Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 36

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tryton

I'm not sure at all, but Krier.cedric's edits of Tryton smack of COI. A quick google of Cedric Krier also establishes a connection with Tryton. Reference sources all go back to Tryton websites, so there's also no third-party references. I'm just throwing this out there so more experience types can look and see if I'm just over-reacting. Paxsimius (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cedric either a developer or the developer of Tryton, so you're not overreacting, and yes there is definitely a COI. The software doesn't seem notable, though it would help if I could read Polish to be certain that none of the Gnews articles cover the software. Cedric isn't a newbie to Wikipedia either, he has been editing for over a year now, though he has been mostly inactive so he might not be "experienced". I'll leave a COI template for him on his user page and you might want to consider taking the article itself to AfD. -- Atamachat 23:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I changed my mind, instead of a template I just let him know about the discussion here so that he can reply if he wants to. -- Atamachat 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I just fixed some typos, added free software categories and uploaded the logo (because I'm the one who had the copyright on it). Krier.cedric (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You're correct that for the most part your edits have been minor, and somewhat consistent with WP:COI guidelines. The only exception being the external links that you added, which under different circumstances could be objected to (not that I personally object, they seem appropriate enough). I think it's all a moot point though, since the Tryton software doesn't seem notable enough to have an article in the first place. If nobody brings it up for AfD in the next couple of days I'll do so myself, I don't see any need for Wikipedia to have an article on such a non-notable subject. -- Atamachat 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Haitiansensati0n2 Conflict of interest

It seems from his/her contributions that they are either very big fans of Chauvet or an employee/someone with an interest in promoting Chauvet... I have taken the liberty of reverting all the edits (most of them were the replacement of pictures of other manufacturers with Chauvet copyrighted publicity material.

--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A COI is determined based on an editor's identity and/or connections to an article subject. Not the nature of their edits. A person who puts promotional material into Wikipedia is a spammer, a person who tries to make an article subject seem more positive or negative is guilty of pushing their point of view into an article. Those are both concerns and there are other noticeboards for such actions (WP:NPOV/N for NPOV violations, and WP:AIV for spammers who have ignored proper warnings).
Do you have any evidence that an actual conflict of interest exists? Have they posted saying that they are an employee or work to promote Chauvet? That's how you determine that a COI exists. -- Atamachat 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've looked over Haitiansensati0n2's contributions, and I don't see any actual spamming. It does look like they had created a Chauvet article that was deleted (probably WP:CSD) for being too promotional, but that's somewhat a "no-harm, no-foul" if the article is already gone. The proposed deletion and neutrality tags on one article (that you reverted) were certainly a POV violation but it was a one-time thing. The insertion of copyrighted images is a problem, I left a mild level 1 template warning them that their image change weren't appropriate.
If you want a good example of what constitutes a COI, check the subject just above this one, where the editor's account name matches the real-life name of a person who works for the company as a promoter. -- Atamachat 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:David Rohl at Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)

More eyes please. --dab (𒁳) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's already a discussion on this above. Smartse (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Avesthagen

Article has been repeatedly reverted to a spammy version. Although currently at afd, it seems notable enough for an article, but PR people apparently from the company itself keep mucking it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reported User:Avesthagen to WP:UAA for obvious reasons. I've left a COI notice and level 1 page-blanking warning for User:Pierocha, because they are clearly Pierre Socha, Senior VP of the company (or affiliated with him in some way). As to notability, there shouldn't be a question, there is an almost inexhaustible amount of coverage at Gnews alone. -- Atamachat 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lee (jeans)

The IP address listed previously asked this noticeboard for advice in May of this year here. They said that they are an employee of Barkley Inc. and that they wished to add some info to the page. They were duly given some advice but continued to edit the article about Lee Jeans in an inappropriate way. This has continued for months with different the IP and above users removing references and re-writing the uncited history section. At one point Tvanwinkle even placed an advert for the company featuring Brad Pitt in the article. I've tried to enagage with the editors and discuss problems but they don't seem to have listened. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can stop this attempted whitewashing of the article by a PR firm? More specifically is a WP:SPI appropriate? Thanks Smartse (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:SPI is appropriate. The IP, Annabelle 56, and Tvanwinkle all edited at about the same time (June 11) and all add promotional info in the way that an employee of the company would. Mchilders edited just once at a different time as the other editors, but since their single edit complained of "confusing customers" in the edit summary I suspect a Lee employee as well (how many editors worry about the "customers" of the subject of an article?). -- Atamachat 01:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec on the above) Don't forget the one and only edit by Leecompany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
While I'm sure that all four are in some way related to either Lee or Barkley Inc. I'm not positive that they are all the same person. First, Tvanwinkle makes edits like this and frequently uses <br> something that none of the others seem to do, although the IP did add a few here. The IP moved this section down but Mchilders only edit is to remove the entire section. There's a slight chance that Annabelle 56 and the IP might be the same person but I doubt it. I notice they have both posted copyvios. Most of what I removed here was a direct copy from the official Lee site at the time. This edit is the one that the IP complained about back in May. However, as the IP works (worked?) for Barkley Inc. and the advertising contract is now held by Olson (marketing) I would think they will not be editing again but I see that Annabelle 56 is still making edits. And that's probably why I can't find the copyvio material online anymore. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps an SPI isn't needed. I had noticed Leecompany's edits but as they were blocked due to username violations it seemed pretty pointless to post here. Tvanwinkle is an account that has purely been used for promotional purposes - is this enough reason for the account to be blocked? (I can't see a specific point about this on WP:BLOCK, but I'm sure I've seen that given as a reason for accounts being blocked in the past) With regards to the source in the article saying that Barkley are no longer working for them, I think I misunderstood the article, Annabelle 56 removed the reference to Barkley and changed some other wording. When I looked at the source again it seems that Olson are only designing the Lee website. I've only been watching the page since May and the IP continued to edit so it seems as Barkley are still being paid for something... Smartse (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
See WP:ARTSPAM which talks about advertisements masquerading as articles. The edits by the persons listed in this discussion have at times edited to turn the articles into advertisements (and have had their edits undone). I see that most of the editors were given warnings about spam already. If none of the editors are willing to enter into a discussion about their behavior then continue to template them and if they edit in a promotional manner after the final warning, report to WP:AIV where they can be blocked as a promotional account. The problem is that if they just keep making more accounts then they can spread this out and avoid reaching the final warning on any individual account, in which case a sockpuppet investigation would be needed. -- Atamachat 21:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Michele Forsten

Self-professed (at article talk) autobiography that is technically unsourced, though it draws text from the contributor's personal website. Subject seems notable. I came upon this one handling the OTRS letter for copyright permission. I've tagged various at the article and given the contributor a standard COI notice, but this one probably needs closer review if anyone has time and interest. I'm not going to be around too much for the next week or so, I suspect, and so thought to drop it here in case anybody wanted to pick it up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur on the notability. The claims that she has made in her article seem verifiable, she has a lot of work out there. The challenge that might come up in the future is that Michele is clearly a talented and well-published essayist. Can she refrain from turning her own article into another essay? Unsurprisingly, the article she wrote about herself is actually pretty good, it needs to be wikified though and it has a lot of language that isn't appropriate; see where it talks about how she "felt" at different points in the article.
It actually brings up something I'm not sure about. As it stands those statements about her feelings are original research. If in fact there are published sources that corroborate those statements, are they reliable sources if she wrote them? She has written for the New York Post and the New York Daily News, if she wrote an published essay expressing those views, could that essay be considered a proper reference? I don't think a widely-circulated periodical could be considered a self-published source. -- Atamachat 20:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheating in video games and CheatCodes.com

Mr Jenkins has been civil, but I lack the legal knowledge to decide on the correct course of action here. Marasmusine (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this was the right place to bring this up. It needs to be brought up where a lawyer can find it. Consider checking on one of the Village Pump pages? Irbisgreif (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Having read the supplied reference link, It appears that the registered trademark is for the wording 'CHEAT CODE' in capitals. The application also states that there was no 'National Application' for the trademark. There is no restriction on using the wording 'cheat code' anywhere as an infringement of the company trademark, other than as a company name in the specific format 'CHEAT CODE' with no other wording included. The application for the trademark was made in 2007 and the use of the words 'cheat code' was in common usage for many years before then. You cannot register or copyright words and phrases in worldwide common use to restrict their use. Many companies use the words in their company names, such as: 'cheatcodesgalore.com' and 'cheatcodesclub.com'. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to respectfully disagree with Mr. Harvey. First, the USPTO's Trademark Electronic Search System results for the trademark employ user sessions for their searches, so you'll have to do the search manually at http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm. Select "Search" (on the right), then "Basic Search" (the first option), and then search for anything. You'll note that all results are shown as upper case in the system. If you search for "cheat code," you'll note that the exhibit displayed with the results is a lower-case example. As a "Standard Character Mark," case does not matter. Second, he is also incorrect in his assertion that "There is no restriction on using the wording 'cheat code' anywhere as an infringement of the company trademark, other than as a company name in the specific format 'CHEAT CODE' with no other wording included." The trademark is not merely limited to company name only. Mr. Harvey did, however, provide two examples of company names using the word "cheat code" in the title. Both of those companies were notified by us last year that they are violation of our trademark, and I cannot comment further on those two particular cases. Third, Mr. Harvey asserts that since the term "cheat code" was in "common usage" for "many years" before the 2007 trademark application, that somehow limits the scope of the trademark. This is also incorrect. Trademark protection extends back to a company's first usage of a term, and our trademark application demonstrates our first usage of the term dates back to more than a decade before the application was filed. I question whether Mr. Harvey is qualified to make the assertions he did, and would ask that he inform us of any credentials that allow him to speak as an expert on this matter. While I welcome an open dialogue from any interested parties, I would ask that those who assert their opinions in this discussion state their credentials as they relate to US Trademark Law, prior to presenting their opinions.Stevejenkins (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt we'd have any problem with trademark infringement on this article, considering that our use of the term in the article predates the trademark. - MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am very pleased to see MrOllie included in this discussion, as it is his actions that led to my initial appeal for help from Marasmusine. I do not have, have not had, and cannot foresee having any concerns that inclusion of the term "cheat code" within the article in question infringes on our trademark. Quite the contrary, I fully support the inclusion of the word "cheat code" in the article. I merely wish to ensure that as many facts about the term are included in said article - including the trademark status of the term.Stevejenkins (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Westnet

IP address 203.13.74.134 is a Westnet staff IP address, probably a proxy server or something (and I bet 203.13.74.144 is, too). Numerous edits from these IP addresses have been made to the Westnet article. I believe Clare witham and Fred Harman are staff members. 83.170.85.241 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes they both trace to wa.westnet.com.au. Clare Witham is a representative of Westnet. Fred Harman is also a Westnet employee as seen here where he has posted company news under his name. -- Atamachat 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, both Fred Harman and Clare Witham haven't edited in so long that it doesn't really make a difference, their edits are well in the past. The IPs have been inactive for quite some time also. It's worth noting on the talk page, perhaps, that edits have been made by Westnet employees in the past but since they aren't currently editing the article, it's probably best just to clean up the article and not worry about it. -- Atamachat 18:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ASP.NET MVC: Problem - Design - Solution

ASP.NET MVC: Problem - Design - Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Nberardi is an author of the book; persists in recreating the page (consisting of copy-paste of publisher's blurb) following speedying, blanks user talk page. Discussion at User talk:Kateshortforbob Pseudomonas(talk) 17:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Left some advice on the editor's talk page regarding this discussion and the problems with the article. They deny having a COI (even though it clearly exists), they deny that the information is a copyright violation (even though it's word-for-word what is on the publisher's web site), and they've had some minor acts of vandalism in the past. I don't see things going well for this person unless they completely turn their behavior around. -- Atamachat 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting my actions. It was speedy deleted with out contacting me to start a discussion, as the speedy delete suggest happens. So I recreated the page. The content is marke as still being in production. And if needed I can get the editor of wrox.com to weigh in on the copy right. Also I dont believe it is a copy right violation since the text is in 100,000 of book publishers around the world. Second the vandalism he is talking about was wiping out my own talk page, so that I could better track the discussion. Isnt my own talk page meant for communication with me? And dont I control the content of my talk page? Nick Berardi (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The vandalism isn't wiping out your own talk page, it was this which blanked out another editor's page. That certainly isn't allowed, and your only response to the warning to not do so again was simply to ignore the warning and clear it from your talk page. If you want to blank out your own talk page routinely, that is allowed (although many consider it rude, as it makes it difficult to see what was on your talk page before). It's better to archive your talk page but that is your own choice. One thing to remember, while it is generally acceptable to blank your talk page (except to remove block notices while a block is in effect) you don't "control the content". You don't control the content of your talk page, or your main user page. That means that anything that you post in either location that is against Wikipedia's policies can and will be removed. WP:USER has more details.
As to the copyright issues, yes you need to have the owner of the copyright contact Wikipedia to prevent removal of the information. No, the fact that the info is located in other places does not excuse reproducing it here, if a copyright claim is made (and the publisher does make that claim). You can certainly resolve the copyright issues yourself by rewriting the text in your own words, but keep in mind that it should be substantially different than the original text or it can still be considered plagiarism. The other problem is that the text is completely promotional (as you'd expect from the publisher of the book) and isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Atamachat 20:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Brandi Carlile

Resolved
 – Indef blocked. -- Atamachat 16:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reported the username to WP:UAA; the account name implies that it is being shared by interns at Aware Records which is a violation of WP:U. -- Atamachat 16:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Harald pagancoss

Hpagancoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has created the article Harald pagancoss. I propose speedy deletion of article. Dr.K. logos 02:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that a speedy deletion will apply at that article. The article asserts notability enough (in the lead it says he is a "television personality, author and entrepreneur"). It doesn't lack context, it's not empty, and it's not overtly promotional. But it's one thing to assert notability and it's another thing entirely to possess it. I can't find any reliable sources that back up his assertions, I can't even verify the truth of what he has put in the article except that he has been a real estate broker. So I think AfD is the appropriate way to deal with the article. -- Atamachat 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have begun the AfD process here. -- Atamachat 17:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that it could be speedied as unambiguous advertising (G11) but no problem. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In the deletion discussion, Hpagancoss has identified himself as the publicist for Pagancoss, which if anything is worse than if it was Pagancoss himself; it's basically his job to promote his client. He has been civil in the discussion so far so hopefully this will reach a calm conclusion. -- Atamachat 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Cazaresulina

Resolved
 – Indef-blocked as a spammer. -- Atamachat 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cazaresulina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This new user has username that matches the domain of a tourism website promoted on their user page, and all the user's mainspace edits have been to add links to websites promoting tourism in the same region. --RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly a conflict of interest in this case. There is also an inappropriate username that can be reported to WP:UAA. But more important than either of those issues is the fact that this person is clearly spamming, I'm going to report this user to WP:AIV as an obvious spam-only account. -- Atamachat 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, I may have jumped the gun a bit in posting to AIV. King of Hearts gave a final warning for spam, so any more promotional edits and they will probably be blocked. Also, the user page was speedily deleted as spam (apparently for the second time). -- Atamachat 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tcuinfobot

I wanted to note that the username problem was already addressed on the editor's talk page. I might have reported it to WP:UAA but there's no hurry in doing so. -- Atamachat 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I gave it a couple of days but the editor hasn't done anything about the username violation, so I've reported it. -- Atama頭 23:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jthi and Julie Thi Underhill

User appears to be a Single purpose account intent on self promotion. Creating the Julie Thi Underhill article and inserting links to herself in other articles. A request to change user name has also been made which may represent an attempt to evade COI criteria. Would appreciate a second look. Valenciano (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the username change. For one thing, it preserves the history of the talk page so any COI notices are preserved, in case they continue promoting under another user name. Also, I'm confident that the AfD will result in the deletion of their autobiographical article, so the COI would pretty much be a moot point. It's quite possible that the article will be deleted, Jthi will get her requested name change (putting the past behind her) and could continue editing Wikipedia as a productive editor in the future. -- Atamachat 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To update this, a number of single purpose accounts have now emerged to defend the article. Of them, User:Beltrangonzales edited within 10 minutes of the User:Jthi account. User:Mconnor1967, User:Kbakerbio, User:Ninja0000002002 User:Robertcagle have also joined within the last couple of days solely editing the Underhill article or participating in related talkpages. This strongly suggests a violation of WP:SOCK and or WP:CANVASS. Valenciano (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Since none of those accounts are participating in the AfD, their "defense" doesn't really matter. Even if they had posted their opinions in the AfD, their reasons for keeping the article are pretty weak and certainly don't answer the policy concerns discussed in the AfD. I've replied to the posts at Talk:Julie Thi Underhill, just in case someone stumbles across that talk page before the AfD concludes. -- Atama頭 15:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:MoffittCancerCenter

Resolved
 – Indef blocked for username violations, promotional edits reverted. -- Atama頭 19:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

PURISTA drinks

This seems to be an advertising campaign. The brand may possibly be notable; James Glasscock was PRODded for notability but the prod removed by the author; I have raised an AfD here for the three individual drinks. Redlinks suggest that articles may be planned for Synergy Beverages which owns the brand and Michael Hensel the bartender who "created" the drinks. Glasscock's article says he used to work for Playboy, and User:Zepolekim had a COI warning last May for editing Playboy articles when an employee of that company. JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the above PURISTA articles could be considered as a merged article for the company and line but so far I am seeing only press releases. James Glasscock might even be notable but there is something fishy going on and I think it would be best to block him from editing since he has already been warned about an account created for solely promotional purposes.Cptnono (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up, looks like he understands from a recent deletion page discussion. A block may not be needed if he is attempting to learn the ins and outs still. WP:DUCK failed me when I should have been assuming better faith. Cptnono (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, see this discussion and more advice from me on his talk page. He has now dg-g7-ed the three drink articles. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Biggs editing her own article again

Barbara Biggs has been sternly advised on numerous occasion to not edit her own article [3], including a mention in this forum last month [4]. Here is her latest tidy up- [5] [6]

An admin needs to get involved. 58.164.138.101 (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This has to be one of the worst articles I have ever seen. What did she do? It looks like she (or a proponent) was trying to prove notability by sticking in random links. It is time to start ripping things out and reworking them to meet standards and general readability. It needs a complete overhaul and hopefully she will be blocked from editing it. She also links to the page from her bio on the official website.Cptnono (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would also welcome an admin's involvement barbbiggs —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The problem is that even if Barbbiggs were indef blocked, she does many of her edits from an IP (see the above comment for example). There's not enough activity for WP:RFPP to do a semi-protection. I wish I could have confidence that an AfD would succeed on that page (it went through one already back in 2006 and survived), because it's just a headache to straighten out thanks to Barbara's edits, and however clean you make it you know it's just going to get into a bad state again later. -- Atama頭 17:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NBeauman and Persephone Books

The user is evidently the owner of the publisher Persephone books and created the article. A side issue is that she's created a number of articles about her authors, mainly Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and everyone with a link to her website. These are slowly being edited to remove copyvio, but the editor has not returned since other editors noticed her activities and started to discuss them on her talk page. I've left the links in for the articles I've edited. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup to these articles. None of them seem severely damaged by the conflict of interest, although they could use references and none of them need to be deleted. I'm up in the air over whether to remove the laundry list at Persephone Books. ThemFromSpace 02:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree about the articles. I did some heavy editing on quite a few. I don't like lists of publications like the one at Persephone Books - it smacks too much of being a brochure, readers can get the information from their website. And if they double the number of books they publish? Is it appropriate for them but not, say, for Routledge or Penguin? Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up! I meant to look into it further, but unfortunately I was heading out of work at the time. I was also a bit concerned, not only by the list at Persephone Books, but by edits like this - I'm fairly certain it's non-standard to list republishing dates for books (imagine what the Shakespeare article would look like) - and also by the creation of articles such as The World that was Ours, an article created by the same user, about a book re-published by Persephone. Whilst I have no opinion on the book (having not heard of it, I'm afraid), the article is obviously written in a flattering/promotional fashion. More concerningly, while I haven't tracked down a source for the prose, given the user's other article creations, it's difficult to be certain that this isn't a copyright violation also. --☇Kateshortforbob talk☄ 11:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A quick Google search doesn't show any matches for the text at The World that was Ours, and I'm also seeing some major reviews of the book (The Guardian for one) so that article seems fine. But NBeauman (who I presume is Nicola Beauman) has been warned for spamming external links and has made repeated copyright violations, yet has not once responded to any of the complaints or made an effort to fix any of the problems that she created. I don't think she is here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia and is only interested in promoting her publishing company. I'd suggest a final warning for the next problematic edit, and if she continues after that report her to WP:AIV. -- Atama頭 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure the article is 'fine', it looks very much like original research by the editor. Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
When I said it is "fine", I meant that it doesn't seem to be a copyvio and the book itself seems notable. I was checking it out to see if it merits inclusion, I should have clarified that. But the way the article is written is terrible, it probably needs to be totally rewritten from scratch. Like I said, I don't think Nicola's edits have really been productive at all and her lack of communication gives me little hope that she'll be helpful to the project in the future. -- Atama頭 22:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Golf Shopping Network and its product ads

These two users have created articles for a new marketing firm/TV shopping channel, a programme connected with it, and a string of its products. The products are getting tagged as spam; I don't know about notability for TV channels and shows, but this one is very new ("first episodes running in August 2009") and there is a clear COI here. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For now at least the basic WP:N guidelines are all that apply (essentially, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). There is an essay that would cover television at WP:NME but it hasn't been turned into an official guideline yet. -- Atama頭 18:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Mjobson and CoreSite related companies =

Can somebody please have a look at these. The articles themselves don't look too bad and the companies possibly qualify but are very much nice corperate blurbs. I note that according to this page that the CoreSite marketing director is a "Mark Jobson", probably not coincidence - SimonLyall (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Mariabeatty and article Maria Beatty

Maria Beatty is an erotic filmmaker who meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria to have an article on Wikipedia. However, so far this individual seems to have been the main editor of the Wikipedia article on herself, in direct violation of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. The material has been self-promotional in nature, and I have knocked back the article to a stub several times now. As of today, she has added to the article again, this time less extensively than in the past, but again, rather self-promotional, listing awards her films have won. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

David J. Ferreira promotion

Accounts

Self promotion of works--Hu12 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The two articles created by the accounts in question have been proposed for deletion, which will expire in 2 days. -- Atama頭 18:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

user:SAT1932CU

Resolved
 – User indefinitely blocked by Cirt and offending pages removed.  7  02:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

SAT1932CU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User appears to have a conflict of interest as their only edits are to a credit union with which they appear to be affiliated, including cross-namespace redirects from their userpages and talk pages to the articles as a result of moving them. I have RFD'd the redirects so that I can give proper notices about COI and UAA to the user. Also appears to be a group account (will report to UAA if COI is declined).  7 02:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the SPA editing, the redirects on their user page and user talk page, and the username I would think it would be a stretch for there to not be a COI here. I know from personal experience that San Antonio is often abbreviated to SAT, the Firstmark Credit Union was founded in 1932, and CU would stand for Credit Union so it's clear that they are identifying themeselves as being affiliated with the bank. I would suggest reporting to UAA regardless of the COI problems; the COI is probably not actionable anyway. -- Atama頭 23:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
SAT1932CU = "San Antonio Teachers 1932 Credit Union" from Firstmark Credit Union's original name. -- Thinking of England (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Even better! -- Atama頭 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Stcassociates2009

Resolved
 – Per below. -- Atama頭 04:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Now blocked for spam/username issues. Hairhorn (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Jonas Kroon

The first user created a subpage and the second user put that subpage at Jonas Kroon. Before being blanked, the subpage was this. Is any action needed? Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to consider whether or not the article merits inclusion. I can't find significant references (Gnews has a single hit and even though I don't speak Norwegian it still looks like he's being mentioned in passing). A regular Google search comes up with the standard LinkedIn and MySpace results you'd get from other non-notable people. It looks like he created a single short film and is trying to promote himself and the film using Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 16:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
An AfD is now ongoing for the article. -- Atama頭 07:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User:RLDPAC and Target Corporation

Can someone please review the situation with User:RLDPAC (which may be affiliated with rldpac.org), and its recent edits to Target Corporation? It seems like there may be an obvious conflict of interest, although I can't immediately ascertain whether the edits are wp:due or reliably sourced. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should notify the user that the thread is here, and invite him to reply?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Given the lack of response to the two previous messages on their talk page, I didn't believe it likely they would respond, but I have left a message there per your request. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Since there's not enough actual spam for WP:AIV, I'm reporting to WP:UAA. There's more than a simple COI here. -- Atama頭 22:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
An update: RLDPAC was reported to UAA and blocked for username violations. They requested an unblock and offered to change their username. However, there is now a suspicion that they were involved in sockpuppetry during the block. Discussion is ongoing at the talk page. -- Atama頭 06:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
A further update: The editor has been unblocked so that they can request a name change to User:pppbach. They've also pledged to abide by WP:NPOV and other policies in the future. Hopefully this is now resolved. -- Atama頭 16:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Baron Dave

  • Baron Dave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) states[7] that he is the son of Al Romm, former editor of the Middletown (NY) Times Herald-Record. User added to Woodstock Festival a lengthy section on the newspaper, playing up the role of his father and mother[8]. When I and and another user sought to whittle down this tangential text per WP:UNDUE, Baron Dave edit-warred to restore text highlighting and overemphasizing the role of his parents. [9] [10] [11]. User's edit history indicates that he has a history of editing articles about his brother Joseph J. Romm and that the COI issue has been raised previously on the talk page of that article. Editor should not add text on his parents to this article, and should engage in good faith discussions in the talk page. Instead he has mischaracterized the issue as one of "sources" when the issue is undue emphasis.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Dave wasn't notified of any of this. I'm leaving a notification on his talk page. -- Atama頭 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Deadreich

Resolved
 – User is indef blocked as a spammer, article deleted. -- Atama頭 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deadreich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Created Deadreich, an article about a band of the same name. Intelligentsium 00:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:ACgov

Blocked now for username violations. Due to the tendentious lack of cooperation they've shown so far, I doubt they would provide a proper unblock request, so I'm guessing they'll stay blocked. Hopefully this resolves the issue. -- Atama頭 20:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Leandrorache

Resolved
 – Article speedily deleted and user told about WP:OR Smartse (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Article about a chemical process "developed by Leandro Rache", referenced only to the website of the firm concerned. I have tagged notability, primarysource, COI and given the author a COI warning. I don't think it qualifies for db-spam, but Google turns up so little that unless independent references are produced in a day or two I will PROD or AfD for non-notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy as a copyvio. The article is just an English translation of the external link in the article. It's probable (I'd say almost certain) that the article was created by the same person who created the web site (on the same day even) but that doesn't matter. Even if the speedy is declined this should be deleted either per WP:NEO or WP:HOAX (a half dozen Google hits?).
Can't believe I didn't sign that last message. In any case the article has been deleted. -- Atama頭 08:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
User has contacted me saying "this innovation is made by my self. The concepts are trully originals" and I have explained about WP:OR. JohnCD (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Webmina

Webmina (talk · contribs) created a spammy entry CrystaSulf after their previous account, Crystatech (talk · contribs) was spam username blocked. However they went ahead and continued spamming anyways. Triplestop x3 00:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that we need to remember to not bite the newbies. I found this user's blog but I can't find anything to suggest that she is an employee of Crystatech. They obviously weren't aware of the username policies when they made Crystatech (talk · contribs). Smartse (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, on second thoughts, this does suggest some kind of relationship with the company. I'll ask the user to comment here. Smartse (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a relationship with the company. Please reference linkedin profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/marygreening. I am completely new to this process and happen to know about this subject as I heard about it on my travels to Canada where they are using it help with acid rain reduction as part of some Blue Sky thing they have there. I contacted one of the engineers about it. Because I was new I thought I had to sign it as crystatech administrator. I have since learned that this is not the case. I have been very respectful of the wiki process and really have a hard time understanding how I can be spamming. You will see from the logs that I have asked for guidance along the way. You can imagine the hours I have put in just learning the syntax and editing to support the wiki guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmina (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with calling the article "spammy"; at least in its current incarnation the article is about as dry and matter-of-fact as you can get. I don't notice any promotional language at all. I've removed the tag calling the article an advertisement.
As to the conflict of interest itself, I don't see any reason not to take your word for it that you're not affiliated. Please understand that an editor who named their account after a company, signed a post as "CrystaTech Administrator", who has worked on articles for both a company called CrystaTech and their chemical process patented as CrystaSulf might be seen as someone affiliated with the company. We appreciate your contributions and I hope you're getting the assistance you need, if you have specific questions about anything Wikipedia related feel free to leave a message at my talk page and I'll see if I can give you a good answer. Thanks! -- Atama頭 18:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Adrenaline band

Resolved

121.216.168.19 has changed Adrenalin which redirected to Epinephrine into an advert for a rock band complete with links for joining groups on social networks (oh the mirth!). I don't know too much about interpreting the history but it seems not to be the first time. Oh and apologies for the angry comments in the history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HannesJvV (talk • contribs) 21:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a semi-protection of the redirect will solve that problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Raj Aggarwal

This article screams out conflict of interest. The originator claims to be a student at the subject's university, but the peacock style of the original submission suggests sockpuppet. Some tidying up has been done on that score. There are two other principal contributors, each of whom appears to be solely concerned with promoting the subject within various Wikipedia articles, giving rise to further suspicion of sockpuppetry. Finally, the article is overclaiming in identifying the subject as Dean. http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20090325/FREE/903259952/1008/GOV shows that the subject was to be removed (apparently involuntarily) from the position of Dean months before the article was posted and http://www.uakron.edu/cba/cba-home/message-from-the-dean.dot shows that this was actually done.24.29.231.139 (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am rather new to this process, but have asked a few others who are not affiliated to assist in getting this article posted. The article is researched and if you find omissions or mistakes, please let me know. I am a student at the University and my intention was to promote some of his finance research. I am learning, and if you see mistakes I have made, feel free to correct them. The original submission was actually taken from his biography and resume from the University. Any clean up that was done is appreciated. As for the Dean situation, he was / has been listed as the Dean on the University website and elsewhere until recently. Thank you for updating that and correcting it. Also, my appologies for the "sock puppetry". I made a few other edits recently and thought I was logged in, but was not. Please forgive that, this is my first attempt at this site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.44.98 (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to believe that someone who is not Raj Aggarwal at U of Akron would choose the username Raggarwal_uakron but I suppose it's possible. The user claims to be a student.
There is nothing in the sources to suggest that Aggarwal's departure as Dean was involuntary. The article does have some fluff but it's not as bad as some I've seen. Rees11 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I know the subject of the article by reputation and have quickly read the article. It's approximately correct, perhaps with some fluff added by an inexperienced editor. I'll say don't bite a newby and suggest somebody else clean it up a bit. If nobody volunteers please get back to me and I'll clean it up a bit. Smallbones (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Diamond (Mega Genius)

Resolved
 – Speedily deleted as spam. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This one is quite a mess. It was apparently produced by the paid biographer of the subject, and it is completely inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia. I came at it via OTRS, where I logged copyright clearance of the material. I try not to mix my copyright hat with other editing concerns, generally, but I've tagged it for primary sources, tone & COI. I hope somebody here will have time & energy to take it on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Quite a mess" indeed. I tackled the first paragraph or two but this will take a lot of work, especially since there are no reliable sources cited. Rees11 (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Done a Google search. There actually isn't anything other than the self-promotional website the material is copied from (and press releases from said website). I doubt any editor could fix this article, and I've put it up for prod. However, I strongly urge any editor who wants a good laugh to read the article before it's deleted... :) Singularity42 (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Commoncase at Bret Hart

Resolved
 – Commoncase blocked for sockpuppetry

I came to be aware of this page when an edit war was reported on ANI by User:Commoncase. After reviewing the situation, it became obvious that the issue here was Commoncase attempting to POV-push. Further investigations of this editor's contribution history reveals that he is heavily involved with a documentary film, Bloodstained Memoirs. The director of the film apparently had a negative interaction with Hart.

See Here for the ANI, including the diffs I listed in regards to Commoncase's behavior.

The evidence that he is operating with a COI is as follows.

  • As his contribution history shows, once Bloodstained Memoirs began, he has been heavily involved in it, including linkspamming other articles with links to the BM blog
  • Has become a Single Purpose Account since the films conception, with few edits to any pages aside from Bret Hart, Bloodstained Memoirs and the corresponding talk pages since February 2008. Even those few edits to other articles were to wrestlers who appeared in Bloodstained Memoirs, adding this to the articles.
  • Claims familiarity with Hart's manager [17] [18] [19]

It should also be noted that Commoncase regularly logs in and out of a dynamic IP range in the 92.x.x.x, and some of the more incriminating difs are actually by one of the IP addresses. McJEFF (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

He also seems unfamiliar with the basics of wikipedia, his edits not only accuse others of being Hart's manager (including me) but he(?) keeps referring to moderators, I'll just take it to the Wiki moderators, Will follow any reverts up with a mod alert to both article and editor, take it up with a mod and threatening that You were Warned. Has also threatened next time I will request a perminate editing block. Seems unwilling to work with anyone else. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Arthur Cutz, inactive since April 2009 and only sporadically, has returned from 5 months of inactivity to make reverting Bret Hart to Commoncase's preferred version. McJEFF (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Commoncase and User:Arthur Cutz blocked by Admin User:Mazca as sockpuppets. McJEFF (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Favorpals

All of the above accounts seem to have some connection with Favorpals as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ncblazin247. If an admin can look into this for evidence of meatpuppetry or even sock puppetry, what would be appreciated. MuZemike 07:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Favorpals was deleted at AfD. From looking at the SPI it seems as though the accounts aren't socks although their might have been some meatpuppetry. They were all associated in some way with favorpals but as that has been deleted I think that this is resolved. Smartse (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Eek, I think that there has been a bit of biting going on with these editors. I can understand being suspicious of people who show up out of nowhere at an AfD but that doesn't justify the accusations made, at most it might take weight away from their opinions at the deletion discussion (which is over and done with, as previously noted). I don't think there's any point in spending time with a COI discussion. Ncblazin247 admitted to being an intern with the company at the SPI, so clearly they would have a COI with any article related to Favorpals but I'm sure there aren't any so it's now a moot point. I'll give some warmer welcomes to a couple of these editors and hopefully nobody's feathers got too ruffled in this whole mess. -- Atama頭 22:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, the SPI concluded that they were meatpuppets and were blocked "per WP:MEAT", even though there's nothing in that policy that says that meatpuppetry can lead to a block. In fact, it specifically lists what processes are done to mitigate disruption from meatpuppetry, and none of those include blocking. So I'm honestly confused with this one. -- Atama頭 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Brian Quintana

The article seems to be under the control of the subject or someone connected to them (sockpuppets/ip the usual) - any attempts to clean-up the article and make sure the article says what the sources actually state is reverted within minutes. Without getting into a sustained edit war, I'm all out of ideas. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Would semi-protection be better than the current full protection so that it can be cleaned up? It would keep any new socks away but let others try and sort it out. Smartse (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Googlevoice

I think you left a very appropriate note on their user talk page. So far the edits they've made haven't been awful (though not written in the most encyclopedic manner) so I'd be loathe to chase them off with accusations. -- Atama頭 05:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kimdirect

Resolved
 – User welcomed and warned, inappropriate edits all reverted.

Lucid Public Relations

Resolved
 – article deleted

{{Lucid Public Relations|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUCID_Public_Relations}} - I work for LUCID Public Relations, but I believe that my post only served to enhance Wikipedia. My original account was banned for violating the username guidelines (username: LUCIDPR) - I am new to Wikipedia and am not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes - i strongly believe that due to it's many accomplishments that LUCID Public Relations should be included in Wikipedia. Could the article be worded better to avoid sounding like LUCID is being given preference or promotion? Article can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUCID_Public_Relations Love90066 (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking this issue to the COI noticeboard. Unfortunately there isn't really anything you can possibly do to change the article to make it meet Wikipedia's standards. I understand that it seems that the accomplishments that your PR firm has achieved would make it a valuable addition to Wikipedia, but there are some objective standards set for article inclusion that are outlined in WP:N; basically that there must be significant coverage of the article in reliable sources. For example, if the New York Times did a full article on your company that would help (just an example). For the article to merit inclusion you would have to prove how it is notable, not just insist that it is. -- Atama頭 06:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DrewSchofield

This user is editing a page which is about himself Andrew Schofield. For various real world reasons I do not want to deal with him. The only bone of contention I have is wether or not Kirkby is in Liverpool. Technically it never has been.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

He made a single edit to the page, which only reverted the change you made, he declared who he was (even said "I was born in Kirkby"), and hasn't done anything since. He's sticking pretty close to the WP:COI guidelines. It sounds to me like if your only concern is the discussion of where Kirkby is, that's a content dispute. Forum shopping isn't going to help you. -- Atama頭 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Kirkby was in Kirkby Urban District not Liverpool and never has been keeping the geographic description of place consistent is important. Wikipedia has a definition of Liverpool both current and in the past Wikipedia will be far more acceptable if it maintains consistency across all articles. Mr Schofield may feel his allegiance is to Liverpool and that perhaps should be in the article whoever on a strict geographic basis he is not from anywhere that actually was in Liverpool. I also draw you attention to Wikipedia:Autobiography which strongly discourages editing articles about yourself.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Again this is not the place to debate the content of the article. Andrew made a minor edit once and never made another edit. He would certainly have a conflict of interest regarding his own biographical article but it has been almost a week since his edit and I don't think there's anything to be concerned about. He hasn't objected to your removal of the Liverpool category that was done since his sole edit. He's been warned about conflicts of interest and editing his own biography, so what else needs to be done? -- Atama頭 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Nothing else needs to be done but as I said. I have a real world problem for not dealing with him. So if I monitor it then I will have a conflict of interest. I just making sure people know the situation.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So you're declaring your own potential COI, well that's very conscientious of you to do so. If you like I'll keep it on my watchlist so that there's another pair of eyes on the article if that helps. -- Atama頭 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jean Matter Mandler


Aside from this article looking like it was copied and pasted from another source, the user above appears to have a possible conflict of interest here, considering the similarity between his/her name and the article's subject (and speaking of that, the notability of the subject herself is debatable). Other editors and I have brought the possible COI issue to the editor's attention, and s/he responded by saying s/he doesn't have a conflict of interest but I wonder if s/he really understands exactly what a conflict of interest entails. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd have a lot of trouble debating notability on this one, per WP:PROF she very clearly meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards for an academic professional.
As for the COI, I think this is pretty telling. Not trying to out anyone of course, but choosing an account name like that is pretty much broadcasting his identity. Notice on history of the George Mandler article, there is an editor named Mandler. Coincidence? Although it's possible that these professors have fans (or admiring students) who have chosen usernames in their honor. -- Atama頭 22:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, if this editor really is the distinguished Professor Mandler I would hope that these questions about conflict of interest don't scare him off. An expert with his credentials editing the encyclopedia would be fantastic. -- Atama頭 22:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Side note: I changed your wikilink to WP:OUTING because WP:OUT means something totally different. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Haha, that it does. Thanks for the correction! -- Atama頭 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Conflict of interest - I am her husband, but in conformity with instructions I have been very careful to be objective. The material is not copied from anything else. And if she better be classified as an academic rather than a notable, that is perfectly reasonable. George Mandler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmandler (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

She'd fly past WP:PROF so no problems there - I'm snowed under or I'd have a go at the article - if there are still problems, someone ask me in October and I'll take it under my wing. :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Gmandler seems to be respecting the COI guidelines and maintaining NPOV quite well. Acknowledging the connection, to me, is evidence of good faith on his part as well. ArakunemTalk 18:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone have any issues, or object to me closing this and removing the COI tag from the article? It's not supposed to be a "scarlet letter" to remain forever, if the potential COI editor is staying in-bounds, which he seems to be in this case... ArakunemTalk 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's see what the tag says. "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." To dissect this... First, the tag declares that a person might have a conflict of interest and yes in this case that could be said. Then it says it may require cleanup, but looking at that article there is nothing that should be cleaned up, certainly nothing violating WP:NPOV. Finally, it says to discuss this on the talk page of the article but it looks like the discussion on the talk page is settled aside from the identity of Gmandler (which has now been cleared up). So I don't see any reason to continue using that tag. -- Atama頭 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:JeanDelaporte

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

The above user created an account on 31 August. His edit history shows that he has exclusively edited two articles: Farouk Hosny and UNESCO. For those who don't know, Farouk Hosny is Egypt's Minister of Culture, and is the leading candidate for the post of UNESCO Director-General. User:JeanDelaporte is actively engaged outside Wikipedia in a campaign to oppose Hosny's election. See here and here. He even has an entire website devoted to this cause. All of this user's edits have consisted in adding extremely negative statements about Hosny, to the point where the "Controversy" section now represents two thirds of the article's content. Several issues are at stake here, namely WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP. The aim of the user is thus to influence in some way the outcome of the UNESCO elections, which are due to take place this month, by using Wikipedia to portray Hosny in an extremely negative light. It is impossible to assume good faith here. --BomBom (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Particularly when he adds defamatory material not in the source to a quote. I've just reverted all his last edits because of that and warned him. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There also seems to be a lot of undue weight being given to the Controvery section on the Hosny article. The "Achievements" section is 1 paragraph of rattling off a comma-seperated list, while the Controversies section is 4 paragraphs full of POV and speculation... ArakunemTalk 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New Chronology (Rohl)

Occasional problems here but probably ignorable until this edit by David Rohl (talk · contribs) - it would be useful if someone who hasn't been involved stepped in to help. He has had a lot of advice about COI issues and I don't think he should have made this major edit himself. He is heavily involved in editing this page and David Rohl, usually just on the talk page however. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he shouldn't, but I don't see any problems introduced, and Rohl had (per my suggestion) drafted the edit at User:David Rohl/NCdraft, and posted the link on the talk page, which produced no objections to the content. Rd232 talk 08:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to stay out of it myself, but this was too much. I hadn't been following the talk page closely and hadn't noticed that he was drafting something in userspace. The edit appears to me to be one of Rohl arguing his case for his chronology which is completely inappropriate and original research. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Doug, while I agree that this material could be better sourced, and that Rohl shouldn't have made the edit himself, I doubt that it is original research - as far as I can tell, it is mostly a summary of arguments Rohl has made in his published work. Rohl's published work is obviously a reliable source for what the New Chronology says, so I think the issue here is that we need to be more detailed in our sourcing, not that this is verboten OR. The language could probably also stand some editing for POV, and we might put more input from dissenting voices, if we can, but I think that, overall, it's not so bad, and is an okay starting point. john k (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I really would as I said like someone uninvolved to comment. Rohl has now accused me of malice and of having a COI myself - his response was just a personal attack but he did say that it wasn't "theoretical OR, but 'implications' - although this aspect should perhaps be taken to the NOR (but would that be forumshopping?). As I wrote on the talk page, we have the phrase 'indirectly challenges' with no source, and then two new paragraphs where the sources don't discuss the New Chronology and then more about Rohl's ideas. Ok, I missed the fact that it was on a userpage (I wasn't blaming anyone for that), but it should have been on the talk page and someone else should have added it (or not, as I don't think a lot of it is appropriate). And what do you think Rohl's response will be to me if I start editing the article and add cn templates or remove stuff I think is OR? I really don't want the hassle which is why I've stayed away, it's just unpleasant. Rohl should not be editing the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I just spent an hour or two reading the entire talk page, & the discussion there could be far worse. While I admit I am not totally uninvolved, I do have enough distance to see that progress appears to be made on improving this article & I think the three of you all deserve praise for that. Especially since this is a hard task -- it concerns an esoteric aspect of a technical issue (i.e. ancient Egyptian chronology) & this article easily could have led to an ArbCom case or OTRS issue. I believe the chief challenge has been -- & still is -- this subject is David Rohl's baby, & he can't help but react to any criticism as if his baby is being knifed. However, he has been trying to be objective, & I feel he has provided some useful input into the article. If a way could be found to keep him a bit further removed from the article -- not unable to participate, but to give the rest of the people a little more space to work in -- this might allow the article to improve at a quicker pace. -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ideally, he should confine his editing to the the talk page of the article, and everyone involved should get together there and discuss each change incrementally before making any changes to the article. Since, as you rightly said, any change or criticism, however small, is likely to be controversial in his eyes, the changes should proceed slowly and incrementally, with discussion to a consensus:
"I propose we change paragraph 3 to read <x>"
<discussion back and forth>
<Consensus!>
<Change made>
<Move to paragraph 4....>
It may seem like it is progressing slowly, but this way it is sure to be something everyone can agree on. And as this methodology proceeds, it will likely get quicker as the parties get to know each other. ArakunemTalk 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You are right about that, but it appears that (1) he was concerned that none of the errors he felt in the article were being fixed, so (2) on the advice of one of the people involved, he wrote his own version of the article in his own userspace, then (3) asked if he should move his text to the article, & when no one spoke up (4) did so. It has happened elsewhere that people with a COI asks for a change in an article, but no one responds; what should that person then do? David Rohl, right or wrong, for lack of a better option decided to be bold (as in WP:BRD). Following that model, the next step should then be for someone -- say Doug Weller, who obviously objects to this change -- to revert & then discuss. -- llywrch (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, his discussing on the talk page is only half of the equation. Any/all editors who have differing opinions also need to participate as well, otherwise "silence equals acquiescence" is not an unreasonable assumption for him to make in this case. ArakunemTalk 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree it would have been a good thing if I'd participated more. My hand operation has been holding me back since the 27th which seems to be when this all started, and I didn't notice the mention that it was being worked on off the talk page. What I think I'd like now is for someone to raise the OR issues I've raised at NOR - if I raise them I'll also raise Rohl's ire I think. It needs to be cleared up how much the sources need to actually mention Rohl's NC. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm a somewhat uninvolved editor (I've never edited that article to my knowledge or gotten involved in any discussion regarding its content). But this is the 3rd time I've seen David Rohl appear on the COI noticeboard in the last month or so and I've looked at his participation at the New Chronology article, and for the most part he's pretty good about discussing things on the talk page rather than editing the article itself. -- Atama頭 19:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Which is more or less what I was trying to say at the start of this. He definitely started off on the wrong foot though edit warring like mad, but except for his tendency to take things personally and insult others he disagrees with, he could be worse. But I still think he should have waited to let someone else post it, there is no deadline. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Islamic marketing

I am in doubt what to do about this. It appeared as an announcement of "Islamic marketing, a new social science founded by Dr. Baker Ahmad Alserhan" and of a journal he plans to publish next year. Dr Alserhan clearly thought, quite innocently, that Wikipedia was the right notice-board to publicise his new journal. So far, so spammy; but I thought not quite blatant enough for db-spam, and instead PRODded it as original research. The PROD has been removed and the article further edited by a number of IPs (probably Dr Alserhan editing without logging in). There is now some discussion of the subject as well as the journal, and references to several books, which suggest that, rather than "a new social science founded by Dr. Alserhan", "Islamic marketing" may be an already-existing subject worthy of an article. So do we:

  • send this article to AfD as self-promotion and original research, or
  • cut out the promotional bit about the "new social science" and the yet-to-be-published journal, and leave a stub in the hope that it can be an expanded to an article - which could, in due course, refer to Dr Alserhan's journal when that is published. Dr Alserhan himself might very likely be able to develop such an article - what guidance should he be given about how far he is allowed to mention himself and his forthcoming journal?

JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article and after googling "islamic marketing" I've decided to send it to AfD here. Smartse (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tonye Irims and Dual SIM

Resolved
 – Indef blocked as a spammer. -- Atama頭 00:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
User has been indef blocked by User:Blueboy96. Smartse (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor being sent material by subject to add to article

Resolved
 – Deleted. ArakunemTalk 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You can see that at User talk:Megaeclipse the editor Megaeclipse, blocked for a notional 12 hours by me for copyvio after being warned, is asking for an unblock because "actually the author himself told me to us the material,but he latter realised that it was copyrighted and sent me the original material,so please unblock me as this is a matter of great impotrance, and i have to upload the material". This is to do with the Wayne Herschel article which has attracked some of Herschel's fans. What's the COI position here if this editor is acting as a proxy for the subject, which appears to be the situation? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we treat them as a meatpuppet and as having a conflict of interest when they use words like "this is a matter of great impotrance [sic] and I have to upload the material". --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a COI any time the editor's concerns are split between writing a good article, and any other real-world concern as appears here to be the case. Copyvios aside though, the previous text was massively POV, which is its own problem beyond the motivations of the editor. Watchlisting this to see how it fares after the block expires, or if other fans follow suit. ArakunemTalk 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've had email from two of his fans today!. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Transilluminate

They are either the artist himself or a very dedicated fan (maybe PR person?). An avalanche of edits in the first day of the account, and all of them either editing the artist's page or adding info to other pages about the artist. I would say give them a chance to communicate, if they do, but if they don't they may be looking at a block sometime in the future. In the meantime we shouldn't treat them too harshly. -- Atama頭 22:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you had a look at the user's talk page? There have been multiple attempts to communicate, all ignored... thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
They are also most likely a brand-new user on a mistaken flurry of editing. The account was created earlier today and edited for about 7 hours and stopped. I don't know if they have ever looked at their user talk page. They've never made an edit outside of article space. That is why myself and NeilN urge a bit of caution per WP:BITE, there's no evidence so far of ill-intent. -- Atama頭 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I've done some cleanup on the article and removed some spammy links. I also tagged it for copypaste since some of it seems to be lifted from other websites. Might be the individuals standard bio. Probably worth keeping an eye on but nothing showing signs of intentional abuse or gross negligence. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
From this they have admitted to being "official employees" of Brian Clarke and asked for page protection to be established on Brian Clarke (artist) so that only they can edit it in the future. That request is the one and only time they've made any kind of communication with someone on Wikipedia that I can see. I think that WP:AGF has been stretched too far, plus they are violating WP:NOSHARE already by sharing the account so they're due for an indef block. I wonder if a WP:ANI report is necessary now. -- Atama頭 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied from WT:COI

I write for a music review site called Roughstock. While the reputability of the site has never been questioned, I've been a bit afraid of citing my own single and album reviews in articles. The closest I've come so far to adding my own review is in Joey (song), where someone else added my review and I trimmed a little so that it didn't look like my review was receiving undue weight. WP:COI says "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The site seems to conform to the policies — it has a somewhat bloglike format like The 9513, which was also declared reputable by various other editors; in addition, main Roughstock editor Matt Bjorke has reviewed for other publications such as About.com, and guest editor Michael Sudhalter also writes for Country Standard Time magazine. I think that the use of my review on "Joey" is neutrally worded. Would it be acceptable to cite my own reviews on song and album articles in a similarly neutral fashion? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest with the Peaberry Coffee article

I have been editing the Peaberry Coffee article tirelessly over the past several days. Peaberry Coffee, Inc. closed its doors. You can see the Denver Post article Denver's Peaberry Coffee chain closes shop. A user named javalover100 keeps undoing the changes which make reference to Peaberry closing. I have commented on javalover100's page, and have gotten no response. I believe there is a definite conflict of interest here, as my information is factual and straight from the cited article. I believe Wikipedia should be factual and up to date, not biased and false.

To add insult to injury, javalover100 doesn't use links correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N290 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that there's a COI (probable even) but regardless of the COI or not, this person is clearly attempting to own the article. I'm leaving them a 3RR warning and will watch the page and revert, if they revert again it's getting reported to the noticeboard. Thanks for bringing this up. -- Atama頭 15:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure enough, they reverted again, so I went ahead and made a report at WP:AN3. -- Atama頭 16:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Javalover100 has been blocked for 24 hours, which is the standard for a person who has been reported for edit-warring for the first time. I'm hoping that either they will start talking about their edits on the talk page of the article or will give up what they're doing. I'm keeping the article on my watchlist (and I've also made some major edits to the article just because I thought they were needed). -- Atama頭 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
New update, the article has been reverted twice by a brand new user, so I've started up a sockpuppet report here. -- Atama頭 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The article was reverted once again, by a new user. I reverted to the changes made by Atama. When would it become appropriate to lock the article from all edits? N290 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't request page protection at all, and I don't think it would be granted if asked. Page protection is usually for an article being abused by numerous anonymous or brand new accounts (semi-protection) or for an article that is being heatedly warred over by established editors (full protection). When an article is being abused by a single editor over and over, you block that editor. In this case the editor appears to be using sockpuppets to avoid the block, but I'm hoping the sockpuppet investigation report will take care of that. I'm keeping an eye on the page, and while I won't revert the new editors (I don't want to violate WP:3RR myself even though it could be argued that these reverts are vandalism) I'll continue to add any new puppets to the report if needed. I'll say this editor is making the job easy, all they are doing is making the same revert over and over again, so it's blatantly obvious who they are. -- Atama頭 01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
To elaborate on why the article shouldn't be protected, look at the history of the article and look at all of the positive edits made, often by anonymous editors. I'd like to think that my edits to the article helped it somewhat also. Protecting the page might stop the abuse but it will also stop good editors from making it even better, so it's something that's only done as a last resort if nothing else will help. -- Atama頭 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ARRTAF

I first reported this user at WP:UAA, but the report was denied due to the admin not seeing a connection between the username and the content the user was creating, so the admin suggested I bring the issue here. I feel this user is using WP for promoting an entity. ArcAngel (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added links for the user and the only article that they have edited so far. I've removed a speedy deletion tag as I think that the article does assert notability onto the person. I can't quite see the COI issue either. Can you explain why there is one?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs)
(ec) I agree with whoever denied the UAA report. I can't find anything that "ARRTAF" would be representing. There is an organization called ARRT but I don't see any relation between that organization and the edits that ARRTAF has made. What entity are they supposedly promoting? I see that their contributions (at least undeleted ones) are to the Ralph Petty article, but do you have any evidence or reason to suspect that this editor is personally connected to Mr. Petty aside from being a single purpose account? -- Atama頭 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not have any further evidence, no. Like I stated above, I felt AARTAF was promoting someone. I also don't see many third-party sources on the article page that establish notability. I initially thought he was part of the famed Petty racing clan. I also have not found any reliable sources as far as coverage goes for his artwork - maybe I am misinterpreting something? ArcAngel (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Generally the COI noticeboard is for editors who have an obvious connection to whatever their edits are about, such as someone confirmed to be an employee of a company whose article they have removed criticism from, or a person who created an article about a person whose name matches their username (just a couple of examples). There should be some clear connection, not a suspicion (and I'm not even sure why you'd suspect, the article isn't overly promotional). If you think that someone is editing Wikipedia only for promotional purposes but you aren't sure, your best bet is to assume good faith until you have reason not to.
If you have specific concerns with the article itself, those concerns are best taken care of on the article's talk page. I see that you have a lot of experience in fighting vandals (awesome) so you should be able to recognize what is real vandalism and what isn't, and if this editor crosses the line into actual spam give the proper warnings and report to WP:ANI if necessary. -- Atama頭 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I can pretty well recognize vandalism on the spot, but some isn't so obvious.  :) But as I said, another admin recommended coming here for this issue as he didn't see the same thing I did, so I thank you for your response. ArcAngel (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Herschel

Resolved
 – Article deleted at AfD. ArakunemTalk 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As this is a slightly different issue I'm raising it in a separate section. This article keeps getting new users on its talk page saying how great he is. Now I've found this on Dan Brown's facebook page, a comment from Herschel:

"WIKIPEDIA WARS DAY 2 - AUTHOR AND SOLOMON KEY TO BE DELETED

If there are any wiki subscribers out there we need numbers... some have tried to help already but the manipulators there will not allow two important uploads complete the page to be an accep...table author page.

I have just been talking to Nirman... and he tried uploading my bio and periodical references as the wikipedia page requests and some malicious group is deleting them.

1)The two periodical references are on record here: http://www.thehiddenrecords.com/press_release.htm

2)Biography text http://www.wayneherschel.com

There is a full barage there of people (discussion page) manipulating the uploads that wiki are saying they need... any wiki members out there please can you intervene if possible. I am so tied up trying to save my book as well... I am not managing at all with this crazy stuff.

HERE IS THE CRAZY DISCUSSION PAGE... WHO CAN FIGURE A WAY TO FIX IT? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wayne_Herschel"

Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Not good.... I put some words of wisdom on the talk page. If any of the facebook users can improve the article within the 5 Pillars, then great. I tried to paraphrase what it takes to do so... hope I wasn't too blunt. ArakunemTalk 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
If they can't contribute positively and don't cooperate, it might be best to go to WP:RFPP and request semi-protection. These off-wiki "calls for help" usually lead to chaos in my experience so my hopes aren't high but it's best to give them a chance. -- Atama頭 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. We give them a chance, explaining exactly how to contribute productively. If it doesn't go well, then Semi-prot is definitely called for. ArakunemTalk 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to report this situation. Looks like I got beat to the punch. I am concerned that Mr. Herschel has said on his talk page he has no intention of learning how to contribute effectively to Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a quote from his talk page. It is unsigned but it is Herschel speaking:
"It is you that are implying the issue. If it does not meet up with regulations will you please present a case for it be changed. It is a user name. I am author and not a computer programmer and do not intend trying to learn the ropes here, I am simply getting the page right and doing what is fair. I will proceed with caution and see that the said page follows all requirements. I am getting the feeling the deletion group involved so far with my work has a hidden agenda and I will need to follow up on any false information or malicious unverified deletions of important text is followed up and questioned as you question me, but with media that will be here on this site of the 15th September."
Bold for emphasis is mine.Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
More from Wayne Herschel:
This little gem was just posted by Mr. Herschel on the AfD page:
"The page has just been Reverted to next to nothing... the false claim by Ove von Spaeth is back and it is not true.
there is somthing drastically unbalanced here and it is about to go online on where others can see the manipulation is rife here!
I will give moderators here an hour to provide a solution to this then i have no other choice other than taking astand against the moderators names who claim all is fair here. I have a full page put together that will upload in an hour... if I have already been blocked it will come from another party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstronomerPHD (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)"
This matter is getting somewhat out of hand. There is a clear CoI on the AstronomerPHD profile.Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

From the Dan Brown facebook page,

"I ask please all those other wiki folks out there to contact me because i have found a way to beat this nonesense. We are being watched by the destructive group here so I cant discuss the plan. Please write to me at XXXXXXXXX and I will share the solution" --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And yet we are accused of being a cabal. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's the usual pattern of behaviour that we expect to see in those sorts of cases 1) if I explain it to the administrators, they will ban the people removing my article, 2) if I keep reposting it, eventually it will stick, 3) if I get people to say I'm nice or interesting, it will stick. I really don't understand what is that difficult to understand about verification or the use of reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The disconnect is that Mr. Herschel wants to use Wikipedia as part of the platform for his book. As the book is a self-published book on a fringe subject it has not garnered attention aside from local newspapers saying "gee whiz, this local has some odd ideas that he put into a book". And so he doesn't have any verification and there aren't reliable sources according to Wikipedia criteria. Because Mr. Herschel is not familliar with Wikipedia (as he has said) and because (also he has said) he has no interest in becoming familliar with Wikipedia he is not playing out of the same playbook. It seems to me that he just wants free publicity.Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the von Spaeth thing as it wasn't properly sourced - ironically it was put there by the article's creator who may support Herschel. As an aside, this article is a recreation of a speedied article in 2007 if I recall correctly. I'm bothered by the username Herschel has chosen, as he is not an astronomer with a PhD - in fact he's neither. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Which is not actually a requirement of our username system is it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
He could call himself Ramses II in his username if he wanted. It doesn't make him an ancient pharoah. I do think it's a little bit gauche that he is trying to present himself as if he had an academic credential that he doesn't but I'm more concerned with the off-site activism, the CoI edits and the lack of constructive conversation on the AfD and talk pages affected than I am with his username.Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The username isn't a problem. Calling himself a PhD isn't a big deal, all our username requirements state is that you can't falsely claim to have authority in Wikipedia, and a PhD, real or not, gives you no more authority in this project than anyone else. It's tacky but that's about the worst of it. In any case it looks like the AfD is heading toward a snowball deletion so this will probably all blow over soon. -- Atama頭 17:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it's tacky but not forbidden. I was mainly hoping he'd explain it which is why I asked about it - if I'd had serious doubts about it I would have sent it to UAA. Bad idea of his I think as it doesn't make him look good. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an explanation. He's made a whole career around wild claims, why stop with a username? Look how he has asserted on his user talk page that he has contacted "top people" about the deletion of his biography, when it's clear he doesn't know much about Wikipedia itself, let alone how to pull imaginary strings. (He frequently refers to non-existent "moderators".) -- Atama頭 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The lastest from facebook

Hi Nirman... wrote to top exec at wikipedia UK... investigating page and will report back shortly with a possibility of a full upload of the page how it should be, which I prepared yesterday with 20 references. Also chance of locking the page if the listed instigators are verified and identified :) Verified and identified? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Won't be too hard to identify me. I am rather open about my real life identity.Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
And even later latest from Facebook:
After making contact with Wikimedia authorities in the UK, an over seeing moderator has now offered to upload the wikipedia full page and references to the real finding and will verify that I am the author, perhaps checking out the periodicals I use for references. Having said this it will be still be open to discussion and the page hopefully frozen for a short period of time during its evaluation. The previous 'delete frenzy' editors in question there also tried to remove my copyrights on the carefully redrawn detail of the Hebrew pictogram cipher puzzle, for the (Key of Solomon), claiming they had the right to make it free. The old listing of my work there has almost no meaning and the listing will be there for a day or too before starting from scratch. I just wanted to say special thanks for support in this matter as the inquiry there was seen in better light and not just me versus a group of biased editors.
Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Article deleted so I imagine that should resolve Mr. Herschel's (odd) concerns over free use of his diagram. I still think that the page needs to be salted as this quote suggests Mr. Herschel intends to re-post the article in a few days. As an note, I don't know much about South African copyright law but I do know that in Canada you can't claim copyright on a public domain symbol just by re-drawing it. You could claim fair use on a copyright for a piece derived from a public domain symbol if you could demonstrate a substantive change to the underlying meaning of the symbol in some way but the original symbol would remain in the public domain and if it was unchanged your redrawn copy would likewise be public domain.Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
What diagram is he referring to? I don't see any upload from the one known account. ArakunemTalk 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think he may be referring to the picture of the "solomons key" (actually a plate of a circle diagram from within the book) that was removed from the page a few days before the AfD was concluded. The removal was on the grounds that a) the picture was doctored and b) the picture likely violated free use criteria. As seems de-rigeur for Mr. Herschel he got things bass-ackwards and thought we were trying to claim he didn't have copyright when, in fact, the opposite was being proposed - that the picutre should not be up because we did not hold a copyright for it. This is only a guess.Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest from Herschel on Dan Brown's Facebook:
Wayne Herschel
WIKIPEDIA UK AUTHORITY DEMAND REMOVAL OF AUTHOR AND SOLOMON KEY FINDING
I have been told by the UK Wikipedia authority <name redacted by SimonM due to WP:OUTING> Re:Ticket#2009090210032671 that I must be removed. Other authors with less status than my own have the right to be on ...wikipedia but due to the material concerned, I have absolutely no right to be there. All that is left there is the image that I rendered on a separate page... and even my copyrights as the artist have been removed too for the Solomon Key cipher now to be public property. They are out right lying that it has expired. (it was only there two months and copyright text on it now removed) I am releasing all documentation to the media for next week with the other attacks to try and stop my book project that are underway right now. I presented all the third party references they asked for, TV coverage, Coast to Coast radio, many newspapers covering my findings as discoveries, not just an author, two periodicals on the Solomon key and more.
Authors like David Ike that self published, had no media covered historical discoveries, and claims the Queen of England is an alien has a full page spread.
Here is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Herschel
Here is my image:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hebrew-solomon-key-parchment-pictogram-cipher-puzzle-clavicula-salomonis-wayne-herschel.jpg
Now this strikes me as just about the worst case of WP:CANVAS I have ever seen. Furthermore Mr. Herschel still is making bizarre copyright claims. I can't actually make heads or tails of his reasoning... it seems like he thinks that because he is the copyright holder we can't delete his picture... or something. But that would be the same as suggesting that a janitor who uses a high-pressure water spray to blast the graffiti off a public wall was breaking the copyright of the tagger. Anyway, still hoping we can get this article salted to avoid future flareups. How do we go about seeing to that?Simonm223 (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL- BHA : wow, apparently wikipedia is held in high regard among these people as this seems to have become a big deal to them. I would offer, in his defense, one explanation for his comments that sound similar to some of my own in many contexts. He has an agenda or set of objectives that may or may not match wikipedias, the benefit of free assembly of course is that lacking in mutual desire to associate everyone can part ways and you need not learn what everyone is doing, just determine if there is an empirical match where everyone says "ok". Presumably this is what he would prefer to learning the ways of wikipedia. An encyclopedia or other objective is not for everyone. Sorry I don't have much to contribute beyond that but this is a humorous story. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we say though that he has a clear CoI over articles related to himself? Can we take some constructive action (such as salting the article and / or a topic ban) to prevent reoccurance?Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

COI issue

moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#COI_issue

User:Parellic acknowledges he is Michael Smith, also posting to Usenet as Mike Smith with the email address "parellic@". Most of his edits relate to John Alexander Symonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He appears to have RL connections with the subject (both spying and interest in police corruption, see here for example). I have looked over the Symonds article and removed anything which dod not seem to me to be directly supported by the sources. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you didn't actually revert any of Parellic's edits (though I myself did, he made a somewhat random rename to a category which broke the link, I fixed it back). So I don't see that you're disputing any of his actual edits. I believe that you've properly identified why Parellic might have an interest in the article, but you haven't shown any conflict of interest. While Parellic may have had a life experience similar to Mr. Symonds I don't see what the conflict is supposed to be... That he might have a positive bias because he empathizes with him? If so, that's a real stretch and I don't think it even comes close to any of the suggestions at WP:COI. If anything, it just shows that Parellic might be the best sort of person to edit this kind of article because he has some experties (as long as he stays away from original research). -- Atama頭 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mensa1960 and Quizbowl

The user at User talk:Mensa 1960 has a conflict of interest at Quizbowl. User is Cheryl Claypoole Beall, the ex-wife of the proprietor of a particular quizbowl tournament, who still owns a financial stake in said tournament. After her attempts at washing the National Academic Championship page of all critical information led to that page's deletion, she has now moved on to the general quizbowl page. This user has an unavoidable ideological and financial COI in articles related to high school quizbowl. Bullofconfusion (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: The user had self-identifed here:[20]. I can't see the edits from the National Academic Championship article, but the edits on Quizbowl so far have been her removing uncited and WP:WEASELly phrases from the article. (e.g. "Most" player consider buzzer-beaters bad, "Most" question companies omit those questions, HS tournaments "tend to attract stronger teams", that sort of thing). The user may very well have a COI in this area (though it could also be argued that she is a Subject Matter Expert), but as long as her edits are neutral and do not promote the entity she is affiliated with, nor are adverse to her competitors, then she is allowed to edit these types of articles, per the COI guidelines. As I said, I did not see the NAC article edits, but whitewashing criticism is certainly not allowed. In the case of the quizbowl article however, her edits all seem to be tempering some rather leading sentences that by all rights could have been deleted entirely as unsupported. ArakunemTalk 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Conflict of interest - I have updated my user page to clarify my relationship to quiz bowl. I have no ownership stake or other current ties to my former spouse/company or to any other aspect of quiz bowl. My interest is in imparting factuality and a neutral point of view, which the article currently lacks. Mensa1960 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I wanted to chime in to to say that i've been following the Quizbowl AfD and have put some work into improving the article. These quizbowl fanatics probably are Subject Matter Experts, they just need to tone down their hilarious bickering (I frankly picture people in MIT labs trash talking and coming to blows over some obscure scientific debate). In the last day or so, they do seem to be taking steps to improve the quizbowl article, which is great. --Milowent (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tate Publishing & Enterprises

Davedolphin (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account, has been attempting to remove the claim that Tate Publishing & Enterprises is a vanity press from the article [21] [22] [23]. I believe that this claim is both well-attested by two reliable secondary sources (in my preferred version of the article) and factually supported by the publisher's own web site (a vanity press is a press that asks authors to pay for or "invest" in their own books rather than paying authors for the privilege of publishing their books; Tate's web page states that they ask for such investments; therefore despite their denials they are a vanity press). I'm coming here because it seems likely that this account's non-neutral edits are due to a conflict of interest — whether it's as someone associated directly with the press or an author in denial seems irrelevant. Anyway, more eyes would be appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PS I just did a little more research. Tate's "meet the staff" page lists Dave Dolphin as Director of Book Production. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I left a 3RR warning even though they've only reverted twice, just to make them aware of the policy against edit-warring. Removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced promotional info is just not allowed. They need to discuss things on the talk page rather than trying to unilaterally push things onto the article. Oh, and yes there is a very clear conflict of interest here. -- Atama頭 17:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund

Resolved
 – User name blocked – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Left Welcome, Spam, and COI notices on the talk page, as none had yet been so left. ArakunemTalk 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Now there are issues here: username, COI, reference formatting, lack of independent refs to name just a few. However this does seem like it would be a valid EL for the article (maybe just one of them), certainly not a spamlink. Coming here also seems a little excessive as a response, especially when the editor is clearly new and still has a blank talkpage.
Surely this is just the classic case of a well-meaning (not just GF but positively benevolent) new editor falling foul of our obscure ways of working and needing a little assistance in how we do things locally, not a tarring and feathering as An Evil Spammer(tm). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That's my guess as well. The Spam notice is actually better termed a "possibly inappropriate external link" notice, so I'm hoping the tone of the templates doesn't scare them off. ArakunemTalk 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure a good beating with the WikiStick will see them off, it's usually enough. Damned newbies, coming over here and adding their nasty content all over the place! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
User name blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued Commercialism in Data Loggers article

Two particular vendors consistently edit this page to add commercial links. I have been trying to police this page for two years, but they continue to post commercial links and statements. Request their accounts/IPs be banned (121.216.121.20,63.255.173.99,64.122.168.30). 173.10.212.9 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added some links above. Smartse (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see the IPs have only made one edit each to the article and only this edit by 63.255 seems at all problematic - the IP is listed as belonging to this company. I don't really see the problem here to be honest, am I missing something? Smartse (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

California Healthcare Institute

Resolved
 – Blocked as spammer with promotional username. -- Atama頭 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User is adding names of board members to the article. Tckma (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mad Science

I am in the process of updating the article on the company Mad Science. I have disclosed the fact that I do work for the company, and I am doing my very best to make this article as objectionable as possible. I intend it to be an overview of the company, a description of its history and operations. I have posted information on the talk page of the article and mine as well. Obviously anyone can add or modify my edits at any time, and that's the beauty of Wikipedia. The previous article red more like an advertisement then my current edit, therefore I feel that the disclaimer above the article that states the possibility or conflict of interest should be removed. The disclaimer itself diminishes the articles validity, when in fact if I had kept the information to my self (being employed by Mad Science) that no one would have batted an eyelash.

If there are any steps I need to take to have the disclamer removed, please let me know Thanks for your time!

--Timthom2 (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not adspace. It is questionable whether this company meets WP:GNG it does not as it presently stands.Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Right now there is a proposed deletion tag on the article. Might I assume that you don't want the article to be deleted? If so, edit the article and remove that tag, and you will be officially contesting the deletion. Proposed deletions cannot be controversial, or seriously objected to by anyone, or they are invalid. So if you don't want the article to be deleted, remove the tag. The article might still be deleted at some future date if it is brought before an articles for deletion discussion, so I suggest that you work to resolve the notability issues that the article currently has.
Just to let you know, while Wikipedia is an open project that anyone can edit (within restrictions) not every subject merits an article. For example, I personally haven't accomplished anything notable enough in my lifetime to justify having an article, and most people and companies would not qualify either. The general guideline to notability for article subjects can be read at WP:N, and there is another guideline specifically for companies and organizations at WP:CORP. The main way to show notability is to show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Did a major newspaper or magazine run a profile on the company? Something like that would help show that the company is notable enough for inclusion in the project.
As to the conflict of interest, by our guidelines at WP:COI it would be difficult to say that you don't have a conflict of interest. The guidelines suggest that you shouldn't edit the article directly. Having said that, there are no hard rules that say that you can't edit the article. If you do continue to edit the article, be sure that you understand the rules regarding original research and keeping a neutral point of view, as those are the biggest concerns that arise when a person edits an article while having a conflict of interest. Also remember that while you work for the company, neither you nor anyone else at the company own the article so take care not to control the content of the article. I don't currently see evidence that you've violated any of these rules and you seem sincere in wanting to improve the article so I don't personally have concerns about your actions at that article.
You've asked about the COI tag currently on the article. I'm going to leave a message for Dougweller, the editor who left the tag, and ask him to comment here. In my experience he is a good editor with good intentions and I'm sure he'd be willing to present any concerns he has about the article in a civil manner so that you can resolve them. Generally the COI tag means that there might be material in the article that should be cleaned up because it is too promotional, so even though you do seem to have a COI that tag might not be necessary.
I hope this clears things up a bit. As I said, you should remove the proposed deletion tag if you don't want the article to get deleted soon, and then work on trying to show how the article is notable. -- Atama頭 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm off to bed but will look carefully at the article tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Atma speaks truth. As the person who proposed the deletion of the article I have to say I have nothing against your company (which I have never previously heard of) and support science education for children vehemently and wholeheartedly. However that doesn't mean your company is notable. You said you had Globe and Mail references. Globe and Mail is a RS. Get those properly referenced in the article and if they prove to be appropriate and not puff pieces I'll pull the PROD myself.Simonm223 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I pulled the prod. Found a recent New York Times article, plus the CSI etc partnerships, the Globe article, etc. Also took off COI tag. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ellechris13

Ellechris13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- The user KHOU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked due to username violations and edits made to the article on the TV station KHOU. A short time after User:KHOU was blocked, User:Ellechris13 was created and immediately made the same edits to the KHOU article. I am concerned that the users are the same person and therefore COI exists. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is true COI exists, but there is a bigger issue here - sockpuppetry, or the use of alternate accounts to violate Wikipedia policies. Try WP:SPI. Intelligentsium 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks! --Nsaum75 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If KHOU was blocked for having a promotional username, then they are encouraged to either request an unblock to change their username, or create a new account with an acceptable username. Creating a new account isn't sockpuppetry to evade a block, it's conforming to WP:U. Going to SPI would be a mistake. -- Atama頭 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, actually they weren't blocked only for username violations, if that was the case then Template:Uw-softerblock would have been applied. They were blocked for spamming with a Template:Uw-spamublock, which is a hard block, and creating a new account is in fact a block evasion through sockpuppetry. So, never mind, SPI is totally warranted. -- Atama頭 00:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ombudswiki

Resolved
 – "Love is My Form " as it is presented, although seems suspicious, seems not to be a COIJ929 (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I would draw readers' attention to the fact that User J929, in this grudging admission, has gratuitously maintained his/her still unsubstantiated innuendo that the biography Love is My Form , for which ample publishing details have been provided on the Sathya Sai Baba Discussion page, "seems suspicious". Ombudswiki (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Onopearls states, "You accused him of having a Conflict of Interest due to his wanting to use Love is my Form as a source in the biography section, correct?" Not at all... the concern lies in a continually growing description of a biographical book in the biography section of Sathya Sai Baba. (where Sathya Sai Baba is no longer the subject, the book becomes the subject) It is not the book (or its publishing details) that generated concerned, it is its placement, the irrelevant facts (ie. how many times does is it mentioned the book is 600 pages) and lack of facts about Sai Baba (the subject of the article "Sathya Sai Baba") that seem to be 'out of context'.

hence "as it is presented", not the book itself. Thanks! J929 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ombudswiki is currently expanding on an edit about an autobiographical book "Love is My Form". His edits contain little direct biographic information on the subject, Sathya Sai Baba, yet the paragraph continues to grow with facts about the book. I have tried to add the informational to another section so it can be expanded on but he reverts it back to its previous edit and continues to elaborate. It seems suspicious to me and "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."

Editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending"[1] Radiantenergy has already brought this issue for arbitration[2]
Ombudswiki states his name as Brian Steel.[3] Research on Google finds an anti Sai Baba writer named "Brian Steel" with many web pages http://www.briansteel.net/index.html
http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/storiesclaims08.htm

Both persons share an interest in Sathya Sai Baba, Spanish and share a similar online name ( his wiki name is Ombudswiki and the email address for Anti Sai Baba Brian steel is ompukalani@) Thank you.
J929 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I notified the user and they wrote back on my talk page: Smartse (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"Hello! Is this where I respond to your invitation for a comment?
In a complex series of tiring exchanges on the (endless) Sathya Sai Baba Discussion pages (14 Archives already), I have been trying to establish my right to be judged by what I publish on Wikipedia. On my User Page I choose voluntarily to offer my real name for anyone who wishes to check up on me.

Please ask the complainant (who has recently retracted unfounded charges of vandalism against me) to show, coherently and specifically, which of my postings on this Wikipedia article show clear evidence of COI.Ombudswiki (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)"

More background:

Recently, on the Discussion page and in the article, I presented information about an important 600 page biography of the early years of Sathya Sai Baba (published in 2001), which, although far more detailed than the first volume of the standard hagiography by N. Kasturi, has (inexplicably) not been considered for this article. When “challenged” by J929, I gave full publishing details and explained that this was part 1 of a planned series, researched by a team of devotees or sympathisers, headed by R.Padmanaban (SSB’s former photographer), which was intended to be the first of a long series on SSB’s life. When further challenged by J929 on who the researchers were, I posted the long list of researchers and collaborators and the (relevent) Acknowledgements from the book itself (on the SSB Discussion page). Instead of welcoming the new source of valuable information, J929 has continued to try to limit the coverage of this book to the Beliefs Section (rather than the Biography one, which is the logical place for it). To give an idea of the discussion exchanges between us, in a recent post I responded to his/her protests with the following:

J929: Can you please present more coherent points for consideration?

What are we to make of thoughts like the following? "the rest of the paragraph covers the number of proposed books and description such as "600 page volume", etc and who the published was. This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba." (Later you contradict yourself on this issue: "Love is My Form is a biography, i think we are in agreement on that."

And what does this mean?

"the paragraph as it is, discusses more on the "book" rather than the "biography". i dont think you have adressed this issue, as more alight to that the book is a biography." Have you had a look at a copy yet? Ombudswiki (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a reading of the SSB Discussion page will confirm that J929’s contributions to this article (and another connected with SSB) include continual evasive, aggressive – and I think, unhelpful - replies and ploys on this and other topics). I suggest that J929 must now present a list of specific accusations of COI infringements which he has found in my Wikipedia contributions. Ombudswiki (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there is a conflict of interest here. There is possibly a bias, but has Ombudswiki tried to link to his own web sites or anything he has published himself? Otherwise this just seems like a content dispute. -- Atama頭 18:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


The issues raised are in concern for the Sathya Sai Baba article.

In relation to my statement quoted in the discussion page, "This doesnt seem like it is of a biography of Sathya Sai Baba." The information Ombudswiki keeps expanding on ie. information on the 'Love is My Form' book, ie facts about where it was published, and as can be seen now on the Sai Baba page, several references to fact it is 600 pages long etc... ARE NOT A BIOGRAPHY. Facts about the subject, Sathya Sai Baba constitue biographical information. The book (although it is itself a biography) when elaborated on is NOT A BIOGRAPHY. this is what i meant in the provided quote, " this (information on the Love is My Form book) does not seem like a biography of Sai Baba"

i have tried to help Ombudswiki with edits and on good faith made changes requested by him (which were dictated by his opinion and no wikipedia body) only to be met with more complaints and patronising comments... Myself and other editors have been met with such comments as

  • " I applaud your willingness to cooperate in this matter "
  • "The extraordinary ad hominem allegations against the BBC by J929 and Sbs108 "
  • " ... offer here the necessarily lengthy answer to put his mind at rest "
  • "Perhaps the last three contributors (who seem to be both energetic and hasty)"
  • and more recently " continual evasive, aggressive "

Editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending"

In reference to changes i made to his edits, they were to allow the subject (Love is My Form) to be expanded on in a different context. He made two points (about records and local knowledge about Shirdi Sai Baba) that directly linked to the biography section of the page. The rest is just information on the book itself. Based on his writings it seemed that there was alot of effort put into this book so i moved it to the "Beliefs and pratcises of Devotees" section and presented it as a form of devotion as the author himself wrote the book was his meditation, penance and prayer... Ombudswiki complained that the paragraph was "hijacked" and rewrote the paragraph and continued to write more. (and at the same time deleted my paragraph concerning the book, although my edits did not need his work to remain.)

Again he states, "Have you had a look at a copy yet?" Why all the refernce to one book. Read it, get the relevant information and write those findings in the biography section on the Sathya Sai Baba page. This is why i wrote, "It seems suspicious to me and "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."" No content has been added from the book. You can't go to a restaurant and eat the menu. (well, maybe you can...)

My concerns were further raised when research into his name found many anti Sai Baba writings, blogs and websites associated with the person "Brian Steel". Ombudswiki's name is also Brian Steel. Is this a coincidence? If Ombudswiki is the same Anti Sai Baba writer, Brian Steel, then a concern arises for his neutrality on the edits he provides.

His edits (and behavior) "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."

As per his request...

  • Wikipedia states.. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Brian Steel belongs to a group of anti Sai Baba writers and Ex-devotees, ie Robert Priddy etc... see web apges for links to each other. This group has an agenda and it is clear. How can they then profess to write in a "neutral tone" for the Sai Baba page.
  • Please also note the dischord on the Sathya Sai Baba discussion pages, it seems a reflection of these 'agendas'. This is also in conflict with wikipedia policy "When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked." This can be seen now in the current state of editing on the Sathya Sai Baba page. Is erasing my contribution on 'Love is My Form' as a devotional work a "disruption"?
  • " Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested" Ombudswiki has stated his name, but not his interets. ie does he host several anti Sai Baba websites? if yes, then a Conflict of Interest becomes clear. as seen with his writing, attitude (as editor Onopearls states "I must agree that many of Ombudswiki's replies are somewhat condescending") and, as wikipedia states, "interests."

The Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page is a 'Biography Of Living Persons' [WP:BLP] the respect of/to the subject should be maintained, not the interests "of other individuals, companies, or groups."

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." as Wikipedia states, "We must get the article right."

I hope i have adressed all the relevant concerns...

J929 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. I have not (as I recall) ever edited the Sathya Sai Baba page and have no vested interest. If I may venture an opinion I see J929 (talk · contribs) who appears to be a Sathya Sai Baba WP:SPA account upset over potentially controversial edits made by Ombudswiki (talk · contribs), who appears to edit a broad variety of subjects. Looking over the edit history I wouldn't necessarily have made the same edits as Ombudswiki but I see no compelling evidence of a COI.Simonm223 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"Brian Steel belongs to a group of anti Sai Baba writers and Ex-devotees, ie Robert Priddy etc... see web apges for links to each other. This group has an agenda and it is clear." Again, is Ombudswiki linking to his own sites? If not, I don't see what the COI is here. COI does not mean having a bias. Is Ombudswiki directly promoting a particular group that he belongs to? That is what the portion of WP:COI that you quoted above refers to. Or do you suspect there is such a group in existence because he shares the views of other editors? It looks to me like you've confused WP:COI and WP:NPOV which is a common mistake to make. The purpose of identifying a COI is to show that there is a reason to doubt that an editor is trying to get some sort of personal gain out of editing Wikipedia, whether that be through financial gain or general promotion. But everyone has biases and we don't take the time to note every single bias every editor has. I played World of Warcraft for a long time, and I'm a fan of the game, do I have a conflict of interest regarding the edits I've made to that article? I would hope not. If I were to mention my former guild in the article or try to link to their web site, that would be a COI.
If you feel that Brian is trying to insert bias into the article, then that is a violation of Wikipedia policies and should be reported to the POV noticeboard. But as long as he's not promoting himself or some other "group" in the article I don't see the COI. -- Atama頭 21:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Thank you again for the clarification. i will look into the POVN noticeboard... i do have a question... Wikipedia states "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested" If Ombudswiki is the same Brian Steel; who holds multiple websites with Anti Sai Baba views, and does as Wikipedia asks and declares who he is, (on his user page and the Sathya Sai Baba discussion page) with relation to his websites) then will a COL exist? to what extent can an editor be asked to "declare their interests"? If Ombudswiki says he operates the anti Sai Baba sites, then is that a COL by affiliation or does he have to actually state his own website on his user page?

J929 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." You are asking if Brian says that he owns and operates anti-sai websites that he has not attempted to promote in any way on any of the Sai articles, that will make him have a Conflict of Interest? No. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Can you offer any proof where Brian has attempted to advance an outside interest? I don't believe so. His edits to the article are, from what I have seen, adequately neutral. His edits on the talk page, while condescending, are not proof of a CoI either. Without any actual proof, I would be inclined to agree with the other editors in that Brian Steel, aka Ombudswiki, does not have a Conflict of Interest on this article. That being said, if you believe he is editing without a NPOV, I would take it up with the NPOV noticeboard. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." i'm saying if he runs the anti Sai Baba sites, does he have to "declare ..his.. interests" ie that he is already associated to Sathya Sai Baba by running an entire website with Sathya Sai Baba as the subject and he himself having written several books on Sai Baba. (it seems safe to say he has made some money off Sai Baba with book sales)
Three names seem to be linked with the anti Sai Baba sites, Brian Steel, Robert Priddy and Barry Pittard. Does that constitue a "group" with "interests". Personally i would say 'yes'.
They are linked as seen in ProEdits latest contribution, citing http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html as a source. Closer inspection finds that the site is authored by Barry Pittard. Essentially one of them can author a page and the other can site it as a source to write in wikipedia. That seems like a 'group' with an 'interest' or 'agenda'. (and a means to propogate their views.
So with that as an example 'groups with interests can edit --without declaring their interests--a Wikipedia article'
The fact that 2 of these 3 writers are known to be active on the Sathya Sai Baba page seems like "promote(ing) your own interests."
"When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view..." i agree Ombudswiki does not cause the disruption ProEdits does (ie rewriting the BBc paragraph although it has already been deemed a BLP violation), but patronising words do not induce harmony. Both are linked outside of Wikipedia and together use Sai Baba as a subject to promote their own interests.
As Brian Steel states in his blog, "This only leaves me, and you, ... alongside those millions who have preceded us and already tried to stake their claim for public attention. Others can remain aloof for a while longer if they wish, but I have finally decided, after dragging my feet for a year or more ...that I may as well keep up with the cyberJoneses by joining in this colossal competition for attention." A competition for attention seems like an agenda and his user page does say, "waste decent contributors' time and energy on unnecessary edit wars... sometimes in the cause of propaganda - or just for fun"
i dont feel the Sathya Sai Baba site should be a forum for 'attention seeking' editors, in whatever medium they strive for it ie. comments about other editors, "hasty, agressive"..., as a individual or a group.

J929 (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you offer any proof that the three men mentioned above have had any contact with each other outside of Wikipedia, or that they have some sort of elaborate system in which they cite the websites of the others in Wikipedia in some sort of scheme to discredit Sathya Sai Baba? I highly doubt that. Wikipedia is not in the business of jumping to conclusions when there is no evidence.
"The fact that 2 of these 3 writers are known to be active on the Sathya Sai Baba page seems like 'promote(ing) your own interests.'" The mere fact that they are active in editing the articles is inconsequential. "Both are linked outside of Wikipedia and together use Sai Baba as a subject to promote their own interests." And the key word there? outside Wikipedia.
"joining in this colossal competition for attention." A competition for attention seems like an agenda" I did not see any mention of using :Wikipedia to seek attention. I seek attention outside of Wikipedia on occasion. Does that make me have an agenda? I don't think so.
It appears that you are attempting to get an editor that has done nothing wrong punished and/or banned from editing the SSB article because you disagree with his work outside of Wikipedia. This is not how Wikipedia works, and bringing up false accusations (as I have become convinced that this is) to do so constitutes WP:Harassment, and is not tolerated. I would also remind you that this CoI section is about Ombudswiki (Brian Steel), Not ProEdits (Robert Priddy). So please stick to offering some evidence other than speculation that proves that he does indeed have a CoI. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Can you offer any proof that the three men mentioned above have had any contact with each other outside of Wikipedia".... found on brian steels's website...http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/ "NOTE: A HUGE CORNUCOPIA of mind-boggling up-to-date revelations and links about SSB are available on the principal website of ex-devotee and ex-SSO official ROBERT PRIDDY." and robert priddy's website is directly linked. more links to robert priddy's anti Sai Baba page and barry prittard are found on... http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/internetpropaganda_jm.htm

found on http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com/ there is a link to "Brian Steel’s researches on SSB’s claims" do you think they have randomly linked each other's websites up?

these links are a relation and a form of contact.

  • is this the information you asked for?

"I did not see any mention of using :Wikipedia to seek attention.." also on brian steels website. http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/wikissbbs.htm
"Unofficial Addendum to the Wikipedia article on Sathya Sai Baba"
is this a view of how things "should" be on wikipedia?

if expanding a section about a biographical book in a biography section is not a COI, thats fine. although i do feel it "does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article."
Other editors have also expressed concerns about problems with groups pushing their POV in the article. To describe the book "Love is my Form" as part of the biography, i felt (and still do feel), was a part of that, much like Robert Priddy continually rewriting up the BBC section.

Thanks!

J929 (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"do you think they have randomly linked each other's websites up?" Considering the relatively small base for people with sites against SSB, and considering these three men appear to be some of the most vocal of those, it's plausible to believe that yes, they did have outside links to other anti-Sai websites ran by the others. You are offering strictly circumstantial evidence that proves nothing other than that they have links to one another's site on their own pages.
"joining in this colossal competition for attention." A competition for attention seems like an agenda", "I did not see any mention of using :Wikipedia to seek attention.." Then what were you implying? This entire section is over Ombudswiki having an conflict of interest/agenda on Wikipedia. Why did you mention that if you were not referring to using Wikipedia to seek attention to further their Agenda?
"is this a view of how things "should" be on wikipedia?" The article was published in 2005, first off. So using it as evidence (of what?) when Ombudswiki didn't start consistently editing the page until 2009 makes no sense. For "is this a view of how things "should" be on wikipedia?", I saw nothing on the page that asserts that this is how he believes that Wikipedia "should" be, nor does it imply that he plans to make any edits to the Wikipedia that would be pushing a POV.
Again, it would be beneficial if you can provide actual evidence (differences for example) that clearly prove that he is editing with a Conflict of Interest. He has made few edits to the article in question, and it seems that he has actually taken special care to not become involved closely in the article so as to ensure that he doesn't start pushing a POV.
You accused him of having a Conflict of Interest due to his wanting to use Love is my Form as a source in the biography section, correct? To solve this problem, take the book to the Reliable Source Notice Board to get a definitive answer. If they say that it is a reliable source, you all may work together to reach an agreement on what parts of the book may be used as a source. If it is not, he will have to drop the subject and the case will be closed. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to give my support to Onopearls and to the resolved tag above. For a good example of what is a COI on this exact same issue, see ProEdits below, where an editor is linking to his own web site in an article. -- Atama頭 20:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

i did not add a COI about using the book, 'Love is My Form" (as i have stated several times) and feel it is a good source. The concern lies in its use in the article itself. Like i said it is like going to a restaurant and trying to eat the menu. the menu shows one whats there and is not itself edible, much like the way the book is described. it adds no relevant facts about Sathya Sai Baba but only goes on about who published it and the number of pages... he offers two issues concerned with Sai Baba(one of records and another of local knowledge of Shirdi Sai Baba) the rest of it describes the book itself... please dont lead the topic by infering what i meant? if you dont understand, ask... i did in no way say he is in COI for using the book...

Onopearls, you said he wasnt linked to the other anti sai Baba sites "Can you offer any proof that the three men mentioned above have had any contact with each other outside of Wikipedia, or that they have some sort of elaborate system in which they cite the websites of the others in Wikipedia in some sort of scheme to discredit Sathya Sai Baba? I highly doubt that. "

  • do emails constitue "contact"?
Barry Pittard states on his website he received an email from Brian Steel.
http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/
"and also since noted that Brian D. Steel has very recently amended two articles to include, as he notes in an email, “references to three more of Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s contributions, the latest from his splendid new website”" and continues to provide a link to the new information...

and further more states in http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/brian-d-steel-updates-references-to-kevin-r-d-shepherd-writings/ "Brian D.Steel, who has written in-depth on matters of Sathya Sai Baba-related bibliography, has just sent a note. I think that these references below can be read as a resource in company with my blog of yesterday: Kevin R.D. Shepherd Exposes Sathya Sai Baba Defender Gerald Moreno

Brian Steel writes:

I have just amended 2 articles to include references to 3 more of Kevin R.D. Shepherd’s contributions, the latest from his splendid new website: http://www.kevinrdshepherd.info -"
Barry Pittard states he received 'a note' from Brian Steel.

note, Barry Pittard refers to the Sathya Sai Baba former devotee sites "primary writers such as Robert Priddy, Brian Steel and myself (Barry Pittard)." and "uncovered evidence that was beyond the range of internationally networked former devotees" ( http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/ )

these 'authors' link to each others websites, send information to each other via emails and notes and quote each others' websites in their wikipedia edits. (i know the editor in this discussion is Ombudswiki, but he is linked to the other editors through his websites)) Proedits, Robert Priddy in his last edit used a source from Barry Pittard's website. Does this constitute "some sort of elaborate system in which they cite the websites of the others in Wikipedia" i would say yes... are these "false accusations"?

you asked for this information, Onopearls, what do you suggest?

Barry Pittard states, "(–(Brian) Steel has been able to expose Sai Baba’s astounding array of self-generated myths, failed predictions, incorrect scientific and historical references, and, all in all, a seemingly endless series of contradictions and anomalies, as well as a great deal of highly flawed hagiography." ( http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/ ) is his elaboration on 'Love is My Form" a continuation of this? if it is, he should simply state the discrepencies. (and not who the publisher was or how many pages it has)...

"as long as he's not promoting himself or some other "group" in the article I don't see the COI"
thank you for the clarification...

J929 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

98.173.201.186 editing Seymour Duncan and commenting on talk page of same.

The editor(s) using this ip 98.173.201.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been questioning what they have seen as a bias towards EMG, Inc. and the relevant article there. the amount of questioning infers some sort of interest in the article. TorstenGuise (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of COI by this user at Seymour Duncan. It hasn't even edited the article since February. It did suggest a COI on your part back in June, but I see no evidence of that either. Rees11 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on the lack of evidence on their part. Do a WHOIS and see who the ip is registered to. TorstenGuise (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually it's not the whois, which shows the block belongs to Cox, it's the name resolution, which points to mail.seymourduncan.com. That seems a pretty clear COI. As I said, this IP has not edited the article since February, but I'll take a look at the older edits, and note this on the talk page. Rees11 (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:22wingheritageoffice and CFB North Bay

The user at User talk:22wingheritageoffice may have a conflict of interest at CFB North Bay, which appears to be the only article this account actively edits. From the username, it can be interpreted that this account is being used by an office of an establishment, possibly for promoting purposes. User is frequently adding unverifiable and unreferenced material, and cites himself as a reference, in direct violation with WP:OR. User also has no intent on proper use of WikiSyntax and correct template usage, and much of the text appears to be copied off an essay from another website, and is written in a oddly subjective manner. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that if they edit again that you report them to WP:UAA as using a shared account, or an account that is meant to represent an organization rather than a person. It might be too stale to be reported right now unfortunately. -- Atama頭 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Te Vaka Management

Resolved
 – Indef-blocked for spamming and username violations. -- Atama頭 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Te Vaka Management is mass-editing articles about the band Te Vaka and related articles. I've left them a COI warning. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the COI, their edits introduce copyvio material into the articles (simply cutting and pasting reviews from other sites) and should be reverted on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The user name is also obviously a violation of WP:U. That, combined with inappropriate external links and copyright violations aren't a good sign. The one good thing is that the band itself is clearly notable. -- Atama頭 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied from WT:COI

I write for a music review site called Roughstock. While the reputability of the site has never been questioned, I've been a bit afraid of citing my own single and album reviews in articles. The closest I've come so far to adding my own review is in Joey (song), where someone else added my review and I trimmed a little so that it didn't look like my review was receiving undue weight. WP:COI says "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The site seems to conform to the policies — it has a somewhat bloglike format like The 9513, which was also declared reputable by various other editors; in addition, main Roughstock editor Matt Bjorke has reviewed for other publications such as About.com, and guest editor Michael Sudhalter also writes for Country Standard Time magazine. I think that the use of my review on "Joey" is neutrally worded. Would it be acceptable to cite my own reviews on song and album articles in a similarly neutral fashion? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Bumping since no one seems to have an answer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I suppose the first question would be: Are you notable as a reviewer on that site? I don't mean necessarily WP:N notable, but would someone familiar with the site recognize you as a reviewer and give more weight to your review/opinion than a random guy in a chatroom for example? If not, then I would question its inclusion at this point. Yes, the site and the writers mentioned are notable, but you know what they say about inheritance. If the answer is Yes, then we can look at the COI implications: Are you paid for your work, would the site or yourself see any real-world benefit from having traffic sent there from the Wikipedia article, and so on. My initial feel here is that, solely from a COI perspective, citing your own reviews is ok in the way you have done (i.e. a Fact about an Opinion). I just think there could be Reliable Source issues to resolve before we get to COI territory. But I'm admittedly ignorant of the Country Music scene and what sources are reliable, etc.

      As an aside, there also still could be a possible Undue Weight issue. The reception section on Joey, for example, lists 6 reviews, yours being one of them (as well as being listed first, before the EW review... if they're in chrono order, than no problem, otherwise might be some UW here). I also don't think that using nicknames/screennames in an article is very encyclopedic, unless the person is universally known (now I am talking WP:N notable) by that nickname. ArakunemTalk 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

      • Matt Bjorke said that he chose me to work for Roughstock because of my prominence on a message board and knowledge of the genre. Universal Music Group Nashville has even posted my review of a Jamey Johnson song on their website — that is most certainly proof that I have cred as a reviewer. I don't get paid for my work at Roughstock, but as for the reliability, other editors such as Caldorwards4, Eric444, Cloversmallrat, etc. have pointed to Roughstock as a reliable source for reviews. Regarding the order of the reviews, I was not the person who put my review of "Joey" first in the critical reception section, although I have moved it further into the paragraph so as to further avoid any accusations of undue weight. I have also given a test run on Honky Tonk Stomp, where I added another review before my own. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
      • You're getting the issue muddled by talking about notability and inherited notability. That's irrelevant. Undue weight, similarly, is not about which author is listed first in a list of citations. It's about which points of view are shown as major and which as minor. Note which policy WP:UNDUE redirects to.

        The question is whether "Ten Pound Hammer" is a reliable source in this particular field. And that involves answering all of the usual questions. So what are the answers, here? Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

        • I have read that section over, and taking an outsiders' view, I can't see any problems beyond my use of a pen name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit: Center for Class Action Fairness

A public interest law firm I founded this year, the Center for Class Action Fairness, and the work I have done with it, is the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. I request that a neutral editor create the article.

Also:

Thank you, THF (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you go ahead and create the article in a sandbox you might have better luck. Thanks for bringing this to our attention and playing by the rules. Rees11 (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I might take a stab at starting the article. WP:AFC is the place where you normally request that an article be created, but considering your circumstances this board was an appropriate place to make the request. -- Atama頭 01:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
AFC seems to have several new rules that don't let established editors with accounts propose articles. THF (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Where did you read that? WP:WPAFC doesn't mention that, nor does WP:AFC itself. WT:WPAFC mentions someone proposing non-specified changes to the COI guidelines, but it is also said that the changed would "send a bunch of COI editors in your direction". That implies to me that the change to the guideline that was made then would suggest that editors with a COI should go to AFC to get articles created. If you read WP:COI, though, Articles for Creation isn't mentioned anywhere. So whatever "new rules" are being quoted probably come from an editor's opinion, not policy. In any event this is a topic of interest to me so I hope to get started on it when I have time, and the references you've provided will help a lot. -- Atama頭 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Wizard-Already_Registered -- "Articles for Creation" is only needed for people who are not registered users and don't wish to become one at this time. THF (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So it's not a COI issue, the problem is that they only want IPs to do it. I suppose WP:RA would be a better place to do it then. Or here. -- Atama頭 18:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

John McGoff

Resolved
 – Article speedily deleted. -- Atama頭 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • John McGoff - Created and maintained by a user named Jpmcgoff, and quite clearly seems to be a direct cut and paste from his promotional website. Perhaps my deletion header was a mistake, but I thought it should still be brought to attention here. -Bateau (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed the speedy deletion category to G12 because even the author admits that it's a straight copy from the campaign web site, and the G12 is a no-brainer in this case. -- Atama頭 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette

PLaV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) saying he is Paul LaViolette- just heavily revised Paul LaViolette and Laviolette saying he is removing libellous content Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He can't remove sourced content the way that he's doing, just because he doesn't like it. This is a perfect example of why a COI matters. I see that you left COI warnings, I'll leave another one for removing content because I think that's just as important, if not more so than the COI and is a separate issue. Also if he continues to throw around words like "libel" there might be WP:NLT issues. I know that we bend the rules on legal threats when we are dealing with BLPs and the threats come from the article subject but really these are unreasonable objections. -- Atama頭 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have also left a CoI warning and suggested he experience other parts of Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I asked him to post to the talk page but he's posted to mine, which I've moved to Talk:Paul LaViolette. He does seem to have some concerns we can meet, others I'm not sure about. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There are some no-brainer arguments he's made, such as giving the wrong name for his father or confusing him with an oceanographer. His concerns about the reliability of a source seem worth looking into. I just wish he'd done this first instead of removing things himself, but I can understand why he did what he did if he's unfamiliar with Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User Leveque

Levenque is a WP:SPA. As Loulou 50 and through his initial edits as Levenque [24], he sought to incorporate published articles written by Alain Leveque into Wikipedia articles and use Wikipedia as a soapbox for his beliefs. After discussions (Talk:Rodrigues#Soapbox, User_talk:Leveque#History_of_Rodrigues, User_talk:Leveque#Mauritius) he changed his approach to spamming links to his articles instead, and was warned User_talk:Leveque#About_external_links. During this time, he also had discussions about his conflict of interest in Talk:Mauritius#Possible_conflict_of_interest and User_talk:Leveque#Original_Research.
All of that happened over two years ago. Since then he has continued to spam his article links, making accusations of vandalism when his links are removed. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
My recommendations:
--Ronz (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Forget the conflict of interest. He's a self-promotional spam-only editor. You've offered a final warning, one more violation and report to WP:AIV. Be sure to link to his former account to have it blocked (so he doesn't use it for socking) and a link to this COI noticeboard report would be helpful too. I'd wait until his next violation before reporting, though, just to be sure, but I'm pretty confident that he'd be facing an indefinite block. -- Atama頭 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I've reported him to AIV, mentioning that he's been adding these self-promotional links for years (at least as far back as 2007), mentioned his other account, and this COI noticeboard report. -- Atama頭 05:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll discuss this with the editor. Remember that AIV is only for simple, clear vandalism. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 08:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You're right. WP:ANI would probably have been a better venue. Thank you for looking into this. -- Atama頭 17:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
He's added the link back three times since he was given a final warning. He's ignoring this report and the comments by Master of Puppets. Based upon this, I've reported him to AIV. If he's not blocked there, I'll post to ANI. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for one day. Would be appropriate for blocks to increase dramatically if this continues. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Cirt on this one, seeing that he outright ignored my attempt at conversation. Notify us if you see any socks being used to evade the block. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 01:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
His response to the block:
"Block all you like. But no spiteful zealot will EVER stop me from adding a link about Rodrigues history to an entry about Rodrigues. To let you do that is to acknowledge that Wikipedia belongs to zealots like you."
It doesn't look like he used any sockpuppets during the block (I checked the articles he has edited before). -- Atama頭 20:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
He's back and immediately restored links to his articles. I've requested another block at AIV. --Ronz (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
He has pretty much promised to sock in the future. "We'll see how many people and how many computers you can block in the years ahead." -- Atama頭 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Enigmaman has renewed the block of Leveque through 14 September. I have not noticed any sock accounts evading this new block at either Mauritius or Rodrigues. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

124.148.141.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken up his editing and has been blocked. This ip doesn't fit the ones he's used in the past. Looks more like a meatpuppet. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mauritius article was also semi-protected as a result. The new IP resolves to Melbourne, Australia and the old ones resolved to Sydney. So it's possible that it's still him, it's not like the IPs are on different sides of the world. Sock or meatpuppetry, it's still a block evasion either way. -- Atama頭 18:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

210.84.20.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued the vandalism by 124.148.141.148. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mootoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admits to being a sock of Leveque. Someone want to block him? --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He's restored the material that Leveque was blocked for adding, and moved on to vandalizing and harassment. I've request a block at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet_of_blocked_editors_Leveque_and_Loulou_50 --Ronz (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
What about the unhelpful content at User:Leveque, User:Loulou 50, User talk:Loulou 50? Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my original recommendation included cleaning up the the user and user talk pages per WP:UP and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

58.175.169.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another ip used by him for harassment --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcarter13, Artery Foundation and their clients

Resolved
 – for now, last articles deleted G7 after AfD discussion --Skier Dude (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This user has input Artery Foundation, described as an artist management label, and a list of their clients, and now appears, despite a COI warning, to be steadily adding articles about their, mostly non-notable, clients. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

These are spam as far as I can tell. I tagged them and their list for speedy. Rees11 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
User was given a level 4 warning yesterday and has not edited since. Once the last two articles are deleted, maybe problem over. JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, I don't think the two remaining articles are likely to be speedied. List of Artery Foundation artists doesn't seem to fit G11 because it's nothing but a list of artists, there's nothing overtly promotional about it. In The Color Morale they claim to be in an upcoming national tour, so they would be ineligible for deletion per A7. I expect you'll need to either prod or AfD those articles. -- Atama頭 19:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There's an unsourced claim that they will be part of someone else's tour as a supporting act; that doesn't meet WP:BAND #4 - I suppose it might lift them out of A7 - we'll see what an admin thinks. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Guess you're right, Atama: I have PRODded one and AfD-ed the other. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
They've gone, but Broadway (FL) is back as Broadway (band), and so is Kingdoms (album). Persistent, aren't they? Author is arguing against speedy, so new joint AfD here. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Legacy.com links added by Legacy employee

Cross-posted at WikiProject Spam: 68.20.235.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding external links to Legacy.com to biographies for months. After looking at the WHOIS data, it was determined that the IP is from Legacy.com. Smells like a COI and spam to me. Your thoughts? Willking1979 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case to me. Maybe a report to WP:AIV is in order to block the IP? – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Are they really inappropriate links though? Looks like Legacy.com is a database of obits, and from what I can tell, there is no fee or subscription required. The IP is adding them as external links, and it seems to me that they add value to the article... ArakunemTalk 16:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
They may be appropriate but the user really should register an account and disclose the COI. Has anyone warned them? Rees11 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. "Organically" added links are different than the consistent, persistent editing by this COI editor. Also disturbing is that the descriptions the editor is using are misleading. Most are called Associated Press obits listed at major newspapers, but the links go to branded Legacy.com pages that duplicate the newspapers' pages. The site appears to have some sort of advertising/distribution/syndication agreements with the newspapers, but I see no need to use a commercial site selling scrapbook products over direct news sources with the same AP article. As there are almost a 1,000 links to Legacy.com pages, this is probably an issue that needs to be evaluated and dealt with one way or another as to its inclusion or appropriateness.
legacy.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Flowanda | Talk 04:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Another editor with the same editing habits who was provided with welcome messages and COI and SPAM warnings:

Celebrinerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Flowanda | Talk 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the Legacy.com links were spam as well when I first encountered them at Miriam Makeba. But in that case, Celebrinerd was simply trying to fix a link that had expired; see this message on my talk page. It seems that links to Associated Press stories often become dead links, and Legacy.com provides permanent copies of AP obituaries. I don't have a problem with Legacy.com links being used as sources, but I certainly don't like the thoughtless mass-adding of external links that seems to be going on here. Graham87 06:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
"Thoughtless" indicates no organized attempt to add Legacy obit links to Wikipedia. The edits of at least these two editors indicate otherwise. Flowanda | Talk 08:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Graham was referring to the fact that they may not have put much thought into understanding our policies or seeking consensus for widespread inclusion of Legacy links? In any event, it does appear as though these links can sometimes be helpful, although, I agree, we need to determine under what circumstances they can or should be included and communicate that to the accounts adding the links, dare I say it, thoughtlessly...  ;) user:J aka justen (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant "thoughtless" as in "careless" or "hasty". Graham87 14:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gbanana45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Notice the edits use the same misleading formatting and descriptions as other editors adding Legacy.com links. Flowanda | Talk 06:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Blancomusicsean and related projects

Resolved
 – Editor blocked, articles deleted. -- Atama頭 16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Other editors have tagged Blanco Music as G11 and BudNubac as A7 and the author has added "hangon"; I have put "notability", "primarysources" and "COI" tags on SubMachena for the moment, though Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL does not suggest much notability. JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Reported Blancomusicsean to WP:UAA for having a promotional username. -- Atama頭 17:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, it's clear that none of these articles even come close to meeting WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, or WP:N. I've proposed SubMachena for deletion as well. If any of these article deletions are contested I'll bring to AfD. -- Atama頭 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Philbox17

Resolved
 – No COI shown, but the editor was blocked as a sockpuppet at WP:ANI. -- Atama頭 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you please block User:Philbox17 account, he keeps deleting cited information from the article Réseau de Résistance du Québécois. This person is practicing article ownership, which can be confirmed by reading the editors user talk page User talk:Philbox17 and the lengthy problems this editor has had with this article. I believe this editor is a member of Réseau de Résistance du Québécois and lacks a NPOV. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to think this despite editing in a potentially biased manner? Generally a conflict of interest is determined because we have evidence of a person's identity or affiliation, but you can't assume a person's affiliation just because they seem sympathetic to them. Also, I noticed that you posted this at WP:ANI at the same time, which is a better venue for this complaint anyway if you expect immediate administrator action and if there is no clear COI present. -- Atama頭 21:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

user-talk:24.16.155.128

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

This use removed alot of well sourced information of the actions of Mike Gunderloy, a former Microsoft developer, and sourced cricism of Microsoft policy by a KDE developer. This user also attacked the criticism on Microsoft Office 2007, also here. This user is geolocated in Bellevue, Washington, a municipally in immediate proximity to Redmond, home of Microsoft. [34]

If this person had the same IP address 11 months before than this person seems to have gone to The Overlake School.[35]Scientus (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I live about 20 minutes away from both Redmond and Bellevue, so I know how close the proximity is (the Bel-Red road runs right between them). While it's possible this is a Microsoft employee, many of us who live in the area aren't (I also used to live about 5 minutes away from Microsoft, but despite being in the IT industry I've never worked for them). So I think that calling this a COI might be a stretch. If the IP was actually from Microsoft itself, that would be a different story. -- Atama頭 22:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back

Resolved
 – Both puppets have been blocked. -- Atama頭 16:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Philbox17 is now using the accounts User:PatrioteQc and User:Québécois101. Can you have the admins block these one's too. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtea and related articles

These two users appear to be the cofounders of a new start up Youtea. Wut5580 created the article and it was tagged for speedy deletion but then that was rejected. Ahertzy has since created A Type Proanthocyanidin which is about the product that Youtea sell. This was also added to the Urinary tract infection article by Ahertzy, the product they sell is aimed at treating UTIs. I don't have time at the minute to sort things out but it looks like Youtea isn't notable (AfD?) and that the A Type Proanthocyanidin article should be merged into Proanthocyanidin. Could someone take a look? Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The AfD for Youtea is here. -- Atama頭 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I added Tina Wu to the above list of problem articles, as it was created by Wu herself and subsequently edited by her, and has had notability and verifiability problems from when it was created. -- Atama頭 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a look and made some changes but don't have time to follow this. Ahertzy continues to edit after being warned. Rees11 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I've sent Tina Wu to AfD here too as they don't seem to be notable. I will also propose the merge between the proanthocyanidin articles. Smartse (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am ahertzy. Merging the proanthocyanidin articles is fine. My intent is and always has been to educate the public on the anti-adhesion benefits of A Type Proanthocyanidins. This has been supported by 12+ clinical studies. Research pubmed citations[36].
Yes I have a strong mission to reduce incidence of Urinary Tract Infections. I was a bit dissapointed in the UTI entry. 10 years after A Type PACs are proven as the source of anti-adhesion activity cranberries, and no mention of that compound existed in the article? It seemed very odd that the article would focus on cranberry juice and not the root compound in cranberries that help prevent UTIs. That is why I edited the UTI article. And the article actually makes the assertion that accupuncture may prevent UTIs, when the data is extremely thin with research executed by 1 team with an incentive in accupuncture.
I understand the issue with the YouTea article. As I mentioned, our intention was to give students a resource for learning how to succeed in business plan competitions. If this does not fit Wikipedia's criteria, then so be it.
Finally, I take issue with Rees11's comment "Ahertzy continues to edit after being warned." I am obviously a novice to Wikipedia and edited the articles after getting a more comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines (yes I read all about the guidelines prior to the entries but did not understand the nuances). Nobody ever "warned" me about anything. Your statement makes me sound like a schoolchild. I have been upfront, candid and professional in the discussion about my articles, and I would appreciate being treated with respect by Wikipedia's editors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahertzy (talk • contribs)

Hello Azhertzy. I would like to point out in your defense that the conflict of interest guideline is quite different from, say, the vandalism policy. The former is a suggestion on how you might get along on Wikipedia if you wish to participate on articles where you have a close connection of some kind to the subject, the latter is a code of behavior that every editor must abide by. Your conflict of interest alone isn't enough to restrict where and how you edit unless you engage in disruptive behavior at the same time. The kind of disruptive behavior we often see coming from editors with a COI include spamming, editing an article to advocate a particular point of view, or adding original research, as well as edit-warring in an attempt to control an article's contents. I don't see that you've engaged in any of those behaviors or other disruptive behavior, and you've replied in a civil manner when drawn into situations that might make even the most reasonable person upset (such as questioning the notability of your company). In particular I'm impressed that you've included information that could be judged unfavorable to your company and product, which shows that you're willing and able to avoid bias despite your conflict of interest. I will say that I would oppose efforts to restrict your editing because you've been open and honest about your COI, and you have made positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I would hope, also, that if you have the time and the interest, that you might work in areas where you don't have a COI, because you could be a big help around here. -- Atama頭 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
One further point: A type proanthocyanidin is currently a major fail per WP:MEDRS, which requires secondary sources. It's currently sourced entirely from primary sources, and the section Urinary Tract Infection Prevention is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: stringing together material from multiple sources in aid of an argument. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Atama, thanks for your kind words. I will do my best to improve my understanding of Wikipedia regulations so I can make meaningful contributions. Gordonofcartoon, I am completely baffled by your actions and comments. I made a strong effort to cite the only credible secondary source for cranberries, A Type PACs, and UTIs: Jepson RG, Mihaljevic L, Craig JC. Cranberries for treating urinary tract infections. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001322. [4] But for some reason you deleted the citation and then state that my article is "sourced entirely from primary sources." Yes, it is sourced entirely from primary sources because you deleted my secondary source citation. That's like you kicking mud on my shoes and then complaining that my shoes are dirty. Really, this seems like a witch hunt. I did make a mistake in organizing my references. After the statement "A Type Proanthocyanidins found in cranberries and blueberries have been linked to the prevention of urinary tract infections"(deleted by Gordonofcartoon) I meant to insert this reference: (AB Howell, "Bioactive compounds in cranberries and their role in prevention of urinary tract infections." Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Jun;51(6):732-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17487930?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) but I inserted the Cochrane Review by mistake. I will do my best to make the A Type Proanthocyanidin article compliant to wiki standards.

StrategiCom and User:SCom09

Special:Contributions/SCom09. User is a single purpose account with a clear username violation (promotional, name of organization). I've tagged the article with a COI tag. Previously I had gone ahead and removed some promotional content from the article. Any thoughts on what to do next? Netalarmtalk 02:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I've looked over their edits and I can't find much objectionable. In fact, they removed a great deal of promotional language in the article. Their name suggests affiliation with the company but I can't be sure. You might want to start with simply asking them about the affiliation, and also let them know about this thread here so they can provide input if they wish. I've left them a general welcome message for now. One odd thing I noticed, I see a number of edits that they reverted themselves, almost as if there was more than one person at the computer and they were bickering over what edits to make. That's plausible if this is indeed coming from the company itself (and a violation of WP:NOSHARE). -- Atama頭 05:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that promotional content wasn't removed by me? This. I don't see it as big of a problem now, since I've cleaned up most of it. However, the username does seem fishy. Either way, that user doesn't edit anymore. Netalarmtalk 02:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was referring to this which removed some clearly inappropriate promotion information. Overall I don't think the edits they made improved the article from a style point of view (too many times they would say "StrategiCom believes that...", but most of the promotional language that is the real problem was already in the article before their edits. The user name is definitely fishy and I suspect it probably is a person working for the company. -- Atama頭 09:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

List of campus preachers

  • List of campus preachers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Bro Cope has been editing this article in order to add information about himself. I removed his name from the list since it had no article of its own and the link provided linked back to the list article; this seemed unnecessary. Bro Cope took issue with this, and has made his (very strong) feelings known on the article talk page. His clear conflict-of-interest is indicated by the edit summary: "I am one of the founders of the movement." -RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong about this. I became involved when you took it upon yourself to delete my information from the list. I was content with just a little tiny mention. But when you took it upon yourself to edit out my one line mention, I took great offense. My strong feelings are a response to your unbearable arrogance. I am already a nationally known preacher, having been in the movement since it's very early days. I get thousands of hits on Google.

Who are you when it comes to street preaching? I've never seen you at any of our many conferences. What are your qualifications to be able to decide who should or should not be on this stupid list? Clear conflict of interest? What would that be? Restoring my one line mention is hardly a clear conflict of interest. I think I will suggest that your bias ought to get you banned from editing. You have a clear axe to grind, and that is clearly a conflict of interest.

Bro Cope's edits to Talk:List of campus preachers show major civility problems as well as failure to understand Wikipedia's notability requirements in his unabashed attempts at self-promotion. Edward321 (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources documenting this than his presence would be welcome, but if there aren't any then I think its safe to assume that the conflict of interest prohibits neutral editing. From my understanding of PSU, I think the "Willard Preacher" might qualify for inclusion, either the current one or the more notable earlier one. ThemFromSpace 04:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to explain matters to Bo on his talk page. I hope he can come around. -- Atama頭 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I feel that I have been very even-handed in my approach to him, trying to assume good faith, and approach him with respect. His response has been aggressive and accusatory, for no apparent reason. I have no strong feelings about this article, or his presence in it. I only edited it because I saw his edit on recent changes. His attitude is wholly unjustified. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A list of campus preachers? Seriously? This article needs to go to AfD. Rees11 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe it should as well. There are too few entries to make it necessary, and the references are very scant. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You both are correct. I just hoped that if someone explained the situation to him he might calm down. In all honesty, Wikipedia can be a strange place to a newcomer and we often take our ways for granted. -- Atama頭 02:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

COI - Editor Not Revealing IRL Identity, Possibly Editing Articles About Himself

Resolved
 – Understanding and responsibility met by an involved party
  • User:Nathalmad may be the IRL person "Luke Burbank." His loud and vociferous participation in all discussions related to articles related to "Luke Burbank" creates serious disruption if identity is undisclosed. Please note the following evidence is all circumstantial, however, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence should cause caution for more intense alert. I would request higher-level attention to this situation which may represent an extreme manipulation of wikipedia for vanity purposes.

Kennneth Cooper biography

Biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_H._Cooper - reads as promotional material, not written in a neutral PoV, unsourced comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.167.17 (talk • contribs)

Hmmm, looks like we have a few WP:SPA's here:
  1. Michaelsacco (talk · contribs)
  2. Kcooper94 (talk · contribs)
  3. Tmcewen (talk · contribs)
  4. CooperPR (talk · contribs)
I reverted Kenneth H. Cooper and The Cooper Institute. Cooper test is another to keep an eye on. None have been spammed in three months so it's not a real pressing issue, but definitely worth watching. Wknight94 talk 20:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cheyenne99911

Please see [37], which has since been deleted by the User from his Talk page. Appears to be a COI editor coming in under another name, or else a meat puppet of the previous editors. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely a problem. e.Digital Corporation employees have been proven to try to edit Wikipedia to the benefit of the company. I don't doubt that Cheyenne99911 is yet another employee. See this statement from Talk:e.Digital Corporation from one of their lawyers:
"Surely Wiki understands how easy it would be for me or other biased parties to logon anonymously at a coffee shop and "go to town" on this page? You refuse to allow my edits or even allow me to respond to factual errors on the page, as counsel for the company, but you allow anonymous posts—are you really that dense.
It should not matter who writes it but whether it is true or false. If you refuse to correct the numerous errors that are false and damaging to my client, I will be forced to walk an entire block to Starbook’s to log on anonymously and make the corrections, or consider the company’s other legal options."
That's basically a warning that sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry will occur. There are also legal threats being tossed around as well. This is definitely not a good situation. -- Atama頭 19:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Although the lawyer who made these comments and implied a legal threat calls e.Digital his "client," a google search using the name he revealed shows that he is actually an employee ("General Counsel / Dir. of IT") rather than outside counsel. His other comments indicate that he is likely one of the people previously editing using one of the IP addresses registered to e.Digital. He has been unwilling to discuss his issues on the talk page. I'm glad this has finally come to the attention of admins. I reported it as edit warring but it was considered stale. OccamzRazor (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have issued Cheyenne a final warning for repeatedly removing sourced information. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that Cheyenne replied to a different warning from a different editor by repeating that warning on their talk page, which is something that vandals will often do. I expect this to lead to an indef block. -- Atama頭 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
He's still at it, I"ve reverted his "news alert" twice today. I"m on my way out, but someone should probably let an admin know. Dayewalker (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
They've been blocked 12 hours, we'll see what happens after the block expires. -- Atama頭 02:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
When the block expired, Cheyenne again engaged in disruptive editing of the same article and now has a 48-hour block. OccamzRazor (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Green Park Ltd

First user input article about a company whose claim to fame is being "38th Fastest Growing entrepreneurial business in the UK". When first user was blocked as a promotional username, second was created and took up editing. As the first user was instructed to change user-name but not specifically to stop COI editing, this can't be regarded as sockpuppetry, but there is a clear COI. An A7 speedy has been declined, but article is at AfD here. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have re-tagged it it for G11 speedy, no idea why the user who tagged it originally untagged it. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
And somewhat unbelievably, speedy declined...sometimes I don't know why I bother... – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
G11 is typically for blatant advertising. I don't see any in that article, I see some pretty dry facts. For example, the first line of the article is, "Green Park Ltd is a supplier of interim management, interim executive and interim recruitment resourcing solutions." But let's say that the first line was, "When people think of management recruiting they think of one place, Green Park Ltd, where the real movers and shakers do business." That's blatant advertising. G11 is as much for style as content. Anyway the AfD looks like a speedy close, so this will probably get resolved regardless. -- Atama頭 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:ProEdits

User ProEdits states on his user page, "I am the webmaster for the following site:" http://robertpriddy.com and also http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/ and the blog robertpriddy.wordpress.com Anyone interested can view the Wiki biographical page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Priddy" Robert Priddy is well known (and vocal) about his anti Sai Baba views. (as stated in the web sites) He edits for the Sathya Sai Baba page. With such a negative opinion how can edits be considered "neutral"? (as seen in his latest edits. Adding material about the BBC, after it had been deemed a BLP violation and removing information from a source, which he says "is a pro-Sai site full of massive attacks on critics" yet if he is a critic then there is an "agenda") Using information from his website has been banned. Why then is he allowed to directly write for the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page? The concern is his "agenda", and does that conflict with the goals/interests of Wikipedia?

J929 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

J929, it seems you understand little about neutrality. A person can be neutral on many issues but biased on others. There is something known as freedom of speech, which also has relevance for Wikipedia no less, when that freedom is exercised with full grounding and source references, as I have done. You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me and other reasonable and measured critics of Sathya Sai Baba such as Andries and Ombudswiki. Your bias is witnessed by your massive pro-Sai Baba editing and removals of as much critical material as you presumably think will stand. I think the Sathya Sai Baba page is far, far worse in its adulatory attitude than it ever was, and it will hardly ever be accepted as 'objective' when you have added links to so many subjective pro-Sai websites.ProEdits (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

the fact information from your own site is not allowed on the Sathya Sai Baba page and then removing sources with critical views on critics constitues an agenda. The sources you removed were not deemed inappropriate by any wikipedia body. so it is your opinion at work and we all know what that is. how is that neutral? please explain...
which pro Sai Baba websites are you refering to? i rewrote any edits of mine that refered directly to those sites. any content you removed was not from me.

J929 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

J929, you want me to explain. O.K. Your idea of neutrality seems to be influenced by your desire that only positive and pro-Sai materials be made known. Neutrality does not mean never to make criticisms or present contrary evidence and viewpoints, it rather means to present a balanced view on any issue. On my websites you can see I deal with countless issues in what I consider - as a professional philosopher - to be a sufficiently balanced way in that I assess the information pro and con and arrive at a considered evaluation. That I no longer promote Sathya Sai Baba in a positive way is because I did so - clearly far too much - when I wrote so many articles in his journal promoting him and - still deceived by him - a book which earned his blessings. I am now concerned to right the matter and level the field, one might say. The sources removed were not reliable according to Wikipedia policy and contain many attacks on all critics of Sathya Sai Baba by user SSS108 (Gerald Moreno)."SSS108 runs several attack web sites" was voted as correct by 5 wikipedia administrators. The same admins. banned him unanimously from editing Wikipedia. I would advise you not to defend him by complaining I remove links to his attack sites at vishvarupa and sathyasaibaba.wordpress. ProEdits (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me" may i point out you run an entire website to crticising Sathya Sai Baba, a living person...

J929 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't so much a COI issue as POV. I suggest you both stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the article. Stick to reliable secondary sources, no blogs or web sites that are not owned by mainstream news organizations. Remember, everyone has a POV, and that's ok. The problem arises when POV sneaks in to the article. Rees11 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

J929: Some clarification of my position is clearly called for, so I reply. I am opposed to Sathya Sai Baba nowadays because I personally know young men who told me in detail how he abused them - including oral sex - and was implicated in the decisions to murder four intruders to his bedroom in 1993 and in the cover-up afterwards. I cannot doubt all this, though I dearly wished to doubt, having been a devotee of Sai Baba for 18 years, wrote many positive articles and a book about him and was the leader of the Sathya Sai Organization in Norway until 2000. You evidently would expect me to keep silent about this? That he is a living person does not absolve him from all criticism, when he is so notable as he is. My websites mostly contain critical analysis of his massive claims and his entire 'teachings' and shown that they are very largely bogus in that they are vague, conflict internally on countless issues and contain totally absurd ideas about science, history and religions, despite his massive claims of being omnipotent and much more. ProEdits (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


ProEdits is continuing to rebuild a segment of the article that has already be deemed a BLP violation... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question At what point does a POV become a COI?
Thanks for your time...
J929 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Radiantenergy:
  • User:ProEdits is no one other than Robert Priddy. His contributions and his userpage serves as evidence to this fact.
  • Next question is Who is Robert Priddy?
  • Robert Priddy owns negative defamatory attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba in the web and he is ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba.
  • Robert Priddy websites were banned by Second arbitration commitee. They stated the following

Arbitration commitee stated that "Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy

  • The same 'Robert Priddy' whose websites were banned by second arbitration commitee is edit-warring and causing disruption to the article. His WP:COI with the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba' is well-known. Why is he allowed to edit the Sathya Sai Baba article?.
  • The following evidence to show his disruption to the article several times in the last 2 weeks trying to push his negative agenda on Sathya Sai Baba into the article.
[38],
[39],
[40],
[41].
  • Robert Priddy has been edit-warring and trying to add more and more defamatory material from old 2004 BBC documentary inspite of the WP:RS board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question declaring the BBC material should be removed as its a clear BLP violation to the subject - Sathya Sai Baba.
  • As per the WP:RS recommendation I removed unneccessary gossip and presented BBC material in neutral tones but Priddy has been adding back more and more defamatory material from the BBC and there by clearly and repeatedly violating WP:RS decision again and again.
  • Robert Priddy editing is definitely detrimental to this article due to his strong WP:COI with the subject Sathya Sai Baba. Please also note that this article already went through 2 arbitrations and may likely go into third arbitration if his edit-warring and disruption don't stop.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to answer this question, "At what point does a POV become a COI?" The answer is, never. While WP:COI and WP:NPOV are related they are distinctly different. Wikipedia's NPOV policy relates to editing an article to insert bias, either negative or positive, and applies to the actions of any editor. The COI policy relates to an editor who is editing in a manner that provides a conflict of interest because of their relation to the article subject or their edits. A conflict of interest is just a way of identifying when an editor might possibly be editing Wikipedia with ulterior motives because they might get some personal gain out of it (generally of either a financial or promotional nature). Often a person with a COI does have a particular POV when they edit, but there is no point that a POV "becomes" a COI. There seems to be some assumption that a COI is just a strong POV but that's not the case, in fact while a COI can often be harmless, editing to promote a POV is always negative. There is a noticeboard for NPOV violations that is separate from this one.
Also, if this editor has been editing in violation of ArbCom restrictions, WP:AE is the place to report those violations. In this case, if Proedits is Robert Priddy then there is a COI because he is adding links to his own writings which could be seen as self-promotion. But I would recommend arbitration enforcement instead of reporting it here, because I believe that violating ArbCom restrictions is a more serious problem. -- Atama頭 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, effort and advice...


J929 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Atama: I have not added links to my own articles in the article page. Are you saying that links to one's own websites is not allowed on talk pages either? If so, then the material required for a proper answer could instead put directly on the talk pages, which would be very time-consuming for all involved. ProEdits (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


i'd like to offer the latest edit from PoEdits citing the source http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html for validity. Please note ex-baba in the title...
Wikipedia policy states to "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia"
If edits with such sources that state "Don’t miss the chance to see it and, above all, to record it!!!" are allowed (from a Wikipedia editor with ties to anti Sai Baba websites) can Wikipedia policy be upheld?

J929 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the reference is that the BBC is airing a documentary called "the Secret Swami" that would be a RS. There was certainly nothing particularly pro or anti-sai baba on that website.Simonm223 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


please reduce the website address and something begins to become apparent...
http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/

it says...

Barry Pittard
 Related
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/shortnews/foetus.html http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/80bdayanand.htm
the article is by Barry Pittard , another known anti Sai Baba writer... (At Call For Media and Government Investigation of Sathya Sai Baba. http://barrypittard.wordpress.com )
the page is further linked to another anti Sai Baba site (under Brian Steel)

further more the entire page is from http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/ an anti Sai Baba site...
this was all added by Robert Priddy who holds his own anti Sai Baba websites, which are linked to Brian Steel and Barry Pittard. Wikipedia BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"
is this edit using wikipedia as the "primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"? how can the source be reliable if one anti Sai Baba writer (Robert Priddy) simply quotes another 'friends' anti Sai Baba website?
what about this 'editing' does wikipedia policy adhere to? J929 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked farther into the prior arbitration cases. Recently, Radiantenergy had requested enforcement on ArbCom sanctions regarding ProEdit's usage of sources, but it was ruled that the ArbCom case he supposedly violated had no sanctions. The original case similarly had no sanctions. That means there's effectively no way to violate ArbCom sanctions, because there aren't any on that article despite having been through 2 different requests for arbitration. The only actions that resulted from either case were topic bans against certain editors (and ProEdit was not topic-banned). So mentioning arbitration sanctions here in this discussion is incorrect and should be avoided (I'd even go so far as to recommend striking out such suggestions above, as I have done).
I'd like to repeat that ProEdits should not be adding links to his (Robert Priddy's) web sites. That is a clear conflict of interest and is essentially self-promotion. I would like to also add that the second ArbCom case declared that some of Priddy's sites are attack sites containing lots of unverified original research and opinion, which further strengthens the argument that those sites should not be linked to. -- Atama頭 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Atama, Thanks for explaining all the rules however I still have some questions and I will appreciate your response.
  • In the future, if an user / activist seriously disrupts the Sathya Sai Baba article due to their WP:COI with the subject what can be done?
  • Can other editors appeal for amendments to the second arbitration rulings requesting sanction on that disruptive editor?
  • My second question is if that's the case then which forum should be used for requesting amendments to the second arbitration rulings or for requesting sanctions on disruptive users - WP:AE or Is there any special forum for such requests?
I will definitely appreciate your response to these questions. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
If there are serious disruptions then those should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Spamming, WP:BLP violations, edit-warring, etc. are all different problems that have different remedies. Spamming, for example, should be dealt with by warning the editor with escalating warnings which can eventually result in a WP:AIV report, which can then lead to blocks (possibly indefinite blocks). There is a BLP noticeboard that can help with such problems as defamation or bad sourcing in a BLP. Edit-warring should be dealt with by trying to get the editor to discuss things on the talk page instead of reverting, and violating WP:3RR can be reported at WP:AN3, but be careful not to violate the three-revert-rule yourself (I myself rarely revert more than once and never revert more than twice as a personal rule). But essentially, the COI itself is more of a footnote for the editor to bring up when other violations occur.
Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution. Dispute resolution occurs when 2 or more editors disagree on the content of an article and can't compromise. There are many steps used to resolve such conflicts, including asking for a 3rd opinion from someone uninvolved with editing the article, making a general request for comments from uninvolved editors, asking for informal and formal mediation, etc. When all else fails you go to arbitration which is like Wikipedia court. The Arbitration Committee makes rulings based on the evidence and arguments provided. If the arbitration remedies seem to be insufficient to fix the problem you can make a request at arbitration enforcement to extend or amend the remedies, but the last arbitration case for this subject was well over 2 years ago. I think you'd be better off requesting another case, but again those cases are not accepted unless all other dispute resolution steps have been attempted and failed. -- Atama頭 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Atama, I note you state: "Edit-warring should be dealt with by trying to get the editor to discuss things on the talk page instead of reverting" I have tried this repeatedly with Radiantenergy, but he only failed to reply or avoids all my chief points. I try to reply to his accusations about me fairly. I was not consciously trying to promote myself but to provide further information for people willing to see both viewpoints.
I find the rules on reverting/vandalism somewhat arcane - does the rule involve that one cannot revert more than three times EVEN when sound reasons for the revert are given and not addressed by anyone? I note that, after your advice, Radiantenergy leaves the third revert to an accomplice like Sbs108. I am aware of how this rule applies.
As to my having made a link to one of my web pages, I had no idea that I was not allowed to do so in talk pages (see my querie to you above, so far unanswered), I realised I could not do so on the article page. I was misled, however, in that several of the pro-Sai editors have placed links to websites of SSS1208 (Gerald Moreno) whose web sites were formally banned by an arbitration panel of five persons see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I cannot locate who made thsse illegal links, but strongly suspect the currently active pro-Sai edit warriors, for who else?.Since I heard that NO links were permitted anywhere on Wikipedia to websites excluded by Arb.Com, I have therefore removed several of those links (to vishvarupa.com, sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com on the main article page and three links to saisathyasai.com on the top of the talk page). Since Radiantenergy follows the example of banned SSS108 in numerous ways, and supports all of his main agendas and methods almost to the letter - which I can document if required), I suggest that - even though he remains anonymous - he may well have a conflict of interest himself. If he cannot be identified, then is it not unfair that he can get away with what those who are open about themselves cannot.ProEdits (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
"I find the rules on reverting/vandalism somewhat arcane - does the rule involve that one cannot revert more than three times EVEN when sound reasons for the revert are given and not addressed by anyone?" - Yes, even if those reverts seem completely appropriate. Let me relate to you a real incident that I witnessed recently. An article in which I've been active in editing was also edited by an administrator, who had done a wonderful job getting the article into fine shape. For a long time the article had been semi-protected because of repeated vandalism and spam from anonymous editors, and other edits that weren't clearly vandalism but still lowered the quality of the article (badly-formatted edits, insertion of trivia, etc.) The administrator decided to remove the semi-protection to see if anonymous editors might be a positive thing, because it had been over a year since it was applied and there were some controversial real-life events at the time attracting negative attention. After the protection was removed there were some decent contributions from anonymous editors but the majority of edits were terrible. In the midst of this, an established editor came to the article and began a tendentious insertion of negative POV criticisms that were opposed by every other editor at that article (over a half-dozen of us). When I reported the editor for edit-warring, instead of him being blocked the administrator was blocked because he had reverted anonymous editors a few times (for very good reasons) and the tendentious editor twice in a 24 hour period. So I can say that the rule about 3 reverts is pretty much set in stone unless your edits are reverting clear vandalism (and be careful that it is really vandalism as defined at WP:VAN).
Links to your web sites on the talk page should be fine. It didn't register with me that you were only providing links on the talk page of the article, I apologize for that. This noticeboard posting is basically a huge wall of text and Radiantenergy has posted so much that it's easy to miss details. So yes, you're right that posting links on the talk page is fine and even recommended by the guidelines. As to Radiantenergy's potential COI, it's unfortunate that where conflicts of interest occur sometimes being honest seems to work against you. You've been open about who you are and are therefore restricted as a result. But if indeed Radiantenergy is affiliated with blocked editors and that fact becomes known, I wouldn't be surprised if a permaban would result. Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are treated the same, and an editor whose conflict of interest is discovered, rather than volunteered, is often treated harshly. I would advise against acting on these suspicions without evidence however, because it would probably backfire. For now assume good faith even if you disagree, and be content that so far their efforts to get you blocked have failed. -- Atama頭 16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Atami: I am relieved to get your positive and informative answer, even though I just removed the talk page link I'd made under the false impression that Radiantenergy knew what he was talking about. I have not edited Wikipedia for some years and was very rusty on the rules. One lives and relearns!ProEdits (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Radiantenergy:
  • User:ProEdits - First stop your accusations. I would like to remind you about assume good faith. Nobody is conspiring anything. Please stick to the questions and don't write elaborate explanations about your past animosity with some old banned user SSS108. To be frank with you I have stopped reading your explanationa as most of it does revolves around SSS108. It does not make any sense to me and I am not interested in knowing your animosities with that user. Please write short answers explaining the reasons about the current edit-warring you are involved with here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=314336858&oldid=314327369#Repeated_Vandalism_by_ProEdits_aka_Activist_Robert_Priddy.
  • Both The Daily Pioneer and the Asian Voice have been discussed in detail in WP:RS notice board and declared as reliable sources.
  • Inspite of knowing these two sources are reliable if you try to repeatedly delete them its considered as disrupting and Vandalizing the article.
  • In your response to deleting the 'Daily Pioneer source' in the talk page - your words were
Comments from User:ProEdits for deleting daily Pioneer source from the Sathya Sai Baba article:
  • "If he can prove that the statement on the Pioneer article about me is true, then it would be a different matter. But he cannot because it is entirely false! Therefore this particular atricle is UNRELIABLE as a source, whatever others may have opined about the general reliability of the Daily Pioneer on-line. Why was my rebuttal under comments to the article not included? ...""
  • What answer do you expect for your above comments?. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is no place for publishing personal opinions. I have already given my answer its not up to the editors in Wikipedia to prove anything to you or to any other activist who is directly involved with the subject Sathya Sai Baba. Declaring a reliable source as unreliable just on the pretext that it mentions your name is an unacceptable reason. This called as POV pushing. Again this source was declared as reliable in the WP:RS board.
  • I am trying to explain the wikipedia rules once again. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources publishes.

Also don't expect editors to include your comments to the Daily Pioneer in the Sathya Sai Baba article.

  • You removed 2 important reliable source from the article based on your personal opinion that its unreliable there by breaking the WP:RS decision that its reliable. This disruption and POV pushing and repeatedly deleting important reliable sources based on your POV has to stop. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Radiantenergy - In pointing out the huge similarities between you, your methods, your agenda, the way you push your POV to the utmost limits and the irrational entries - with SSS108, I did not intend to interest you. I am challenging the reliability if the Daily Pioneer epaper article and this matter will be brought up in due course in the proper forum. Wikipedia judgements are not set in stone for ever! Your disruptions are perfectly evident to anyone who read the great masses of largely irrelevant comments on every possible page - your constant repeating of the same points, and constantly avoiding valid questions and comments from all who disagree with you, and your collusion with J929 and Sba108 is patently evident not only from the way you share reverting so that none of you exceed the 3 revert limit. I assumed good faith for a long time, but you have given more than enough reason to judge that it can no longer be assumed. There is a limit to everything. You are pursuing an extremely antipathetic agenda against me, which was also shown from your calling for an Arb. Com. case after I returned to the issue after over 2 years and made one single edit! BTW, you owe me no "thanks". ProEdits (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=307807198
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ombudswiki
  4. ^ http://www.juxx.com.br/prof_data/materias/2004%20Cranberries%20.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_36&oldid=1144518654"