Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ESPN staffer needs help expanding ESPN-related article

Resolved
 – Issue seems to be addressed. If you wish to help review any material offered by the company, add Talk:ESPN The Magazine to your watchlist. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An ESPN staffer contacted us on OTRS, asking what the best way to go about expanding the ESPN The Magazine article was. I advised him that to avoid running afoul of the conflict-of-interest policy, he should work with one or more experienced Wikipedians. Anyone who is interested in helping, see the thread on the article's talk page. Raul654 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A message has been left at Talk:ESPN The Magazine proposing how James Weber could submit new article versions for review, and I also wrote an email alerting him to the discussion. This should allow him to get started if he has ideas for expanding the article. To continue from here, he ought to create an account rather than use an IP, and make his suggestions on the article talk. I suggest that this thread can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter S. Beagle, The Last Unicorn (film), and The Last Unicorn

Naveen Jain

Resolved
 – Controversy seems to have quieted down. Ronz, who opened the related report over at WT:WPSPAM, has proposed that the spam report be closed. I removed some excessive paragraphs from Jain's article and no-one complained or reverted. Let's declare victory. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


*12.104.234.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - no real evidence of coi - just another editor that's involved with these articles, mostly edit-warring in White pages

The above list was added by Ronz, and not by me. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A new user recently converted this BLP article from a pure fluff piece into a somewhat negative but sourced article. The sources given are from reliable publications, though I haven't gone through them in detail yet to verify the rewriting. Anyway, the new user informed me that Naveen Jain (or one of his employees?) edits the article himself, and lo and behold an IP appeared about a day after to convert the article back into a fluff piece, removing all negative material. I don't have the time at the moment to read through these sources, and in any event, I would appreciate more opinions on this. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Along with this, WHOIS shows the IP that made the reversion to be owned by Naveen Jain. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow! There's a great deal going on here, and it's a shame no one caught this sooner. I've given 63.231.16.57 a detailed COI warning, pointing out some spam concerns and this discussion. I added a number of other articles above where the ip has been editing, all against this obvious coi. Hopefully, we'll get a reply from this ip.
I also identified a few links that this ip has added. More investigation is needed, and a spam report might be necessary. --Ronz (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added Expert3007 as someone that has been editing the exact same set of articles. I'll investigate further as it might just be a coincidence. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added 70.103.74.5 and 12.104.234.193 for similar reasons. There's a great deal of spamming and edit-warring going on, though it may not be against a coi. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've started a separate spam report here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Help_with_Naveen_Jain-related_spam.3F, asking for help separating out and identifying the spam issues. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a case of coi on the part of 12.104.234.193, and the spamming has been minor. The edit-warring is problematic, and there could be some sock-puppetry here as well, but these are not issues for COIN from my perspective. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
None of the editors have made further edits, so this can be closed. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on Naveen Jain had several sections that sounded like advertising and lacked references, so I removed them. Please take a look and see if my changes were appropriate. No objection to putting back any important stuff if citations can be found. His industry awards may deserve to be included but it certainly ought to be possible to find online references if so. (Awards given out by his own company, Intelius, should probably not be included). The complete list of his charitable activities doesn't need space here. The intro of the article already seems to handle both positive and negative information carefully and it is well-referenced, so no changes are needed there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment ads for spam article writers

Resolved
 – Creating WP articles for pay is frowned upon. Companies who want to find out how to safely contribute to articles about themselves can seek advice here. Lacking an active controversy, we might as well close this. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the procedure for dealing with companies posting classified ads seeking Wikipedia spam article writers for hire? (I'm reluctant to post the link here because they don't need more publicity, but will so so if people think it would be appropriate. The ad doesn't name the company, anyway.)--Pharos (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's publicity but its the sort corporations tend to avoid. Post it anyway. Even though the company is not explicitly identifiable, there might be clues. Also, the ad might name the spammerservice provider, so when they show up we can banhammer them on sight. MER-C 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've waffled enough. Here's the spam writer recruitment ad on Craigslist.--Pharos (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure all the editors here would like you to apply for this assignment. You can be the first undercover WP editor! (Only slightly undercover of course). Send them a pointer to this thread to prove you are legitimate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

SarathanRecords

Resolved
 – Two Loons for Tea was deleted via PROD. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User

Article

Seems to be someone working for, lets, see, Sarathan Records. Creates articles on bands in label, edits music pages to promote said bands. -Carados (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, there is also an article about the label entitled Sarathan Records, not to be confused with the editor with a similar name (but lacking the space), but this particular editor has not touched the article about the record label. Both Two loons for tea and Sarathan Records appear to lack reliable sources. I wonder if the COI-affected editor could give us any help finding sources. EdJohnston (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Added WP:PROD to the Two Loons for Tea article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There are three other articles on artists published by the Sarathan Records label, but this editor has not worked on them. This suggests no COI in their creation. May as well close this. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nigelpwsmith

User:Nigelpwsmith user is a private shareholder activist, coordinator of the Langbar Action Group and secretary to the Representative Action. Google search results - [1] Please can you review WP:COI compliance. He has made a COI statement on the Talk:Langbar International page (he created most of the article content), but not on any of the other articles he's edited - Barry Townsley [2], Serious Fraud Office (UK) [3], Alternative Investment Market [4] or his user and talk pages. I'm unsure of the exact COI requirements. Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

promotion of website

Peter M. Sacks - User:Bluehole (Allan Cordle, as he notes on his userpage) is repeatedly reverting to a "preferred version" of articles that prominently features mentions of his website, foetry.com. While I think mention of his work is relevant, the fact that he is the owner of the site means that he has a conflict of interest and is predisposed to ignore problems of undue weight, especially as it relates to WP:BLP. Stawiki (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The website linked is no longer actively updated; it's merely linked because it holds the history of Sacks' atrocious (IMO) behavior. The section about Sacks is very significant (speaking of conflicts of interest) because Sacks' book was selected by his wife in a fee-based contest. The two names appeared in articles on the covers of both the LA Times and the Chronicle of Higher Ed. I left Sacks' statement refuting the charges, which shows my willingness to be as neutral on wiki as possible. I do resent that Stawiki is charging *me* with changing his content, when, as history shows, he made the first move in bad faith. Bluehole (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Avenaim

Jerry Avenaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has made significant edits to the Jerry Avenaim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also has uploaded some of "his" pics. I put that in quotes b/c I'm suspicious if this is even the actual person. Please note their recent editing behaviour as to why. Thanks for your consideration of this matter. -Ebyabe (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You could ask him to prove who he is by sending an email from an address that's listed on one of his personal websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Information Research

Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a former board member of this organization, seems to be grinding some sort of ax here via some recent edits, including adding an article he got published as a reliable source. It's a clear COI issue. I dunno mentioning it here matters or anything. -- Kendrick7talk 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Dahlia, User:Lmharnisch

  • Black Dahlia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Lmharnisch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user, who apparently writes for the LA Daily Times, or at least writes the Daily Mirror column,[5] has a webpage on which he discusses his efforts to write a book about the Black Dahlia case.[6] I had previously brought up the question of CoI in relationship to his postings of links to Daily Mirror columns in articles. My concern with his involvement with the Black Dahlia article pertains to his removal of information which he regards as erroneous (not to mention the less than courteous way he has done so), and also specifically, his comments on the work of other authors, as noted in the reversion he made on January 11.diff 24 of his 64 edits on Wikipedia have been on the Black Dahlia page itself, and a Google search[7] (which he suggests an editor use in order to contact him on his user page) reveals a pattern of some controversial critical writing about this subject. My feeling on this is that if he is actively engaged in writing about this subject professionally, and authoring a book, is that he should recuse himself from any editing whatsoever on this subject. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I know this is relatively minor in comparison to some of the posts on the board, but it is an issue I'd like an answer to from someone well-versed in this issue. No one responded to my earlier question regarding this editor's additions of links of his column to film actor articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lino Carbosiero

  • Lino Carbosiero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article, created by user:JackCornuto appears to have COI issues. The user says he is Carbosiero's cousin. I'm a little on the fence about this one, but it seems like the article needs to be completely re-written and seems more like an advertisement than a genuine article. I'm not 100% sure that it meets notability criteria, but I guess it could. Does anyone agree? Editortothemasses (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Comparing entries at Hairdresser#List of famous hairdressers, he seems to have comparable notabilty to many there. But the COI is clear, and we don't need the whole damn CV. The picture Image:LINO.jpg needs copyright clarification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

West park healthcare centre

West park healthcare centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the article was created by User:WestparkPR and the only substantial edits are by the same user; the article has a promotional tone. KurtRaschke (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolfram PR people promoting products, abusing process, ganging up on others

Resolved
 – Pleasantville gave a very thorough response, and Deego did not return to point out any more specific issues. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
1. I point you to the discussion at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics, titled "Deego & mathematical software".
2. There are a large number of wolfram-research-related pages, being controlled by such "internet consultants for wolfram". These pages suffer from advert and notability problems, not to mention COI.
3. These consultants don't disclose their identities, and resort to ad-hominem and uncivil attacks on anyone daring to even add a Notability tag.
4. You will see many other problems with wolfram-related pages, see the discussion above. These include a large number of notability, advert and COI problems.

I don't have time to "fight" this battle with this determined group. I can only point it out here, and hope the admins will do something about it. I am signing off. Deego (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my bullets above, and the the 18 bullets on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. I will repeat the 19th bullet here, and make another observation:

23. User:Pleasantville http://www.kathryncramer.com/about.html - "She is an Internet Consultant (read: promotional writer) for Wolfram Research, Inc. in the Scientific Information Group. She lives in Pleasantville, New York." It is sad that PR people from companies make it to wikipedia and spoil the whole process, while even refusing to disclose their identities.
24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Cramer - this is a page on User:Pleasantville, edited by herself! This suffers from notability. User:Pleasantville never identifies herself on her homepage. This page again mentions that this user is a consultant for mathworks.
25. Wikipedia articles also exist on her husband, her father, etc. (Yes, the claim to fame is, as you would guess, that they have publications.)

I hope some admin sees this and removes this blatant exercise in COI by wolfram's PR associates, both for themselves and for Wolfram.Deego (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

26. Here is just one example of COI on her own page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathryn_Cramer&diff=103478188&oldid=103390946 There are many others. Also, a lot of contributions on that page come from IP addresses. Deego (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Also note that others who joined that discussion and supported Kramer use nicknames and don't have any identifiable information on their homepages that would reveal their commercial interests. I believe wikipedia should remain free of commercial PR. Deego (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Here is another example of this gang of people, closely professionally associated, engaging in mutual backscratching -

User:Pleasantville used to work for Eastgate Systems. Now, the chief scientist of that company, User:MarkBernstein has removed the notability tag from an article on John H. Little. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_N._Little. Note that John H. Little is another Wolfram-related associate - that is how I arrived his page. Deego (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • When I saw (today's) notice at the math proj page (which Pleasantville posted) I (just minutes ago) attempted to open dialogue at Pleasantville's talk. I seem already too late. I haven't poked around with timestamps, but it wouldn't surprise me if this arguement has been going on for well before the notice, which P would have taken as a late (if not last) resort. Also I'm sure I've missed some context from various article talk pages. However, I hope that we can squeeze out a bit more time for dialogue. I'm not what I'd call "neutral" on the matter, but I have some sympathies with both sides (and at least no, I don't have a COI; I program in C, not 4GL). So anyway I'd like to try. I advocate everyone waiting a day, please, so Deego and Pleasantville can reply to me. Pete St.John (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Deego: Okay, so you start off with a valid complaint; the Wolfram stuff seems, on initial inspection, very reasonable. Your complaint is reasonable, that is. Certainly there is a commercial COI there if your excerpts are accurate.
However, you take that ball and run with, apparently right off a cliff. User:Pleasantville's edits to her own page, and those of her father and her husband, may be inadvisable from a COI point of view but they are not, IMO, a violation of policy. The edits are generally innocuous, and often vandalism-reversions. Please, don't turn a perfectly reasonable COI concern into a witch-hunt. SamBC(talk) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Unlike the assertion above, user:Pleasantville's edits are not merely vandalism-reversions. (credit for finding this: As pointed out by User:Loisel when I followed the link), she created her own page, and singlehandedly made many revisions. The one and only editor of her page was herself for a long time -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathryn_Cramer&oldid=103262928 -- this was entirely her own doing, no other editor involved. Deego (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Someone questioned my credentials "I don't know about User:Deego". They are irrelevant, but any way, my name is Deepak Goel. I don't have any relationship with wolfram or mathworks. In fact, I was until recently confusing the two, as you can see from my comments. I am a believer in open source, community spirit, and have contributed to the same since 1998. I have contributed to wikipedia for about 4 years. See my edits. I believe in Free(-as-in-freedom) content. I voted to keep wiktionary FDL. It bothers me when I see blatant PR on wikipedia and abuse of wikipedia, be it done (I mean: in principle, don't sue me) by mathworks or wolfram or anything else. And, last of all, I don't, ever have or ever will create a page on myself on wikipedia merely because I have been a Link Foundation Fellow, for example, unlike some people. (John Little is apparently notable because of IEEE fellowship.) Deego (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
According to http://www.linkenergy.org, a Link Foundation Fellow is a scholarship "for students working toward a Ph.D." at three US institutions. An IEEE Fellow, on the other hand, is an award bestowed by this (huge) professional organization upon "a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deego, please reply to my remarks at her talk. You expect us to take the time to read your complaints; please read (at least some) of the responses. It's not the same stuff you've heard already. I'm Pleasantville's friend but I'm not her advocate. Pete St.John (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Pete St, John, I haven't made any further flagging of advert or any edits since I realized this is going to end up in an edit war with commercially motivated people. I am not a fan of edit wars, and even if I were, I have no energy to pursue them. I respectfully disagree with your comments which simply miss the most important point that wolfram-related articles seem to read like PR. Anyhow, since edit-warring has ensued, I have ceased any more edits, and resorted to a discussion here. Deego (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I hadn't meant to miss the point about "PR"; I agreed that that tone is more favorable than if I had written it (which is not the same as branding it mere PR, but is less than exculpating it). My other points had to do with improving the article without having to edit-war, e.g. by making one change at a time. The articles do not need to be perfect: they can't be. They can certainly be improved. Pete St.John (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The tone of the articles in question does not seem inappropriate. This is, after all, highly specialized software for higher mathematics, and mathematicians are bound to express a measure of enthusiasm for their field. The question of Cramer's page has already been hashed out and reached a satisfactory consensus. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

31. Another article related to this group of people is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastgate_Systems. I t reads like PR. I have ceased any further edits after being ganged up upon by this group, but I urge other people or admins to take note and take actions appropriate for db-spam, advert and/or notability. Deego (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
32. Further PR articles related to Eastgate Systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinderbox_%28application_software%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_David_Bolter and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Joyce; and the many other links created on the Eastgate page for its minor products, novels, etc., such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchwork_Girl_%28hypertext%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deego (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur. I am a mathematician, and I find sentences like Mathsoft Engineering and Education, Inc., the company that sells those popular products was is just one division of what used to be MathSoft. to be both inappropriate and ungrammatical. Popular is peacockery; these articles should be cleaned up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur on the MathSoft page, and have proposed simple revisions to repair it. Of course, this does not relate to Wolfram MarkBernstein (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment.

  • User:Pleasantville does not make a secret of her real-life identity as Kathryn Cramer, and if you check per blog she does state she is an internet consultant for Wolfram Research. The only possible further step she could take (on-Wiki) to clarify things would be to mention her Wolfram connection on her user page at User:Pleasantville.
  • Deego's complaint that certain Wolfram-related articles read like advertising, or have a promotional tone, is part of the normal give-and-take about improvement of articles. It sounds that Deego does not wish to start editing those articles for fear of being criticized, and that he thinks he might get into edit wars with Wolfram-connected editors. It certainly shouldn't be a problem for him to start making suggestions on the various article Talk pages of what might be changed.
  • About Eastgate Systems and related articles. Deego could present diffs here if he believes he has been ganged-up-on by Wolfram-connected editors. I notice that Eastgate Systems survived an AfD in August, 2007 and there have been cleanup tags there at various times. I didn't research who was adding or removing the tags. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Deego has not yet responded, so I went ahead and looked at some recent tags that he added to articles that seem Wolfram-related. He questioned the notability of a number of them, and this of course deserves discussion: Equation Editor, John N. Little, The Geometry Center, MathType, Theodore Gray.
I actually don't perceive notability problems with these particular articles. Equation Editor is an ancient and unlovable program that was available on Microsoft, and I'm sure some people remember it who ever had to add formulas to a Word document. Since one editor claims, without proof, that it has four million users (and that seems believable), in my view it is notable enought for an article. Please comment if you feel that these notability tags were given short shrift, or that they need to be kept on those articles. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Having previously announced that I consult for Wolfram on the Project Mathematics talk page, I'm not sure how much more public I could be short of posting my resume or list of current contracts. (I have current contracts with Wolfram Research, Tesseracts Publishing, and HarperCollins, and partake of perks funded via my husband's Tor Books expense account; our household also receives substantial income via L.W. Currey, an antiquarian bookseller; I have some connection to most everyone in the science fiction field.) For the record, I am not and never have been a PR writer or a publicist. I am by profession a science fiction editor who developed a sideline as an Internet researcher. What I do for WRI is Internet research (mostly for the data libraries on Mathematica 6), advise on matters related to the Wolfram blog, some permissions work, and advise on matters related to Internet subcultures such as this one.

My post to the Project Mathematics talk page was in accordance with instructions given by Durova in a YouTube video on how corporations should raise issues of concern. Though Durova's star has sunk a bit since the filming of the video, it seems to me to be sound advise.

My general perception is that Deego, a novice Wikipedia editor, has over-reacted to my criticism of his edits. As Pete St. John has pointed out to me, there may be a problem with the tone of my criticisms of Deego's edits, and for that I apologize. My last remaining grandparent had died that morning, and I was having one last look at my general Internet rounds before signing off the Internet to go travel to Texas for her funeral. It was perhaps not the brightest decision to choose that moment to express indignation to what I felt to be a large batch of frivolous edits.

While calling Deego's edits "frivolous" does not rise to my usual levels of tact, I think someone reviewing his edits for the 48 hours previous to my conflict with him might draw similar conclusions. For example, the article Eliezer Yudkowsky was easily sourcable, not only through media mentions, but also through multiple mentions in commercially published books. Instead of checking for sources, Deego slapped on a notability tag. That is the kind of situation I was complaining about. I hope that despite my unusual brusqueness, that Deego is able to take my comments to heart and edit with more care in the future. --Pleasantville (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pleasantville, have you seen the Business' FAQ? Your best chance of interacting with the community in a positive way is to make a declaration of your business activities on your user page (see mine), in a non-promotional way, and then to refrain from editing articles about you business or its clients. One set of concerns is what the rules allow. Another is what sort of editing is socially acceptable. This is a situation where you may not want to push the envelope. I hope this helps. Jehochman Talk 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't previously seen the FAQ, but having read it, I can say that I was previously familiar with all the information in it. Rather than posting to my user page, I made sure all the relevant information was in my Wikipedia entry and that there was a link from my User page to my entry. As someone very widely socially and professionally connected, there is no way to map out all of the possible situations in which someone might perceive a conflict. The field in which I have had my primary career is very tightly connected. --Pleasantville (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(Minor point: unless Deego knows something I don't there is no connection between Wolfram and John Little except that Little has worked for one of Wolfram's competitors.) --Pleasantville (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Eight days have passed since the last comment, and Deego has not come back to respond. Is it time to close this? EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Patton Boggs LLP

Resolved
 – Blocked, indefinitely. MER-C 02:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PB webmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I'm concerned that PB webmaster (standing for Patton Boggs) is editing the article, making significant changes (diff) without reference. Please could somebody take a look. — alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The account has been blocked for having an inappropriate user name and I've made a first pass at cleaning up the article and making it less of a PR piece. Pairadox (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Filippella

Resolved
 – Article was deleted. MER-C 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Contribution history of one of the Keep voters, Trueart (talk · contribs) belays that he is the subject of the article. Most other active edits in both the article and the AfD are from anon IPs with similar times, editing patterns, and syntax. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Southern New England School of Law

  • SNESL - Anon. IP User:72.248.108.178 removed a large section of material from this article [8]. However, a WHOIS of that IP [9] shows it to be owned/controlled by the Southern New England School of Law. As I feel the information is sourced, relevant, and fairly presented, I'd like some guidance of how to deal with the removal of information about an organization by a person affiliated with or acting for that organization. MBisanz talk 08:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph that the IP removed is referenced to court documents, which are primary sources. Is it possible that better sources might be found? This is the kind of legal issue that may well have caught the attention of newspapers, since the travails of the SNESL were not a secret. (The final sentence about the statute of limitations doesn't belong unless it can be cited; otherwise it's merely our speculation). Complete removal of the Rodi paragraph doesn't appear justified. The award of 2/3 of the costs, and the remand to the lower court, do represent a partial victory for Rodi. The court case is full of ironies, since the SNESL graduate Rodi served as his own lawyer when he maybe should have hired someone, but I realize that Wikipedia doesn't do irony. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
A.B. found some good news sources. Since the content is only deleted, I'll wait till I have time, incorproate the news cites, and restore a fully sourced version. Would finding the law that says there is a statute of limitations be OR in this case? MBisanz talk 23:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be better to find a secondary source, commenting on the statute of limitations in the specific case. The Appeals Court found a lot of loopholes in the SNESL's original claim that the statute of limitations had run. Incidentally, this article could use some mention of the proposal that SNESL be merged with the University of Massachusetts. Lack of ABA accreditation was one of the issues. The merger was proposed back in 2004 but apparently was not approved by the legislature. My searches of the Boston Globe found nothing about it, and a a UMass web site only comments on the proposal, not what happened to it. Some of the blogs claim that the percentage of those SNESL graduates who take the bar exam and pass in Connecticut and Massachusetts is less than those of other schools. There might be a way to document the passage rates. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Bizarrly, the school you mention has its own article University of Massachusetts School of Law I'd say a merge is in order. MBisanz talk 06:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Travisthurston

Travisthurston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a student at a school of naturopathy which is an alternative medicine certification program. In short, he will be employed in the future to practice alternative medicine. While we welcome his expertise and contributions that are reliably sourced and conform to neutrality, he has been resisting this by wholesale reverting a number of edits I made removing references to homeopathy that show up in unrelated articles (such as articles on botanical species and chemicals). I have posted a warning to his page, but I am also mentioning it here so that other users can back me up on this issue. In short, I believe that going around Wikipedia inserting uncited, non-neutral, and unduly weighted links and references to alternative medicine is definitely a conflict of interest in light of the fact that this person will soon be trying to make money in this controversial profession. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

yawn: thanks for the rant :) I think it's fair to say that you're coming into this with a clear agenda and in my opinion your accusations are laughable. We apparently have differing opinions on how WP should operate. While I offer a level of expertise to a subject field that may or may not be controversial, (depending on the reader) it is unclear to me what you offer. Admins will look at our editing history and determine what needs to be done about your 3RR edits and various POV charades... Either way, it's pretty obvious what's happening here. Thanks for the fun and games! --travisthurston+ 02:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is here because of a COI complaint. Are you asserting that your adding mentions of homeopathy to various articles is completely unrelated to your involvement in the homeopathy business? How does your expertise persuade you that the Thuja article needs to mention homeopathy? Can you reference a standard botanical reference work that considers the connection with homeopathy to be of top importance, for anyone learning about Thuja? EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I might be tempted to write about fluid dynamics in the water article, but that wouldn't make much sense because people interested in reading about water in an encyclopedia most likely aren't going there to learn about fluid dynamics. I'm open-minded about alternative medicine in some forms, and I've even been accused of being anti-scientific-consensus around here (though, without merit). But, homeopathy isn't a mainstream interest that people want to read about in the onion article, or in hair of the dog, and the like. Seriously, should every substance listed in a gigantic general encyclopedia have 50 lines devoted to homeopathy, or even modern medicine for that matter? No, of course not. On the other hand, I'm not sure why there couldn't be *dedicated* articles devoted to various alternative treatments. However, by WP:WEIGHT, the corresponding controversy with regard to mainstream science WILL BE in the article as well - so prepare yourself. Tparameter (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Article name

-->

Barlev blatant advertising

Resolved
 – No article, no problem. MER-C 02:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thelema

Users

Article

Background A single organization, Ordo Templi Orientis, has for some time tried to redefine and be the sole definer of Aleister Crowley's religion Thelema, which he documentably borrowed from Francois Rabelais. This organization wishes to downplay or eliminate Crowley's literary and philosophical appropriation by emphasizing Crowley's story that he "channeled" the phrase "Do what thou wilt" and the word "Thelema" when they documentably appear in Rabelais. Multiple independent sources note this and are cited and quoted in the article notes.

Current situation The three users mentioned are most likely members of the organization seeking to rewrite the history of Thelema. User:Thiebes discloses this on his user page. User:Stealthepiscopalian is most certainly a member based on his edits to this article and others. User:Dan may be a member but has neither disclosed nor denied this. He is attempting to rewrite the article eliminating the documented historical background from the lead section. He is being supported by the other two. While he claims to be willing to discuss, he only speaks in generalities and makes demonstrably false statements. When pressed to respond to details about what is actually in sources, he instead tries to get the page protected [10] and when that fails, opens a user conduct RfC against an IP address [11]. Note that the RfC is almost immediately signed by User:Thiebes without any on-Wiki notification. Clearly the users were in prior contact about the issue, compounding the COI with meatpuppetry. 85.178.69.150 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is funny. I do not belong to the Caliphate O.T.O. and in fact don't like them very much. Dan (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to add: I mentioned before that a guy in the Caliphate seemed to agree with my view of the article yet did nothing about it (annoying me slightly). He seemed to refer to people who ignore Crowley's system -- like some possibly imaginary Thelemites from the User:Ekajati version of the article -- while older source Tim Maroney said he used part of Crowley's system. Dan (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II

Resolved
 – Not a COI issue. Pairadox (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Allegedly it is a conflict of interest for me, as a Russian Orthodox Priest, to edit an article that relates to the Russian Orthodox Church. If we are going to make this a universal law, I think we shall ensure that no one who knows what they are talking about is able to edit an article in wikipedia. This is a ridiculous claim, and amounts to harassment on the part of Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in my opinion. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that Frjohnwhiteford has assumed bad faith here in believing this is some kind of harrassment. It was not I who initially raised the issue of COI, I was merely seeking a wider community view and clarification here. The community may well assess there is no COI, which would benefit Frjohnwhiteford in the long run. Martintg (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no obligation to assume good faith when there is clear evidence of bad faith, and I would invite the objective reader to take a look at the the talk page, and read the comments of both of the aforementioned users. There is a notice on this board which cautions against posting complaints that do not apply to the COI policy, and it is quite clear that this is one of those instances. I am being accused of having a conflict of interest as a result of defending a line in the article that existed long before I touched that article, which identifies Patriarch Alexei, who is in fact the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, as the spiritual leader of the Russian Orthodox... despite the fact that I have added two reliable sources (articles from the New York Times) in which he was referred to as such, and have pointed out that this terminology is used throughout wikipedia in comparable circumstances. The counter argument was that since Patriarch Alexei is a bad man, he cannot be termed a spiritual leader. Now who is the one who is guilty of violating the NPOV policy here? I would argue that it is not I. Even if I were on Patriarch Alexei's payroll, I do not believe that the COI policy would apply here... but since I am not, and have never been, and am only connected to him by virtue of the fact that I am a clergymen of the Russian Orthodox Church, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for this charge. See Talk:Patriarch Alexius II. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't know what "evidence of bad faith" you are referring to here. I have not been involved in the discussion of whether or not Alexei is a "spiritual leader". I have expressed no opinion on the matter. As you know, Saul of Tarsus was a determined persecutor of the early followers of Jesus, before he was converted and became one of the most notable Christian missionaries as St. Paul the Apostle. What is at issue is to what degree Alexei, in his capacity as KGB collaborator, contributed to the suppression of the Orthodox faith during the Soviet period, and whether there is a COI in members of the clergy such as yourself attempting to down play this aspect of his history in the article. Martintg (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You clearly were participating in the discussion here, and you were not taking the position of neutral observer with no opinions on the dispute. It is not "down playing" something to endeavor to present the other side of an issue, and to make sure that those who made the accusations, and what the evidence actually cited supports are clarified. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
My participation has been minor, only 5 edits compared with over 60 edits between yourself and Biophys [12], not in regard to whether he is a spiritual leader but rather the role of the KGB. I do agree with you that evidence should be cited to support any claim, particularly your claim that evidence linking Alexei with the KGB could have somehow been fabricated by the Estonian government[13]. Martintg (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is something really dramatic. I have only stated my concern about a possible WP:COI problem at the article talk page [14] for two reasons. First, user Frjohnwhiteford repeatedly inseted references to his personal web site [15] into the article. The http address "...prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford" coincide with name of the user (also see this: [16]). This reference/link is still in the article (reference number 13 in Alexius II). Second, he started edit warring in the article about an official head of an organization where he is officially employed (as he admitted himself). I tried to explain to him that it does not really matter what kind of an organization it is, apparently without success. So, it might be helpful if someone univolved in the religious or Russian matters would make a judgement.Biophys (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Biophys seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "employee". An employee is one who is paid to do something by an employer. I have a secular employer, and it is not a Russian or ecclesiastical entity. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
A personal website does not meet the criteria for a "reliable source." At the very least, that reference needs to be removed. Frjohnwhiteford's insistence in using it could indeed be a conflict of interest, aside from any other issues raised. Pairadox (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That page is not something I authored, it contains a translation into English of a reliable source. However, I have run across the same quote in a book, and so would be happy to include the quote and the reference to that book in that particular case. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
One possible solution is to make use of a Convenience link. Mind you, I make no endorsement of such, but it is one way to provide an online reference for material sourced from books. Pairadox (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since, when I attempted to bring up the following issues on what I thought was a more appropriate board, I was told to combine it into this discussion, here are some additional issues I have:

Biophys has persistently reverted sourced statements in the article Patriarch Alexius II, he has circumvented coming to a consensus on the talk page by making unilateral edits, and has engaged in personal attacks and harassment. The most recent example of such reverts can be seen here. Please also see the talk page for that article Talk:Patriarch Alexius II. For example, he has a problem with referring to Patriarch Alexei as either the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is a recognized fact by every autocephalous Orthodox Church, by the Russian government, and by religious groups and organizations the world over, or as the spiritual leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, despite the fact that he is such by definition, and about 1,549 other wiki articles use this term, and apply it to people in analogous circumstances, such as Pope Benedict. He has turned the article into a polemic screed which violates the NPOV and BLP policies of Wikipedia... how many different quotes do we need in an article of some Russian partisan, making the assertion that Patriarch Alexei is a KGB agent? Such assertions add nothing to the article, because they contain nothing substantive. I have made no attempts to remove any specific and sourced accusation against Patriarch Alexei. Biophys has repeated obfuscated the specifics of the accusations, made sweeping generalizations that are unsupported by the sources, has engaged in tendentious and unconstructive editing. Some outside help is needed here to facilitate constructive and collaborative editing. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to add more sourced material to biography of Alexius II. His biography is very short. As long as you follow WP:NPOV and other WP policies and find consensus with all other users, no one would complain, even if you have a conflict of interest. But in the case of serious disagreements and a possible conflict of interest, it is best to leave the article to others.Biophys (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I do not need your permission. Thus far, no one has jumped up to agree with your claim that my being a Russian Orthodox priest constitutes a conflict of interest. You have not stated what your interest is here... though you clearly have one. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Frjohnwhiteford is a priest of Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the church most of its history having quite bitter relations with the Russian Orthodox Church headed by Alexius. There were even murders of ROCOR priests triyng to establish parishes in Russia. In 2007 both churches established a weak ecumenical union of ROCOR, still ROCOR is completely autonomous in all the practical sense and in fact very suspicious to ROC's influence. I think taking all this in account it is ridiculous to allege that Frjohnwhiteford has a conflict of interests. On the other hand the article is indeed in violation of the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV guidelines as 70% of it is devoted to various negative rumors. Wikipedia is not a compromat leaking site, the issue should be fixed Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course everyone is welcome to add more positive information in the article. I have made a few minor changes recently including better sourcing. As about ROCOR independence this is highly debatable, since it is now officially a part of the Church led by Alexius.Biophys (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You did more than make a few minor changes. You repeatedly reverted sourced and pertinent material, among other things. There is also no basis for your assertion that there is a conflict of interest here, based on the wikipedia policy here -- end of story. Even if I were in Priest in Moscow, there would not be (as the policy currently stands), but as it is, I am priest in Texas, and the only support I get from Patriarch Alexei, or my own diocesan bishop for that matter, is entirely of a spiritual nature. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done a COI analysis and posted my opinion/analysis on the article discussion page in the COI segment.

Although there may be a perceived COI, I see no obvious COI and no clear evidence of bias in the resulting edits. Frjohnwhiteford's contributions look generally neutral and positive, he has not engaged in un-necessary deletion of disputed content, merely rewrites and softening of the language. I also think the COI allegation may have been an attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute, which is explicitly frowned upon in the COI Guidelines.

I have advised the parties to review the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons guidelines, try and follow overall Wikipedia guidelines, and co-operate more, if possible.

CraigWyllie (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to CraigWyllie. Thank you for reviewing this! Could you elaborate please what do you mean by saying "I also think the COI allegation may have been an attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute"? It was not me who brought this issue at the WP:COI noticeboard, and I did not ask for it. Second question. Do I understand correctly that you have less than 150 edits in wikipedia? This is not to question your report, but experience does matter. I am not qualified to judge about COI, but I agree that we do not have a serious problem here, at least not yet.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC) With regard to experience... I hope you have noticed this message at another noticeboard: [17]. Did you?Biophys (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The current state of the article Patriarch Alexius II doesn't look bad. I clicked through a whole lot of edits from the last two or three days and found myself cheering for both sides since it appeared that the article was converging on a better version in spite of the struggles, or even as a result of them. Mere membership in a religious organization, especially a large one, is not usually considered a COI, unless there is evidence of strong partisanship in the actual editing, which I did not see in the work of Frjohnwhiteford. Occasionally I found myself wondering what Biophys was up to, but I'm not familiar enough with the article to know whether every edit was legit. If there are remaining issues, I suggest the editors try to handle them using article RfCs. I'd recommend that Frjohn did not try to insert links to his own Prodigy web site or to http://orthodoxwiki.org. If those sites contain any relevant info from reliable sources, pull that information out and reference it directly. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." (my bolding)

I think it is obvious Frjohnwhiteford has a "personal commitment" to the head of his church. While I make no comment on the content of his edits in general (though the last one by him removed fair comment which was sourced) I think it is obvious he has a COI due to his position and relationship with Alexei. Malick78 (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I am totally committed to the head of my Church... Jesus Christ. Patriarch Alexei is the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church... the first among equals among the bishops of the Russian Church... the one who presides over local councils of the Russian Church. He is also the spiritual leader of the Russian Church, being the spokesmen for the Church. If you read more carefully the WP:COI policy, you will see that having a personal commitment to a subject does not constitute a conflict of interest:
"The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject."
Patriarch Alexei is not my chewing buddy. We don't go out for beers together. I do not know him personally. Therefore I am not "too close" to him. By your logic, no American could edit an article on the President of the United States. No Democrat could edit an article on Bill Clinton. No Catholic could edit an article on the Pope. No homosexual could edit an article on homosexuality. No hunter could edit an article on hunting. That is nonsense. Furthermore, Wikipedia would come to a screeching halt were it enforced universally. Biophys is a Russian who has evident hostility towards the Russian Orthodox Church... is he a Russian Baptist, a militant Atheist...? I don't know, but he does not have a neutral view of this subject, and uninvolved editors have commented that between the two of us, my edits have been fair more neutral. The only difference here is that I am upfront about where I am coming from.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please reread "an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." Does an expert have a personal commitment to the temperatures that are rising? No, just a commitment to science and the subject in general. Your response missed the point entirely. Any thoughts by independent editors? Malick78 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please reread it yourself. The contrast is between someone who has a direct and close personal connection with the subject, as opposed to someone who does not, but has a personal commitment to the subject. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) A distinction needs to be made between a conflict of interest and a deeply held POV. If Frjohn were editing articles about his own flock there would be a clear COI. In this case it's less clear and we should assume good faith. However, I echo EdJohnston's recommendation that he not link to unreliable sources and caution him to be aware that his commitment to the head of his church can easily lead him into POV edits in articles on religious topics. Pairadox (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

An update. Frjohnwhiteford reported this case to WP:BLP noticeboard and stared following my edits in other articles. He went as far as repeatedly deleting my sourced comments at the talk page of another article. Not surprisingly, the deleted comment was about another Orthodox priest. I left a warning at his talk page. Biophys (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP not only allows but requires unsourced or poorly sourced accusations... particularly those that could be libelous be removed immediately, and without discussion from an article or the talk pages. I would encourage you to read the policy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is about WP:COI problems, not about BLP. Please also see my reply here [18].Biophys (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Next update. Yes, now we have a problem, since Frjohnwhiteford just started an RfC about yet another user Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muscovite99. Why? Becase that user criticized Alexius II at talk page of another article [19]. At least that is diff cited by Frjohnwhiteford as an evidence in his RfC. He can not tolerate any cricizm about his "spiritual" boss even at talk pages of unrelated articles!Biophys (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This had nothing to do with his comments about Patriarch Alexei, and everything to do with his repeated personal attacks. Frjohnwhiteford (talk)
Everyone can see from that diff [20] provided by you as a "proof" that a user criticizes Alexius.Biophys (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone can see, if they read the whole edit, that it contains personal attacks against another editor, contrary to the WP:NPA policy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Frjohnwhiteford and Jonah of Manchuria

Earlier Pairadox echoed "EdJohnston's recommendation that he [Frjohnwhiteford] not link to unreliable sources and caution him to be aware that his commitment to the head of his church can easily lead him into POV edits in articles on religious topics." In Jonah of Manchuria Frjohnwhiteford not only copied 70/80% of a copyrighted source to create the article (giving a false source as well), when his edits were toned down for POV language, he reverted said edits. Ie:

"Though his life was short, his [Jonah's] memory endured long after his repose. St. John (Maximovitch) said of St. Jonah: "Already here in the diaspora we have righteous ones in our time. Although they are not yet glorified, people receive wondrous signs from them. For example Bishop Jonah of Manchuria." (From the book "Sermons," by St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco)[5]

This was reduced by myself to "Though his life was short, he influenced many..." and I asked for the date of the following substantiating quote to be produced. Frjohnwhiteford reverted my edit to his previous version and answered saying the speaker [St. John] "was Bishop of Shanghai from 1934 to 1946... and so it would have been during that time." Ie, his "memory endured long after his repose" (Jonah died in 1925) really means for between 9 and 21 years. He seems to not see that this is a dodgy ref in the extreme, and even when it is pointed out, he reverts instead of finding proper sources. Thoughts anyone? Or am I overreacting? Malick78 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my edit history, you will see that this article was the first article that I created, and this was very soon after I first began editing on wikipedia... so there is a lot that I didn't know about wikipedia policy at the time, and I did not yet know how to do proper footnotes. I listed Orthodoxwiki as a source, because that is where the article was first created, and in my edit summary I noted that I was importing it from Orthodoxwiki. In reverse, this is how Orthodoxwiki does it, when they take an article from Wikipedia. I assumed at the time it work the same way in both directions. I did list the page on my parish site as a source also, and it gives all the relevant sources at the very begining of the article. Vera Kencis did not compose this article, by the way, it was composed in Russian in the 1920's, and is public domain now. There is a link to the Russian text provided in the article. She did translate the text. The paragraph you cited as violating copy right was composed by myself, except for the portion I put into quotes. I release any copy right claim on my own work, and have provided proper reference to the rest. If you compare the various sources, you can see that this article is a very short summary of his life... it was never a cut and paste of a previously written text. All the quotes it contains are fair use, and attributed. As for your comments about my reverting your edits regarding the memory of St. Jonah: obviously it lived on for more than 21 years, because here we are talking about him. He has been glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church. There is nothing wrong or questionable about the wording of the article as it stands.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
When Kencis translated the text into English she automatically got the copyright to it in English. You are far too cavalier in your treatment of this matter. As for Jonah, "Though his life was short, his [Jonah's] memory endured long after his repose." is language coloured by personal feeling and not suitable for an encyclopaedia. The problem though is that when I rewrote this using NPOV language, you reverted it to its previous, clearly unacceptable state. You also deleted my request for a suitable ref - insisting that your one written 9-21 years later corroborated the fact. It didn't. Please, we are going round in circles. Does anyone else have a comment to help us? Malick78 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And her translation is a referenced source in the article, and I have actually already provided another reference to substantiate the statement you find so problematic. There is nothing contrary to NPOV to note that the memory of someone endured in the fond recollections of those who admired and loved them. That is a fact, and it is a demonstrable fact. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
On this point ("repose") I agree with Malick (essentially). The sentence as written is good prose, but not encyclopedic as "repose" as a synonym for "death" can be taken to have unwarranted connotations (not so much denotations, though, in this context). I would not have objected to "...long after his repose", myself, but ammending "Though his life was short, his memory endured long after his repose" to "...his memory endured long after" (simply deleting "his repose" as the time of his death is the referent from the preceeding clause) would be better language for the purpose of the encyclopedia. I try to insinuate some good prose occasionally but in general we have to be matter-of-fact, and leave the good prose to the referenced quotations. Pete St.John (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I changed the word to "death", though I think "repose" is a word with a long history of such usage, and there is nothing NPOV about it... however, I don't think the difference is worth disputing. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) Since nobody else seems to want to touch this one...
I think it's clear at this point that the issues go far beyond the conflict of interest presented by the pastor of St Jonah of Manchuria editing the article on Jonah of Manchuria. This is a POV war that encompasses many different articles, and the COI report is just one salvo. I think formal dispute resolution channels need to be followed; file a RfC on Frjohnwhiteford. If he's already been through one, then take it to mediation. This battle won't be won or lost here. Pairadox (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this new angle on this issue is a matter of retaliation for edits that Malick78 has not appreciated on my part. There is nothing in his previous edit history that indicate he has an interest in Orthodox Hagiography. He has obviously combed through my edit history to dig up this issue. I have addressed his reasonable concerns by modifying the article and providing proper references. There is no justification for escalating this, simply because one editor has gone on a fishing expedition, and found that when I was new to wikipedia, I did not dot every "i" and cross every "t". Those who raised this red herring have not gotten any where with it thus far, and there is no reason to believe that will change if it is escalated. Furthermore, the ones who have been guilty of active POV pushing should be the ones who have a RfC. No outside observer has yet pointed to an example of my pushing my own POV in the face of constructive attempts to improve the article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your cheek is amazing. I didn't have to comb through anything: I clicked to your talk page and saw a proud DYK message - and clicked on that. The resulting article used very strange language and that roused my suspicion. You call my concerns 'reasonable' then mock them as demands to "dot 'I's". Furthermore, some have raised concerns about your behaviour above, namely: Pairadox and EdJohnston. Malick78 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Malick, first, regarding "reasonable" vs "dot I's"; he said that your claims were reasonable, and he then responded by fixing the article. It's the subsequent escalation he views as "dotting i's". That reading from what he says just above seems clear, so the "cheek" sounds ad hominem to me. Second, then, the request for specifics sounds reasonable to me. That people have "raised objections" is not the same as specific examples. So by all means provide one or more. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I am distinguishing between your reasonable concerns, and what I would argue are simply contentious complaints. I have amended the article in response to the former, and responded on the talk pages to the latter. Those you name have not accused me of having a conflict of interest, nor have they accused me of pushing a POV. They made some comments about my use of sources, which I have endeavored to correct. There is a difference between doing good faith edits that require modification to wiki standards, and POV pushing. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not have referred this to Dispute resolution if I didn't have concerns that I thought would be better handled there. Pairadox (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have referred it... or that you suggested it be referred? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Suggested would be better wording. I have no intention of becoming involved beyond this page. Pairadox (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of this thread

It seems inappropriate to me for such an extended discussion to be occurring on WP:COIN. Let's remember that the definition of a conflict of interest, in our case, is that the good of Wikipedia is not a person's foremost motivation in editing. Though there are some legitimate criticisms of Frjohnwhiteford's edits on a content level, I think it is abundantly clear that he is innocent of this larger charge. Yes, he has strong opinions on certain topics due to his life circumstances, but that is true of many, if not most, Wikipedia edits and editors. I agree with CraigWyllie's analysis. It seems to me that Biophys and Malick78, who are engaged in ongoing content disputes with Frjohnwhiteford and are looking for an advantage, are throwing accusations at him to see what will stick. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The unusually long thread indicates a persistent problem. Honestly, I did not think that was a serious WP:COI problem, just like you. This COI claim was not submitted by me. But right now this seems to became a problem, since Frjohnwhiteford is doing a kind of crusade against several user who include critical materials about his Church (the RR warring with Malick78) or who criticize Alexius at a talk page of another article (filing a bogus RfC about Muscovite99 by Frjohnwhiteford). He also made personal accusations of me [21] because I made a casual sourced comment about a priest Potapov from his Church. When Frjohnwhiteford blamed me of inserting "lunatic fringe comments" in an article, I naturally provided more supporting sources, but he repeatedly deleted my comment at the talk page of Putin article. I knew several users who were banned from WP, but none of them dared to delete talk page comments of others.Biophys (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The crusade is coming from the other direction, and I would ask any objective reader to examine the libelous violations of WP:BLP which I deleted, in accordance with that policy. It has nothing to do with a conflict of interest, and everything to do with POV pushing on the part of Biophys, Muscovite99, and Malick78, who all evidently have axes to grind against the Russian Orthodox Church, and have been using a number of articles to push their POV. I should add that the BLP violation issue is being addressed on the appropriate notice board, and any outside help from admins would be appreciated.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Biophys, it seems to me that your contentiousness is at the center of the problem. Disputed claims should not be stated as fact, nor should they be given undue weight. Frjohnwhiteford has made only a few comments (such as the one you cite) which would prompt me to tell him to "cool down," but overall his response to your POV-pushing has been appropriately focused on the content. The RfC is not "bogus." Although I think it would have been better directed to WQA, Muscovite99 has in fact made inappropriate personal comments about Frjohnwhiteford that merited some form of intervention. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
And it keeps growing, and growing...
I agree that this thread needs to stop. Much of it shows that the core issue is not COI, but belongs in Dispute Resolution. If there are grievences against Frjohnwhiteford, valid or not, that is the proper venue to settle them. Any abuses of the system by other users would probably evidence themselves there as well. Pairadox (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cooliris

Resolved
 – The AfD ended with a No Consensus keep, and the COI-affected editor has not been active recently. EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User

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

Article

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

As becomes blatantly obvious upon a cursory examination of this pages "sources", austinshoemaker, the primary author of this article, is a founder and CTO of Cooliris, a clear example of WP:COI.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric4200 (talk • contribs)

He also hasn't edited for almost a year. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I know, but the article is up for AfD, and I thought it was worth mentioning the COI fact here. Eric4200 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Enverite at G&D's

Resolved
 – Enverite was determined to be a sock of User:PeaceThruSuperiorFirepower‎ and indef blocked. Pairadox (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Enverite appears to be the subject of his/her recent edits at G&D's. He/She is replacing information on the subject of the article with biographical details about Davis Roberts, and is ignoring requests to discuss the issue, preferring to engage in edit-war-like tactics. To avoid hitting 3RR I've ceased to revert his/her edits. Stannered (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

GATEWAY - The MU* Community

Resolved
 – Article was deleted at AfD. No issues remain for our consideration. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is not only showing a severe conflict of interest, but lacks distinct notability and POV issues. Largely this stems from the author of the article reverting any information that shows his claims are contrary, possibly due to personal involvement. Citations on the page are all directly from related sources (Electric soup is the web forum for Gateway), save for one from a Podcast that is simply an interview of the two people who run the very service the article is about. My citations were not much better given they are self-published, but they are logged information from a third party. I am not disputing the validity of my citations, I am disputing the fact that my citations, if incorrect, are just as at fault as the originals on the article page, and wish for community discussion on the topic of revision or simple deletion due to lack of notability and unbiased citations. Rubydanger (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    • This user has failed to prove anything. She is making slanderous comments instead. GreenJoe (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how revealing the self-promotional nature and conflict of interest in this article is slander. More the point, all of the citations found by yourself and other editors are invalid. I don't know why you are so passionate about this you refuse to let anyone touch your article. Rubydanger (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not my article. I'm just asking you to back up your claims. You haven't provided any proof, and the onus to provide proof is on you. GreenJoe (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GATEWAY - The MU* Community. The creator of the article, User:GreenJoe, has twice removed the {{COI}} tag from the article. If the deletion discussion ends with Keep, we would then need to do a more careful study of the COI issue. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Larry Mullins

Resolved
 – COI editor has requested that the article be deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Larry Mullins article was created by Larry Mullins and has been edited by Rentrabar (his company is called The RentraBar Group). He is obviously attempting to use this article to advertise himself as seen in this message and the fact that the article was created a day after he posted his resume on a job board. I tagged the article and did some clean up to it. It still needs a lot of work and I’m not sure if he meets WP:BIO. He won an Emmy (probably a regional emmy) and was National Correspondent/Producer for NBC News for a year. BlueAzure (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

British Airways flight 38

Resolved
 – Not a COI issue but rather a coincidence, methinks. MER-C 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a BA employee has edited this article, removing a portion in which a passenger was critical of BA after the accident, and added in a more pro-BA piece without a reference. I've tried finding out who it was, but without success. Could someone experienced in these matters take a look please? Mjroots (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The two things you mentioned were done by two different editors. MER-C 13:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

QlikTech

Resolved
 – Article deleted, no live edits since June 2006. MER-C 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User

Article

The article was largely written by Anthony Deighton, who is QlikTech's Vice President of Marketing.

Editor possibly editing his own article: Louay M. Safi

There's an editor Louay55 (talk · contribs) who is editing Louay M. Safi. I suspect this is the subject of the article himself. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

whoever he is, that article has a considerable amount of text copied from [22], and, even accepting his nopability, needs editing to reduce the extent to which is serves as advertisement for his views. DGG (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In this edit the subject appears to have removed well-sourced critical information from his own article. According to The Tampa Tribune, Louay Safi was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Sami Al-Arian terrorism case. The history of the case is a matter of public record, and is a legitimate topic for his article. I left a note on his Talk page inviting him to join the discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for inviting me to this discussion. Here is my reason for removing the reference:

The reference does not serve any purpose other than smearing Louay Safi. The editor who inserted it did not present it as part of a controversy. If the editor wants to put reference back, he must contextualize the reference by telling the whole story, which involves Steven Emerson’s unsucceful attempt to distort Safi’s positions and views, and Michael Fechter, the Tribune reporter and the author of the reference article, who joined Emerson's organization upon leaving the Tribune in May 2007.

Further, naming a person “unindicted co-conspirator” is in itself a controversial issue. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas held, in United States v. Anderson (1999), that the public naming of unindicted co-conspirators in pre-trial papers violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louay55 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if there are sources that show a fuller context of the reference of Safi's experience, I'm sure they can be added. On the other hand, [23] appears to be a valid source and to be presneted fairly and accurately. Just because a court/individual violated someone's rights, doesn't mean we can't report on that violation. For instance, if someone filed a lawsuit against Lee Iacocca accusing him of fraud, and a judge wrongly accepted the suit, we would still report that Lee Iacocca had been sued for fraud. If no subsequent news came out (wrongful dismissal, etc), our hands would be tied by a lack of sourced information from speculating on the conclusion. MBisanz talk 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Louay55's comment: If the editor wants to put reference back, he must contextualize the reference by telling the whole story.. is asking for something that is not required under Wikipedia policy. All we have to do is be sure we are correctly quoting our sources, and that we only obtain material from reliable publications. If you have further suggestions for how the article should be written, you are welcome to give your opinion on the article's Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is the need to contextualize an obscure reference. I have already placed the reference back within a larger context, in a section titled Criticism. The reference to the Tampa Tribune article is now number 14.EdPage (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Louay55 has the wording now as "Fichter alleged that Safi was listed as unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Al-Airan" since when do we question a news source stating a fact "Lou'ay Safi, identified in the indictment as Unindicted Co-Conspirator Four, asks Al-Arian whether the order affects him. " I know its Original Research, but could someone check the online court record? I'm gonna give it a shot, but being a New Yorker, I figure someone south of me might know local resources. MBisanz talk 02:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Octoshape

Resolved
 – Article has been rewritten to ensure neutrality. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I request uninvolved review of a series of edits I made to Octoshape recently. The edits removed or corrected unsourced (and untrue!) negative claims about our product.

I know that the recommended procedure is to describe the desired edits on the talk page and then wait for somebody else to do them, but I decided that it would be clearer to do than to describe, in light of the number of small changes as well as the low level of activity on the talk page. The edits may readily be undone in case I overstepped. I will, of course, be happy to discuss each change on the talk page if my edit summaries are not found convincing.

I don't think any of the individual edits are problematic; in each particular case our outside aims appear to be well in line with the interest of the encyclopedia. However, my selection of what to correct is inherently biased: If I were (hypothetically) to come across similarly unsourced positive claims about our product, I would not act to remove them. Therefore it might be desirable for somebody uninvolved to look over the current state of the article critically.

(This was first posted at Talk:Octoshape. I repeat it here due to the risk that it would go unnoticed on the not very active talk page). Octoshape (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll help. I will post my comments on the article talk page there. CraigWyllie (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Octoshape for bringing the issue here. The article on Octoshape appears to have no reliable sources. It shouldn't remain that way long-term. Besides that, I noticed three problems:

  • Reverts don't have references: The items that have been added and reverted above should depend on more than just a few editors' opinions, and certainly shouldn't depend on assurances from the developer that they are not a problem.
  • Terms of Service issues: You would expect that some published article could be found on whether P2P programs can get in trouble for violating Terms of Service, even if the article doesn't specifically mention Octoshape. A quick search comes up with this link noting that Verizon has banned P2P usage on EVDO. (Though the particular site I found is not a reliable source).
  • Performance claim lacking all references. One of the current sentences in the article looks quite promotional and is completely uncited: This is the trick behind octoshape, because it makes the grid 100% stable with no interruptions in the sound or video when peers logoff. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. For the record (not that I think you meant to imply otherwise): To the best of my knowledge, the creator of the article is not affiliated with our company, nor have anybody at the company ever edited the article except for the four edits logged under this username. We know that some of our end users are very enthusiastic about our technology; we have been assuming that the peacocky language in the article was inserted by one of them.
To avoid splitting the discussion, I suggest that we move to the excellent (but lonely) talk page for problems with the article that are not directly related to COI. I will post a response to your points there shortly. Octoshape (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to fix up the Octoshape article to sound more neutral. Since my last edit was on 15 January, and there have been no further comments either here or at Talk:Octoshape since my last edit, I assume this item can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Abacast article edited by an Abacast IP

Resolved
 – Article was deleted (no-one contested the prod). EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was a little surprised to see that we have a long article on Abacast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a web browser plug-in that's used to distribute streaming media. It appears that much of the content has come from 74.92.169.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as well as Jvosburgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both with virtually no editing outside the Abacast article. I'm not sure about the latter (registered) editor, but checking the conveniently-linked Whois report (which I like to do) shows that the IP address is assigned (by Comcast) to none other then Abacast[24].

I'm not sure if the article should be deleted (as it has 4 times), as their plug-in is used by the web sites of actual broadcast TV and radio stations[25] and its possible that some people wondering about the plug-in will come here looking for info. Jason McHuff (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Abacast article mentions Octoshape, curiously also on the the noticeboard at this very moment. If Octoshape is notable, as it appears to be, and Abacast is truly a competitor to Octoshape, then chances are that both articles should be kept. (The Octoshape people, over at Talk:Octoshape, have coyly declined to identify their competitors). Abacast is the newcomer that might still require more sourcing, in my view. If people can find no sources at all for Abacast it probably should be nominated for deletion. User:Jmchuff mentioned some companies that use Abacast, but they don't appear to be well-known. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The Abacast article has no sources at all, let alone reliable sources. I have proposed it for deletion. Anyone who has the time is welcome to add sources. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Not sure how I missed it, but User:Jvosburgh has said that he's with Abacast [26] (this leaves few non-Abacast-connected editors of the article) --Jason McHuff (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Living Faith Fellowship

Resolved
 – Article deleted by Nyttend under CSD G11: Blatant advertising. CounterFX (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I left a {{uw-coi}} notice for this new editor, hoping that the template is not really BITE-y and gives good advice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Myles Doupe

Resolved
 – Article deleted by Versageek under CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance. CounterFX (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arabian Prince

An editor appears to be turning this into a promotional article.See [27]. I don't have time to deal with this so am hoping that someone else can do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mozart Face Recordings

Resolved
 – Article deleted MBisanz talk 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gymnázium Vrútky

Resolved
 – Username blocked. Pairadox (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably no more COI than your average teenager editing their high school's article, but referred to WP:UAA anyway. Article itself is pretty neutral. Pairadox (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Selma Blair

Resolved
 – Article edited to include only reliable sources. Pairadox (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wishlab has been repeatedly blanking sections of the article, claiming to be Ms. Blair's representative. In particular, xe keeps removing a report that Blair was seen checking into rehab. I've already left a note on xer talk page about WP:COI and WP:3RR, but it's moving towards edit-warring. Can someone help straighten this out? shoy 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to the page, checked the source for the rehab report, and the source is actually comically bad: the actual link is a gossip site (unafiliated with Us Weekly) which is supposed to reference Us Weekly (somewhere) as reporting about the rehab. But the site on it's front page criticizes Us Weekly for fraudulent pregnancy rumors (!). That is, the source for the source, denies the reliability of the source. So there is just no way to call that chain of references reliable. So I deleted the item and requested on the discussion page that a citable reference be supplied if someone wants it back. Frankly I have to wonder about Shoy, but if there is no more edit warring I'm happy to forget this. Pete St.John (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Single-purpose vandalism. My deletion of the unsourced item got reverted by Kaya80, a single purpose account (see contribs). Can an admin look at this or should I post an AN/I? Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The edits by User:Wishlab are close to a COI violation, and User:Kaya80 has been repeatedly putting in that defamatory item about drug rehab that has no adequate source. Thanks to User:PeterStJohn and User:Pairadox for dealing with the inappropriate material. The version of the Selma Blair article as of this exact moment looks OK to me. If Kaya80 persists trying to insert the rehab thing, then a listing at WP:ANI seems appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The rehab information is fine to include but with better sourcing. Look here. Major media attention. Lawrence § t/e 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking closer at the search results Lawrence Cohen has provided, most aren't about Blair in rehab at all. The single mention that appears in a reliable source only mentions her in passing in an article about Lindsey Lohan. But I've now included it and am marking this thread as resolved since it's no longer about a COI. Pairadox (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It may not be a COI, but it's horrible editting. I didn't find even the passing mention of Selma Blair in the gossip article about Lindsey Lohan. That's totally not a reputable source and I reverted it. Pete St.John (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Then you didn't look hard enough. "The Promises facility has had some famous patients of late, with both Britney Spears and actress Selma Blair undergoing treatment at the luxurious complex." About the 13th paragraph down. Pairadox (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol COI dispute (Nraden and DebV)

Resolved
 – The issue has quiesced. Those concerned are obeying the COI guideline. There have been no further personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Book written by T. S. Wiley. Her husband, User:Nraden, has been involved in a COI dispute with User:Debv for quite some time, and issues resulting from this dispute have spilled over onto Wikiquette alerts, User talk:Cheeser1, User talk:Nraden, and my talk page. Nraden says that Debv is an outspoken critic of the Wiley Protocol, that she runs "hate sites" off-wiki and pushes her POV, and essentially blocks progress toward constructive edits. I have not seen much of Debv's side of this, but I've officially told Nraden by way of my talk page that I no longer want to be involved in the matter.

The latest point of contention is that Cheeser1 added a COI tag to the top of the Wiley Protocol article and a COI-user template to Talk:Wiley Protocol that calls out Nraden as a COI editor. Nraden believes that DebV should also be called out as a COI in this manner, but his attempt to add that tag was reverted. My personal take on this is that Nraden, being Wiley's husband, is clearly in COI - nobody seems to dispute that. I also believe that if Debv is as outspoken a critic as Nraden says she is, she would also be in COI, or at least should be watched for violations of WP:NPOV. I'm not in a good position to judge this conflict, so that's why I'm bringing it up here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Debv is ACTIVELY involved in an attempt to stop the Wiley Protocol. This goes beyond her website, wileywatch.org, she contacts media outlets and internet sites wherever Wiley appears. This is clearly COI. She has much more skin in the game than just a negative opinion. We agreed almost a year ago to not edit the article, agreeing that we were both COI. It has worked well, with the help of WLU, but Cheeser1 is meddling because I filed a WQA against him. I ask that you either remove my COI template, or reinsert the one Cheeser1 removed for Debv. Neil Raden (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For context:
What this boils down to is a long-standing feud between Nraden and Debv, which has obviously spilled over onto Wikipedia in the form of edit warring on the Wiley Protocol article, and is further spilling into back-and-forth fighting that's involving WP:WQA and other noticeboards. At this point, it's difficult for me to tell which of the ANs this issue really belongs in, since quite a few policies have been breached at this point, and it's caused (in my opinion) a lot of undue stress on several editors who have tried to help, myself included. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to remove the tag, even though I'm not one for the use of that tag. Seems like Nraden/DebV dispute needs to be escalated to ANI, or at least Nraden's persistent, tendentious behavior should be. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Then you should conclude that a COI template for DebV should be added too. She said, in her WQA complaint, "Both of us are obviously COI." Why don't you ask yourself why only one of us was singled out? Also, "tendentioius" is the same word Cheeser1 used just a few minutes ago. Is this a coincidence? Neil Raden (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm using "tendentious" in reference to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought I was "obviously" COI but looking WP:COI over again (it's been a while), it's not entirely clear to me whether I qualify. I suppose the "Campaigning" example would be the closest match. But it really doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I'm happy to limit myself to the talk pages of these two articles and let others decide whether any of what I bring to the table merits incorporation.
I'm not involved in the dispute over COI tags and don't wish to be. To me, the only outstanding issue between Neil Raden and me (here on Wikipedia) is the persistent personal attacks, and I'm pretty well resolved at this point not to respond to them. If they continue, I'll take the issue to the next level. Debv (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Limiting yourself to the talk pages, not responding to the personal attacks and using proper "no personal attacks" channels are very good decisions. Pairadox (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Close? On 28 January, after appropriate discussions Cheeser1 removed the {{COI2}} tag from the article. I notice that Nraden and WLU have been working on a revised version of the article in a calm manner. Both Nraden and Debv are continuing to observe the COI rules by staying off the article itself. The submitter of the complaint, KieferSkunk, is not inclined to do anything more with the issue. Since the previous unpleasantness seems to be dying down, is it time to close this? EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

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

Arion 3x3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has admitted to working in Homeopathy [28], but there is disagreement over the relevance of this issue with regards to his editing and discussion of the subject [29]. Clarification of how the policy applies here is requested. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - Homeopathic medicines, as well as many other medical modalities and therapies, are utilized at the clinic where I have worked for 27 years. In fact, homeopathic medicines are dispensed free of charge as an adjunct to other medical care, never as a primary treatment. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, if it's true that you make no money off of homeopathic treatments, that's certainly a mitigating factor. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
comment (to Arion) First, what wiki defines as homeopathy, and the way the term may be used at a particular facility, may be different. Second, placebos are sometimes administered, and the effectiveness of a placebo (they can be effective, e.g. in hysteria) can be affected by what it's called, e.g. a sugar pill would not have a beneficial placebo effect if it is called a sugar pill. The (mostly benign) practice of subterfuge in treating cases aggravated by hysteria or psychosomatics can confuse the discussion, as a practioner of subterfuge does not want to advertise himself that way, no matter if the purpose is benign (giving a sugar pill to an hysteric) or malign (defrauding the patient with quack medication). That said, Arion's point is well-taken as it stands, I don't mean to impugn their practice particularly. It might be helpful to give a particular example. Pete St.John (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My commentary on the talk page is directly opposed to that of Arion. That said, I do not believe Arion is editing with a COI. People who work in a field should be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia; their knowledge is invaluable. That is all he is doing. He's not pushing his practice or selling or trying to insert original research. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
In general, I agree with that, however I do feel that there is nevertheless the potential for problems. These mostly crop up when someone tries to edit in order to put their subject of expertise in a better light for reasons that have to do with what they stand to gain if it's presented that way. While Arion has certainly been arguing towards a more sympathetic view of Homeopathy, I would still agree that there's no COI seeing as he doesn't stand to gain from doing so. I'm quite willing to mark this case as resolved if no one has any further objections. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
comment (to the board) I do take issue with Arion's editing of the article, because he is a clear hindrance to any meaningful changes happening to the Homeopathy article. A cursory glance over the past few days of his edits show that he vehemently opposes classifying it as a pseudoscience (or even using the word) even though the a large group (I'd say 80% or so) of the editors at least agree that the word pseudoscience should be used in the LEAD (based on a ton of RS), even a homeopathic supporter. Though he has been warned about it, he has a habit of dropping a giant amount studies that support his position onto the talk page, which is a serious problem for two reasons. Firstly, these are all primary resources and including every single study ever performed that reaches a positive result for homeopathy is clearly not how things work. Secondly, in a talk page that has Mizabot set to archive everything older than 2 days, because of the vast amount of use, it sucks up valuable talk space. It seems that every time someone cites a secondary source (or a dozen) stating that homeopathy is not actually a science, Arion comes back with a few studies (primary sources) that say the opposite and then claims there is no consensus for the claim. I am sure we all understand how easy it is for primary sources to be misinterpretted, which is why they are not used nearly as often. Arion appears to be unable to distinguish between the two and the article is definitely suffering. If an editor who is deeply involved within a field can't edit objectively, then he is not an asset to the project. If he can edit dispassionately, welcome aboard. If not, well steps should be taken. Baegis (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I respectfully disagree with Baegis's description of my comments on the discussion page. I did post 3 short excerpts from 3 abstracts of laboratory research indicating there were definite measureable biological effects elicited by homeopathic remedies at the 200C level (no molecules left) which could not be explained away by placebo effects. This was to offset the massive amount of discussion about how there is no evidence that homeopathic medicines have any effect.

That said, I would hope that we could get at least one person with experience in photography to edit photography articles, at least one person with experience with chemistry to edit chemistry articles, etc. I hope you see my point. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

reply Peter Morrell is a renown homeopath and he has no trouble working with other editors to the betterment of Homeopathy articles. You still didn't address the problem of you constantly using questionable primary sources and completely disregarding the growing consensus. Baegis (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
reply even though ia lso dabble in homeopathy i msut agree with User:Baegis's assertions here. i myself have witnessed one instance where User:Arion3x3 selectively quoted form one of his own sources to portray a biased pro-homeopathy view, a movement that not only harms the article but discredts homeopaths who legitimately want to edit this article in good faith and following NPOV and all the equal weight principles that user:baegis mentioend above. (the instance in which I noticed that Arion3x3 was first accused of selective quoting is here. Smith Jones (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the numerous other places this topic is being scrutinized, I'm tempted to mark this done and leave this to those forums and editors to hash out. Pairadox (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that people here on both sides of this issue appreciate Peter Morrell. However, Peter is more of an expert on homeopathic history than homeopathic research, while Arion 3x3 has rightfully sought to educate people here about the V, RS, and notable character of basic science and clinical research in homeopathy. As such, he (and others) assert that homeopathy should not be in the category of pseudoscience. Considering the fact that there are hundreds (!) of double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials and basic science experiments, how many "pseudosciences" can make such a verified claim? One would think that everyone would welcome the references that Arion has provided, whether it be short or long. Instead, some editors are attacking the editor, not the content (WP encourages us to analyze the content primarily. Further, whether Arion prescribes homeopathic medicines or not should not determine if he is COI. If so, does this mean that every medical doctor cannot edit any medical topic? Please clarify this concern. Dana Ullman Talk 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile was recently banned from editing homeopathy under Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. There is an appearance that this conversation has been set up as a strawman argument. Some of the other sympathetic editors commenting above seem to have coordinated their comments with Inphophile in order to create the appearance of a consensus that does not exist. This thread is disruptive, and if this sort of thing continues, I will issue bans. Jehochman Talk 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Above said, there is not COI, because the editor is not promoting their own products or links. Jehochman Talk 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LACMTA Expo Line

Group FixExpo [30], created and headed by Damien Goodmon, is currently in a legal battle with the Expo Construction Authority [31], trying to stop the construction of the line (see, e.g., one of his latest legal filings [32], among the numerous).

It is highly unethical for FixExpo to make edits on the LACMTA Expo Line article, given its direct legal interest and lawsuit against the Expo Construction Authority, who is constructing the light-rail line.

Therefore, please do not allow edits by these two users (FixExpo and Damienwg) on the LACMTA_Expo_Line article.

Cheviotla (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is some inappropriate editing taking place at LACMTA Expo Line. I hope that User:Damienwg will make an appearance here to discuss the situation. The article's Talk page has a lot of recent discussion of the Conflict of Interest, but due to a scrambled time order, it is hard to follow the Talk page. I am surprised that we have such a large article on this topic. It seems to use lots of primary sources, which can lead to a confusing situation when there are conflicts going on. I hope that someone who has time can review the Talk page (and perhaps fix the time order of the postings) and can bring us more advice here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The COI issues should be discussed here rather than on the article talk page which has too many personal comments already. Overall, the article appears to be a battelground among activists on both sides of the issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not a "both sides" issue. Unlike the editors who are members of Light Rail for Cheviot and Friends 4 Expo, I'm interested in accuracy in the article. There is none in the article - simple advocacy. Just look at what Cheviotla who is a member of both organizations (but claims isn't) did to the neutrality tag. They arbitrarily removed it (which was placed by someone else) even though there was no consensus on the issue being resolved. The tag should be re-added, the article needs to be completely rewritten and until the issues are resolved the neutrality tag should remain. Further, Cheviotla should be issued a warning to not remove the tag and banned if they try to again. (Damienwg (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

—

Administrators:

Evidently the new editor on the LACMTA Expo Line article, Dnwh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is the same user as Damienwg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was the same user as Fixexpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that was blocked. Therefore, it has the same conflict-of-interest problem. I think the associated IP address should be permanently blocked to prevent this person (Damien Goodmon) from making edits on this page under different user names on behalf of his legal protests [33] with the California Public Utilities commision. Cheviotla (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If User:Dnwh and User:Damienwg are actually the same person, that is troubling, because there's no obvious need for Damien to use multiple accounts here. Dnwh's very first Wikipedia edit was to add a POV tag to this article. There is no reason why Damienwg can't continue to participate on the Talk page, so I don't see the case for blocking Damienwg. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Bikerfox

Resolved
 – Article was deleted at AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A self-styled internet celebrity, originally editing as Bikerfox, recently through IP 68.12.57.246. Contentiously engages in revert-warring over absurd claims, self-promotion, and resorts to vandalism when opposed. Similar behaviour exhibited on Frontflip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CounterFX (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Per etiquette, I have informed the said editor of this report, and also mentioned it on the Bikerfox talk page in case past editors would be interested in participating. CounterFX (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikerfox (2nd nomination). MER-C 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Freddy Moore

Though you were right to mention this at COIN, the further discussion which has occurred over at Talk:Freddy Moore#Possible Conflict of Interest indicates this editor is quite unlikely to be the singer himself. The article is not badly written and nobody (it seems) has been reverting this person's edits, which seem collaborative. The singer may not really deserve this much ink, but if so, it's up to some industrious person to rewrite the article. I suggest that we close this report and remove the {{COI}} tag from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the IP creator of the article and the named account are actually two different people. Looking at the IP contribution history[34] shows that the IP was editing both Demi and Freddy Moore's articles on 9 May 2006 until 22:54. Fgmoore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created just 6 minutes after that, and immediately started uploading pics for the Moore article. Even assuming the best, there is the fact that the majority of edits by Fgmoore (and Eroomgf) have been in relation to the various bands, people and albums that Freddy Moore has been involved with; Skogie (band)‎, The Kats‎, Boy (1980s band)‎, Dennis Peterson‎, Skogie and the Flaming Pachucos‎, The Nu Kats‎... well, you get the idea. I think there's a strong case for COI, if not on this article, then on many others. Pairadox (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think there's a real COI, then probably we should just rewrite the article to remove the excessive material. I had assumed that all this stuff was added by a fan. Almost nothing in the article has citations to online-accessible sources, so we would probably need to shorten it drastically. Nothing prevents Fgmoore from coming back with reliable sources, of course. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on the patterns, I'd call it likely. Given the sheer number, I'm not sure how to proceed with the follow-up. There's probably better than a dozen more than the ones I listed, included more bands, albums, songs and people. Pairadox (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park (and related pages) - JPLegacy

Resolved
 – The submitter and everyone who responded have agreed this can be closed. We don't see the link to jplegacy.org posing a COI problem. The intrinsic value of the link can be decided by others. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have some concern over whether or not the external link to Jurassic Park Legacy falls within the bounds of WP:COI, considering the fact that a significant contributor to the articles in question is the site's webmaster. However, being involved in an unrelated dispute between the site in question and another site (Jurassic Park Terror), I feel that any decision I make could be misconstrued as a personal campaign and so seek neutral opinion from the wider community at large before, or in lieu of, taking any type of direct action. --Dinoguy1000 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


First off let me comment that this issue had been resolved a long time ago. Wikipedia agreed to only allow JPL's link becuase JPL is the only Jurassic Park encyclopedia online. Most of the others, if not all, have since expired or have not attempted to place their link on wikipedia. JPT placed its link along with other JP related sites in an attempt to gain popularity through those who would be reading the JP article and would be interested to join their forum. They offered no encyclopedia information and as thus, Wiki decided to remove their links and list them simply as "fan links," which are not allowed.

All right, I was not aware that any previous discussion on this topic had ever taken place. Could you please provide me with a link to it? Also, stating that "JPL is the only Jurassic Park encyclopedia online" (emphasis mine) is nothing short of ignorant. Off the top of my head, I could point you to the Jurassic Park Wikia wiki. Also, I was making no statement as to the placement of JPT links. Personally, I feel that JPT probably shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia, unless an impartial third party gave a convincing enough reason for its inclusion. --Dinoguy1000 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur was the leader of JPL and many people were banned from the site and those people tend to congregate on Jurassic Park Terror. Their displeasure with the site has turned into an all out war on their part to discredit JPL and this is simply another attempt. Tyrannosaur has since stepped down from leadership of the site due to high stress in his life and becuase he is moving. There is no real conflict of interest except that on the part of JPT which has continuously flamed this very board and this very article, removing our link, removing information contained in the article, or changing links to redirect would be visitors to JPL to JPT, causing anxiety on the part of JPL. If there is any conflict of interest, it is by those who have asked you, an Admin of Jurassic Park Terror, to examine this.

While I do not deny the circumstances surrounding the "war" between JPL and JPT, and also freely admit that I am a JPT administrator, this is not another attempt at one-upsmanship on JPT's behalf. When I come onto Wikipedia to edit, I do so with the sincerity of any other editor, and I started this discussion because I felt there was the possibility of a conflict of interest. I assure you, no one else even hinted at me to start this - I doubt that most of JPT's members actually know enough about Wikipedia policy, and most of them would just resort to the same type of vandlism you mentioned above. And considering that I was originally planning to comment out the JPL link in lieu of further discussion, I believe you should give me the benefit of the doubt. Also, I hardly see why spamming JPT's link in place of JPL's should have caused any editor anxiety, since reverting such changes is a very simple and mundane process. --Dinoguy1000 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as Tyrannosaur's contribution to the article, if you check the history, you will find that his contributions have been well founded and are based solely in the want to articulately define cannon and non-cannon sources, thereby dividing the article into clearer sections.

Merely reading the article will simply prove that no jaded view meant to further JPL's influence on the community or garnish further popularity is expressed.

I was not at any time questioning the veracity, authenticity, and correctness of Tyrannosaur's edits. This started out as a genuine concern that there may be a conflict of interest in the link to JPL, given that Tyrannosaur seems to be a significant contributor to Jurassic Park-related pages. --Dinoguy1000 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that Jurassic Park Legacy has been approached by several Universal Licensed Companies to aide in different research and development opportunities both for props and exhibits and currently has contacts both in ILM and in the Universal Theme Parks so if there is a question of JPL's authenticity, Universal thinks highly enough of JPL to contact it and utilize it for the Jurassic Park franchise which speaks in and of itself of the authenticity of Jurassic Park Legacy.

--GoodMusician (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it is my own fault that I didn't know that, and I would be interested in seeing links for further information on this matter. --Dinoguy1000 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


As far as Links, I believe all the information is still contained on the original JP page. As far as JPL being the only encyclopedia, I stated as well that it's the only one that has attempted to place any link to itself on Wiki, which is all that's really relevant in this issue.

I must further ask, what is the question of Tyrannosaurs edits? You say there is a conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest is if someone who loved Tom Cruise kept going onto his Wiki page saying what a god he was. That's neither neutral nor accurate. Any Edit TY made wasn't done in such a way as to limit information, spread mis-information, or to attain fame, so I see no basis on which a conflict of interest is at all valid.

What is the question being asked becuase frankly, I see no conflict of interest. The whole point of wiki is for people to come on here and to update it. His knowledge of Jurassic Park is documented in every page of his site. If a man who knows what he's talking about cannot come on here, and edit Wikipedia and say "this is correct and the citation is here," then who can? --GoodMusician (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If my understanding of Wikipedia policy is correct (and I am certainly not making any claims on the subject), in general, it is considered a conflict of interest to reference yourself and/or your own work on Wikipedia. I was never suggesting that Tyrannosaur be barred from contributing to Jurassic Park-related articles, I was merely requesting the review and opinion of an uninvolved, unrelated third party about whether any conflict of interest existed, and if so, how it should be dealt with. —Dinoguy1000 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There are at least two articles to consider, Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park (film). Both articles include http://www.jplegacy.org as an External Link. I'm not impressed by the value of the link and if it were up to me personally, I would remove it. However that link has survived a long time on Jurassic Park (film) which is currently a featured article, and it had the link in it the whole time. So it's hard to come up with a focused COI argument for why the link doesn't belong. The link has (it seems) been reviewed by many people already, and it has survived. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. This is exactly the type of response I originally posted here to get - someone uninvolved with the issue, giving their own opinion on the matter. Unless anyone else has something to contribute to the discussion, I would be perfectly content to drop the issue in the face of prior review as EdJohnston pointed out above. —Dinoguy1000 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would impress Wiki, but apparently as stated, JPL's link has remained through both the original review and the further one for being a featured article. And in all fairness, Tyrannosaur may have been citing his website, but the website is compiled from many further sources documented on the site itself so perhaps it is a bit misleading and easy to think he's citing himself, but the reality is he's citing further evidence. Past that, I have nothing really further to add as well.--GoodMusician (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, on that note, this can be marked as closed or resolved or whatever, unless someone else wishes to comment first. —Dinoguy1000 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: Editorial process being dictated by followers

  • Osho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the editing and decision making process, particularly the inclusion of relevant factual information by others (generally from academic sources or news items)is being manipulated and controlled by two individuals; both of whom have had, or still have, affiliations with Osho International Foundation. It can be easily verified that said individuals are "Swamis" by doing relevant searches on the internet. They are intentionally frustrating the efforts of those who attempt to address serious NPOV issues that exist in this article Semitransgenic (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
One would assume
  • I suspect Semitransgenic is referring to me. It is a response to some reverts that I made to his previous edits. Semitransgenic has a deep dislike of cults and Osho (see edit history of subject), for instance, referring to him as 'Bagwash' above. This negative viewpoint skews the narrative of the article. Plus, as above, Semitrangenic makes some of his edits from an IP in order to bolster his earlier edits.
    I've always been open about my involvement and knowledge of Osho and the Osho movement (see my user page), that was 20 years ago and I'm quite capable of writing from a neutral point of view. jalal (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is about edit quality. I reverted the addition of one major chunk of text added by Semi (as did subsequently Jalal). The reason was that the text made a number of statements, purporting to be taken from reliable sources, which upon checking these sources were found to have been either made up or come from somewhere else altogether. For example, this applies to everything sourced to Carter: Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram, p. 63-64 in the edit reverted above. Pages 63 to 64 of Carter are available in Google Books. I copied Semi's text out and placed it on the discussion page, for further discussion. -- Jayen466 12:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Semitransgenic could provide some diffs to show how he thinks these editors have acted improperly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Bagwash? Actually, I didn't write that. Nor did I ever make up sources, pages numbers wrong, yes, the sources were all valid. Also, the accusation that I intentionally make edits from a different IP is false, I have on a number of occasions simply forgotten to log on (from as many as four different machines at my disposal), on other occasions I have been logged in but for some reason wiki had logged me out by the time I had submitted my edit.Check the history, if i was trying to do that why would I suddenly log in directly after an IP edit and use exactly the same writing/language style, not to mention that the IP logs and my username would share the same edit topics over time. If I wanted to "bolster" edits, I would employ a different technique.
As for evidence, is was provided, but user Will_Beback removed it. Jayen then made it clear that he had been a member of Osho's commune - see discussion - and he has recently used the title Swami; and has elsewhere proclaimed his love for Osho.
Jalal, after consistently denying the inclusion of relevant material (see below) states "we have a page for the Osho movement" - who's "we"?
In the section entitled Legacy I included the following:
Recently, the resorts management instigated a so-called "de-Oshoisation" of the commune. Hundreds of pictures of Osho, which earlier greeted visitors, were removed from the premises. A senior member of the management team has openly declared, in a New York Times interview, that Osho’s pictures were removed because new visitors to the resort found them off putting. In response to this move, former spokesperson for Osho, Chaitanya Keerti, stated that the removal of Osho’s pictures was part of a deliberate plan to emphasise the "resort" aspect of the facility and downplay the commune’s association with Osho.Other allegations regarding the "unpalatable" rampant commercialisation of the Ashram have been made and Keerti has said: "Osho wanted the Commune to be a resting place for the spiritual seeker. Now it is called the Zen Resorts Pvt Ltd and anyone who can pay Rs 1,900 a night can stay there."; the suggestion being that some believe Osho's spiritual legacy may be under threat.
The above paragraph was entered immediately after mention of the Osho International Foundation Resort and serves to elaborate on its status, in the context of it being an aspect of "Osho's Legacy". It is sourced from two The Times Of India stories, one of which is entitled "Osho's spiritual legacy under threat". Jalal reverted this a number of times and then stated "we" have a page for the Osho movement, as he feels it belongs there and is not fitting for Osho's biography. I fail to see why the above paragraph does not relate directly to the Legacy section.
I would go further, by saying that since I've started pushing the NPOV policy on this article Jalal and Jayen have "tag teamed" on edits to try and limit the inclusion of what they see as "negative" material.
I also invite doubters to compare the current page with the page that Jayen submitted for peer review (which was a hagiographic fan page essentially). There is a marked difference in terms of a balance of information but the tone is still incorrect for an encyclopedic article. The inclusion of relevant material that Jayen has intentionally avoided using is remarkable (he had all the information, please see the discussion history for evidence of this, he just refused to use it, which I allege was because of his affiliations). Now that the matter is being pressed he is changing his tack, one only needs to look at the edit history to see this.
However, he still nit picks everything, and is very controlling of edits - with wording always written to down play any "negative" connotations. Damage limitation is clearly at work here.
Finally, I fail to see how my edit history demonstrates a deep dislike of cults, that is a moot point. I dislike the way religious groups present falsehoods as absolute truth and then intentionally hinder objective inquiry, hence the NPOV issue I raised for the Osho article. Wikipedia is not the place for hagiography, that is my position. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, in relation to the material Jayen refered to, the chronology was inaccurate in the edits I made, this has to do with my lack of insight in this area but the material presented was correctly sourced. One section, to highlight Jayens selectivity, was taken from a book (Urban) that he had also used. This is the material: By this time the community had also come under serious investigation by the U.S government, specifically around the issue of the interlock of the Rajneesh Church and the city of Rajneeshpuram, and it's claim to tax-exempt status (in 1986, the state attorney general finally decided that Rajneeshpuram violated the church state separation clause of the Constitution). Osho and his disciples had also come under investigation for their various criminal activities - which included, among other charges, counts of electronic eavesdropping, immigration conspiracy, lying to federal officials, harboring fugitives, criminal conspiracy, first-degree assault, attempted murder, burglary, racketeering, and arson.[24]. This is taken verbatim from Urban, who references Carter; just as Jayen had used a section, verbatim, from Urban. Jayen then inferred that Osho was never under investigation for criminal activities at Rajneshpuram, but this is a patently false assertion.
Another sentence: The group very soon ran into difficulty with the local community regarding land use laws and over time became increasingly antagonistic towards it's American neighbors supported by Latkin, also removed.
Another one: They clashed first with the local residents of Antelopes peaceful retirement community, whom they attempted to displace and push out using terrorist tactics. These began initially with activities such as dumping animal parts on the lawns of local officials and then escalated, in an attempt to effect the outcome of county elections,[24] to a bioterror attack on the citizens of The Dalles, Oregon, using (salmonella)[25]; an incident that resulted in the poisoning of seven hundred and fifty individuals and which is one of only two confirmed terrorist uses of biological weapons to harm humans [26] supported by Carter.
I was then accused of inserting "propaganda" by Jalal. I did not conduct the above studies, I did not write the reports, however, this information comes from authoritative sources, that is beyond dispute.
Another example, this paragraph went from: In mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (he suffered from asthma, diabetes and severe back problems). After a brief spell in Montclair, New Jersey,[21] his followers bought (for US$6 million) a 64,000-acre (260 km²) ranch in Wasco County, Oregon, previously known as "The Big Muddy Ranch", where they settled for the next four years and legally incorporated a city named Rajneeshpuram.

to: On 10 April 1981, having discoursed daily for nearly 15 years, Osho entered a three-and-a-half-year period of self-imposed public silence,[25] and satsangs (silent sitting and music, with some readings from spiritual works such as Khalil Gibran's The Prophet) took the place of his discourses. Then, in mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (he suffered from asthma, diabetes and severe back problems). Though ill health is cited by his followers as the reason for Osho's immigration, others attribute the move to the various conflicts that had marred the period preceding his departure from Pune.[26]

to: By 1981, Osho's Ashram hosted 30,000 visitors per year.[32] On 10 April 1981, having discoursed daily for nearly 15 years, Osho entered a three-and-a-half-year period of self-imposed public silence,[28] and satsangs (silent sitting and music, with some readings from spiritual works such as Khalil Gibran's The Prophet) took the place of his discourses. Then, in mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (apart from his other health issues, he now suffered from a persistent and very painful back problem).[33] The move to America seems to have been a unilateral decision on the part of Osho's secretary, Ma Anand Sheela, who wished to ensure the availability of medical facilities in the event of any further deterioration in Osho's health.[34][33] Others attributed the move to the various conflicts that had marred the period preceding his departure from Pune.[35] There is, however, ample evidence that Osho had not intended to reside permanently in the United States.[36]
So where is the ample evidence? A page number in Fox? (which, until pushed, was Jayen's primary source, other than Osho books, for the entire article)
Yet we have in Urban, and elsewhere, the following I am the Messiah America has been waiting for. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, upon his first arrival in the United States
There's more, I enter this: In March 1984 Rajneesh prophesied the death of two thirds of humanity from AIDS, the "spiritual disease." As a result, sannyasins were required to wear rubber gloves and condoms while making love and to refrain from kissing.[37][38] Osho at this time held that an apocalyptic future was inevitable declaring that "...all the causes for a third world war have already happened.There is therefore only a very remote possibility that the conflict itself will not take place. It would take something totally unpredictable-such as, for example, contact with an intelligent life form from another Galaxy-to change the direction in which humanity is heading...the third world war...will begin sometime between 1993 and 1999."[39]Osho maintained that "Rajneeshism" was in essence a Noah's Ark of consciousness thus positioning himself as the savior of those who chose to follow his path[40]
then becomes: In October 1982, an article in the Rajneesh Foundation International Newsletter announced that Osho had said an apocalyptic future was now inevitable, declaring that "... all the causes for a third world war have already happened. There is therefore only a very remote possibility that the conflict itself will not take place. It would take something totally unpredictable – such as, for example, contact with an intelligent life form from another Galaxy – to change the direction in which humanity is heading ... the third world war ... will begin sometime between 1993 and 1999."[41]
In 1983, Sheela announced that Osho had predicted the death of two-thirds of humanity from AIDS.[42][43] As a precaution, sannyasins were required to wear rubber gloves and condoms while making love and to refrain from kissing.[44][45] This was widely seen as an extreme overreaction, as AIDS was not considered a heterosexual disease at the time and the use of condoms was not yet widely recommended for AIDS prevention.[43]
A book entitled "Rajneeshism" was published by Sheela in 1984, claiming that Rajneeshpuram was in essence a "Noah's Ark of consciousness," a "still centre in the midst of the cyclone" – in short, a safe haven for those who chose to follow Osho's path.[43]
Yet in Urban we have this: Bhagwan prophesied that by the end of the 20th century man would either die in a third world war or man will take . . . a critical quantum leap . . . and become a new man . . . 1993 would be the beginning of World War Three . . . this would destroy civilization, except a few Rajneesh communes which would give a start to the new world.
Above we see an example that is prevalent amongst Rajneesh followers who write about their guru, Sheela is widely used as a scapegoat,when she says something it is "a claim", so that it casts doubt in the mind of the reader as to whether or not the Bhagwan actually said such a thing. I am highlighting this because it has become apparent to me from reading into this subject that there are a number of rifts in this movement, they are actually divided on a number of issues, yet they all claim allegiance to Bhagwans "vision". Anyone observing this saga from the outside can see that there are many contradictions, many falsehoods, and many doubts as to what did or did not happen, what was or was not said. Jayen and Jalal have a deep emotional connection to their guru so are overtly defensive when it comes to edits they see as being too "negative".
I can provide many more examples. And there will be many more inclusions of material that they perceive as being "negative".Again, I ask anyone who doubts that there is a religiously biased agenda at play to simply look at the article Jayen sought to have passed for peer review and compare it with what we have now. The result is an example of NPOV enforcement but there are still issues to be resolved. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick correction regarding the review history of this article. Wikipedia Bureaucrat User:Nichalp reviewed this version of the article in May of last year; his comments are here. The result was a B-class assessment. The recent peer review was initiated by User:TheRingess, who described the article as a "solid B-class article". Regarding bias -- while some of your edits have added value, and introduced some worthwhile sources, others struck me as examples of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing that took considerable liberties with sources. One example was given above, where three times you indicated a source that had absolutely no relation to what you were inserting. Another is here. The source referred to is this. This clearly attributes the statement you inserted (the funniest joke ever played on our pathological consumerism) to Tom Robbins (not a follower of Osho), whereas your edit claims it was "The justification provided for such extravagance". The next edit is more of the same WP:OR – it is simply not what the source states. -- Jayen466 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
OK
A) Are disputing that Rajneesh achieved notoriety for the number of Rolls he had?
B) would that be the same Tom Robbins who is described in the very same article as "an outspoken supporter who once called Osho's fleet of Rolls-Royces the funniest joke ever played on our pathological consumerism and deemed Osho the greatest spiritual teacher of the 20th century? Also we see Tom Robbins here in an Osho International Foundation video talking about Rajneesh.
C) your original link for the Rolls item states "Americans became unbelievably incensed over the brilliant satire on their cultural values". Also, we have, on page 380 of "Osho Rajneesh and His Disciples: Some Western Perceptions", in a paper by Susan Palmer, entitled "Charisma and Abdication: A Study of the leadership of Bhagwan Shree Rajnessh" this: "The Rolls Royce collection was a wise investment of the commune's money but explained to a skeptical public as "a sign of the great love between master and disciple," or, alternatively, as a "joke": Bhagwan is like a child who delights in his toys. He has 92 Rolls Royces, the most expensive car in the world, and yet he . . .can only drive one
D) We have over on the peer review discussion a dissenter (Curt Wilhelm VonSavage)who points out the following:
  1. It seems as if distasteful information about "Osho" is pushed down into a "Controversy and criticism", whereas this info would be better off incorporated chronologically into the article itself, and expanded upon, instead of briefly mentioned in passing in couple lines.
  2. The immigration violations are covered in one sentence. This was a major United States Federal Government investigation. This needs to be elaborated upon, instead of just skimmed over as if this was a minor incident. See [35], and [36], [37] for some more info that is barely covered in the article at all.
  3. Several legal cases and cases from United States Federal courts are not covered at all. These should at the very least be mentioned and summarized within the article. To name a few notable ones:
    • United States of America v. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, et al.
    • Rajneesh Friends International v. United States
    • Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International
    • State of Oregon v. City of Rajneeshpuram -- This one was a landmark case involving a discussion of a potential violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  4. In addition to the bioterrorism attack, the first in United States history, which is only covered in eight words of the entire article, the other incidents listed briefly, (serious and criminal misconduct by the commune's management (including conspiracy to murder public officials, wiretapping within the commune, the attempted murder of Osho's personal physician), conspiracy to murder a United States attorney is not even mentioned or discussed at all.
  5. In summation, coverage of the above extremely controversial issues is glossed over, and barely discussed. These sections of the article are grossly in need of expansion, unless editors wish for the article to read like a praising hagiography piece which lauds over its subject and skims over unimportant details like conspiracy to murder federal officials, and bioterrorism, all of which are heavily covered and available in both government sources, books, media/news, and reputable websites.

Semitransgenic (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(After editing conflict) I have already mentioned elsewhere that Osho was not accused of any of the crimes Cirt refers to. The crimes in question were committed by Sheela and her cronies in 1984, and remained undetected until a year later, when Osho convened a press conference (16 Sept. 1985), came forward with evidence and asked the U.S. authorities to investigate. There is no doubt that had he not done so, these crimes would not have come to light. The salmonella incident e.g. had been attributed, by the official investigators, to food handlers' lack of hygiene. See 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. -- Jayen466 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Re Urban: This was discussed on the Talk:Osho page. Semitransgenic reverted the insertion of this sentence with the edit comment revert: not a source quote. strongly biased POV. I then placed the verbatim from Urban on the talk page, for reference. Despite Semi's allegation of "not a source quote", there is in fact very close agreement (not literal agreement, that would be a copyright violation) between what I inserted and what the source says. (Btw, this edit was a copyright violation.) -- Jayen466 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for content disputes (or soapboxing). Please discuss content on the article's talk page or in some form of dispute resolution. Pairadox (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is supposed to be a discussion of Conflict of Interest. I'm still not clear why the tag was put on the page. That has not been clarified by the kilobytes of material posted above. Unless it refers to ST's CoI? jalal (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply doing what I was instructed to do by admin Semitransgenic (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So let's talk Conflict of Interest then. What is your interest in Osho? You have no interest in any other biography in Wikipedia. You could have edited Einstein, Rev Paisley, Satya Sai Babha... anyone of thousands of other interesting, fascinating people here in Wikipedia. But you didn't, you went straight to the Osho biography. You've put a phenomenal amount of effort and editing time into the page, some of it good. You've done research. You've even researched me! So what is it that drives you? Isn't it about time you declared exactly what you're interest is in this little project?
In my case it's clear. I've met Osho, I have a lot of respect for him, it's interesting for me to work on his biog here. But you, you're a bit of a puzzle... jalal (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

dude, I've made my position clear, and I only have so much time on my hands, I've tackled Sai Baba elsewhere using other means, I'm familiar with the controversy surrounding him, also interested in B. Premanand's debunking work in India etc. It was by chance that I came across the oshso page on wiki, and once I saw it, I thought "this is a bunch of POV BS", so got stuck in, if I put my mind to something, I get absorbed, especially when avoiding the real work I'm supposed to be doing, and more so when there is opposition, research is easy, it's all on the net, also have access to JSTOR, so pulled stuff from there, there's really not much to it actually, I'm simply a random glitch in the system. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Riiiggghhht.... well, I'm less than convinced. We'll put "wannabe guru-buster" then :-) That explains your strong POV issues with regard to the subject matter. But I don't think there is any Conflict of Interest. Unless you plan on taking up a career as a guru-buster.jalal (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What convincing do you need? it really is all on the net, did you know that noby guy had you pasted up there like that? should be more careful about your cyber trail, as I said, sometimes I will do anything to avoid real work, sitting at a PC all day can easily take one on unusual tangents, this is the latest one. Of course I am interested in the mystical tradition, otherwise I wouldn't bother, and yes I have my opinions regarding authenticity, that would be my main POV, but facts are the important thing. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've no need to "be careful about my cyber trail" because I've nothing to hide. I've been on the internet since it's birth, before that fido net and bulletin boards. I live on the net... but this is not the place to discuss that. If you wish to discuss this, and the search for facts, any further, leave a note for me on my talk page. Otherwise, I think we are finished here. jalal (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The page Talk:Osho is very confusing right now, due to all the charges flying around about people misquoting the sources. I doubt that any of the editors mentioned above will come under severe criticism for COI if it appears they are sincerely helping to create a neutral article. If it is just a matter of quoting sources correctly, that sounds like it should be a doable task, so I'm not sure what all the difficulties are on the article Talk page. It seems there is a lot of incivility on the Talk page, and the need to address the problems in a more calm manner is something that admins may be able to enforce if the parties themselves can't work in a more orderly fashion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Osho has calmed down a bit. The same people who exchange barbs here (Semitransgenic and Jalal) seem to be collaborating somewhat on the article Talk. Since the only remedy I can envision (short of letting the status quo continue) is to ban both of them from the article, this suggests that we may as well close the COI report. Does anyone request that it stay open? If so, what remedy do you propose? EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think EdJohnston is mistaken in his assessment, Semitransgenic and Jalal collaborating? don't take this the wrong way but can you please present evidence to support this claim? Also, the questions that have been raised regarding the repeated exclusion of relevant material has not been addressed, yet you propose banning Semitransgenic from the article because he has highlighted this and other questionable edits. BTW who exactly was Jalal referring to when he said "we have a page for the Osho movement", there has been no response to this. The rationale behind this decision seems unclear. One admin person ushers the disupte here after advising this on the discussion page, and now, without any serious consideration given to the claims EdJohnstons solution is to simply ban people from the article based on an inaccurate assessment? Wouldn't it be more effective to transfer to Dispute resolution if you consider the COI issue moot? However, I propose that the COI banner remains on the page until a genuinely NPOV biography emerges. If that happens then the COI and NPOV banner can both be removed. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW who exactly was Jalal referring to when he said "we have a page for the Osho movement" - "we" = Wikipedia jalal (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?Semitransgenic (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alison Lawton

For anyone looking here, Mindsetmedia (talk · contribs) has identified himself as having been asked by Alison Lawton to "spearhead the description on her wikipedia page." I haven't decided the full merits of his edits, but the present version of the article is clearly a fluff piece. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User Shadow600 posting mentions of Esther Lederberg everywhere

This editor has been relentless in adding material about Esther Lederberg (1922-2006) to articles (about 50 edits so far). Though Lederberg appears notable enough to have her own article, mentions of her are being added in places that aren't justified, in my view. In this edit User:Shadow600 added mention of Esther Lederberg as a 'good friend' of Seymour Benzer, expressing the opinion that Lederberg should have won the Nobel Prize.

In nearly all cases, the newly-added Lederberg material is cited only to a personal self-published site, http://www.estherlederberg.com, which expresses grievance about the lack of sufficient appreciation for Lederberg's work. This editor can't be Lederberg herself, who is no longer alive, but could be a relative. The web page is copyrighted by someone named Matthew Simon. A New York Times obituary for Lederberg indicates that Matthew Simon was her husband. I'm leaving a message for User:Shadow600 asking him to join this discussion. All the new material that is not referenced to a reliable source may have to go. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston raises a number of interesting points. I'll respond to them in order.
(1) "Mentions of her are being added in places that aren't justified, in my view."
The Esther Lederberg Memorial Web Site contains scans of literally hundreds of photos of friends and professional colleagues of Esther Lederberg. In the process of creating the section of her Wikipedia article that lists just a handful of her colleagues, I checked to see if each one had a Wikipedia article of their own. Where applicable, I linked each name to their Wikipedia page.
I saw my action more like a 'cross-referencing' ('posting' a note about them on Esther's page, and then a corresponding note about Esther on their page), than an intrusion. To me, it was just good information architecture.
(2) "In this edit, Shadow600 added mention of Esther Lederberg as a 'good friend' of Seymour Benzer, expressing the opinion that Lederberg should have won the Nobel prize."
What I actually wrote, regarding the Nobel Prize, is that "Esther also did not receive the Nobel Prize, though many people thought she should have received it."
(3) "In nearly all cases, the newly-added Lederberg material is cited only to a personal self-published site, http://www.estherlederberg.com, which expresses grievance about the lack of sufficient appreciation for Lederberg's work."
This particular "personal self-published site" is the most authoritative, complete web site about Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg, on the internet.
Esther Lederberg died only 14 months ago (11/11/2006). This web site is being constructed in parallel with the archive of her extensive work. Neither is yet complete. Thus -- at least for the time being -- the web site serves not only as a memorial to Esther Lederberg, but as an inventory and map of the actual information (papers, photographs, letters, awards) that may be found in the archive.
It is claimed on Esther Lederberg's memorial web site that every item represented on the site is either an analog to a real, physical item in Esther Lederberg's archive, or a representation of a printed paper already in the public domain.
There is no other web site that provides the detailed information found in Esther Lederberg's archive. Thus, this 'personal self-published site' is the most complete site currently in existence.
If there are any questions about the veracity of any of the materials on www.estherlederberg.com, I recommend you contact the webmaster for that site, Matthew Simon. You should be prepared to show evidence for your charges. (Wikipedia should not invite a publicly-documented charge of censorship.)
(4) "The web page is copyrighted by someone named Matthew Simon. A New York Times obituary for Lederberg indicates that Matthew Simon was her husband. I'm leaving a message for User:Shadow600 asking him to join this discussion."
I would prefer to maintain my privacy, if you don't mind. But I can assure you that I am NOT Matthew Simon. I am not a relative of his or Esther's. In fact, I'm not even a "him".
(5) "All the new material that is not referenced to a reliable source may have to go."
I agree. Any new material that is not referenced to a reliable source SHOULD be excised. However, I can't think of a more reliable source of information about Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg than her own archive. Can you?
Shadow600 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow600 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you affiliated with that website? Pairadox (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not affiliated with that web site (http://www.estherlederberg.com). Shadow600 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have examined the article and--here--have evaluated to some extent based on my own academic knowledge of the subject. the article exemplifies represents some of the difficulty with COI--whether from a friend, colleague , or relative. This is supposed to be an article about her, not a tribute to her. With respect to sourcing, the rule is straightforward: we do not use archival material, we use self-originated material only for uncontroversial biographical details, and we prefer sources in third-party published sources. A good deal of the article is devoted to a defense of her importance, not a presentation of it, and this is not the appropriate tone; neither is a long discussion of the difficulties of women in science, especially those with more famous spouses. It's a very real topic, and what is said is in my opinion correct, but not an appropriate part of the article. I have done some editing, and will be doing some more. I'll be glad to discuss the details on the article talk page. I also agree with EdJ's removal of the paragraph from the article on Benzer. It is really peripheral. I recommend to shadow a careful examination of WP:COI, and WP:RS. DGG (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, three questions:
1. You say "This is supposed to be an article about her, not a tribute to her."
What portion of the article are you calling a tribute, and why? And a 'tribute' as opposed to WHAT? Are you saying this is not truly factual information?
2. You say "we do not use archival material, we use self-originated material only for uncontroversial biographical details, and we prefer sources in 'third-party' published sources."
I didn't originate any of the material I cite. It was all originated independently by others -- in many cases, before I was even born.
Why is http://www.estherlederberg.com not considered to be a 'third-party' source? All the artifacts it displays (including a number of letters written by third parties) were created by others, and are all verifiable in physical fact. (They are all documented parts of Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg's Stanford archive, duly checked in and catalogued by a Stanford employee.)
Can you give me an example of a good, relevant 'third-party' source on Esther Lederberg, that would serve in place of all the 'self-originated' material you say I cite? Other than the third-party sites I already mention, that is. (To the best of my knowledge, all the journal articles I cite are long since in the public domain, as is the Brandeis University scientific.legacies site.)
3. You say "I also agree with EdJ's removal of the paragraph from the article on Benzer. It is really peripheral."
If you do that you're denuding the Benzer page of most of its content.
What about that editor's statement that Benzer should have won the Nobel Prize? I see no third-party attribution there, and yet that statement still stands. Isn't that a defense of Benzer, or a tribute? Why is that okay? Are there different criteria for Seymour Benzer than there are for Esther Lederberg? And if so, why?
(By the way, I'm not disputing that Seymour Benzer should have won the Nobel Prize.)
Shadow600 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the place to debate content; use the article talk page for that. This is to determine a potential Conflict of interest.
You say you have no connection to http://www.estherlederberg.com. Is there ANY connection that would present a conflict of interest, e.g. family member, protégé, colleague, employee of any of the above? I notice that still hasn't been addressed. Pairadox (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't addressed because it wasn't asked. (In the real world I am, among other things, a technical writer. Hence, VERY literal. It drives me crazy when computer manuals advise users to "HIT Return.")
But since you ask:
I am not a member of Esther Lederberg's family, a protege of Esther Lederberg, a colleague of Esther Lederberg, or a former employee of Esther Lederberg.
I am not a member of Matthew Simon's family, a protege of Matthew Simon, a colleague of Matthew Simon, or an employee of Matthew Simon. (Actually, I believe the guy is retired.)
I'm currently engaged in a serious investigation of Wikipedia Guidelines. I don't expect to create or be involved in further trouble on this score.
Henceforth, I'll take content issues to the article talk page.
Shadow600 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you responded to the examples, but left the core question unanswered. To reiterate: Is there ANY connection that would present a conflict of interest? Pairadox (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No, there is not. Shadow600 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Shadow600 has denied some of the obvious real-life connections that are treated at this noticeboard. However this user is still busy adding the self-published personal site http://www.estherlederberg.com as a reference for factual claims to a variety of different articles. This is *not* a reliable source for any factual claims. I'm requesting a consensus of the editors here that this site be removed from all the articles Shadow600 has added it to.
Another issue that may of wider concern to administrators is that Shadow600 is making troubling changes to the article on Joshua Lederberg, the biologist who shared the 1958 Nobel prize with Edward Tatum and George Beadle. Joshua is the ex-husband of Esther Lederberg, and since he is still alive our rules about Wikipedia:Biography of living persons apply to any changes to his article. I draw this edit to your attention. Here is a section from it:

References to Joshua Lederberg's accomplishments (including those claimed by the National Library of Medicine and others) must be examined with great care. Citations are often missing. When references are provided, names of other participating researchers are explicitly excluded. When photographs announcing discoveries are provided, they are from entirely different events. Such photographs exclude other researchers who either made the discoveries or were co-discoverers with Joshua Lederberg.

How do people feel about Shadow600 adding attacks on the conduct of Joshua Lederberg to that man's article? The word 'dishonesty' is used in the title of the self-published link that has been added as a reference. Before any talk of blocks is introduced, I guess it should be observed that reverts of defamatory material don't count toward 3RR. I'll wait to give a chance for response from others before I do any edits of this article myself. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Shadow600 replies for what she hopes is the last time:

I agree that I got carried away with changes to Joshua Lederberg's page. I have not reversed anything you or other editors have deleted from that page since that time, because I see that I overstepped.

So really, I think the remaining energy on those changes, all these days later, is quite misplaced.

I read your "self-published" jibe as a commentary on the 'ransom note' quality of much of the Esther Lederberg Memorial Web Site, and I understand it. It's a pity that the site looks so ANGRY. Still: what does one do, when sites by grieving spouses, have scans of real, honest-to-god artifacts, that aren't available online anywhere else?

No, don't answer that. This has really gone on far too long already.

Shadow600 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Atma Singh

Article is listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atma Singh. Pairadox (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Howson autobiography?

I suspect that User:MichaelBergman is in fact Frank Howson, the user is the creator and a major contributor to the Howson article. I posted a note at WP:BLPN about a week ago. The following interchange has occurred on my talk page (I have cut and pasted it):

BLPN

Hello. It's been so long since you placed your note at WP:BLPN about Frank Howson, that I thought I'd duplicate my reply here. :) I'll be watching your talk page if you'd like to discuss it with me further.

I have tagged the article with {{COI2}} and left template {{Uw-coi}} at the talk page of the editor. I am unfamiliar with the subject, but as a regular contributor trust that you will be keeping an eye on it. :) If you feel the problem persists, you may have better luck addressing it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where volunteers are more accustomed to dealing specifically with this issue. I know it recommends at the top bringing BLP issues here, but I do see other autobiographies addressed on that page. I suspect (though I'm not sure) that they mean a COI where an editor is deliberately defaming the subject of the article rather than promoting him. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind response, my concerns relate to both self-promotion within the Frank Howson article but also the editor's contributions to linked articles. To my eye they tend to be non-NPOV and poorly referenced & I have corrected some that I felt were too extreme: other editors have done likewise. Until recently, I was unaware that the editor was almost certainly the subject of this article and thus had particular personal biases for or against living individuals in other articles. With this hindsight, more of his contributions are possible non-NPOV statements and they still remain, both here and elsewhere. Since I have also been a contributor to many of the same articles I felt that I should not delete nor modify his contributions due to possible bias.
I suggest looking at the article's Page History starting with 14:30, 9 August 2007 version, just before I started editing the article: it was due to be deleted! I put in a lot of effort to wikify this article in good faith perceiving the content to be notable but poorly formatted. Check the article's version on 00:21, 21 September 2007 after most of my changes had been implemented. I did contribute a few more times attempting to obtain a photo of Mr. Howson for the infobox but no usable image was available however consider: Image:Frank Howson.jpg uploaded by the editor and which I used for the article but was subsequently deleted. I pointed out on the editor's talk page (on 11:41, 25 September 2007, before due date of deletion had occurred) that it was a good image but that it was the same as that on Mr. Howson's MySpace page: I believed it had been taken off the page without permission but the editor may have been able to provide evidence of such permission.
Now, however, I suspect Howson of writing almost all of the content of the article - I concede that he has a phenomenal memory (or has kept very good notes): I have been able to verify / edit substantial portions of his account but some remains murky and likely non-NPOV. I notice from the article that Howson has researched and is promoting a "tell all" book, he has produced/directed new film/stage projects since returning to Australia and is looking to start more projects: thus portions of this article becomes highly suspect as self-promotional.
IMO, other articles that require checking for possible non-NPOV statements made by this editor (or by non-identified ISPs that may be same person) include: Terry Reid (self-promotion?); John Paul Young negative non-NPOV & since deleted (but may return in future); Kerry Armstrong negative non-NPOV is still in article; Les Darcy (self-promotion? & negative non-NPOV to Heath Ledger); Stan Rofe (self-promotion?); Magical Frank (self-promotion? & merge to existing Frank Howson as being same person!) similar {{COI2}} and {{COI2}} may be needed here too; and Guy Pearce (self-promotion? some still remains: most of the original non-NPOV (negative comments about Pearce) entries have be deleted by other editors).
Due to my own involvement, I don't believe I have sufficient neutrality to undertake the edits / changes that I perceive to be required. Hence, I have asked for a suitable administrator to check entries by this editor (& possible non-identified ISP edits) for non-NPOV content.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It sounds very much as though you might want to file this at WP:COIN, then. I would imagine that the editors there are used to dealing with such situations and may be able to help straighten it out. Good luck with it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope that suitable action can be undertaken.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going through the edits he's made to articles beyond his biography. It looks to me like he's trying to do nothing more than drop his name in as many articles as possible, within unreferenced material that apparently has no encyclopedic value. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, does anyone think Magical Frank has any encyclopedic value? If the content is a fair presentation, then it's obviously notable, although Bergman/Howson clearly wrote this as another piece of pure vanity. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Magical Frank should be redirected, however, is it possible to redirect it to the relevant sub-section of Frank Howson called Early years?

I would like to thank Someguy1221 (& others involved) for the time-consuming task of tracking down User:MichaelBergman's contributions to other articles and re-editing where appropriate: I happy with the ones I've read. IMO, Guy Pearce still needs to have the Howson component toned down: Pearce was already a notable TV actor (in Australia) and, although Howson assisted in Pearce's transition to film acting / international recognition, the article's sentences by Howson/Bergman read like it was a one person effort.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


LectureShare

Resolved
 – Article speedy deleted as blatant advert. Pairadox (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Kaz Simmons

Resolved
 – Article deleted. MER-C 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed for deletion. Article does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Resolved
 – Not a COI. MER-C 08:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Editor David Shankbone has made an edit seen here [38], to the Michael Lucas (porn star) page. This is a reversal of his earlier statement of intent seen here [39], where he said "prostitute is too well-documented." It also reverses his earlier edits seen here [40], and here [41], and here [42], where each time he re-inserted the text on Lucas being a prostitute after that specific text had been deleted by editor Lucasent. Lucasent has been blocked from editing, evidenced here [43].

That Michael Lucas was a prostitute is well-documented on the internet:
(1) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/02/16/law-blog-law-graduate-of-the-day-porn-king-michael-lucas/,
(2) http://nymag.com/movies/features/23146/index1.html,
(3) http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=255.

Previously, when the text about Lucas being a prostitute was deleted, the matter was discussed by other editors, as seen here [44], and here [45]. One of those editors noted: "The reference stating he was a prostitute comes from the Yale Daily News. I think we can consider that a highly reliable source."

That source is the current source cited in the text of the article -- it supports the fact that Michael Lucas was a prostitute. The source does not state that Lucas worked as an escort, as Shankbone has edited the text to read. --72.68.122.138 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you got any evidence of a conflict of interest on the part of the parties involved? MER-C 13:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The evidence is found in the citations above. In summary, Michael Lucas or somebody purporting to be him wrote on the talk page of his bio expressing dissatisfaction with its content, including the reference to his being a prostitute. David Shankbone replied specifically to the prostitute reference saying, "...if information is well-sourced, you will have a difficult time asking it be removed, and the prostitute mention is in the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and at least several others" and "But we'll work with you..." and "Unless someone reverts me, I will make a few of the minor changes." Shankbone also admitted to corresponding with Lucas outside of Wikipedia. Prior to this exchange, Shankbone had three times restored the prostitute reference after it had been deleted by the banned editor Lucasent. Subsequent to the talk page exchange, Shankbone removed the prostitute reference and inserted the comparatively benign term "escort." The source cited for the text does not say Lucas was an escort, it says Lucas was a prostitute. Other reputable sources say Lucas was a prostitute, as Shankbone himself noted, yet Shankbone removed the prostitute reference knowing full well that it is well-documented fact.--71.127.235.96 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been invited to comment on this thread. To reply only to the conflict of interest aspect, I see nothing improper about David Shankbone's involvement. If Mr. Lucas was indeed the person who protested, then leaving a comment on the talk page was one of the appropriate ways to express it. So is corresponding with experienced and uninvolved editors. Mr. Shankbone has wide-ranging experience on several Wikimedia projects. I suggest moving this discussion to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, since the serious issue is about the degree of sourcing that would be necessary to support a biography statement about prostitution in a living person's biography. DurovaCharge! 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The question is not about sourcing, totally reliable sources say Lucas was a prostitute. The serious issue here is Shankbone's conflict of interest in the edits he made. Lucas didn't like that his bio had him as a prostitute. Shankbone took out reliably sourced info, that Lucas was a prostitute, and put in unsourced info, that he was an escort, even though the source says Lucas was a prostitute. "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor." Shankbone put it original research, there's a conflict of interest. Lucas wanted prostitute out of his bio, and Shankbone took it out, so Shankbone promoted the interests of Lucas, there's another conflict of interest. Shankbone knew what he was doing, otherwise why would he take out prostitute and put in escort when he previously restored prostitute three times after Lucasent deleted it? Anybody can take this to BLPN and maybe it should be in both places, but it belongs here mostly because Shankbone has clear conflict of interest with this article: planting OR and doing it for Lucas.--71.127.233.107 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, myself and other editors have been watching and sourcing the article as that's what we do here and I haven't seen any issue with Shankbone's edits except where they and I disagree on content issues which have never been COI-inspired. His work on wikinews has only benefited wikipedia and correctly calling Lucas a male escort, which is the industry term for prostitute, to me, is a non-issue. This isn't central or notable to his bio and as Shankbone has stated the information will be in there one way or another. If Lucas is charged with prostitution or the term otherwise becomes notable we can certainly re-add it but it seems quite minor in the scheme of things. Benjiboi 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has been at WP:COIN before. The article on Michael Lucas (porn star) is now in a rather neutral state after being slanted either for or against Lucas at various times in the past. The issue that has been presented to us this time doesn't seem of enough moment to get concerned about. I agree with User:Benjiboi's diagnosis. Since the submitter of this complaint, 72.68.122.138 is an IP who has not edited WP before, it would be good to hear if there are any other editors who are concerned that Shankbone's edits represent a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I see not conflict of interest in David Shankbone's involvement; merely a conservative interpretation of WP:BLP. DurovaCharge! 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree so far with the above, esp. Durova. I don't see COI here, this case could be relisted at BLP or at NPOV boards however. If the specific intent is to promote "prostitute" over "escort" I'd suggest first going to the BLP page for further discussion. COI is only for situations where, say, Shankbone is Lucas' roommate, or publisher, or brother or wrote a book about him or something.Wjhonson (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Several points made in response to the nomination: (1) To characterize this substitution of terms as WP:OR is an unreasonable and unsupported attempt to apply the concepts of OR. Escort means prostitute (as does hustler, rent boy, and several other terms, depending on the genders of the provider and client), and escort is the term generally used in the industry, so it's simply not OR to use that term instead of the legalistic term prostitute. For example, escorts is the only listing category used for that profession in newspapers, magazines, and on-line. If the cited sources support Lucas being a prostitute, they necessarily support his being an escort, as the terms mean the same, so there is no evidence of "planting" OR. (2) Further, in terms of labeling, we routinely use, for example, gay instead of the legalistic term homosexual, African-American instead of Colored or Negro, and other preferred terms of identity, per WP:MOS, unless in direct quotations. Why pick on the world's oldest profession? (3) Also, the actual label used in one source above, Yale Daily News, is "hustler", not "prostitute", as in: "Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution to open up his own porn production company in New York City." The term prostitution in this citation is used in the sense of source of income, not a label for a person and the actual word "prostitute" was not used. (4) I don't see this as WP:COI either. Claiming that there is a COI because Shankbone removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content at Lucas's behest is also unreasonable and unsupported, since it remains fully sourced, as explained above, and there was absolutely no material change in the content or slant as a result of this word substitution. (5) Endorse closure as not supported. — Becksguy (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I will only privately quiver at the intimate knowledge that Becksguy has of rent boys (titter titter). Benjiboi 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Larry Tanz

Editor given an autobiography warning by User:JohnCD, one pass at reducing resume qualities for the article. Could still use more work. Pairadox (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Youens

Resolved
 – Article deleted. MER-C 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Beat Autopsy

Resolved
 – Article deleted. MER-C 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI.

I think there is a possible COI with user:CzekMate and the article Ray Robson. (1) the user only edits that article, (2) the user acts as if he "owns" the article, and (3) the user refused to answer my question about any connection to the person and deleted the question from his talk page. I'm not sure if this is a COI, and even if it is a problem, but I would like to get some input. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is odd that such a young (14 years old by my math) chess prodigy would have such an ardent fan. And of course the user name is a strong chess references. And the external links seem rather details for what is a minor honor of being the youngest grand master in a particular US state. Can't really prove COI though, since he hasn't used the first person or brought in non-public material (family, etc). Although an edit like this, does provide an extreme level of detail [46]. A comment like this [47] concerns me though, as how do you know where his dad works? MBisanz talk 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I found the city in which his father works with a Google search. I assumed that he lives in that area - maybe that is wrong. Notice the edit history - always changing what I and another editor put in there. Even when one was a copyedit (but that was allowed to stand this time). As I said, even if there is a COI, I'm not sure how big of a problem it is. I do appreciate you looking into it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It is in the third external link in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats the answer I was hoping for (as opposed to something less honorable). My suggestion might be to take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess, which would be able to help more with style and fact-vetting. That or WP:BLPN which would handle the standards to which an article on a living person must be vetted to. MBisanz talk 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm an active member of that project. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Doh! Then I guess just keep a watch and if you see first-person or personal details, feel free to drop the {{COI}} template on the page and come back here. MBisanz talk 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I did do a uw-coi on the user's talk page a couple of hours ago. Bubba73 (talk), 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that is good, and if it proves very likely that he is a COI, you can tag the actual article with a warning box. MBisanz talk 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Ducey

Resolved
 – Article deleted MBisanz talk 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

City of SeaTac Fire Department

Article tagged as a copyright vio. Pairadox (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Machine Embroidery

Resolved
 – Redirected to Embroidery. Pairadox (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Annandale United FC

Resolved
 – Article deleted MBisanz talk 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Buniverse

BUniverse (the website) is the Boston University Today's Media Archives, and seems to be run by the University. A random sampling of the actual links show them to be videos of lectures or talks conducted at Boston University by various departments featuring the subject of the article in question. While this may technically be a COI, I think Wikipedia readers would be better served by informing this editor how to place their links. I've left a welcome note on the talk page, since nobody has even greeted them yet. Pairadox (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I should've sampled. I saw the "Submitting Videos" link and thought "O great another youtube on a college network". MBisanz talk 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you're doing a great job just reporting them here. Pairadox (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I think we regard the action of a publisher or a library in trying to post links to its content in articles about people on whom it has published or about whom it holds material as spam. Such items are best added by editors working on the subject in question. if there is relevant material held by BU, it should be mentioned on the article talk page for discussion. There is no particular reason I can see to post such a link as "*Watch Chuck Close and Robert Storr in Conversation on http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=153 BUniverse" on the Robert Storr article. Staightforward spam links, in my opinion, though not COI.DGG (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman

Mr. Baker: Never have I written that the energy machine "produce(s) energy from nowhere." Certainly Joseph Newman -- the inventor of the technology -- has never said such a thing. On the contrary. Newman has repeatedly described the source of the energy produced by his technology: the kinetic energy contained within the (electro)magnetic fields produced by the invention. And those (electro)magnetic fields originate from the atomic domains comprising the conductor and permanent magnets used in Newman's system.

Mr. Baker: I am a Director of Information for Newman Energy Products. I literally "direct information" about the energy machine technology. Who hired me? No one. Who asked me to be a Director of Information? No one. Am I paid to direct information about the Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? No. Have I ever been paid to direct information about Newman's technology? No. Am I in business with Joseph Newman? No. Having voluntarily helped Joseph Newman disseminate information about the technology for nearly 25 years, I have direct, first-hand knowledge about the technology and its history as well as supporting documentation. That is precisely why I have corrected errors in statements made by others on the Wikipedia page, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Example: Someone had previously posted on Wikipedia that Newman "rented" the Superdome in New Orleans. That is a false statement. I know for a fact that Newman was invited by two gentlemen in New Orleans to present his technology at the Louisiana Superdome for a week. Those two gentlemen had previously heard his free presentation to more than 2,000 people at the New Orleans Hilton Hotel, liked what they heard, and they wanted to provide Joseph Newman with a larger and longer venue at the Louisiana Superdome. Thus, of their own initiative, they personally contracted with the Louisiana Superdome and invited Joseph Newman to come and present his technology to a larger audience. Before that presentation, Joseph Newman requested that the event at the Superdome be free and open to the public. However, Superdome officials required a minimum $1.00 entrance fee to the event. Joseph Newman subsequently agreed to the presentation on the stipulation that all entrance fee monies be paid directly to the Superdome and retained by the Superdome. Joseph Newman publicly announced at the Superdome event that he "would not accept any entrance fee monies" since he had originally requested the event to be free and open to everyone. Since there have been factual errors posted by others on Wikipedia, I have endeavored to correct such errors. 206.255.88.80 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a debate about facts and non-facts in the article. This is about your personal involvement in the article. You clearly ADMIT your involvement with the inventor of the machine and his business. That's a conflict of interest and it's not allowed. You are now adding to the problem by admitting that your editing is Original research...precisely the kind of problem that arises when people with conflicted interests are permitted to edit. SteveBaker (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(I just reviewed User:ESoule's edit history - and aside from edits to The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, the editor also edited Executive Order 6102 in order to add his own name into the article, and aside from a handful of edits to Andrew Joseph Galambos, those are the only edits this user has made. I would point out that WP:COI states: Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. - I submit that User:ESoule is indeed such an account. He has been repeatedly warned - and is still editing The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman - so perhaps a block should be considered. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the entire history of this case, but my opinion is that, notwithstanding of SteveBaker's assertions, if the involved parties refrain from engaging in contentious or disruptive editing, then suggesting factual corrections (backed by reliable sources) to be made to articles should be encouraged. Unfortunately, some errors can only be brought to light by individuals who were directly involved, and it's counter-productive to condone such errors on grounds of avoiding COI. Maybe the editor should be asked to redirect his efforts to the article's talk page, and have another uninvolved editor perform the changes after verifying that the information checks out against the sources. CounterFX (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with ESoule discussing edits on the talk page, explaining where we're going wrong or suggesting other avenues of investigation. My problem is with his direct introduction of new "facts", backed up largely by references to Newman's web site - which he, himself (as 'Director of Information') may very well have written! Far from doing this with the cooperation and agreement of independent editors - he's making changes that directly conflict with the proper disposition of the article. At the very least, this is a conflict of interest of the worst possible kind. This effectively gives ESoule carte blanche to put any information he likes into the article - and then to provide his own reference to make it 'legal' per WP:V. If this person were merely a technician or machinist at the organisation, that would be much less of an issue (although I'd still be uncomfortable with it) - but to have the "Director of Information" pushing information into Wikipedia is quite intolerable! SteveBaker (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Apart from COI, ESoule’s contributions raise some other interesting policy issues. Let’s take Wikipedia:NOR for starters. — NRen2k5 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I’m an idiot. ^_^ I see SteveBaker has already brought up the OR too. — NRen2k5 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nativity parish

Resolved
 – Article deleted MBisanz talk 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeros 40D Sky Dragon

Resolved
 – Article deleted MBisanz talk 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LA.Direct Magazine

Resolved
 – Article deleted MBisanz talk 02:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Muris Varajic

Resolved
 – Article deleted MBisanz talk 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Taze Russell

There may be no problem - I admit I don't know the topic well enough - but there seems to be considerable risk of COI. A major contributor to the article describes himself as "the webmaster of Pastor-Russell.com, the official Charles Taze Russell website". Could someone take a look at the article history? 86.148.154.23 (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There may be no problem
I think there is. The article itself currently looks reasonably even-handed (for instance, not glossing over controversies). However, the above user is making a lot of uncited reversions with no explanation or unhelpful summaries like improper edit, and a couple of years back was the subject of a user RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell) for WP:OWN problems. Things look a lot quieter now, but JW vs Bible Students is very a partisan situation, and being official webmaster for one camp looks far too close a relationship to the subject for comfort. I've added a COI tag. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Pastorrussell just removed the COI tag as misunderstanding. I've asked for explanation here. Gordonofcartoon 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC) (sorry - working from crappy filtered account that won't let me log in). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.221.34 (talk)
Comment. The editor whose actions are being questioned is *not* in reality someone named Pastor Russell; he just operates a website about Charles Taze Russell who was a pastor. We need a proposal for what to do in this case. It could be COI if you argue:
  • That the article's citing of the pastor-russell.com web site is the violation, or
  • That this editor's affiliation with the Bible Students is leading to partisan editing in defence of that group's position, and against the neutrality of the article. (I think Gordon is arguing this above, but it needs details in my view).
The article appears carefully written, and it relies to a degree on online copies of scanned documents about 19th-century events that are hosted on the pastor-russell.com website. Someone who has patience could go through the history looking for any reverts of valid criticism. The article is fairly neutral in tone and heavily documented, though perhaps based to an excessive degree on documents hosted at the pastor-russell.com site. Does anyone have the patience to study the article history? As Gordonofcartoon points out, there was an WP:RFC/U on this editor back in 2005, claiming violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, that must not have led to any official action. You could still read it for background, since it mentions this article. I notice that this editor has frequently reverted the work of other editors over at Bible Student movement, and I don't see him participating on the talk page there. Bible Student movement is a weaker article than Charles Taze Russell, and contains more unsourced material. It might be a better target of reform.
The most questionable recent edit by User:Pastorrussell is probably this one, where he accused another editor of vandalism for changing the picture on an article. A discussion with this editor is desirable. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the concern for neutrality. This was brought up when the article was being about two years ago, and the issues were dealt with in an appropriate manner which satisfied all concerned. I added the "Criticisms" section in order to make the article as unbiased as possible, and have attempted to make sure there is no bias of any kind. Others who have attempted to remove "Criticisms" section, or to add inappropriate material has been undone by me. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. On his User page, User:Gordonofcartoon (who I was counting on for further research) has indicated he won't be able to follow up on this issue. Since only Gordon and I, besides the original IP and Pastorrussell, have commented here, I think it is reasonable to close this, without prejudice to reopening if anyone has time to investigate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm reopening this for discussion as I still think this article needs some revision and input to be COI free. I don't know how much time I will have to research the issues but I will do my best.Shaneroosky (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the article content, I can see some evidence of COI editing. It must be remembered that (according to their own WP articles) the Jehovah's Witnesses have 17 million adherents, while "there are still thousands of Bible Students worldwide". The fact that the Bible student navbox is listed above the JW navbox in Russell's article, and that Bible students are mentioned before JWs in the description of groups he founded, are clear violations of WP:Undue weight. Also, "best known as Pastor Russell" in the first sentence needs to be sourced; if, as I suspect, only non-JW Bible Students call him that (it is, if course, the username and website name of the editor in question here), it should not be in the Intro.
Here is the current version of the page, to which I am referring. I am now going to fix the issues I just described. If Gordonofcartoon or Shareroosky want to identify specific issues that I can helpfully comment on, please let me know on my talk page. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think there is a problem here. Here is User:Pastorrussell's response to my changes (and others too, mine are only in the lead paragraph). He insists on downplaying Jehovah's Witnesses, who make up 99.9% of Russell's present-day followers (however imperfectly they may follow him), and insists on the appellation "Pastor Russell", which strikes me as very non-encyclopedic. Note also that the user's website is the first listed at Charles Taze Russell#External links, and is identified as the "official CT Russell website". Declared official by whom? On his website, the user says one of his motivations is to "separate [Russell] from Jehovah's Witnesses," raising WP:SOAP concerns. The user's motivations are clearly to attract people to his website as well as to his small sect, which (in words that he added and I removed at the Bible Student movement page) has "had increased visibility and influence in recent years due to the formation and growth of the world wide web."
It seems to me that User:Pastorrussell should be counseled to cease placing undue weight on his minority viewpoint and to cease promoting his website and his sect. If he cannot comply, then he should be enjoined from editing on topics related to C.T. Russell. I will leave a message on his talk page requesting his comment. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The name "Pastor Russell" is the most frequent name used for this man, and you can find that in nearly any encyclopedia. This isn't my preference, it is a matter of historical fact. The reference to the "increased visibility" et.al. was simply a poor wording on my part, and should clearly have been removed. The "Official site" is under the direction of Bible Students and his remaining family members. There is no attempt to downplay the Jehovah's Witnesses at all. The issue is one of balance. Both groups should be mentioned as they spring from the same movement. No one group should be marked out. I take offense to the direct matter-of-fact statements made as to my motives. How can you know my motives without asking me? Obviously there is some confusion as to the historical facts regarding Russell, Bible Students, and the JWs. The reference from the website that you quoted is not related to the article in any way, and has no impact upon the way the article is written. I have worked tirelessly with others over the past two years to make the article as neutral and unbiased as possible in every conceivable way, but have often been attacked by those who support JWs and wish to make the article more pro JW which is in violation of wikipedia policies. We need to have balance. Of course, nobody is perfect, but it really isn't fair to characterize me in such a negative light when you are making assumptions based on statements taken out of context. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we need balance, but that does not mean giving all views equal weight; per WP:NPOV, it means views should be described with a weight "in proportion to the prominence of each". JWs (which, btw, I do not support in any way) are by far Russell's most prominent followers and should be most prominently mentioned. Some of the problems can be helped by inline citations, which currently are very sparse in this article. Claims such as that he is generally known as "Pastor Russell" by more than just certain of his followers, or that the majority of his followers left the Watchtower Society in the schism, need to be sourced. I looked at this JW source (hosted on your website, actually), which calls him "Brother Russell" and claims that the majority of his adherents remained faithful to the WTS. At External Links, I would list your website after Watchtower.org, and would not describe it as "official". In general, Wikipedia's job is to reflect the body of primary and secondary sources that we draw on, not to correct its errors.
I am willing to assume good faith on your part, and I hope to see better. I hope that you have carefully read WP:COI, because you clearly have a major potential conflict and need to be careful to keep your edits encyclopedic. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the CTR entry is about the man and his life, history, theology, etc... and neither about JWs nor Bible Students. This means that nothing in the entry should seem to support either group, but simply mention the minimal yet pertinent historical facts of these two groups in relation to him. Unfortunately, it appears that much of the controversy here comes from an innocent ignorance of the history. JWs are NOT his followers, and that seems to be the major misunderstanding here. The Bible Student movement emerged as a result of Russell's ministry. When he died the majority (nearly three-quarters - documented in dozens of places) left the organization that he founded and formed several fellowships, all of whom remain in close contact and are called Bible Students. They still follow the teachings espoused by Russell, study his books, and hold to his views. The JWs on the other hand were the minority and were not founded by Russell, but by Rutherford his successor, in the year 1931, nearly fifteen years after Russell's death. Their theological viewpoints are significantly and radically different from Russell's, and they neither study nor encourage reading of his writings. All that they do is claim him as their founder which is not strictly correct as he didn't found their movement he simply founded the legal corporation they currently control. Anyhow, the CTR entry shouldn't have anything to do with JWs or Bible Students in terms of the historical information, but simply be restricted to the details of his life, while any details regarding the two mentioned groups be limited in scope in this article with the greater details kept within their own primary entries. Incidentally, the navbox on Bible Students and the one on JWs were both added by someone else, and I had nothing to do with either the creation or placement. The "official website" is through those who still study his writings and of those who are his remaining family, and is thus entirely official. JWs have NOTHING to do with the man, don't study his material, in fact going so far as to call his writings "old light" and their members are strongly discouraged from reading his works. Bible Students were in the majority, but now are the minority. JWs were the minority but now are the majority, and very rarely refer to themselves as Bible Students in order to not be confused with the other group. So, such info should be balanced, unbiased, but most importantly limited insofar as THIS article is concerned. Because of these misunderstandings my attempts to keep the article balanced and as unbiased as possible have been misconstrued and are being interpreted in completely the opposite way, which is unfortunate and very stressful. Pastorrussell (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again I'll say that citing sources will go a long way towards fixing a lot of the problems around here. Don't just tell me that a certain claim is "documented in dozens of places," cite one or two of those sources when that statement is made in the article! I'll also note that third-party sources (i.e., with no vested interest in either JWs or BSs) will be ten times more valuable in convincing people of your claims. As for your opinion that Russell is not properly a founder of the JWs, I don't actually care whether you're right or wrong, because Wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. What is relevant here is that this opinion of yours is hardly a consensus (which means it should not be stated as unqualified fact), and I don't know that it's even a majority view (if it's not, then it shouldn't be most prominently mentioned). Again, impartial third-party sources will be by far the most valuable here. Finally, I still have a problem with "official." C.T. Russell is not still around to give his endorsement, and there are multiple conflicting groups that claim his legacy. You need to qualify that claim about your website.
I'm not going to say more about the details here, basically because I have a passing interest in the topic but not enough to dig deeply into it. I think at this point you're aware of your potential conflicts, and I trust you'll be careful. If, in the future, I can be useful as a mediator, I'd be glad to help. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. The way I worded my last comment was simply a brief outline for you so you could see what the matter is about. I am currently working on an exhaustive list of third-party references for the said entry. My hope is to have them all finished in about a week or two. As for the official website there are only two groups that are "conflicting" -JWs and Bible Students. Again, exhaustive references from all appropriate sources is being compiled. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hokay, I'm back. Sorry about the absence. I agree with much of what has been said: specifically the need for third-party citation (I don't really trust sources from the minutes of a church to be sufficiently objective about its own history). Also Pastorrussell should avoid edits - unless trivially obvious - that simply assert without proof that a change is wrong. (Note also that you can't defame or libel [48] [49] someone who has been dead since 1916).
That said, I'm still uneasy about what relationship the operator of its "official website" has to the subject. If it's promotional and/or protective toward the subject, there's a conflict of interest. This "official" status still hasn't been satisfactorily explained, and discussion is ongoing at Talk:Charles Taze Russell#"Official" Website. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ned Bristow

Resolved
 – Article deleted. MER-C 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Cartoon All-Stars 2000s doesn't exist!

Resolved
 – Not a COI Pairadox (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite repeated warnings User:66.245.194.183 keeps adding credits for a non-exsistant animated special called "Cartoon All-Stars 2000s" and unsourced information about various animated caharacters.--Hailey 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this edit here [50] , it looks like its an unsourced future prediction. I'd say point him at WP:RS and it that doesn't work, keep warning/teaching through the WP:WARN system. Once he hits 4, take it to WP:ANI and they'll take care of it. Or he'll get the message and not add speculative stuff. MBisanz talk 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the IP linked to Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue, a 1990 work. I don't see how this is a Conflict of interest. Pairadox (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Paste Magazine

Maryrobbins06 (talk · contribs) was posting a large number of links in the "Professional reviews" section of album articles, all of them linking to Paste Magazine's website. She disclosed that she is indeed affiliated with the magazine so I informed her of our COI policy. She stopped editing, but then 72.16.210.162 (talk · contribs) was adding links, so I gave the same warning. Interestingly, this anon then removed Maryrobbins06's message on my Talk page, and added this. My inclination would be to remove all of these links to Paste Magazine due to the likely COI, but I would like others' input. Thanks in advance. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt its spamming. I've opened a case here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.pastemagazine.com, and will look into it more. --Hu12 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The updated link for the WPSPAM posting is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Paste Media Group. I agree that someone affiliated with Paste Magazine should not have been posting these links, per the COI rules, but I'm uncertain whether regular editors should be allowed to post the same ones. Note the following language from Wikipedia:ALBUM#Professional reviews:

Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at WP:ALBUM#Review sites.

This seems to open the possibility that Paste Magazine could be a valid source of professional reviews. (Our definition of 'professional' seems to be 'written by a member of the editorial staff of a reliable source'). I noticed that a review that appeared in Paste was included by Metacritic for an album that I spot-checked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
They seem to have received major awards both as general and specialized media from good sources. Removingthese links is counterproductive in terms of establishing notability. It's not my subject, but it appears from the evidence that they are a RS for popular music. this was not the right way to put in the links, but we are here to build content and source it. It should be explained to them how to cooperate properly by suggesting them on the talk pages. DGG (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve Abbot actor

(Moved from WP:UAA)

Steve Abbott actor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Adding himself to articles.[51], [52] and [53]. Been warned. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Brook

Resolved
 – Deleted and salted. MER-C 01:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader articles editor with serious personal grudge against Nader

Griot has been heavily involved in the above two articles, as well as other Green Party related artciles (e.g., Matt Gonzalez]] for at least a year, consistently and belligerently pushing a hard-line, anti-Nader POV, ferociously battling against attempts at balance or neutrality. Elsewhere on Wikipedia he has described his own serious personal grudge against Ralph Nader, yet persists in attempting to make the articles show the subject in the most negative light, and disrupt efforts for balance. (see here for just the most recent example, and note that Sedlam in that discussion is a possible sock puppet of Griot). Boodlesthecat (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that the above information supplied by User:Boodlesthecat is true. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay (Jeremy Camp song)

Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought

Eric Jurgensen

NRG Recording Studios

seems notable, contained two lists of everyone who has ever recorded there--I removed one of them. Needs attention from someone who knows the subject better than I.DGG (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bob Baldwin (musician)

Raymond J. Brune

Resolved
 – Article deleted by Roger Davies per CSD G12: Blatant copyright infringement of [54]. CounterFX (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Poplar High School

trivial, we get and fix articles like this routinely. DGG (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21&oldid=1089155408"