources, significantly more so than conference papers, which he has also not removed. K.W has also just recently inserted derogatory 'weasel words' in pattern search (optimization) furthering his ongoing campaign to defame such methods. In my view, MrOllie and Kiefer.Wolfowitz have completely destroyed Luus-Jaakola and I recommend looking at its edit-history and talk-page as well.

I sincerely hope that someone can recruit a good cross-section of recognized experts in this field to review/edit the articles. Again, see my suggestions here. I will naturally accept their verdict whatever it may be. I could then retire from these pointless battles knowing that a body of competent editors were there to take over. Optimering (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Optimering's promotion of the Pedersen thesis was commented on above (and at many other talk pages) by others. In the article on Metaheuristics, I removed the reference to the thesis, per editor WhatamIdoing's remarks: I left Pederson and Chatterfield's article (mentioning Chaterfield instead of "Pedersen et al.", the wording favored by Optimering).
Editor John Noble has questioned the notability of the LJ heuristic at the LJ article. Let me mention that the LJ heuristic was ignored in the article on "Global optimization" by A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan and by Tinter, in Optimization, volume 1 of the Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science.
The LJ article no longer cites the Pedersen thesis: before, the LJ article's main source was the Pedersen thesis (when it was called LUS after Pedersen's thesis). Yesterday, I added links to two articles, one by Luus and one by Nair, which had been added previously by Optimering. I have previously asked him to recognize that some of my edits have been constructive, but to no avail.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
My edits to pattern search consisted of adding in-line citations to text explaining the basic results of Yu (which Optimering has avoided citing, despite priority) and Powell. Optimering's histrionics are unwarranted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
This is what I posted at the algorithm talk page:
RE User Optimering, Metaheuristics, and Template:Optimization algorithms
Please view the promotion of (meta)heuristics by editor Optimering over the last year, including his edit at the Template:Optimization algorithms, where he removed approximation algorithm and added ant colony optimization from the section on combinatorial optimization. He also removed the Gauss-Newton and Levenberg-Marquardt articles from the gradient-related section; these are the most used methods in all of optimization, according to Lemaréchal, Gilbert, Bonnans, and Sagazstibal (sic) and science citation index counts.
"Optimering" has already had one "heads-up" at the COI noticeboard. He has been warned about OR and self promotion (at risk of blocking) at his self-titled discussion "Block_threat_to_expert_contributor" at the administrators' noticeboard and has boasted about his own standing in the world of metaheurstics at AFD.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Optimering has had a year to get familiar with Wikipedia policies, so he is no longer a newbie. His advice to convene a board of experts is simply not what we do here. If he wants to get his changes into the articles, he needs to get a consensus of the other editors. In my opinion, any admin can issue a block for disruptive editing if he sees Optimering make any further change to an optimization article that does not have consensus, or make any further edits promoting the work of Pedersen or of www.hvass-labs.org. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Gary Maloney

Editor User:GaryWMaloney has been creating new pages for and adding promotional material to articles of Republican political figures. For example, his substantial additions of uncited material to Chris LaCivita have resulted in an "article" that now reads more like an ad for LaCivita's consulting services. I note we also have an article Gary Maloney for a Republican political consultant. This suggests a problem with WP:COI but not one I am sophisticated enough to know how to handle. 207.228.237.110 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I popped an AFD on the Gary Maloney article. He has worked for a lot of notable people, but I think maybe a notability test will at least give a groundwork for examining the content concerns. I have no specific comment on the potential conflict of interest at this time, aside from, on its face, it seems a valid concern. --Quinn ➳WINDY 04:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is Gary Maloney. I started adding factual material about subjects I either know or with which I am familiar, through my academic studies (B.A., D.Phil in Politics), through my consulting / political work (32 years total), or personal interests / knowledge. My own notability, a point raised by Quinn ➳WINDY -- judge that for yourself. A regular contributor to Wikipedia who I do not know, Phoebe13, put up a bio of me in 2006, after I had been interviewed in Campaigns & Elections magazine, got some things wrong -- so I fixed them; did not delete anything that was already there. Added some cites now and again, but generally don't touch my own entry -- although it appears that user Sophus Bie has gotten some items wrong in what appears to be a rather pointed post (e.g. I was NOT fired from NRCC, and it was the ex-wife of a Williams staffer that I contacted, Williams has only had one wife; incidentally, Williams later HIRED me to help him.) I also do not edit Wikipedia items on my clients -- usually it's on subjects I know well (e.g. Theodore H. White, Richard M. Scammon, Draft Goldwater Committee) or individuals whose existing Wikipedia entries were spotty or just plain weak (e.g. Nick Ayers, Chris LaCivita, Arthur Finkelstein). In response to 207.228.237.110, he is correct to be watchful of promotional material; that is why I make a point of including FAILURES as well as successes (e.g. LaCivita losing with Earley in 2001, Allen in 2006 and Martin in 2010; also, his ties to the discredited Charlie Crist do him no credit with Republicans). Wherever possible, I add citations, usually from searches I run at my own expense from proprietary databases (Nexis, Westlaw, etc.) Rather than hide behind some nom de plume, I have done all this in the open. Wikipedia is an excellent idea, and I am mindful of the high standards that usually prevail. Am happy to contribute my time, knowledge, research and writing abilities. Thank you for the opportunity. GaryWMaloney (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You added substantial material to Chris LaCivita with no source other than one political blogpost quoting a LaCivita press release. I'm not sure what your source was for these two paragraphs you inserted:

By then, LaCivita, and former gubernatorial chief of staff Jay Timmons, were guiding Allen's campaign for U.S. Senate, ultimately defeating scandal-plagued two-term incumbent Chuck Robb with 52% in a hard-fought contest in November 2000.

In the fall of 2001, LaCivita was drafted in the final two months to shore up the losing campaign of Attorney General Mark Earley for Governor against Mark Warner. Earley, down by 13 points in mid-summer, eventually lost by five points, 52%-47%, to the millionaire Democrat.

It seems to me that you should expand your knowledge of our policies on WP:RS and WP:NPOV. WP:COI applies not only to people who are paid for editing wikipedia, but also to those who choose to edit the pages of friends and colleagues. 207.228.237.110 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to 207.228.237.110 -- Fair criticism. I will get on Nexis tonight and fill this article with cites. LaCivita was campaign manager for Allen in 2000, and later came in for Earley in 2001 -- this will be in the Virginia papers, and I will get them in the piece. GaryWMaloney (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive response. As per NPOV, please avoid judgmental terms like "scandal-plagued" and attempts to minimize the fact that LaCivita's client lost, such as "down by 13 points in mid-summer, eventually lost by five points to the millionaire Democrat." 207.228.237.110 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well -- I take your point on impartiality in wording. In this case, however, I would point out (1) Robb would likely not have lost to Allen in 2000, or nearly lost to North in 1994, had he not been involved in numerous scandals (cocaine, sex with underage girl, etc.). (2) The point of Earley bringing in LaCivita was to try to catch up to Warner (which he did, but not enough to win). LaCivita is notable, and worthy of a Wiki article, not only because of controversy (Swift Boat, Tobin, etc. which is discussed here) but also because he is effective, and generally more successful than not. But I will amend the wording. GaryWMaloney (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Seb az86556

Resolved
 – Nothing to do here. The submitter was blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 173.178.93.250 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Yes This UserName Is Real Weird . And THis Boy Is Real Rude Here. He Deletes Peoples Comments. Can He Get Any Weirder Or Ruder. 173.178.93.250 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)__

Your questions are not really suited for that article's talk page. Confine it to the ref desk and things might work out better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The OP has since been blocked as a troll and a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WBBM-FM and Hinsdale South High School

User, per their own provided edit summary[29], is an employee of CBS Radio and WBBM-FM. They are continuing to add information to the radio station's article after being reverted (with explanation of reason why both in edit summary and on their talk page) and has also made a perceived legal threat. Further examination of their edit history shows a COI concern[30] on Hinsdale South High School, as well. Strikerforce (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

User appears to have created an account and is now editing as:
Yworo (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Dive (American based rock band)

Editor that created the article appears to be a member of the band or closely related to the band's promotion. They have removed multiple issue tags, multiple times, without addressing those issues and have been warned for COI, 3RR, and for removing a CSD. Strikerforce (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Camp Moshava (Wisconsin)

Gotz formerly worked for this camp (see his userpage), and has created a walled garden/advertisement for the camp. Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Shirk

These three obviously related accounts have been adding poorly sourced boosterism to this article for the last couple of weeks. This was previously brought up at ANI, where it was noted that the IP is registered to the City of Jacksonville, suggesting that the edits are coming from Shirk's own office.Cúchullain t/c 15:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Byzantinus (talk · contribs)

I would appreciate it if someone with experience and patience could have a look at this account's contributions & my comment on the user talk page. (At least one anonymous Athens IP is also involved.) These edits all serve to promote the work of a Greek scholar D.S. Konstantinos. More often than not, the additions are to "References" sections, which is particularly unfortunate, because if undetected that contaminates the record of which sources were, in fact, used in creating the article. What to do when the edits continue but no response to the concerns at the talk page? I am reluctant to get anywhere near an edit war, though I also worry that if anything I'm being too conservative in my response (allowing persistent additions to stand as long as they are in "Further reading" or "Secondary literature," even though they come from a single-purpose promotional account that won't answer questions about COI). Anyway, I seem to be the only one paying attention, and it needs more eyes. P.S. At Mirrors for princes I'd let the works stand in the "Further reading" section, as their Greek titles indicate that they are devoted to Byzantine "Mirror for princes" literature. But it seems likely quite inappropriate to allow the works to be listed on every page on a topic that may be mentioned somewhere in these works, all the more so if there is a COI, as seems likely. Wareh (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Shalom TV

Typical COI activity, keep changing it into the Correct version Attempted dialogue on the user page with no response. I have no idea what our Notability requirement are for television stations so that could be another issue. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Tau Epsilon Phi

Edit warring about lawsuit, primary sources (court documents), etc. What one editor sees as "justice" another sees as a miscarriage thereof. Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Growing block universe

User has added content, mentioning a book with the same author as the username. Worth a look. Kansan (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Rusty Frank

Possible editing of one's own article. Kansan (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

LJV Sports Management Limited

Only purpose of this account is to spam for the company and some of the obscure jocks it manages. The name itself is a borderline UAA violation, and the account is clearly COI in purpose. Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gleeson Group

I've created a page on The Gleeson Group, but it is only after that i realise there could be a COI issue as I have a business conection with this company. I felt I might just bring it up here just in case another user might flag the issue, thanks. Ledger-91 (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

International Association of Project Managers (IAPM)

Subject: Deletion of the entry for the reason of "unbiased advertising".

IAPM is an international non-profit organization that promotes and supports the art of project management. This is done by the contribution of specialists and scientists, who do not receive any compensation for their contributions. It is felt by the author of the entry that the rationale for the deletion is not justified. The entry is rather an encyclopedic article about an international association, which is globally oriented and not for profit. How could the article be improved to avoid deletion?

Hansunhooked (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The primary question is whether the organization is notable, which briefly defined means that it has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I find no results in Google news, and a simple mention in three books on Google books. That doesn't give sufficient material to write anything more about it than "The International Association of Project Managers is an international association of project managers", which is not particularly encyclopedic. Yworo (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Festival Foods

This user appears to work for the company discussed on this page. This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Festival_Foods&action=historysubmit&diff=412035176&oldid=411793437 specifically requests another user to contact the first user at an email address with a domain that looks like it is owned by the company the page discusses. (The edit in question was reverted by a vandalism bot.)

The user has made several changes to this page in January and February 2011 and to no others. Also, the page reads like self-promotion.

Forgot to sign: --BlackAndy (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

On tree shaping article an COI editor is trying censor content

To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in this field. The pro Arborsculpture camp have stated I in fact am the one with a COI. Multiple editors have stated I don't have one, and can edit the main page. Example SilkTork's diff

Slowart has linked this account with Reames who has self outed as Richard Reames the creator of the word Arborsculpture. He has a potential COI as an artist in this field. He has also stated in the past that he has a COI in regards to the word Arborsculpture.

Slowart is censoring the page to suit his marketing of his method of shaping trees and the word Arborsculpture. His minor COI started when he replaced the alternative names in the lead diff. Please note, I didn't originally remove the alternative names Sydney Bluegum's diff, but I did state I agree with the editor who removed them as it follows WP:LEAD and stated why on the talk page. I've repeatably asked him to talk on the discussion page in my edit summaries. Which he is yet to do. I have filed for mediation which in the past he agree to, but hasn't yet replied on the listing. The edit that brought me to listing him (Slowart) here was this diff where he has removed cited content about his methods of Arborsculpture. I have also listed at the edit warring noticeboard and they have locked the page for 72 hours.He is not talking on the article page talk and has asked me not to talk on his page, What happens now? Blackash have a chat 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

hmm. That's certainly an interesting dispute there. Mediation certainly seems appropriate, but it can only work if both parties are willing to participate in good faith, and it seems like Slowart is unwilling to do so? Perhaps a neutral editor can persuade him to work with the mediation process. It seems the mediation committee also rejected the request because of your comment that you were "going to relist Arborsculpture for Arbitration." It seems clear to me from the context that you meant "mediation" instead, as the dispute previously went to mediation so now you would be re-listing it for further mediation. As such, I imagine the mediation committee might accept the case if Slowart agreed to participate in good faith.
Obviously, this is something that should be handled with tactics below the level of arbitration. It seems to me that WP:CIVIL and WP:EDIT imply a requirement that editors either cooperate with reasonable dispute resolution measures or disengage from the topic. If he won't agree to some kind of good faith discussion or mediation, then he's edit warring. I really think the best approach to resolving this would be if he would agree to cooperate in the mediation process in good faith, and I imagine MedCom might well be willing to reconsider if that happens.
Also, can you tell us how the first mediation went? Did you reach agreement on any issues? If so, administrator enforcement of that consensus might be justified if parties are editing contrary to the prior agreement without good reason. Perhaps other editors have ideas? Zachlipton (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes I meant Mediation. On the tree shaping talk page mediation, formal mediation and Arbitration where all throw around and I mixed up my words. I will let the mediator know. Thanks this is helping already.
As far as I can tell Slowart is not talking to anyone.
The first mediation I filed was about the title of the tree shaping article and how the alternative names of the art-form should be used in the article and related articles. Both Slowart and I agreed to mediation. When the time came up for mediation I missed it (I was checking the listing page and not the talk page). By the time I realized my mistake the article had settled down, so rather than kick the bee hive I stated I would leave it unless the Arborsculpture issue come up again.Blackash have a chat 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I just left a message on Slowart's talk page to sound out his feelings on whether he is amenable to participating in mediation in good faith. If he is, and if you (Blackash) and any other relevant parties are also in agreement and can also commit to regular participation in the discussion, we can ask MedCom to consider accepting the case. I think that's probably the best shot at dispute resolution right now. Note that arbitration is not only a drastic step, it is also not as helpful to actually resolving a dispute, as ArbCom only rules on editors' actions and Wikipedia policies, not on the underlying content dispute. Let's see how Slowart responds (or if he responds) and we can figure out where to go from there. In the meantime, I'd encourage all parties to avoid edit-warring on the issue, even if others are acting in bad faith. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am an editor with no commercial interest in the subject who has taken an interest in the article. There are clearly two editors with a potential conflict of interest here, Blackash and Slowart. I strongly believe that both these editors should withdraw from editing and commercially sensitive issues in the article and allow editors with no commercial interest in the subject to deal with these matters. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin you may be an editor with no commercial interest but you aren't neutral. To quote from the NPOV Noticeboard about the issues of Arborsculpture. Blue Rasberry Quote " Thanks for an explanation of the issue, Martin. I would not call you neutral anymore because in some instances you have made shows of support in the article talkspace without contributing additional points or arguments. I see hostility on this board against user:Blackash. There are good arguments in place by Blackash and others, and perhaps the counterarguments are good also, but they too frequently contain rude language. I posted something; it could use other uninvolved editors' viewpoints also. Blue Rasberry 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)"
Please note on the talk page Martin believes I have a higher COI than Slowart. Martin Quote "Blackash, as someone with no direct interest in the subject but a regular observer of the article, the greatest conflict of interest seems to relate to yourself. I think this case should be referred to the COI noticeboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)" Talk page I rebut his allegation of COI in the talk page. Martin seems to use the claim of COI as a way of not answering my points in discussion. Blackash have a chat 10:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick opinion. It seems both these editors are experts, which we need. Where does the commercialism enter into it, other than the fact that perhaps they both get paid for engaging in this art? You know, many an expert gets paid for his or her expertise. Maybe a good "beer summit" would help? Hoping they can work it out to everybody's profit, I am, yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Blackash runs the 2nd and 3rd highest ranked websites in a google search for "tree shaping" (the highest ranked site is the wikipedia page). Slowart coined the term "arborsculpture", runs equivalently high-search-ranked sites for that term, and has written books with arborsculpture in the title. Whichever term wins out, whoever runs the site associated with that name will have a huge advantage in terms of media coverage, book sales, interviews, contract work, website hits, etc.
There are also some less-commercial aspects/motivations in this. Slowart truly believes that arbosculpture is a better term, and has been actively promoting the term since long before wikipedia existed. Blackash and some other artists don't like this - they see slowart's actions as "pushing" his unwanted term onto their art. Similarly, slowart harbors some resentment over the first move when he was a relatively new wikipedian. From his perspective an outsider (me) came in and changed the title to his article without even discussing with him, and after the move he felt like he had no recourse. AfD hero (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares about whether you are using Wikipedia to promote yourself or some end other than a good encyclopedia. The fact that you're connected to the subject or have some personal opinions about it doesn't count as a COI.

As an example: Surgeons are invited to write articles about surgery. Computer programmers are invited to write articles about computers. Artists are invited to write articles about art.

The problems appear only if you write these articles so that they benefit you: If the surgeon declares himself (or herself) the best surgeon in the world, the computer programmer removes sourced complaints about his software, the artist spams links to his website to drive up sales, etc.

That said, none of the few diffs I looked at seemed egregious. For example, it's pretty normal for articles to provide all the significant names for a subject in the first sentence, even if some of them are related to specific businesses. See, for example, Ibuprofen, which provides four brand names. Providing multiple names helps readers figure out whether they're on the right page, especially if they arrived at it by clicking on a WP:REDIRECT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If course we need experts. No one is suggesting that these editors should not be allowed to edit this article, just that should not get involved with commercially sensitive issues such as naming of the art. The point is that an editor with a commercial interest in the subject should not be making decisions on the use of specific names for the art. For example the manufacturers of a specific brand if ibuprofen should not be adding or removing brand names from the article, they should leave it up to others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think wp:consensus here might be that there is nothing that can be done on this page but that the aggrieved people should just keep trying to work out the problems or go to wp:mediation or some other forum. A look at the article's talk page indicates lively to-and-fro, which is just as it should be. The parties, maybe, should not expect everything to be decided quickly. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
@ WhatamIdoing did you look at this diff? This is cited content about Slowart, his methods and word. This is the edit that really brought me here. Are you saying it is correct for Slowart to remove this cited content?
As to the alternative names:
  • There are 8 cite-able names for the art form.
  • The had been a consensus to create an a name section and remove the names from the lead.
The removal of the names out of the lead follows WP:LEAD. To see in more detail why I support this edit please go to talk page
@GeorgeLouis, the problem is the Slowart is not talking only editing stuff about himself. Have a closer look at the to and fro, Martin and Johnuniq haven't addressed one of my points. Blackash have a chat 21:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the Tree shaping issue at a noticeboard in June 2010 and have been half-heartedly watching developments since then. On the article talk page, I have pointed out that there has been a protracted campaign to minimize use of "arborscultpure" in the article. The vigor with which some editors are pursuing that line shows that some strong principles are involved, yet examining the contributions of the editors shows that they generally are not concerned with any other topics where Wikipedia's principles might be contravened. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to conclude that the desire to minimize use of "arborscultpure" is due to some off-wiki reason. It is true that a "pro arborscultpure" editor with a COI has unwisely edit warred over the issue, but it takes more than one editor to edit war. It is time for all those with a commercial interest in the field to step back and let independent editors assess arguments for how "arborscultpure" should be used in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq,
  1. We were going down the road to edit warring and this is why I listed on the edit warring noticeboard and here.
  2. As to the minimizing Arborsculpture I when to NPOV notice board about the amount of weight given to arborsculpture in the article. I then did a compromise between how many times Arborsculpture appeared on the page at that time and the suggestions at the NPOV (which was to basically change all instances of arborsculpture to tree shaping) [31].
  3. As to not being part of discussion and editing.
    1. Early on when discussing how content should be changed, I stated that Slowart and I don't count as part of consensus. I was told that we do too, quote "As to the question of consensus, the two of you definitely do count as part of generating consensus. HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 11 May 2009" (UTC) Link. Multiple editors have stated it fine for me to be part of the discussions and for me to edit the article.
    2. Without discussion/editing with people from the field how are you going to know which content is in multiple sources and therefore should be on the page to something that was written in 1 source and not really relevant?
Please I still have discussion points on the talk page and I would be happy to talk about content there if you like. Blackash accusation 13:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
From my prespective the invention of instant tree shaping in regards to my work is like calling it sloppy.Blackash is simply using wikipeda to bring down the competition, reduce redefine and eliminate the word arborsculpture and build up Pooktre.com and Blackash other web site www.treeshapers.net so you can see the COI, what do think ? Protracted arguments have work out well for some, but not for me. Without some page protection, this is like pissing in the wind and a waist of time. Slowart (talk | contribs)02:37, 27 February 2011
Slowart, if the name of the instant tree shaping section is a problem lets change it. Do you have any suggestions of a different heading? As to bringing you Reames down, please give diffs.
I would love for other editors to go to www.treeshapers.net as I believe this site is an excellent example of my ability to edit neutrally. I contacted everyone and most replied, a few wanted some changes which I did. Slowart and others commented in emails that I had done some good work with this site. Please feel free to start with Slowart/Richard Reames's page Blackash have a chat 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Blackash, the section removed by Slowart says, "Richard Reames is the biggest name in America for Arborsculpture". Now I don't know anything about this form of art—it might be the WP:TRUTH for alll I know—but that sounds pretty WP:PEACOCKy to me. Do you think that was a good sentence to have in the article? Does it sound like something you'd find in Encyclopedia Brittanica? And on the point of this particular noticeboard, do actually you think that Reames' removal of that sort of puffery about himself is somehow an effort to unfairly promote himself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing and Johnuniq I'd like to point out some important points. Blackash starts a page titled Pooktre, at the AFD and without any notice anywhere AfD hero changes the Arborsculpture page to Tree shaping.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pooktre [blackash spams the world with this]The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable verifiable sources, IMHO The Home Orchard Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California pressThe best of the crop is see pdf page 6 text book page 442 section 4.
Basically what you have here is a page title that should be reverted to Arbosculpture as it was incorrectly changed and then it should have some semi protection from those who are just way too close to the subject to be unbiased.Slowart (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Even if everyone agreed with you, WP:Semiprotection would be useless, as it prevents only unregistered users and the very newest accounts from changing the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I have just followed the links for Blackash spams the world and believe that the sites I looked at do NOT put down anyone, different tree trainers have links to their sites I think it is pretty fair. Go look for your self, don't take one person opinion. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing. I would be interested in reading your suggestion how to make "Richard Reames is the biggest name in America for Arborsculpture" more encyclopedic. Slowart removed a header, 5 cited pieces of information and an image then comes here and states he didn't like the header. Somehow I don't think he was worried by the WP:PEACOCK of the only non cite part of that paragraft. If that was all that was bothering him he could have add [citation needed]. Blackash have a chat 11:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't. The closest you could come is saying "Alice Smith calls Richard Reames 'the biggest name in America for arborsculpture'," with an WP:Inline citation to the source of this direct quotation.
Here's why this matters: 'Being an artist' is not a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned. 'Being an artist who is trying to turn Wikipedia into an advertisement for yourself' is. There are all sorts of ways to do this, including adding puffery about yourself and removing favorable information about your competitors. But removing favorable information about yourself doesn't actually fall into the category of 'abusing a conflict of interest'—which means that while you have a dispute, you don't apparently have a dispute about someone abusing a conflict of interest, which is the point of this particular noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok about the biggest I don't and didn't have an issue about that sentence being removed, I'll just remove it.
Now as to the rest of Slowart's removal 5 cited pieces of info and an image, this content is about Slowart's method of shaping trees. diff I think you have missed a key piece of information. Slowart/Reames is not just an Artist he is also an Author of two books. (If he had be willing to talk about removing the content it would have only been a potential COI.) An author who removes cited information from wikipedia because it doesn't match their branding is editing in COI. Blackash have a chat 07:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Slowart this discussion is not about the title but...
I'll do my best keep it brief, mainly summing up and giving links to help other edits get an overview. There has been disagreements about arborsculpture since 2007 quotes from editors who disagree about arborsculpture. Google arborsculpture and see where it goes.
I start where Slowart did and go till now. Anyone interest in knowing more can ask at the tree shaping talk page and I'm sure you'll get answers.
  • Article page before the move, [32] Please note the amount of content and how frequently Arborsculpture is used in the article.
  • Page created for the references of the different names of the art-form. Quotes and sources
  • Discussion about moving Arborsculpture to Tree shaping AFD 4 editors out of 6 editors discuss using a less secret topic or a neutral name:- Mgm suggests merging Pooktre into a less secret topics like Tree shaping or Tree trimming diff AfD hero suggests moving Arborsculpture to neutral name diff Rror agreed diff as did I Blackash diff
  • AfD hero moved the article and created section on the talk page.
  • Reames/Slowart disagreed with the move diff
  • 11 editors where part of the discussion about the name after the move. The article stayed at Tree shaping.
  • During informal mediation the title come up again and after a lot of writing SilkTork the mediator stated "...Tree shaping is the most neutral and appropriate and helpful name, and I would need a lot of convincing to change the name at this stage. SilkTork *YES! 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)" link
  • The title issue was raised again here and then a day later a Requested move was created. Which resulted in no move.
  • There was a request for references for tree shaping and talk about having a different title to tree shaping or arborsculpture which lead to me creating a group tables quotes and sources. Slowart added most of the sources for arborsculpture. Please note most of the sources for arborsculpture are based on interviews/book reviews of two self published books written by a non expert.
  • There are 3 archives of talk about moving the title to arborsculpture or to holding or temporary title. diff
  • I repeatedly suggested talking about a real alternative to Arborsculpture and Tree shaping, if it was found that tree shaping doesn't meet wikipedia policies/guidelines. I suggested Tree training, as had other editors and Slowart agreed diff to it as a title and it meets Wikipedia guidelines/policies. The pro arborsculpture editors didn't like that title but didn't rebut my points link. So that ended with no consensus.
  • As to leaving comments around web, when arborsculpture appeared on our photos we left comments to correct misinformation. Also please read Blue Rasberry's quote "As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone. What do you see in her postings that you find contrary to Wikipedia policy or behavior standards?" Blue Rasberry 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC) diff of full quote.
  • I've twice filed for formal mediation to do with the word Arborsculpture. As Slowart still feels the title was unfairly moved he should take it up the dispute ladder.

I've left a heap of the arguments from both sides out, if anyone is interested in reading further go to the history of the tree shaping talk page or asked questions there. As this discussion really should be on the Tree shaping talk page I'm going to copy my reply plus Slowart's comment so editors interested in tree shaping can reply. Blackash have a chat 11:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, I'm not surprised, is there any level of protection that is suitable for unrelenting COI editing from those who are way to close to the subject and their meat puppets?Slowart (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
No. The closest we come is WP:TOPICBAN, which (unlike WP:Page protection) is not a technological solution. A topic ban is a promise from a sysop that if you edit articles about a given subject, s/he'll WP:BLOCK you so that you can't edit any articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool, how about myself and blackash and sydney bluegum accept WP:TOPICBAN.Look @ the length of talk archive alone, and realize its all about the same sh_t, frankly it borders on insanity.Slowart (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Now it's meat-puppetry?? I'd say that COI charge cuts both ways here- & it was laid to rest in the first responses, plus most since. Someone here doesnt appear to be paying attention to the discussion. I think that was somewhere in the original complaint?
Given both parties could have potential benefit, this falls more as a WP:NPOV issue for me. Yet there has apparently been a tendency towards agreement that another change of article title would be the most NPOV solution. Any resistance to such a solution I would have to term as strictly partisan.
Arborists techniques were in use long before either of these warring terms came into being. So the article in question ought to be subsumed into the currently too short-but more historically precedent article "Pleaching". Any distinctions made by warring partisans is artificial, and i do wonder at the article's purpose. Both the disputed terms seem Recentist-oriented rather than actually encyclopedic. Only the application of the art has evolved. Pleaching as a concept-altering appearance of vegetation by stressors- is recognizable across millenia in both artists' works.
In further favor of this resolution: the present inciting article actually informs us that Pleaching is an historical synonym for both commercial terms. Has anyone disputed that? Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. 11:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hilarleo
A couple of points Afd hero left out
  • I didn't originally suggest the move form Arborsculpture or to change the title to Tree shaping.
  • When the article was moved to Tree shaping, it didn't lead to any one artist but Arborsculpture did and still does.
  • Tree shaping meets multiple Wikipedia polices for the title.
  • I've created this table so editors could read the quotes for the references of the different Alternative names.
  • When the issue of the title has come up I have stated (and still do) I don't care what the name of the article is, as long as not linked to a method and that doesn't lead to one artist. I have made suggestions for different title names. The last being Tree training, which previously Slowart had agreed too. Tree training meets the WP:NAME, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:TRUTH policies. Tree training? Read the last 5 or 6 comments for my discussion on why it meets the different policies.
  • As to Pleaching it weaving of living branches/trees to form fences or baskets. Neither I or Dr Chris Cattle shape trees that way, though Richard Reames does. To quote Colincbn "So if someone was to, for example, braid three already formed branches like one braids hair this would be arborsculpture but not pooktre. However you could achieve a similar result by training the branches to grow into a braid naturally using the pooktre method. Colincbn (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC). Tree shaping is actually closer to Espalier than Pleaching
    • Actually Richard Reames (Slowart) did disputed the use the word Pleaching as synonym in his books.
  • I have a concern if the page is moved to a different title, the pro arborsculpture group will state the article is not stable and needs to go back to the title arborsculpture.
  • I suggest you do a search on the different names and see what you think. By the way the name for our art is Pooktre. Blackash have a chat 14:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1

SO what I see happening is no body cares really that Blackash edits about her professional rival. She finds references out of context that are in line with her thinking and then claims this can't be removed! Then she removes some puffery that was a direct quote from a hard back book by Ivan Hick, "Richard Reames is the biggest name in america...LOL. She knows this, but would rather just remove it, of course. Is there any way to stop this kind of editing? Please look at the edit history of the page. Balckash has just continued for years to try and put me and my work in a box of her choosing. Blackash is a professional rival of mine is simply working to eliminate or redefine my work. Sydney bluegum is a single purpose account that helps her. look at the photos that she replaced with her own drawings. I would rather just be completely removed from Wikipedia than to allow her to continue redefining me and my work. Help! My work is not "instant tree shaping" that is a slap in my face invented by my professional rival, to diminish my work. Anyone going to help? Sorry I can not continue on in this battle.Slowart (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Slowart please don't just point the finger give diffs.
  • Please go to this link to see a discussion of cited content I've added that Slowart disagreed with. Please note, when asked I've always typed up the text around the cite/reference for other editors to check my interpretation, and I'm always willing to work towards a compromise.
  • Slowart, I didn't remember Ivan Hicks saying that, I just added it. But now you've pointed it out, I've found it. On the talk page please give a example of how we can add it in encyclopediclly.
  • Slowart I'll ask you again please offer some heading ideas to replace instant tree shaping and lets change it. I bought this up on the talk page. [33]
  • The drawings of Slowart's and Dr Chris Cattle's art where added to give examples for the different methods, I left the background out so the trees shape can clearly be seen. The drawings didn't replace any images as they were add to text that had no images.
  • As to Sydney bluegum they stated they never intended to edit, but come to find out about how to shape trees. diff diff diff Slowart please WP:DONTBITE the newcomers.
  • Slowart, I'm sorry you view Pooktre (Pete and I) as your rival. We don't think of you as our rival, as we are not trying to name the art form. Blackash have a chat 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Blackash uploads photos that belong to me to show my work in a poor light. The drawing of my living bench, that appears on the page today is a drawing of the my copyright photo Blackash attempted to upload once. diff more junk added diffBlackash removes all mention of arborsculture.diff one example. Blackash admits to calling an 500 person meat puppet party. Several single purpose editors join in. diffBlackash battles other editors diff Blackash offers help to single purpose account about adding photo of own work onto main space.diff and lastly some words from another independent editor diff Slowart (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. I chose photos Richard had used to promote his books. I uploaded Reames/Slowart's photos when I was a newbie and didn't know better. Slowart rightly pointed out I didn't have copyright and removed them.
  2. The drawing is not a tracing but was drawn free hand by me, based on multiple photos of Richard's growing bench chair. Richard has used his bench tree heavy in the media as a representation of his art and on the back of his 2nd book. Please note I asked for credit to be given Richard's site. on 7 July 2010 Slowart had commented "I love it." I have some other free hand drawings online here and here
  3. As to battling other editors, I asked them to discuss that edit on the talk before reverting other editors changes again. Which lead to them starting a discussion which I have been part of [34]. I've given the reasons behind my edits and offered comprises.
  4. 1 July 2010 Duff removed two images of mine stating they had water marks diff I removed the water marks and informed Duff on his talk page and I commented on the Tree shaping talk page.
    1. 10 September 2010 Sydney Bluegum commented on my talk page about the mirror image and that it should be on the main page.
    2. 9 October 2010 I told Sydney Bluegum the file was now uploaded and here a page that may help you upload an image. [35]
    3. 30 January 2011 Sydney comment on my page they had replaced the image.
  5. Yes I once send email to Pooktre mailing list about the fact I as talking on the arborsculputre talk page please note in the diff "When we first starting the discussion on the Arborsculpture talk page" that was back in August 2008. It was newbe mistake, I was an editor with only 26 edits under my belt. Slowart are you saying that some 3-4 months later some people from our mailing remembered the email I send out? Which editors are you claiming are only come because of an old email?
  6. This diff is not by an neutral editor, 208.59.93.238 self outed as 96.233.40.199 and Griseum. From Griseum's first comments there has been a veiled hostility that would later become downright rude. Here is his first changes diff I disagreed and stated why on the talk page earlier edits. In response he created this section. Blackash have a chat 09:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

96.252.113.188 has removed cited content today. Their diff mirrors Slowarts edits diff which is what brought me to list Slowart in the first place. I've revert 96.252.113.188 changes and left them a message. Blackash have a chat 09:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

66.87.0.71 has revert my edit diff and added a (Tag: references removed). Blackash have a chat 08:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Slowart's suggestion of a topic ban for both of you has some merits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
A topic ban has merit. On one hand this dispute is localised to a single article, and that article has benefited from the dispute both by it drawing attention from other editors to help build it, and by the attention to detail the dispute has encouraged in what is placed in the article. It is a by-product of disputes that they do sometimes hardened and improve an article. The dispute is not aggressive or out of policy as the two main contributors appear to be reasonable people who keep within guidelines. One the other hand, the article has taken up a fair amount of time of various editors. Other solutions have not stopped the dispute, and it could rumble on for ever, drawing others into the affair. While one negative result of a topic ban would be that the article stops developing, the other positive result would be that more time could be spent by the editors otherwise drawn into this dispute on other pressing matters. I would prefer the protagonists to both agree to formal mediation, but if they are not both prepared to do that, then opening a discussion for a topic ban does seem now the most appropriate course. SilkTork *YES! 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a topic ban of both parties from Tree shaping makes sense. There were attempts at mediation in the past but they did not work. The only other alternative I see is full protection of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll agree to formal meditation if any of the other editors would be interested in going.
I won't agree to a topic ban because:
  1. I'm still adding content to the article and finishing Duff's efforts on getting the references checked for reliability, I've been going to the NPOV notice board. I was only editing fortnightly base and would like to go back to that. I also do some Orphan work at these times.
  2. I edit with care and use references which I'm always happy to type up the text around the cite/reference for other editors to check my interpretation, and I'm always willing to discuss my reasoning and work towards a compromise.
  3. This issue goes further than Slowart and myself some examples:
  • Griseum created a pooktre stub with the stated out come of removing the Pooktre content from Tree shaping and then getting the Pooktre article deleted. [36] I listed pooktre article for AFD with my reasoning [37].
  • Colincbn's diff where he is suggesting to edit the article to create a WP:POINT.
  • Duff has a commercial interest with arborsculpture, he also added wrong information for example Duff had it that Richard Reames taught Peter Cook (who is Co-founder of Pooktre) how to do tree shaping. If I had agreed to a topic ban at that time most likely this edit plus others wouldn't have been corrected. I also believe Duff tried to manufacture evidence to prove I have a COI. Here is my reasoning
  • Colincbn and Martin Hogbin supported the removal of cited content [here].It wasn't until I pointed out it is not appropriate to support the removal and why, that Colincbn replied and then we sorted it out into a better entry. Though Martin Hogbin didn't feel the need to comment after his support for the removal or to comment about the continued removal of cited content.
  • This is to give some insight into why I believe Richard Reames will do what ever he can to influence the content on the page be that though editing as himself, anonymously or somehow get others to do so. Prime example Richard emailed other artists in the field and Quote "Important... The name of this art ! I am trying to unify the field (at least in the English language) with the word Arborsculpture. Please note, the other word are rarely used and Pooktre is only used for Peter Cooks work in AU. His trees would be "Pooktre Arborsculptures". Do you agree with this?
I have other examples of Reames/Slowart's insistence that his word is the name regardless of how others feel about his banding their art. Arborsculpture has a method link to it and arborsculpture leads to Richard Reames.
So I won't agree to a topic ban, but I'm fine with going to formal mediation or if the decision is to protect the page that fine too. I will go back to editing fortnightly and putting up my suggestions on the talk page for discussion, or commenting on others' suggestions for the article until a consensus/comprise is reached to add the new content. Blackash have a chat 13:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Re SilkTork: mediation - They did agree to formal mediation. Last fall the mediation committee agreed to take the case, but then a mediator never showed up. They reapplied for mediation a few months later, and the request was rejected by the same person who accepted it before. AfD hero (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth

If anyone cares I was taking part in this battle about six months ago as a non involved editor but eventually burned out on it. Simply put Becky/Blackash owns the article and seems to have an endless amount of time to put into keeping it that way. Slowart and her both have CoIs but Slowart seems much more willing to step away from the article, until he gets heated up by seeing Blackash doing whatever she wants with it and he perceives that as her using it as a commercial tool against him. As far as I can see they should both cease editing on the topic in any way for at least six months and probably a year or indefinitely. I think this is the third CoI notice brought up about it with no resolution. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree- topic ban.Slowart (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Svetlana K-Lie

User name of the creator of the article and the article name appear to be similar. Potentially it is self promotional auto-biography. I am submitting it here for review by other editors for a thorough examination of the situation

abhishek singh (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Lfp trademark

The user has made several edits to various articles all having to do with Hustler and Larry Flynt Publications. Dismas|(talk) 07:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Pennhurst State School and Hospital

I don't think this is too serious, but is unreferenced and raises some questions. Could somebody review this, as well as the user's other 2 edits? I've left a note at User talk:Davidferleger Smallbones (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The changes don't look entirely unreasonable to me, although some of it might look just a little bit like self-promotion (like the fact that he filed a given lawsuit: most readers probably won't care what the attorney's name is). Inline citations should be encouraged, and he provided some, but I don't think they are actually required for the non-contentious matter (like the fact that he filed a given lawsuit). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Good

The subject AFD is about a biographical article about a person named Virginia Good, who is the subject of memoir of questionable notability (for which there is presently no Wikipedia article) entitled Ginny Good: A Mostly True Memoir written by an author of questionable author (for whom there is also no Wikipedia article) named Gerard Jones (not to be confused with the Gerard Jones for whom there is a Wikipedia article).

The listed IPs are both being used by the same person, who has admitted to being Gerard Jones (he signs with his own name prior to having his posts autosigned with the IP address), the author of the book, who is arguing vehemently for retention of the article, despite having been warned here and here about the obvious conflict of interest involved in his arguments. The IP editor has not recused himself from the discussion, but continues to cloud the discussion at the AFD with long verbose arguments over the merits of the book, but with no real arguments about the merits of the present Wikipedia article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So?
The COI guideline does not actually prohibit such users from participating in an AFD, and the COI user has even responded in one appropriate way: He provided links to WP:Independent sources to bolster his case for notability.
I realize that it is unpleasant to face a wall o' text at AFD, but there is no COI violation here. You will have to resign yourself to the skills of our admins, who are generally quite capable of seeing through the fog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Orlando Figes

Hi

The subject of this article was involved in a controversy a few years ago. Briefly: he wrote hostile reviews of members of his own academic community's (i.e. academic, History, Russia) work on Amazon under an assumed name; then threatened legal action against those newspapers who sought to report on it. It caused quite a stir in the UK, was reported widely both in newspapers and in respected journals like the TLS, and it's listed on Wikipedia's sockpuppet entry as a canonical example of that sort of activity.

Editor Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has consistently deleted and argued against this being included in the Wikipedia entry from Orlando Figes. I don't know why - it's clearly notable, well sourced, and germane to understanding who Orlando Figes is in the culture. This has been argued cogently and with sources by many people on the Talk page for this article. Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has responded to these with unhelpful and unargued comments asserting that what Figes did was fine - a value judgement that is beside the point, which is to clarify whether Figes's actions can be sourced (yes) and are notable (clearly so; for a leading academic to behave this unethically, and to be unapologetic and aggressive and deceitful when called on his behavior is why the sockpuppetry became a news story in the first place).

Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has been banned from editing entries on Soviet History (I do not know why). Figes is notable as a professor of Russian History, specializing primarily in Soviet History. I suggest that Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has a conflict of interest with regard to the subject of the Orlando Figes article, and that s/he should not be allowed to remove the material pertaining to Figes' sockpuppetry in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.104.96 (talk • contribs)

I did not remove anything from this article. Someone else did [38], and for a very good BLP reason: [39] (you may check how all these IPs are doing right now). They are indeed socks of the same person. Not mentioning this person who said she deleted wrong information about herself. Yes, I am sure there are WP:COI problems around, but this is not me.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's copy-paste here my old message to AVI:

Well, I'm no IP, vandal, or sock puppet, and I'd never heard of Figes until now, but I think BLP worries are being taken too far here. The Amazon review scandal was widely reported in such media as New York Times, London Times, TLS, The Guardian, etc. We should certainly be careful to say only what is strictly attributable through these good sources, but on the other hand we certainly must give some account of what has been reported so widely. I'm sure there are all kinds of interests sympathetic to Figes that cringe at this, but I can't see the justification for keeping the notable and sourced incidents out of the article. I believe the content should be restored and some better eye kept on this page which is apparently well-patrolled by those who want to celebrate Figes and squelch this part of the story. Wareh (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And you are very welcome to fix anything in agreement with WP:BLP policy. I know him as author of interesting books (and I actually read these books). I never heard about the "scandal" before reading this WP article. But whatever. There are other articles worse than that. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have fixed it in accord with BLP by undoing the removal you linked. JzG in making this removal did not say there were proven and manifest BLP problems, he said that BLP controversy is best handled by removal pending discussion. In this case, no one brought any significant and specific critiques forward of how that section presents what the sources say. I have invited discussion on the talk page; if the article is guilty of saying more than the sources or not attributing it (and these are the only real BLP crimes), then it can be changed. But it appears such changes will either be wholly unnecessary or quite minor. Wareh (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine. This is now your responsibility if Ms. Polonsky (real person who was mentioned in the publications) will come again to blame Wikimedia foundation [44]. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but Ms. Polonsky's only edit was to remove ten words from this section. It was subsequently stated on the talk page, in particular reference to these ten words, "The assertion is supported by the Sunday Times (a high quality source) which presumably checked its veracity..." Ms. Polonsky did not reenter the discussion to contest this or maintain any grievance, as far as I can tell. Wareh (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Update: This is perhaps resolved, as Hodja has accepted that the Amazon section is sourced and that it may remain (while still maintaining a preference to remove it as relatively unimportant material). In any case, I found the full text of the Sunday Times article and adjusted the statement concerning the words objected to by Ms. Polonsky so that they very strictly only repeat what the article by Appleyard states, and making clear that the notion of threats to report Figes to the police depends solely on Mr. Figes' claim to a reporter. Wareh (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I changed the second line of the header to reflect that this COIN report was intended by the IP as a complaint about Hodja Nasreddin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I believe that extensive sockpuppetry around this article (probably by the both sides of real life conflict) must be investigated. From that moment I am not going to make any changes in this article or comment at the article talk page because of my topic ban. Sure thing, I do not have any conflict of interest in the area of politics and history. P.S. The speed of reaction by several accounts to this posting by an IP makes me suspicious.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mefloquine

Patricia Shlagenhauf and the other authors of the following two previously removed external links "Controversies and Misconceptions in Malaria Chemoprophylaxis for Travelers" and "The position of mefloquine as a 21st century malaria chemoprophylaxis" are paid representatives of the drug company Hooman LaRoche which manufactures mefloquine. This is a clear viloation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View poloicy. Some one has reposted the two artilces. I request Wikipedia block these two articles from being posted. THey are suing Wikpipedia to advertise their drug and post misleading information that is in clear contrast to the latest peer reviewed literature that is posted int he article. Moewackit (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It is unclear who is said to have a COI here. Possibly one or more IP editors. Nobody has edited the article under the name Patricia Shlagenhauf. I will ask the submitter to clarify. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors involved in this dispute might be interested in the newly created essay, WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The journal articles in question are published in peer-reviewed journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association is a top-tier medical journal that clearly meets Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source. The article in that journal even has a statement from the authors, "We report no funding organization or sponsor in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript". To claim that there is a COI associated with this article seems like a stretch. The claim that the anonymous IP editors are Patricia Shlagenhauf or other authors of this paper appears to be completely baseless. And the claim above that they are suing Wikipedia seems just plain rediculous. Looking at the history of mefloquine, it seems to me that Moewackit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose editor who is here solely to introduce his own point of view into mefloquine possibly in violation of Wikipedia policy. ChemNerd (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tamer Hosny

In this edit comment it was made clear that the article is being edited by a representative of Hosny. Some independent advice and perhaps a bit of coaching might help get this COI contributor back on course. I have offered some advice but they are already at a level 4 warning and appear not to be getting the point about what counts as non-neutral text. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ITT Corporation


The latter article came to my attention when another editor raised it in WP:OR/N. I tagged it for notability but noticed odd editing by the user (reverting an uncategorised tag, before later adding a category) and investigated their contributions; all edits are associated with ITT Corporation and the User Name is the same as the ITT Product in the Former Article. Could use a second opinion to tell if this is an example of corporate vanity or something more or less serious. The association of the latter article creation and other article edits with marketing companies associated with ITT also seems suspect. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Now an IP making similar edits related to ITT and Spector including this obvious corporate vanity edit. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Steven Kunes

Can't seem to step away from his own article. Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to clean things up, with help from other editors; and he's just removed all the citation-needed tags, as well as a raft of wikilinks I had added. My assumption of good faith is starting to wear thin; I'm beginning to suspect that he may be an impostor of some kind, and has begun to realize that he's exposed himself by putting himself into Wikipedia (O. Henry and PEN/Faulkner websites know him not). Of course, I may be wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mary Turzillo; husband/wp editor Geoffrey Landis

User:Geoffrey.landis is both the creator and by far the primary editor of an article on his wife, Mary Turzillo.

  • Landis is engaging in a spirited effort to dispute the tagging of his wife's article (I tagged it for notability, and subsequently when he appeared for COI). This, despite his clear and admitted COI.
  • In addition, 18 minutes after I tagged the article, a Cleveland-based IP weighed in with its first edits ever to dispute the tag. That IP and Turzillo's husband (who works at Cleveland's Glenn Research Center) are the only two to do so.
  • Landis has also been the # 2 editor of his own article, which though well-written has suffered at times from POV and puffery. Some of the most dramatic claims in the article (such as that he has written 300 articles) are sourced to his own webpage.

I'm not sure, given the confluence of COI and socking issues, if it is best to bring this here or elsewhere (such as the AN/I page). At this point I thought I would start by bringing it here (though if the combination of issues can't be addressed here, perhaps it is better if I move this to AN/I).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment As Landis has declared his COI in this matter, I don't see what the issue is unless he gets particularly uncivil or goes into wp:OWN or similar. Reading over the conversation, I think there were certainly inflammatory comments made on both sides. The article has the COI tag and I think that this is all that is needed. Disclaimer: While Landis and I may have 50 or so mutual friends on facebook, I don't believe we've ever met or had any communication with each other. I came to this page as the COI noticeboard is on my watchlist and I recognised the names Landis and Turzillo and wondered what the fuss was about.Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Punkrocker--Your user page indicates that you are highly sensitive to and familiar with our COI rules. You really see no problem with him--as long as he discloses his conflict--being the creator of his wife's article? The # 1 contributor to it. The most vociferous debater by far in favor of it being notable (surely, the COI guideline is right on point here). Tag-teaming with an IP, who appeared 18 minutes after the notability tag appeared, for its first edits ever. With the IP editing from the same location that Landis works from. With Landis failing to answer my direct question, posed four times, as to whether he has ever edited under a different name or under an IP address. With him being the #2 contributor to his own article. The talk page of which reflects puffery/POV issues going back many years. None of this concerns you? Not even in the slightest?

I'm also, frankly, scratching my head as to your sudden arrival at this page and the related one in which you have joined conversation. :You have only 100+ edits lifetime to your name, and had not edited in days. And had never, ever edited the two pages on which you have now joined this conversation. How is that you popped suddenly into this conversation? --Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I came to this discussion as the COI Noticeboard is on my watchlist. As you noted, I am sensitive to the COI rules and follow discussion on a number of noticeboards in order to learn better how to interract on wikipedia. I read these almost daily, though as you have noted I do not edit daily, as i do not always have the time to edit. I'll also apologise that during the course of this discussion, I have not had time to look at your user profile and so have no idea who you are, or where you are coming from, so I apologise if I make any assumptions in my discourse that do not apply to you. I note that you have raised a number of issues, and before I respond further I would like to ask you something. Do you consider winning the Nebula Award as sufficient to confer notability? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of good faith, as you may have noticed, I removed the notability tag so that we can focus on what I see as the more important issues that have now surfaced. COI, and possible sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting the notability of the Nebula Awards. As to these new issues, I would suggest that we deal with these individually.
Meatpuppetry I have one question I would like you to answer, that you have raised here and in this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Turzillo&diff=418429063&oldid=418428987 -- do you believe that I am a meat puppet of editor Geoffrey.landis? If you believe yes then we will keep this word in the accusation. If no, we can dispense with this.
Sockpuppetry There appears to be one IP edit, this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Turzillo&diff=418217541&oldid=418217475 made by an IP address that is probably located in Cleveland, Ohio (pop 400,000). As this IP has only made the one contribution, I would suggest that a course of action to take would be to monitor this IP and if it makes any additional changes to the Turzillo article there may be grounds to take this further. As I understand it, the IP said that the article's subject was notable as she had won a Nebula, and hasn't weighed into the COI debate. While I believe that sockpuppetry is the most serious of the accusations made here, I think the evidence is weak.
COI My understanding of WP:COI is that it strongly argues against what Landis has done in creating this article. That said, it does not explicitly forbid it. Reading the article, 4 paragraphs, I see a lot of issues with it. I see a lack of references, some poor sentence structure, it's barely a stub and could so with a writer template box. Something i don't see is a particular POV. To me, the tone reads quite NPOV. There is very little loaded language, or adjectives, it is quite concise. Should Landis have created this article? Probably not. Should Landis now step away from the article and accept that WP:LUC will occur? Definitely. The subject meets WP:GNG. Landis has done something that he probably shouldn't have, but provided he accept what has happened and move forward and continue to edit productively I do not have a problem. One of the things I have seen said many times on WP:ANI is that blocks should be for prevention, not punishment. It may be a good idea to keep an eye on Landis for a while, but in doing so we should all avoid being antagonistic in our comments and actions. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • COI aside, I am pleased to say that I did not see huge NPOV issues with the article. I did remove some linkspam, but it otherwise seems reasonably in line with what WP expects of a BLP. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some replies Sorry I haven't replied to this sooner-- busy weekend. A couple of points to note.

  • 1. I wrote that article back in 2005. If you are going to argue "Should Landis have created this article? Probably not", that's ok, and I'm not sure that I don't agree, but I do think that you have to judge it by the COI policy as it was back in 2005 (when it was called the "Vanity articles" policy). This was my very first Wikipedia article. The "vanity articles" policy at the time gave this advice: "As Wikipedia aspires to be an online encyclopedia of quality, accuracy and integrity, the best rule of thumb while determining whether or not any such edits may contain vanity materials, is to ask one's self, 'Would this same type of material normally be found in a print encyclopedia?'" I had thought I was following that "rule of thumb" by sticking to bare facts, but (per this discussion) it looks like I may have been in error, although it took six years before somebody questioned it.
  • 2. One of the comments was that in Mary's talk page I was "The most vociferous debater by far in favor of it being notable." Well, no. In fact, I wrote a single post stating that a Nebula award meets the explicit written criteria for notability. This seemed legit to me at the time; apparently it was not. For what it's worth, I did mention that I was biased. All other posts by me in the topic were replies to attacks on me by another editor. These replies are all off topic in the particular article talk page, since they have nothing to do with Mary. If somebody wanted to move them off this page and onto my talk page, where they would be more appropriate, that would be fine with me. I have since decided to ignore all further taunts from that editor.
  • 3. I am not IP editor 76.241.135.35. Sorry: that may be a plausible guess, but it's not me. I don't quite follow the logic of why I would supposedly post anonymously, but then immediately destroy that anonymity by posting under my real name-- but in any case, it was not my edit. Science fiction fandom in Cleveland is not that big a community; an hour or two of detective work should be able to give you some other plausible guesses, if you wanted.
  • 4. I stopped editing my own article years ago, except for correcting trivial errors and adding a picture (since replaced by a different picture). As for the note "Some of the most dramatic claims in the article (such as that he has written 300 articles) are sourced to his own webpage." If I actually had been contributing to it, I would have linked to, say, googlescholar (I prefer Science Citation Index, but it's behind a paywall), google scholar search authors=Geoffrey+A.+Landis, which lists 309 publications. Some journals have alternate conventions for names, so I could very likely add a few more by searching on author = Geoffrey Landis (without the middle initial), but I'd have to manually strip out false matches, and likewise by searching on GA Landis.
  • Are there any more charges of substance here? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Two thoughts for Epeefleche:
  • If you're uncertain about the subject's notability, then the place to settle that is at AFD.
  • Merely being associated with a subject is not, by itself, a violation of WP:COI. You have to be harming Wikipedia because of your association. Can you identify specific, concrete problems in the article as a result of Landis' involvement? For example, does Landis remove negative information or add WP:PEACOCKy material? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled across the talkpage this afternoon, and it seems to me that this has been blown out of all proportion in an overly aggressive fashion.
The first point: One man's "spirited attempt to dispute" is another's explanatory comment, and there is certainly nothing abusive in expressing an opinion on a discussion page and making your involvement with the subject clear. Yet GAL was greeted with an immediate accusation of sockpuppetry, told that simply "making a comment here" was inappropriate for him, and maintained the aggressive tone ("...is your IQ under 20, are you just asking a stupid question to be uncivil") in the following discussion. The discussion then spread to two other pages (GAL's article, and his user-talk page) in which sockpuppetry allegations continued to be made - even though GAL didn't even edit one of those pages during the discussion.
The second point: One of the two IPs involved in this discussion unambiguously seems to resolve to the Seattle area; the other is (a bit less clearly) Cleveland. Both have been accused of being GAL, which would seem to be a logical implausibility.
The third point: GAL's involvement in the article is explicitly marked; it is also clear, from the link provided, that he has not edited it in over a year, during which time it was expanded six times over, worked on by other users, and reviewed for GA status. It seems a reasonable assumption that any issues with the current version of the text do not stem from dubious material introduced by GAL - indeed, in the specific case under discussion, the word has clearly been introduced since he last edited - and yet this report strongly implies he is at fault.
The past involvement of an editor with a potential conflict of interest does not automatically mean that any problems with the article are the fault of that user, and it certainly doesn't justify aggressive behaviour based on that assumption. Shimgray | talk | 00:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Masimo and related

It appears that a campaign to use Wikipedia as a corporate website has been in progress for some months, with a recent spike in activity. The edits are of varying quality (some good), but many feature weasel words and extreme use of external links within the article (see these recent revisions: Masimo, Joe Kiani). In this edit, a new editor asks another "what is your job title at Masimo?". Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I am a med device analyst in California and every time I try to add balance to this entry it gets changed almost immediately by someone (if you review his/her edits is clearly an employee.Exidistypuke (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree the article on Joe Kiani suffers deadly neutrality issues, Exidistypuke's contributions do not look promotional and I think his "what is your job title" inquiry was an accusation, not sincere smalltalk. Blackguard 07:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a remarkable number of new single purpose accounts on both sides of recent edits to these pages. It would be helpful if all involved clarified their position. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

MITACS Inc

Username is a version of the article name. Mlpearc powwow 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible COI at Tarkett

Tarkett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BBPMB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The COI has been implied by BBPMB in this section. I moved the section on my talk page to the bottom because it was illegible at the top. Keywords: "inside our Group"

mechamind90 17:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I have reverted twice, and BBPMB has reverted twice (each time after me). I'm not going to revert a third time, as I don't want to engage in an edit war. mechamind90 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I have moved that version to the user space. mechamind90 16:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Induction heating

Could somebody who knows more than I about this technology please take a look at the linkfarm which has grown up in the "External links" section? I don't know which should stay and which should go, but it seems like a lot of quiet self-linking has gone on. Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nadia Turner

This user claims to be Nadia Turner and their only edits to the article are to change the birth year, which is currently reliably sourced. I believe the IP addresses are also the same person and if so, Nadia Turner was using the named account to get around the second block for 72.229.111.99's disruptive editing. I left a message on their talk page that I do not believe this is actually Nadia Turner since last month they claimed Turner was born 1981, [45], [46] and [47], and now this month they claim Turner was born in 1982, [48] and [49]. If this was actually Nadia Turner, I would expect her to know what year she was born. Even if this is Nadia Turner I explained that the 1977 birth year is reliably sourced and they would have to come up with reliable sources backing up either the 1981 or 1982 birth year. Instead they continue to revert about once a day without any edit summary, explanation, talk page discussion or adding a reliable source to back up their change, [50], [51] and [52]. Past IP address of 68.174.89.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [53], and 72.229.110.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [54], have also claimed to be Nadia Turner in edit summaries while changing the birth year to 1981 and IP address of 71.172.114.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [55] claimed to be Nadia Turner while completely removing the birth date information. Aspects (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sephira

All of these are apparently the same performer, who is trying to insert his or her information into an article about an Irish band of the same name. As prior names were blocked, new accounts were apparently created. Orange Mike | Talk 04:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael L. Gross (chemist)

User:Mlgross has added extensive info to Michael L. Gross, sourced to (you guessed it) - Michael L. Gross. The Interior (Talk) 08:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Madhvan K. Palat

A comparison of the editor's User page and the article appears to show that the user is the article topic. User has repeatedly removed {{coi}} flags even after WP:AUTO policy has been pointed out. There is, however, sufficient supporting material to preclude speedy deletion under CSD:A7. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

University of Santa Monica

Kate apparently works for the University, and is eager to tell the story of this unaccredited center for "Spiritual psychology", despite a pathetic lack of reliable sources. She was blocked for using one of the school's operators' names as her username, which we fixed; but Kate cannot seem to understand WP:COI and WP:RS, feeling that she need only do datadumps from the operation's own website. Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Marcis Liors Skadmanis

Single purpose account, appears promotional, likely COI, removing maintenance templates w/o discussion or explanation. The subject may or may not meet notability guidelines; I've nominated it for speedy deletion owing primarily to the lack of reliable objective sources. 99.11.6.56 (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

CTO Forum

There is a magazine called CTO Forum on Wikipedia, however, I work for CTO Forum, Inc. I want to have an article for CTO Forum, Inc., which is a non-profit and I want people to be able to find our page when they search for "CTO Forum".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.232.202 (talk • contribs)

Please make a request at WP:Requested articles. – ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

CTO Forum

I work for CTO Forum, Inc., but someone else has an article under that name and it is from Wikipedia India. Can I use the name for an article within the Wikipedia USA project? Can I include some text that says "If you are looking for CTO Forum, Inc., click here," or something like that? I want to be fair to the magazine that is in India using the same name as our non-profit, but I also want to have an article for our non-profit that people can find when they search for "CTO Forum".

The article would be created at CTO Forum (company) to disambiguate it from the other article, but you should not create it yourself because of your COI. Please use the Requested articles process. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Affion Crockett

This user uploaded the image seen on the article page which has gone through the OTRS system. The user also has made quite a few edits to the article, with most of its content now a result of those edits. The negotiator between the photographer and Wikimedia for the image was Patricola/Lust Public Relations, which matches up nicely with the username. Content may need review. Adrignola (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

TPP (The Phoenix Partnership)

Article is currently undergoing a negative makeover, courtesy of Tpptruth (talk · contribs). In the past has had a positive makeover by Sarahtpp (talk · contribs). Could use some WP:NPOV checking. Elizium23 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Yemeni protests (and related)

There have been various issues with the protest articles as a group, which one would expect because they're in the news. However, after reading this (see clip below) I became quite concerned that some are using Wikipedia as a means for 'shaping the news' in these articles to their own purposes. (This is the most egregious example I spotted, but not the only one and I haven't done a thorough check because of the time element.) We're an encyclopedia, not some propaganda machine. Of all topics, it's necessary to present all views ad not censor certain 'voices' as being wrong based on one person's personal view. There's a lot at stake, which is why I'm so appalled anyone would try to do this. I know nothing of The Egyptian Liberal and Lihaas other than what I've seen in Wikipedia.

Done. I tried to fix the page outline of the page as much as I can. Y'all have a problem with the "Opposition factions" section tho, some of it should go under "Domestic Responses" while the rest fits more as an "Analysis". People in Yemen dont know many of this parties to its more Aljazeera take on it. BTW, Aljazeera and AlArabiya were unbiased when it was about Egypt, shit have changed since then so tried avoiding them as sources when talking about in country the might effect Saudi or Qatar [Bahrain (Both), Lebanon (Both), Syria (Qatar), Yemen (Both), Iran (Saudi), Iraq (Saudi), Saudi (Both), and the rest of GCC counties (Both)]. Unless you are going to somehow present the other side of the argument. Shit is fucked up as usual in the MENA. I have reading reuters, AP, BBC, AFP, NYT and the washington post. I know you might think that the washington post and NYT are liberal but they honestly stick to the facts (for the most part). -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Flatterworld (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, COI is my least favorite Wikipedia policy, because NPOV is the only thing that matters anyway. Lihaas is obviously internationally interested and Egyptian Liberal is as his username describes. Both are good editors and have care for sourcing. Lihaas especially is a stickler for policy and has on numerous times corrected or improved my writing. Egyptian Liberal is in the middle of the political situation, and very much involved. His insight, language skills, and dedication are huge assets, however, and if his politics come through, we can help to put it on track. From what I have seen of editing at the MENA protest article pages, it is a lot of very thorough and well-intentioned work. We're human and most of us are rooting for these revolutions to succeed peacefully. I don't know of any major problems, and if a little nudge is required it's not reflective of a major conspiracy. I suggest Flatterworld not assume that opposition to his editing suggestion means that COI is getting in the way; it could just be a disagreement about organization and editorial discretion, as happens all of the time. Please try and keep discussions about the merits of changes rather than their perceived motives. Many people are watching these pages, and bias, unintended or intentional, will not remain with that kind of attention. Ocaasi c 22:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As for the comment that I wrote on Lihaas's page that you took and posted here. I am going to explain why I told Lihaas to do that. AlArabiya is saudi owned Network and Aljazeera Qatari owned networked. Aljazeera is government-run Network so taking there POV on the Qatari protests (for example), as unbiased would be a mistake. Talking the POV of the AlArabiya about the Saudi troops involvement in Bahrain (for example) as the truth would be a mistake. All news networks (in MENA) have agendas that shape their news. Hafez Al Mirazi for example was fired from Aljazeera before for talking about Qatar's involvement during Bush war on Iraq in 2003. He was also fired from AlArabiya this year for saying the during his next episode he was going to talk about the impact of the Egyptian revolution on Saudi arabia. I eat, drink and sleep MENA politics. Its part of my job. so when I say someone is biased about an issue, I always have facts to back it up. I would have liked it if you came and talk to me about it first user to user and I would have explained to you why I told Lihaas that -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That is precisely the reason for multisourcing everything, including resignations. You and Lihaas insisted on one (1) ref at the date level, with some questionable people listed underneath. Some of those were only reported by al-Jazeera, which was why it was important they be noted as such, and those corroborated by other news sources be noted as that. It seemed the goal was to report as many as possible as absolute fact. That's not encyclopedic. There are many parties and people in Yemen, in power and interested in power, who require articles. I created the Cabinet article awhile back, and I've been working on articles of the major political parties and politicians. Ocaasi, many people are NOT working on these pages. imo protests and reforms are not just about day-to-day who-did-what-to-whom. I for one am much more interested in what comes afterwards - for which Wikipedia has just about zero information. I don't care about some "analysis" of why "pink" was chosen as the color of the protests, I want some serious information. I don't know of any source which is reliable on Yemen - they all have problems in one area or another. That's why we have to use all of them, and rely on multisourcing to help clarify things. That means a lot of research and a lot of footnotes, and I don't want to see my work continually deleted in favor of airy-fairy "just take my work for it" material. There isn't even agreement as to whether President Saleh and Major-General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar are half-brothers, cousins, or "just from the same village" (as Hamid al-Ahmar states). Pretending anything at all about Yemen is as straightforward as Egypt simply isn't true. Flatterworld (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I never said not multi-source everything. I said, "Unless you are going to somehow present the other side of the argument". "analysis" comes after the protests ends. its hard to analyze ongoing event. if you can, do it but I honestly cant. I waited until the Egyptian ended to start the "analysis" section after talking to many editors.
btw - if "Its part of my job" as you say, I think that calls for a disclaimer on just what you do and who you work for. You have a lot to say about who news sources supposedly report to, but nothing about yourself. Which is exactly why we're at Conflict of Interest. Flatterworld (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Dont worry, I dont work for any news outlet; I work in business. in a marco management position for a multi-national company. Part of job is to know the politics of the country that my company works in. that's all. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm understanding more that multi-sourcing was an issue, in light of the sourcing reliability questions. How about double-sourcing claims that are from one these potentially conflicted news outlets (regardless of whether there's a disagreement--after all, the whole point is to confirm it's not just a bias). I'd like to cut short the COI question with regards to EgyLib's work. Editing in this area is still potentially dangerous for anyone, especially anyone who actually lives in the Middle East, as EgyLib has disclosed. I think it's enough that he disclaim any potential work-COI and just keep an eye on good editing practices, as he has all along, and is continuing to do with more experience.
As for analysis, I agree that it's just too early. The dust has barely settled, and while I want Wikipedia to have articles about the events as they happen, much of the analysis is still not clear--some of the events are still not clear. I'd like to recommend this move from COI to the article talkpages, and back to content and editing practices not insinuations of ill intent. Ocaasi c 05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Several things have gotten confused here. The issue began with the refusal to allow individual resignations to be multi-sourced, or even single-sourced. The goal is to be accurate, not mix rumors with facts in some misguided effort to 'help' one side or the other. Even the best of news sources can be misled by their 'trusted sources', so removing multiple sources should never be discouraged, let alone done. (Al Jazeera's been kicked out of Yemen now, anyway.) As for analysis, "pink" is not analysis at all, but appeared (imo) to belong in the 'opposition forces' description, if anywhere, which is where it was. Working for a business is fine, as long as it's not a business owned by one of the political contenders, or reliant on one of them. I am not asking for any particulars, unless he works for George Soros or Hamid al-Ahmar. ;-) I don't understand why no one else is interested in working on articles about the people likely to have a role in the next government, so I remain skeptical of motives here. Anyone who actually cared about the country would be concerned about its future, and not insist the only thing that matters is what's happening today or yesterday in the street. Yemen's protest is the one most likely to be hijacked, and you either don't care or don't want anyone to know anything about the contenders. Ocaasi, I don't know what you consider the scope of 'analysis', but articles about the background of those competing for power is NOT analysis which is "too soon" to write, but what's needed right now. As I said, Wikipedia is NOT Wikinews. I have no problem with the Timeline, but that should NOT be our focus and only coverage. What I see is some people bragging about all their knowledge of the area - but refusing to write much of anything useful for readers wishing to understand who all the groups and players are. Anytime someone does that, I have to ask myself why they don't want anyone else to know - especially when they actively discourage others. That's all I have to say. Flatterworld (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, You and Lihaas did not mention that in the talk page (multi-sourcing). If she has opposed it, I would have been on your side. I believe that wikipedia should always have a NPOV even when its really hard to do so. My heart and soul was/is with the protesters in Egypt but through out the article I tired to best of my ability to keep its NPOV. Ocaasi, Lihaas and others can testify to it. As for my job, I cant name the company as I feel it would be promotion on my side (I never edit its page on wikipedia so I wont be pushing my POV). All I can tell you about my work that we dont deal with any politician from anywhere ever (including glenn beck's George Soros :D). I am not working/will work on any political figures right now because I honestly dont know any of them (Outside Egypt). If info is available, i might help but I dont want to be the main editor on the article. FYI: You and Lihaas were united against me few times before in different articles so give her a break :D -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Roscoe Thompson

Significant edit by the son of Roscoe Thompson, Randy Thompson, adding information from a reference that was written by the son. Adrignola (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mdvanii


The two major contributors to this article may have personal and/or professional relationships with the subject matter's creators. Please refer to the article's Discussion Page for further information. Thank you. Alan Poole 8 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please list them here, that is why we have this noticeboard, for ease of remedying the situation. CTJF83 21:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know whom you feel is such, my case was long settled last year ( I made a mistake in my name and it was corrected) and I am one amongst many people working on this article. I also would like to know what is in the article which seems COI...its totally encyclepedic now with all dry facts about the very complex artwork and artists. I feel this COI has a personal agenda of some sort because I do not in a any way see the COI at all. The article is pure dryfacts about the work of art in question. AND how or why would you think there is professional or personal contact with the subject just because people are passionate and knowledgebale about it...it is a phenomenon in the art work in Europe and there are those who really support it.Blanderàmort (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the article appears COI. Its pretty clear and the tag should be removed in my opinion. Its a work of art and its very multi-layered. It has a had a great deal of research clearly and everything checks out exactly as stated. Tag should be removed. ALphaWord (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


Hello. Simply put, the Mdvanii article was started by a person who works for the dollmakers and runs a Facebook group where she offers Mdvanii items, for sale it would seem. That's the person who started the article; the majority of the article is written by another person who has a personal relationship with the dollmakers. The dollmakers even claim he is their son. He is also reported to sell Mdvanii items on eBay. So both parties have a financial interest in this article, and the major contributor has what appears to be some sort of personal relationship, as well. If you look at Alec jiri's Talk Page, you'll see, near the top:

"I have started, with Cheong Kwon, to UN-Peacock the article, if we understand the meaning of fluff means... Thanks, Alec Jiri"

He wrote that on 23 December 2010 before the COI claim occurred. Kwon is the article's originator, and Jiri is the article's major contributor. Once the COI happened, Jiri initially didn't initially deny any of the claims of being "Alec Jiri-Lestrade-Boy*"... it took him three days to change his story to:

"I should mention I am not THE Alec Jiri associated with the artists. I know him however. He supplied me with many of documents to do this article for which I may re-state, am neither paid or rewarded in any way. I get the documents from the artists directly."

This is found on the Mdvanii Discussion Page. Now, even here he admits having a relationship to the dollmakers, even though he now denies he is "Alec Jiri-Lestrade-Boy*" And eventually, on 5 January 2011 he changes his name from Alec jiri to Blanderàmort, and again this information can be found in Alec jiri's Talk Page.

I and many others, including obviously the person who started this claim here, feel that the above information I have provided - and which can be checked by going to either Alec jiri's Talk Page or the Mdvanii article's Discussion Page - is grounds for a Conflict of Interest claim on the Mdvanii article.Legalpower (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've blocked both User:Blanderàmort and User:ALphaWord for abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

brending

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation

Hello - My name is John Zarlino Owner Cover Your Assets II, LLC An Ohio Company Video Phone Number 347-ZARLINO (927-5466) [email protected]

I invented a new word on March 9th, 2011. brending. My little brother Marko called me and told me that he had a friend request on his computer and was confused. I informed him that a friend request is a process to link together on a popular software internet based software platform. My brother continued with his explanation of how he thought he was already my friend. It was amusing to say the least. The point is that some people don't understand the process or accept how the process of friending works. I took the process one step futher to help explain what users can do with the platform today. Are you really friending the person you already know or are you branding them to your slice of pie on the internet? Brending is the process in which you invite a person or business you already know to share your own semantic contribution for the AI crawlers. Hence, you brand your friend, brending.

I am a rookie at using this site and would like your advise on how to properly establish the word brending. Please advise.Jdzarlino (talk)

Citation Hello, I am responding to your request at the editor assistance board. If you have coined a new word that has only been used in your own work, I suggest you post the addition you would like to make to whatever article, along with the source, so that other editors can evaluate it. The concern is that some editors use Wikipedia as a means to promote their ideas. If other editors decide that your sources are reliable and that your changes are relevant, then they or you can add it. See WP:COI and WP:V for more information. Feel free to ask any more questions on my talk page. Danger (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Giridharilal Kedia

User:Odisha1, is of our Odia Wikipedia Original name Srikant Kedia, grand son of Giridharilal Kedia. May be Giridharilal Kedia is a notable person but, Image Institute of Technology & Management is a authorized Learning Center of Punjab Technical University (PTU). Is it notable insitute? Please check.Giridharilal Kedia in Odia wiki- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick Perri

User has an acknowledged COI. Many edits are promotional in nature, but do not qualify as outright spam. He's removed notability and COI tags from the entries, although not always without comment. This seems to me to be an SPA account, but not an outright spammer. May require attention from other editors. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Reuven kuvent

User:Kuvent created the Reuven kuvent article and has repeatedly removed the speedy deletion template. Username makes believe this is either an autobiographical article or the user is writing about a close relative. Swimnteach (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Long Range Acoustic Device

A new user with an obvious corporate affiliation has been taking out some of the cited text in these two articles, especially that text which shows the humble and bumpy beginnings of the corporation as founded by Woody Norris. Other text removed is a former vice president, Carl Gruenler, who is quoted in The Economist describing unflattering specifics. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done The problem was taken care of by Alexf who blocked Lradcorporation's username. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Tahseen Jabbary

This user is an SPA. He created the article Tahseen Jabbary using content pulled from the subject's agency's profile, plus additional unsourced content, which conspicuously fails verification. The article survived AfD because somebody was able to see a little real, verifiable notability under the blather and create a decent, referenced, stub. There is very little in RS about the subject and the stub covers pretty much all that there is. Tasen55 continues to repeatedly wipe out this referenced stub with his preferred version of the article. His version has evolved a bit from the start but is still referenced only to improper primary sources (including Linkedin) and contains unverifiable claims. This is unacceptable in a BLP yet he makes no attempt to discuss or justify his edits. I have tried warning him and explaining things to him. He has been blocked before and not mended his ways. Nothing works. I originally tried sending this to ARV as a vandalism/spamming issue but it was rejected as not blatant enough. Given the single purpose nature of the account, the instance on using primary sources and the similarity of the name Tasen with Tahseen, I think we have a clear COI here. Although it is not totally clear whether this is actual autobiographical writing, the fact that he insists on adding an unreferenced alleged birth date and location for the subject (which I can not see published anywhere else) does raise this suspicion. DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Tasen55 got blocked for a fortnight and things quietened down for a while but today IP 82.168.91.215, which is pretty obviously his, replaced the article with the COI/spam version again. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Kiss

There is some edit warring and alleged disruptive editing going on in the article, with discussion at Talk:Kiss#Kissing image placement. In trying to avoid 3rr and further edit warring, and because a COI issue may be relevant, I'm posting here. If there is a better place, please advise. Note that User:Ctjf83 has even filed an RfD for File:Breznev-Honecker 1979.jpg, which could also imply a COI, if not a clear attempt at gaming the system. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for notifying me of this discussion, second the FfD is for an unrelated picture, that I wouldn't have even noticed, had you not moved the same-sex picture down there...are you saying because I'm gay I can't comment on a same-sex picture? CTJF83 01:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony List

NYyankees51 was investigated for sockpuppeting and was found to have edited from an IP address owned and operated by the Susan B. Anthony List organization. NYyankees51 signed SBA List IP entries here and here on August 27, 2009.

Subsequently, NYyankees51 was the most frequent article editor in 2009, without declaring his affiliation to SBA List. He was blocked in December, indefinitely. In 2010, NYyankees51 began the year with a sockpuppet, User:ArchConservative93, editing the SBA List article. When this sock was blocked, NYyankees51 started up User:BS24, again not declaring an affiliation with SBA List but editing it nonetheless. BS24 was blocked as a sock in November 2010. Before that, NYyankees51 edited the SBA List article using Special:Contributions/68.50.210.194, Special:Contributions/70.21.119.84 and Special:Contributions/71.178.26.97. All this is to demonstrate that NYyankees51 has shown a very strong desire to edit the SBA List article, even to the point of getting blocked.

After NYyankees51 was blocked in December 2009 and BS24 was blocked in November 2010, the editor waited for two months and then appealed his block. He was unblocked on January 11, 2011 by HJMitchell upon the promise of no more sockpuppeting. So far it looks like this promise has been kept.

However, the question of NYyankees51 having a conflict of interest remains. Here is a record of edits made by NYyankees51 and his sockpuppets, ones in which an overly promotional addition was reverted or ones in which unflattering information was removed or altered:

  • 2009-05-30: Made Susan B. Anthony have pro-life views. Removed as anachronistic.
  • 2009-09-02: Made Susan B. Anthony have pro-life views. Removed as anachronistic.
  • 2009-09-15: Made Susan B. Anthony have pro-life views. Removed as anachronistic.
  • 2009-09-29: Made Susan B. Anthony have pro-life views. Removed as anachronistic.
  • 2009-10-02: Added an external link to Team Sarah. Removed as promotional spam.
  • 2009-10-09: Added the "Susan B. Anthony connection" section, including "Guilty" quote with no scholarly rebuttal. Added the Team Sarah URL again.
  • 2009-11-24: Removed unflattering, cited information about SBA being secular in contrast to SBA List which is more religious. Edit summary: "Contains frivolous and uncited information"
  • 2010-01-11: Removed unflattering information about poor abortion conditions seen by SBA in the 19th century.
  • 2010-04-02: Added "non-partisan" regarding SBA List. Removed unflattering, cited information about SBA being secular in contrast to SBA List which is more religious.
  • 2010-04-05: Added a long list of endorsements. Added a blog link to suzyb.org.
  • 2010-04-07: Piling on far too much negative press about Bart Stupak.
  • 2010-04-02: Removed any doubt SBA held anti-abortion views. Asserted SBA wrote the "Guilty" quote, with no scholarly rebuttal.
  • 2010-06-18: Removed unflattering information about scholarly doubt regarding SBA and "Guilty" quote.
  • 2010-07-26: Greatly expanded list of candidate endorsements including non-notable politicians.
  • 2010-07-28: Removed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV neutral wording about SBA's anti-abortion views. Removed sentence about dispute regarding SBA and such views.
  • 2010-07-30: Removed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV neutral wording about SBA's anti-abortion views. Added back the "Guilty" quote, saying "pro-choicers" deny it.
  • 2010-07-30: Changes wording regarding anti-abortion law to soften original intent. Deleted contradictory but accurate information about The Revolution and patent medicines advertisments.
  • 2010-07-30: Deleted the "essay" and substituted "editorial" regarding "Guilty" quote. Restored "pro-choicers" regarding Anthony scholars. Removed patent medicine info. Removed unflattering Schiff quote.
  • 2010-08-01: Restored "pro-choicers" regarding Anthony scholars. Removed patent medicine info.
  • 2010-08-02: Restored "pro-choicers" regarding Anthony scholars.
  • 2010-08-02: Changed correct "pro-life politicians" back to "pro-life women in politics"
  • 2010-08-02: Changed correct "pro-life politicians" to "pro-life women"
  • 2010-08-02: Removed an unflattering reference to Allison Stevens article. Changed correct "pro-life politicians" to "pro-life politicians, primarily women" in the absence of the reference. Introduced misleading statement implying SBA signed the "Guilty" quote. Introduced SBA quote talking about prostitution and alcohol abuse, implying that it was about abortion.
  • 2010-08-04: Changed SBA List name belief from SBA being "pro-life" to she "opposed abortion", unlike Dannenfelser who said SBA was "passionately pro-life".
  • 2010-08-06: Removed ATTRIBUTEPOV accuracy and unflattering quote in place of subdued wording. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
  • 2010-08-06: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference.
  • 2010-08-09: Introduced the "Sweeter even" quote without scholarly rebuttal. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
  • 2010-08-10: Changed to misleading wording regarding 14,000 documents. Introduced off-topic FFL argument. Misrepresented Lynn Sherr quote. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
  • 2010-08-16: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference. Introduced Mattie Brinkerhoff quote as being from SBA. Reduced intended tone from Sherr.
  • 2010-08-19: Removed cited 1989 start date. Restored Mattie Brinkerhoff quote as being from SBA. Reduced intended tone from Sherr.
  • 2010-08-23: Removed cited 1989 start date. Reduced intended tone from Sherr.
  • 2010-08-27: Removed cited 1989 start date. Reduced intended tone from Sherr. Introduced misleading "122 references" quote from Crossed.
  • 2010-09-10: Removed unflattering Ann D. Gordon quote.
  • 2010-09-13: Removed cited 1989 start date. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
  • 2010-09-14: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference. Removed all scholarly rebuttals to SBA signing the "Guilty" quote. Removed unflattering Lynn Sherr article reference.
  • 2010-11-01: Removed "Anthony scholars" from those who argue against SBA List. Removing unflattering Gordon quote.
  • 2011-03-09: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference. Removed all scholarly rebuttals to SBA signing the "Guilty" quote. Removed unflattering Lynn Sherr article reference. Removing unflattering Gordon quote. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
  • 2011-03-11: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference.
  • 2011-03-28: Removed unflattering Gordon quotes from lead section and article body. Removed unflattering Schiff quotes from article body.
  • 2011-03-31: Changed wording to weaken Anthony's historic absence from anti-abortion causes. Removed "historians" from those who argue against SBA List. Removed unflattering Gordon and Schiff quotes from article body. Removed scholar Laury Oaks conclusion that SBA List quotes perpetuate a misinterpretation.

NYyankees said in his edit summary on March 29, 2011, that he was "no longer associated with SBA List". After reviewing the lengthy evidence showing that he has been working at the very least as a de facto volunteer for SBA List, promoting their cause by edit warring against WP:NPOV, I have to assume that the conflict of interest still exists. SBA List is a non-profit organizaton operated largely by volunteers, and NYyankees51 is clearly demonstrating by his actions that he has volunteered to help promote them. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

First, it should be noted that Binksternet and I have been engaged in content disputes for nine months now at the article.
I was an intern at SBA List during the summer of 2009. The association ended after that.
I have extensively edited the articles of several organizations and their leaders: Values Voter Summit (which I created), Brian S. Brown (which I created), Republican Party of Virginia, March for Life, Frank Pavone, Conservative Political Action Conference, Live Action (organization), and Lila Rose. My editing at the SBA List article is no different than my editing at those articles, and I certainly do not have a COI at any of those articles, nor have any existed. Binksternet says "SBA List is a non-profit organizaton operated largely by volunteers", and I would like to off what information he bases that claim. As per my list of organizations' articles above, if my editing at SBA List means I am an official volunteer for SBA List, I must be an official volunteer for Values Voter Summit, National Organization for Marriage, Republican Party of Virginia, March for Life, Priests for Life, Conservative Political Action Conference, and Live Action. It seems clear to me that this COI filing is nothing more than an attempt by Binksternet to discredit me and to give him a license to take over the SBA List article. It's sad for Wikipedia when users make allegations such as this to try to win a content dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You discuss other articles but those other articles are not in question here. You and I have debated content on a number of articles, and I have never tried to remove you from editing them in order to gain the upper hand in content disputes. Nor am I doing that here... I am simply noticing that there may be a conflict of interest issue at work, one which you never declared in the summer of 2009 and one which may be ongoing.
At the root of every COI issue is one of WP:NPOV. If people who held a conflict only edited in a perfectly neutral manner, there would be no need for this COI noticeboard. What I am demonstrating here is that your early COI was made clear by a non-neutral editing record in 2009 which extended into 2010 and 2011. You have a history of non-neutral changes to the article, removing unflattering information which is cited and accurate. Until I brought this issue forward, you had never declared your affiliation. With all the sockpuppeting, I think you have shown a high-handed conflict of interest relative to the SBA List.
The key question is this: If an editor has a known conflict of interest in 2009, can that conflict be declared null in 2010 or 2011, in the face of an editing history demonstrating the contrary? Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I discuss other articles because my editing at those is no different than my editing at the SBA List, so by your standard, I have a COI at all those other articles. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Alejandro Peña Esclusa

This user has proved to consistently forward the propaganda version of the Hugo Chavez government at the expense of neutrality. The most recent and most obvious example is in the article about A.P.E., a political opponent of Chavez, in which Rd232 inserted slanderous claims (see talk page). On the talk page I clearly and repeatedly warned him that it was slanderous, but he reinserted it twice after I removed it. In both the cited articles he is consistently introducing the spin from the Chavez propaganda. His editing style is so biased that I have to suspect that he, directly or indirectly (such as through an NGO supported by Chavez, directly or indirectly), is in fact working for the Chavez propaganda machine. I have only mentioned 2 articles but if my suspicion is correct he should be banned from editing any article relating to Venezuela, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, Libya, or anything relating to world politics, as all of those are subject to their propaganda and attempts to bias the articles. (There may be administrators who have the same conflict of interest.) Lindorm (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well just so nobody can say I didn't actually deny it: I don't edit for anybody else, and never have. That takes care of the alleged COI. (As for the "slander" "libel", I merely reported the Venezuelan government's claims, explicitly attributed, along with Esclusa's denial. Oddly, in the middle of Lindorm's angst (which BTW got him banned from the Italian Wikipedia for exactly the same issue with the equivalent article... cf its talk page and his BLPN report July 2010) he said "only as sources for their own position." Which I did.) Rd232 talk 13:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to reach consensus with Rd232 on that article, see Talk page, but he is stubborn as hell in getting the page to stay potentially libelous but at any rate very NPOV (As Political Career he lists the government's accusations!). Lindorm (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's "very NPOV". (WP:NPOV). Though that's probably not what you meant... Anyway Lindorm has now forumshopped to WP:BLPN, so unless the alleged COI requires further discussion, let's leave it here. Rd232 talk 15:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nick Halkes

Hi all, I came across this article, which I found to be poorly written (not encyclopaedic in nature). Words like 'cuts' is slang and doesn't feel appropriate. It sounds like a press release with as many superlatives and fancy facts as possible.

examples of this: -Nick Halkes[1] is a U.K. based music industry executive known for signing and breaking multi-million selling[2] dance act The Prodigy.[3] -Nick's most recent, major A&R success with the band has been their 1.3 million selling "Invaders Must Die" on which he has a co-write on the title track,[4] a cut which enjoyed a list rotation on BBC Radio 1. -The Prodigy were the most played act on Radio 1 in 2009 scoring four A-list singles in a row. -Nick also runs a successful music publishing business (with cuts from writers ranging from A-Trak, Mujava and Princess Nyah through to cuts recorded by The Prodigy, Sash! and Joey Negro) and both DJs and gets in the studio as part of Kicks Like A Mule (with whom he enjoyed Top 10 UK chart success [10] as an artist and renewed profile following the Klaxons cover of ‘The Bouncer.’)


I also felt that it contained much promotion on the subject, including far too many details that would only be known by someone close to the subject, or possibly the subject themselves. The manner in which they are presented seems to indicate that they are written to maximise the positive light in which the subject is perceived - for example it talks about the works of some collaborators below (kelly price & rob davis) but does not mention the particular pieces that the subject worked on with those people. The final paragraph is more like a CV, as it contains details on the minutiae of his career - many items in detail which are possibly too insignificant to be considered suitable for biographies of this nature.

examples of this

-He is also a part time lecturer on the music industry to BA and MA students at University of Westminster in London

-Recent Kicks Like A Mule studio activity has included remixes on Kid Sister and Major Lazer with a single also released on U.S. indie Fool's Gold under the revised artist name K.L.A.M. An occasional song writer, Nick recently co-wrote a track on the Kenneth Bager album that is now gold in Scandinavia plus also co-wrote a song which was recently cut by Japanese artist Maki Goto. He has also co-written with Rob Davis (co-writer of Kylie Minogue's global smash "Can't Get You Out Of My Head") and Kelly Price who co-wrote U.S. number one 'Déjà Vu' for Beyonce.

-More recently Nick has used the Horx moniker for collaborative studio activity with both Jonny L on a cut called ‘18 years’ and with Adam F and Redman on a cut called ‘Shut The Lights Off’ which was released on Breakbeat Kaos, the latter scoring a Zane Lowe ‘Hottest Record In The World’[11] accolade. As Horx, Nick provided support DJ services on both the Prodigy U.K. Invaders Arena tour(including 2 dates at Wembley) and multiple dates on the European leg of the bands world tour. As K.L.A.M. the date sheet has included Bestival, Ministry of Sound and Fabric plus support dates on the Zane Lowe DJ Hero 2 Tour. Most recently Nick co-produced and co-wrote the single "Electric Boogaloo" for UK grime godfather and chart star Wiley. Nick was a keynote speaker at the 2010 'In The City' [12] music conference in Manchester and recently delivered 'masterclass' presentations at the Academy of Contemporary Music in Guildford, the Bristol Institute of Modern Music and the Brighton Institute of Modern Music. Nick has also contributed writing to the book Catch The Beat, which documents late '80s/early '90s underground club culture.


Why COI?

I edited this article to tidy it up and remove what I considered to be excessive. There were some problems with grammar, format etc in addition to the content issues described above. You can see my edit here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Halkes&diff=413577680&oldid=411788397

within less than 48 hours my edit was reverted back to the messy original article by IP 83.217.115.101 To give you an idea of user IP 83.217.115.101's contributions, here is there log http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.217.115.101

Of this user's 48 edits, 35 have been on this article, 5 have been on the band that subject of the article is a member of, 2 on the record label he was involved with and the remainder on related articles. Similarly, 35 out of the last 49 edits of this article have been made by that same IP.


I didn't want to get caught up in a editing/reverting war so was seeking advice here instead on how to proceed. Thanks User:HallucigeniaUK 15:12 (UHT) 20 March 2011

I've tagged the article for lack of reliable sources, promotional tone, and notability. Given the dearth of reliable sources I found via Google search, I think it's a candidate for WP:AFD. 99.175.156.171 (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_48&oldid=1142527351"