Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 62

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Scott Bury

A user who made one edit in 2010 to an unrelated article has come back to life and is engaging in the same pattern of edits in destubbing the article, including restoring the old content. I am engaging them on their talk page but I have to suspect that this account has been compromised. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a message on my talk page confirming that this editor and all his predecessors have been employees of the agency. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Financial Consumer Agency of Canada

Long-term pattern of COI editing by an agency of the Canadian federal government. Article was created by a COI editor and has been extensively edited over the years by other COI editors with WP:ORGNAME accounts. Copyvios are repeatedly added, and references are all to primary sources. Drm310 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we need to escalate this to a SPI and a rangeblock. I'm inclined to stub the article on principle. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any sign that they were cautioned before DRM310 did so yesterday. Collectively the contribs were made in bursts, on one day in 2006, four days in 2010, and five days this year. These editors were likely oblivious to each other. More our failing than theirs, it seems. I think we can AGF and just correct the clumsiness of their approaches. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The proof in such articles is always in the pudding. Are their edits clumsy? That's fixable, and not a violation. Are they copyvios? We can set that straight and warn the editor(s). Are they promotional? Well, it's a government agency: there is no product to sell. In principle it's not out of the question--one could imagine a "promotional" scenario in the US, where various government agencies and even entire departments are under attack from tea parties etc., but that doesn't seem to be the case here (so the "advert" tag was really pointless). In the current version of the article (which is of course not a very good article), I don't see any problems, and I agree with LeadSongDog. As for Scott Bury, I don't understand the charge of "compromised". As long as these editors understand what they can and cannot do I don't see a problem (and they are communicating), and their "outing" is not necessarily a bad thing. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rumi

There is no conflict of interest. Take it up on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

For many years, this page had correctly stated Rumi's place of birth as Balk, Afghanistan. The content has been falsified and changed to indicate Rumi is a native of Tajikistan. This is false information that must be corrected immediately. Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poets fan (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Christian humanism

This probably explains itself nicely. --Jayron32 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Any edit summary that begins "my book is..." spells trouble. Perhaps a note suggesting he raises concerns at talk rather than editing the article? Looks like he's just trying to "right that wrong" rather than make a long-term contribution to the article. Stalwart111 09:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
No, over the last 6 months he has become the most prolific contributor to the article, making major revisions, mainly re-writing the pre-20th century history in September, referencing only himself. I suppose its good he's waited that long before doing (or changing?) his own bit. His book came out last year but JSTOR has no mention as yet. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Yeah, missed that - should have kept scrolling! He also ignored Jayron's talk page post (about this thread) and re-added the information again. And it looks like those long tracts added in September constitute almost entirely unsourced WP:OR. Next step? Stalwart111 22:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Linksoftware

Indian company; at least he's honest about it! His first 2 days worth all reverted, but no warnings issued. No doubt he'll just go underground. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User name has been blocked as a WP:CORPNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparent mischief on Moody's articles

Greetings, I am a representative of Moody's, and I wish to ask for specific assistance about some recent problematic changes on company-specific articles. This past weekend, one or more individuals based at the IP addresses 24.45.162.83 and 98.14.243.231 (IPs with no prior history) made a series of edits to the three articles about Moody's listed here:

In some cases, verified and useful information about the company's history was deemed "irrelevant" and summarily deleted, and on MIS and MCO warning tags questioning the articles' neutrality were added. However, no comments were added explaining what was in question. I believe these edits are simply mischief and should be reverted by an uninvolved editor, so I wish to ask someone here to consider that now. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the warning tags as I don't think they were appropriate. As far as I can tell, the changes to Moody's Analytics were benign layout changes - is there something I missed? A chunk of recent history (spinoff from Dun & bradstreet) was removed from the MIS, which I have reverted because it seems to be pretty good stuff, sourced, neutral, relevant &c. However, I could understand why somebody might remove text about the history of bond markets from Moody's Investors Service as that are really background rather than being about MIS - does anybody else have any thoughts on that one? bobrayner (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The changes made by IPs '83 and '231 to the MIS article are here. The addition of "{{POV-check|date=February 2013}}" probably is not needed. The IP editors revised the bond market info -- "While the Dutch had created a bond market as early as the 1600s" -- to be related to MIS -- "Moody was forced to sell his business ..." which is fine. Bond market info can be added back in so long as it relates to MIS. I'm not sure why the spin-off information -- "announced it would spin off Moody's Investors Service into a separate" companies -- was deleted. The revisions to the See also section seem more an editorial decision that could be changed back or discussed on the article talk page. In general, the edits do not seem like mischief (also see WP:AGF). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, thank you both for looking at these changes, I appreciate your reviewing and taking action. About the edit removing the history of bond markets information, this is well-supported information that provides context to the development of Moody's as a rating agency. However, if the agreement here is that this was a reasonable edit then I won't push it further. The changes to the "See also" in the MIS article are problematic in that they've added in a formatting error and removed relevant links. Could this be fixed? I also see that the warning tag is still present on the Role in capital markets section of MCO, is this needed? Mysidae (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The bond markets info seemed merely to be in the article, even if it was well supported. Based on the way it was written, it did not come across as providing context you mentioned. It's probably just a matter of looking at the cited sources and resummarizing how they relate the bond market info to MIS. Talk page consensus can bring out whether the edits were reasonable. The see also section seems too long. Take a look at WP:SEEALSO to see what should be kept and what should be removed. Some of them should be added to a Moody's company templates. Use Template:Microsoft as an example of how to create a company template. You can find other examples of company templates at Category:Company templates by industry. I don't think your COI would prevent you from creating a company template since the template is posted in Template space, not article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

BP updates to financial data

Hello, I am posting here as a COI editor with a request that I hope someone can help with. As you might guess from my username, I work for BP, and I have been offering resources and drafts to help improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia since last summer. Last week I made a request on the BP article's Talk page to update the infobox with new financial data from the company's Quarter 4 and full year 2012 financial results. As that request has not received a response, I wanted to ask here if anyone could make these simple updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry you were kept waiting... no one must have noticed your posting on the talk page. I've made these updates for you. And in case nobody has said so already, thanks for respecting the COI guidelines. Your good conduct is a great example of how COI editors can contribute constructively. Cheers! --Drm310 (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the edits, Drm310 - and also for the barnstar. (My first!) If you are able to, it would be helpful to also get your feedback on another suggestion I've made on the BP Talk page, for the restructure of the "Environmental record" and "Accidents" sections, to remove duplication and reduce confusion about where incidents should be mentioned. Although others have shown interest in the restructure, the discussion has currently come to a stop. The discussion so far is here and I've placed a draft form of the proposed structure into a sub page of Talk:BP here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The current subsection headings are insufficient to provide an overall structure from which to develop the article. As I posted on the BP article talk page and here, you are destine to year after year disputes over what should and be in the main BP article and what should be in Wikipedia:Summary style article. The answer to your ongoing desire to improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia lies in the headings provided in the existing FA and GA company articles. Focus on the overall structure of the article and then the finer details will take care of themselves. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Mprinfo

Username report was denied as not blatant, not sure how this was misunderstood...Article made was Minedas (page has been moved), a promotional article, Hence the acronym Minedas Public Relations Info or Mprinfo. Requesting username block as this is a promotion only account Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

E-mail to OTRS

Folks, an e-mail as been sent to OTRS making us aware of this freelancer.com posting. Just making you aware of it so that articles that may be created as a result, if any, can be properly scrutinised. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the given titles, plus some possible variations. bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Akshat Rathee topic meets WP:N. I only found: Akshat Rathee, Managing Director of the bio-fuel company Earth-100[9] and Akshat Rathee, chief gaming officer, NODWIN Gaming.[10] "Nodwin" does not appear to meet WP:N either, so none of its variation would. Earth 100 might (might eventually) meet WP:N.[11] Undaz does not meet WP:N. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Trent Leyshan

Morryone has been identified as a corporate colleague of the subject of the article Trent Leyshan, and notified of COI issues multiple times. Edits also to ClarkMorgan where he is or was a corp officer, yet continues to only be contributing to COI articles like these. — Brianhe (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Careful! Unless this person has voluntarily identified himself or herself, then this is WP:OUTING. --Drm310 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether it is really that person or not (seems pretty darn likely) their editing clearly establishes that they are a single-purpose account here only to promote these subjects, and they have never made a substantive edit to any talk page. I have therefore blocked them in an attempt to drive home the seriousness of the situation and try to force some discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above approach due to Morryone's little interest replying to the concerns of others about Morryone's editing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Brianhe, do you have any diffs to support the assertion that Morryone is a corporate colleague of Trent Leyshan, the subject of the Trent Leyshan article, or that Morryone is a corp officer at ClarkMorgan? It also would help of you provided diffs of notified of Morryone being notified of COI issues multiple times. To provide these diffs, please add the diffs to your original request. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I believe the self-identification was in a file permissions section for an image uploaded by Morryone then later deleted, so it can no longer be ascertained (maybe by an admin). See TheFeds comment in this AfD discussion. There was a username concern raised that probably should have been labeled a CoI notice: [12] (5/2011) then templated CoI notifications were made:[13] (11/2011) and [14] (2/2013). Morryone never responded to any of these, in fact hasn't edited his own talk page since 2009 (which was a response to a bot!). Brianhe (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I would day Morry's own edits at that AFD [15] where he makes it clear he has insider information about that magazine, coupled with this make it pretty clear that if it is not Morry Morgan himself it is somebody acting on his behalf. As I mentioned above it doesn't really make a difference which it is, their behavior is not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom Miller (Politician)

The subject is the Attorney-General of Iowa and his article has been greatly expanded by a new user with an evident COI, who is currently username-blocked and requesting unblock. I am minded to remove the whole "Significant legal cases, events" section, which is sourced almost entirely to Mr Miller's own press releases and, while factual, reads like (what it presumably is) something put together by his PR people listing achievements to make him look good. Moreover it gives me copyright concerns - sentences put into Google turn up sources like this and this - evidently state AGs combine in these legal actions and all put out similar press releases. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree with you and I've made the edit per WP:BOLD. Qworty (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tuff TV

Both accounts claim to work for the subject [16], [17], and both have persisted in promotional edits, copying text from the network's website. They've even registered separate votes at Talk:Tuff TV. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Unless there's another account involved, I'm guessing they won't do a CU. At any rate, there's obviously a conflict of interest and the issue needs attention. OlYeller21Talktome 02:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP seems intent on warring, re-adding unsourced material without first discussing it on the talk page or even providing an edit summary. Qworty (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add the information along with a source and a summary. Seems like quite a hassle, and the total removal of content from the page is an over reaction. Sjmckeeman (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:ManagerUSA

All edits by ManagerUSA and the listed IP appear to relate directly or indirectly to Bruce Edwin (a talent manager) and his websites. If I recall correctly, Edwin is associated with the Church of Scientology. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of a person's religious or political affiliation, for one to be affiliated with a group does not quantify grounds of censorship, if they provide information about certain members of that group in a non biased and newsworthy manner. Furthermore, there is not evidence of any association with Edwin with any church. Examination of his websites show reportage of persons of various faiths including Christian, Jewish, and Wiccan among more. added at 04:54, 19 February 2013‎ by User:ManagerUSA
Bruce edwin, an article I deleted a little earlier, was a puff piece taken directly from bruceedwin.com, more specifically from its top page (which, so far as my browser is aware, is its only page). This doesn't have the usual formula about all rights being reserved, but it also says nothing about copyleft or the public domain. I therefore deleted Bruce edwin as a copyright violation.
Bruceedwin.com tells us that Bruce Edwin
is founding publishing editor of www.TheHollywoodSentinel.com. [. . . and] is also President of Starpower Management LLC[. . .]
ManagerUSA does seem to have editing interests that are remarkably similar to the interests of this Bruce Edwin. Here he is adding links to both of Edwin's websites in a single edit. (Note the phrasing of "Exclusive interview with Tracy Reiner by Bruce Edwin": just who or what is excluded, or is this mere advertising waffle?)
If Edwin isn't a Scientologist, Google shows a remarkable number of transcribed chats between him and minor celebs whose praise for Scientology he greets with "Wow, cool" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dark pattern

Creation of articles linking to user's website and related unreliable sources. Appears promotional. 99.136.254.88 (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It may seem promotional but the concept "dark pattern" exists beside the webpage and it is important for the encyclopedia. --Marcmiquel (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Please, delete the page "dark patterns", there is no need for the plural. My mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcmiquel (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been deleted. If the term is important then you're welcome to remove links to sites in which you or your associate are involved and add objective reliable sources. Here's a Google search link [18] 99.136.254.88 (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Childress Institute for Pediatric Trauma

This article and this editor appear to have a conflict of interest, if the article is not speedyily deleated, I beleve this situation needs to be monitored. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:ChildressInstitute has been blocked as a CORPNAME. In its current stubbed form the article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion but it has problems. I think a merge with, and redirect to, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is in order.--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done, merged and redirected.--ukexpat (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Victor Batarseh

Obvious COI, but there has only been one edit made so far by the editor. Andrew327 19:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It was to revert some unsourced content. I'll leave a notice about WP:AUTOPROB on his talk page - no need to be too heavy-handed on this one. --Drm310 (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User:IbankingMM

Related editors [19] [20]
New articles
Existing articles

WP:SPA accounts working together, extremely likely that the ip is just IbankingMM not logged in.

IbankingMM appears to work for have a professional relationship Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions in some capacity given his claim that he made File:Schematic_of_Intellectual_Capital_and_its_components.png which he made for and was copyrighted by Pegasus. (Given the response below, it appears he doesn't actually works for Pegasus.--Ronz (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC))

IbankingMM has created multiple articles all related to Pegasus and it's services, incorporating links to pegasusics.com articles. In a similar fashion, he's very prominently introduced similar information to already existing articles.

He had been notified of WP:COI after making his first few edits back in December '12. I've removed all the inappropriate pegasusics.com links and references, as well as the most blatant advertising.

The new articles should all be reviewed against WP:NAD, and his edits as a whole should probably be examined closer for undue bias and promotion. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Ronz is engaging in harassment outside his/her area of expertise. A cursory review of the work of the work of Leif Edvinsson and Karl-Erik Sveiby, et.al would establish the veracity of every article or edit made and the value of the addition to the knowledge available in Wikipedia. Intellectual Capital is a new (1990's concept) that is poorly understood outside of the largest or most forward thinking corporations. I have no objective other than to further the awareness of corporate finance in general and Intellectual Capital in particular.

Ronz is engaging in disruptive editing. He is clearly not operating withing his/her area of expertise, and should adhere to the Wikipedia mandate to avoid harassment and the deletion of material. From what I have seen, he/she not an Editor. He/she is nothing but a self-assigned vigilante.

It is abundantly clear from his/her 'contributions' that Ronz don't actually make any contributions to Wikipedia such as an article submission or modification. Rather, he/she simply deletes the material of others without due process. Wikipedia explicitly states that deletions of material should be used with greatest of caution, above and beyond any suspicion of self-interest, of which I have none. Ronz, however, does not research the material she/he deletes, since, apparently, that would require effort. It is clear that she/he does not do any research because she/he had deleted my entry in Human Capital before I had a chance to even review it myself.

It is quite clear from the record that Ronz is fond of deleting material, as she/he has no positive contributions to any articles. It would seem that this is the case as it is so much easier to harass than create. I would suggest that Ronz might try writing something, certainly something more substantial than a malicious 'talk' entry.

I have authored the following, de novo. This is entirely new material, relevant, and well documented.

  • Exit_planning
  • Relational_capital
  • Platform_Company
  • Bankruptcy_examiner
  • Intellectual_capital_audit
  • Process_capital#Overview

Ronz is engaging in Vandalism, and I respectfully request that she/he desist. IbankingMM (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Calling another editor a "vigilante" is unacceptable. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Lack of civility is considered disruptive editing and can lead to your being blocked. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Qworty, in all due respect, I believe I have used the English language correctly in connection with my use of the term 'vigilante'. As defined by Merriam-Webster it means: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily. It is my observation and solemn opinion that there was indeed a summary judgment by a member of a volunteer committee, and thus, my use of the term was accurate. If I am incorrect, please explain. Ronz had deleted my work before I had even finished editing it, and he took tremendous umbrage that when I re-saved my work it appeared I was defying him. He then decided to attempt to tear apart every piece of work I have done. That does not appear to be a cool-headed analytical debate with independent third parties making an impartial judgement after hearing the facts.

I believe, in all candor and due respect, that the summary deletions of my work are to the detriment of readers and users of Wikipedia. I point to your own reference regarding WP:AGF. I do not believe I have been given the couresy of being shown good faith. Rather, my work was summarily deleted with a minimum or no diligence. How can I consider this anything but vigilantism? Mere suspicion is sufficient to get one's work deleted. Actual harm is not the least bit necessary. Am I wrong?

I posit this question to you: How are the interests of the users of Wikipedia aided by the deletion of the schematic [[21]] which simply delineated the breakdown of Enterprise Value into its component parts? The schematic was simply a crisp representation of the work of Leif Edvinsson, Karl-Erik Sveiby, et.al. so that a common reader (those which Wikipedia attempt to reach) could grasp an emerging but obtuse concept. Second, how could such a schematic possibly be advertising when the entire work was based solely on concepts not associated in any manner with any party of interest, or any company? The schematic included categories which are themselves topics in Wikipedia, including Enterprise value, Intellectual capital, Human capital, Structural capital, Relational capital, Organizational capital, etc.?

I do not wish to engage in some kind of power struggle with you or anyone else. I do, however, desire that:

At this point I am flummoxed and need clarification as to what has happened and why Please provide cogent detail. The Wikipedia section on Civility, which you suggest that I read, outlines this: "Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or at least in addition to, the templated message.

I have unexplained templates that I cannot grasp the genesis of.

First, I'll admit that I didn't read everything you had to say, yet, but I found it important to go ahead and state a few things.
I found the statement that Ronz is not an editor and is instead a vigilante to be rather baseless given that approximately half of his 70k edits are made directly to articles. Not only is your statement patently incorrect, it's in no way condusive to a constructive discussion, which I assume in good faith, is what you want. The statement that "Ronz is engaging in Vandalism" seems baseless as well. You've given no diffs (links to edits mad by Ronz) that support any of your claims. Creating longs posts like this that cite the dictionary and make claims that not only aren't supported but aren't conducive to a productive discussion, isn't going to help anything. If you continue moving in the direction that you are, my experience tells me that you will most likely be blocked from editing.
I'd like to back up a bit and ask that everyone involved take things down a few notches. Let's start over. From what I've read, this seems to be a content dispute, at the very least, and may involve an editor with a conflict of interests.
To make this situation as clear as possible, I'd like to clear something up before we move on. IbankingMM, do you have a close connection to the subjects listed in this discussion? Please note that a simple no isn't going to work here as evidence that you do have a close connection has already been presented. Also, please remember that having a conflict of interest in no way bars you from editing articles with which you have a close connection. What it will do is show other editors that you're here in good faith, are possibly well versed in the subjects with which you're editing, and that you have Wikipedia's best interests in mind.
Once we get that cleared up, I think we can get a few editors involved in discussions on each point of contention so that the disagreements can be settled by several editors and not just two editors that disagree with each other. OlYeller21Talktome 04:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Qworty, please take the time to read everything I've written. If it is important enough for my work to be deleted, it is important enough to study and understand. I want to make clear that my work is accurate in every respect, with the goal of furthering knowledge in the area of (no pun intended) Knowledge management, which is directly connected with Intellectual capital, which is directly connected with Corporate finance, and by connection Mergers and acquisitions and a host of interrelated topics. I believe in my heart that my work is as complete as any academic would want his work to be.

I have far less of an interest in furthering my claim that Ronz is more interested in deleting material than is creating it. I do suggest that you glance as her/his contributions history and focus on her deletions compared to additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ronz&offset=&limit=500&action=history. Unless I am terribly mistaken, it is clear that Ronz is not a creator. If I am incorrect, than I will need to study in greater depth the 'contributions' nomenclature.

Regardless, I am not inclined to further my argument as to the conduct or possible bias of Ronz. Rather, I seek third party affirmation of my work with an eye towards the best interests of the users of Wikipedia in obtaining accurate and thoughtful information.

First off, I'm not Qworty. Second, I'm a third party attempting to assess the situation and lend my experience and help to improve Wikipedia. I'll also do my best to bring in many other parties to help with the situation. Third, I'll read everything you've said everywhere on Wikipedia, including those of editors you've interacted with, after you answer the only question that I've asked of you - do you have a close connection to the subject whose articles you are editing? OlYeller21Talktome 04:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OlYeller21, my apologies for missing your entrance into this discussion. We were not appropriately introduced. I am a 69 year old retired banker, former Army Major, writer and volunteer. I worked in corporate finance my entire career. I have no vested interest in any commercial interest or personal relationship. I do however have a great number of connections and relationships to call upon, but that does not constitute a conflict of interest. Still, I believe that even if you assumed I had a bias of some sort, I do not believe it is in any way reflected in my work. I believe my work is dry, analytical, descriptive and well written. I do not believe my work advances any commercial interest, let alone more than it advances Wikipedia, which is the standard that it must bear.

My position is that Ronz, and Qworty are not following the very basic tenant of COI guidelines, to wit: An edit by a COIN declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia

Rather, Ronz, and Qworty simply delete work without (1) notice, or (2) any attempt to propose changes to the content. Ronz and Qworty both simply made wholesale deletions (i.e. "blanking", which unless I am mistaken, is a hallmark of vandalism, as there is no attempt to discuss or resolve point of contention) of work that had no possible connection with any COI, e.g. the schematic File:Schematic_of_Intellectual_Capital_and_its_components.png. I believe the record will be clear that there was no attempt to propose changes to any content. IbankingMM (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You were warned of WP:COI concerns in December. Here we are in February addressing them because you continued spamming and promoting a single organization which you appear to have a work relationship with.
Granted, you've not outright said you work for Pegasus. Perhaps you didn't mean to disclose your relationship with them. However, I think we need an explanation for the image: It appears from your own comments that you specifically created it first for Pegasus who claimed a copyright for it, and then got their approval to remove the copyright notice and use it here in Wikipedia. Can you please explain what actually occurred that demonstrates you don't have a conflict of interest? --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sirs and Madams, I am a retired corporate finance professional that has noted the shift in the value of the S&P 500 from being derived 80% from tangible assets in the late 1970's, to 80% intangible assets today (now referred to as Intellectual Capital). As a corporate finance professional, a retiree with time on his hands and an investment portfolio to protect, this has been a subject of great personal, as well as professional interest. Intellectual Capital as the source of wealth creation will become even more important over the next 10 and 20 years. To that point, one of the companies I watch closely is Ocean Tomo (the firm that did the research on the shift in value in the S&P 500), which is a leader in its field. Ocean Tomo is one of my interests, but more of my work has been on the basic background research on Intellectual capital and Knowledge management. My contact with PegasusICS was in connection with obtaining a second opinion regarding my schematic. In return for their proof and verification, they requested and I approved their right to use it. I own the rights to the schematic, and I assigned those rights over to Wikipedia Commons. No copyright by PegasusICS is in force, as our agreement is that they would not file or attempt to enforce, and they are aware that I have assigned all rights to Wikipedia Commons. I requested a second opinion from PegasusICS because they are one of the few firms I know of that have attempted to integrate IC and KM into corporate finance. Ocean Tomo, the other company I track, is focusing more on IP (a much narrower field than IC). I have a career worth of contacts among the Fortune 500, banks and business community, and borrow from all that I can. As such, I am biased towards the most creative thinkers and I write about them as a part of my own learning, because we don't really know anything very well until we can teach someone else. I admire certain individuals and companies, and reference them often in my work. I admire Steve Jobs and equate Apple have seen them as practically synonymous, and if I were writing about innovation in personal electronics, you would see the same crossover in my work. But admiration and respect are not the same as bias or conflict of interest. If, however, the administrators on Wikipedia believe that prior contact constitutes a conflict of interest, then I request to you that my work be looked at in light of the Wikipedia's tenant as to whether any of my writing "advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia". I believe a critical review by the administrators will establish that my work advances the aims of Wikipedia far more than it does any outside interest. Respectfully IbankingMM (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  • You developed the schematic and own the rights to it? Then it constitutes original research and has no place whatsoever in Wikipedia. Please read WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SPS. You are in violation of multiple policies. You have no business developing a WP:OR diagram and then spamming it onto six different articles. Let me state it bluntly: Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for you to advance and advertise your personal ideas and diagrams. If you are truly a successful banker or financial manager, then I suggest that you purchase your own website, where you can post all of the diagrams and original research you like. Indeed, WP:SOAP suggests "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Per policy, Wikipedia is not the place for them. This is an encyclopedia, not a sounding board for your ideas, no matter how advanced you might think they are. You are in deep, deep, deep WP:COI, and you are fundamentally confused about Wikipedia and its purposes, so you should also have a thorough look at WP:NOT. Since you are in finance, you probably presume that WP:COI and WP:PROMO apply only to commercial interests. NO. These policies also apply to ideas. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sir or Madam,

There have been any number of schematics that outline some part of the relationship between Intellectual Capital and its components. None, however, adequately do it in a readable fashion. This is NOT original research whatsoever. Please see http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/events/scott_erickson%20seminar%20presentation.pdf as but one unwieldy example. Reformatting a schematic is not research. As a very simple example, using the color blue instead of read does not render something as original research. And no, the schematics I worked off of are not copyrighted.

Under U.S. law, any creative work, whether song, painting, photograph, automatically is copyrighted. The author/creator does not have to do anything to have title to that work. Thus, I had the right to contribute it to Wikipedia Commons. My statement that was that I owned the rights to it, and assigned them to Wikipedia Commons. As a result, Wikipedia is the owner, as is every work contributed to Wikipedia Commons, not me. This is the case with any photograph. If you take a photograph, you have a copyright to that photo. No one can use it without your permission. You are free to sell or assign it. You can assign it to Wikipedia Commons. That, after all, is how stuff gets there. It is then in the public domain. Wikipedia requires an affidavit regarding the origins of anything uploaded to Wikipedia for this very reason, that a copyright automatically vests with the originator, and thus, they could run afoul of copyright law if anyone but the owner contributes it.

As to your assertion that I was "spamming" the schematic, this is nonsensical. I was neither furthering a personal view or that of a commercial enterprise. Please do some research on the subject before you make any further accusations. I would suggest your read the work of Leif Edvinsson, Karl-Erik Sveiby as a primer. You will see from http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/events/scott_erickson%20seminar%20presentation.pdf that I certainly was not furthering a personal view. And I pray there is no accusation that I was furthering a commercial interest.

As a point to consider, when you edit any work on Wikipedia, you are modifying a creative work to simplify it, expand on it, or clarify it, and hopefully the process improve it. There is no difference between doing that with words in an article or words on a schematic. A written work is copyrighted by law automatically. However, those that contribute to Wikipedia waive those rights. This is the case with the schematic in question. It simply used pre-existing concepts, clarified them by reducing the size of the area needed to put all the words in the boxes, and aligned them for ease of understanding. This is no different than if you rewrite a sentence for clarity. IbankingMM (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In this context it's worth pointing out this edit showing IbankingMM basically threatening another editor with retaliatory wikistalking. The other guy was trying to mitigate one of his CoI contributions. This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. — Brianhe (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's bad. He should be blocked for that alone. Qworty (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Brianhe You can't be serious about wikistalking.

As another issue, you have deleted material of mine for copyright infringement when nothing even close to 10% of any article was ever directly quoted. As is fairly well known in intellectual property law, as a general rule, you may quote or closely paraphrase (a) up to 250 words from a book, (b) 10 percent of the text of an article.

It is increasingly clear that Ronz, Qworty and Brianhe are free to make whatever accusations they want, yet I am not supposed to point out that you (1) you aren't providing prior notice of an issue so that it can be rectified, (2) you aren't doing your research of the facts, whether about intellectual property law, the complete absence of any commercial or personal interest in the schematic you deleted, or (3) research into what constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law. I feel like I am in caught in the movie "Mean Girls". Are there any serious academics in the house? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbankingMM (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Quorty. Please make your specific, logical, point-by-point argument for each of you alleged infractions. WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:PROMO, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SPS, and WP:PRIMARY. You make no case for any of them. If this matters enough for you to protest, then do so in detail, point by point, and how it overrides the benefit to Wikipedia users IbankingMM (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  • You admit that you invented your own WP:OR diagram and spammed it onto half a dozen articles, right? Case closed. Qworty (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Qworty No, I did not spam. There was no personal or commercial interest. You will need to state your case clearly as to why it was "spam". Please be specific. Also, there was no original research WP:OR. Any reasonable person that reviews http://business.queensu.ca/centres/monieson/events/scott_erickson%20seminar%20presentation.pdf (and others I can provide as reference)would conclude that my schematic was a reconfiguration for ease of reading and represents nothing other than editing. Please try to not be so harsh in your judgement.

You most assuredly spammed the links, so let's not waste time here. You were warned back in December. So let's get to the chase. Do you want to continue editing Wikipedia? If so, will you attempt to follow the policies brought up here and on your talk page? --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • information Administrator note I have indefinitely blocked the accounts for reasons that I have explained on IbankingMM's talk page. --Rschen7754 07:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


  • Seeing the way this situation turned out almost makes me glad that I got sick when I did. At any rate, it looks like Ronz and Qworty did a great job tracking down articles that needed attention. I'll leave this list of articles that were socked here, just in case the Major decides to return. OlYeller21Talktome 20:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Christine Owman

Resolved

Seems to be COI. Revolving Records is the Christine Owman's own record label. Only makes edits on Owman article and Mark Lanegan, who made a collaboration with her. Christine Owman article is created by this user as well. Also User:94.234.170.25 may have a connection with this issue, as he/she started to make simultaneous edits with User:RevolvingRecords on same articles. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of now. RevolvingRecords was an obvious case of WP:CORPNAME and Christine Owman was speedied. --Drm310 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Choosing Wisely

Per another user's suggestion, I am posting here about a conflict of interest I have. I am a Wikipedian in Residence at a United States-based non-profit organization, Consumer Reports, and I am employed to develop health articles on Wikipedia using the information generated by United States-based medical specialty organizations for a health educational campaign called "Choosing Wisely". I felt that it was necessary to create a Wikipedia article on the Choosing Wisely campaign to explain my work to others. To that end, and because it is not completely clear how I should get community approval for this, I created a Wikipedia article for "Choosing Wisely" posted my draft to WP:AfC and also informed WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Open Access, and the proposed thematic chapter for supporting the development of health content on Wikimedia projects, Wiki Project Med. I am now posting here also. I would like to request that someone review my article and, if it passes Wikipedia inclusion criteria, to move it from the AfC talkspace into the article mainspace. I have a more complete explanation of this at the WikiProject Medicine talk space. Thank you for your attention. If someone would like to talk to me I am available through my talk page, on message boards, by phone, or by Skype. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's in the queue for review, but you should be aware that there is a backlog and it could take a week or more before someone reviews it.--ukexpat (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This looks like just another PR campaign - the top Google links are self-published and the rest are the result of a press releases. Clearly Wikipedia is just another link in the self-promotion chain. In short, all I see is a lot of effort at self-promotion and very little indication that this campaign has any notability apart from its promoters. Rklawton (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears this article was created and moved over to the main space. Since the COI still exists, this still should be watched, but it appears that the COI editor is acting in good faith and full disclosure. Tiggerjay (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Samjordison

Resolved

Seeming History self promotion of self, own book and wiki washing. 85.115.157.244 (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking to have done here, as there have been no recent edits from these users. Not much this board can do to help you. I would suggest you seek out assistance with fixing the articles through WP:GCE. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Scooter Braun

Please review this diff. I warned this IP editor here in November, about this editing behavior. In light of this edit history, I conclude that this is the IP address of an incorrigible editor with an impermissable single purpose David in DC (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this person is interested in heeding the warnings you've given him. Perhaps request semi-protection to prevent IP users from editing. --Drm310 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure a single edit in a month will be enough for a semi-protect, as there is no active, ongoing issue, and it appears limited to a single IP. At that place requesting a block of the IP would be more appropriate but since there has only been one edit prior to your last warning, I would suggest waiting. However if they edit again in the next day, consider requesting a temporary block of the IP. Technically all of the warnings will not have been given, but I would explain in the request that this is a SPA account, doesn't appear shared (as least as far was WP is concerned) and multiple attempts have failed to correct this user over time. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Moonshiners13mc

This AfC submission, and the account who created it, appears to have a conflict of interest. I declined the submission as I have reservations over notability and reliability over its sources. hmssolent\Let's convene My patrols 05:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully this user had the wherewithal to go through the AFC process. And as such I'm not sure there is yet a problem for COIN. However, there is a username issue here, because the policy doesn't permit company/group names, as is clearly indicated between the edits and username chosen. I'll notify the user of such on their page. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Eilat Mazar

I just saw this edit summary: Page overhaul under the direction of Dr. Eilat Mazar [22]. It is the user's first edit. I don't have time to go through the changes in detail, but Mazar and her approach have raised controversy from some other investigators who don't share her outlook, and I note that at least one quite pointed quote questioning her approach has been removed. As I said, I don't have time to wade into this now, so I thought I should hand it over to the specialists with this sort of change. Note that it is the user's first edit, so they may need to be walked quite gently through what is and is not a good idea per WP's COI policies. Jheald (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this before I discovered your post here and at the editor's talk page. I did point out that besides COI removing a critical quote was a problem, as well as some MOS issues, and suggested that the editor discuss what changes they want on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Lets keep an eye on this one, but hopefully the COI editor will make the right next move :) Tiggerjay (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The editor has substantially re-instated their edit, though this time they have retained the sharply critical quote about Dr Mazar. I've edited the article in the past, which is why it's on my watchlist, so I'd like to recuse myself (and I don't have the time). It's very possible much of what the editor has contributed is significantly better than what was there before -- but I know I'd be happier if I knew that somebody with experience and no iron in the fire had gone through and assessed the changes line by line.
It's a touchy area because some of what Dr Mazar's work can bear on -- the historicity or not of the Biblical account of King David and whether Biblically-described greater Israel ruled over by him from Jerusalem ever in fact existed -- can be a topic where people can have a lot of emotion invested (both on one side of the discussion and the other); and also because what has been presented by some as Dr Mazar's apparent default outlook -- of starting from a position of broad trust in the Bible, and seeking to justify it -- is deeply unfashionable, at least in sections of the community that have become quite skeptical of the Bible, and so as far as possible try to interpret evidence independently of it, as an independent check.
So there are sensitivities at stake. WP needs to retain its detachment; but there also may well be significant improvements to the existing state of the article which can and should be made. Which is why I'd be grateful if a sensitive editor with COI experience could look over this. Jheald (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's probably worth looking at his post on my talk page - I haven't responded to it or looked at his changes. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dougweller. I just reverted the changes back again and placed a notice on the talk page. I just noticed the comment on your talk page which discloses the COI. That is good news as it appears that the editor is reading and willing to discuss the issues at hand. I will go back to the talk page and try to offer some constructive direction moving forward. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeffree Star

For the record, this issue has been here at COIN before. You can find those reports here, here, andhere. As has always been the case, Jsteininger edits the article regularly. I do my best to check each edit but it's difficult as there are many. As proof that the COI is still problematic, this edit shows that he's still attempting to conflate his own notoriety.

Recently, Insomesia has been removing the COI template and demanding specific issues with the article. I feel that the tag is intend to notify readers that a user with a conflict of interest has been editing the article and it "may" require cleanup or in other words, it may not follow WP's policies and guidelines. As it's obvious that the COI editor as still editing heavily and, to my knowledge, no one has combed the article, a tag stating that the article "may" have issues seems perfectly suitable to me. Still, Insomnesia has refused invitations to the talk page and continues to remove the tag.

I don't care if the tag stays or goes but I don't enjoy edit warring and only want the article to conform to WP's policies and guidelines. Still, I'm not going to spend hours going through the article only to have the subject of the article, who was repeatedly refused to communicate with others, continues to edit the page.

So, what do we do here? Do any of you feel like checking the page? I would if I felt that others would be watching and helping to keep it clean of issues presented by Steininger. Not sure what to do here. OlYeller21Talktome 05:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Mother of god, this article is awful. At least one BLP and ignoring the puffery for the moment, the sourcing is atrocious with SPS and youtube galore.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, I couldn't agree more... A major wiki cleanup would be needed here. I'll try to take a stab at this tomorrow. Part of me was hoping it would fail WP:BAND just to make it easier, but it clearly is notable enough, just needs a lot of work. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The COI tag should not be used as a badge of shame, I asked you for specific clean-up issues so I could look into them. You simply restored the tag instead. There are more specific tags to address puffery or sourcing if that was the main concern. Also do we have evidence that it is the subject himself who is actually editing compared to a fan or someone imitating him? Insomesia (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Tags are placed to point out problems with articles so that they may be fixed. Not to assign "shame" to the article or the subject. The COI is blatantly obvious, so I don't see the issue with the tag. An editor who acknowledged to be the subject has made substantial edits to this article which in of itself is enough for the tag. That the article is wildly promotional is another issue related to this editor. That the sourcing relies heavily on SPS, is yet another.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer              21:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      • It's blatantly vague. appears to have a close connection 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 I looked for the discussion by Ol Yeller21 on the talkpage and there was none. I asked for specifics and they were not forthcoming. A vague tag that states someone appears to have a close connection and the article may have issues is vague and unhelpful. And there was no talkpage discussion with any specifics. So it was indeed a badge of shame implying that the subject of the article was in some way responsible for all puffery in the article. That's a giant leap of bad faith unless we have proof of any of the editors involved is actually connected with the subject. The COI tag is pretty much worthless unless accompanied by specifics detailed on the talk page. Insomesia (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Please. The editor in question jstieneger clearly acknolwedges that he is the subject [23]. That being said BLP applies, so if you think there is any "shaming" on Mr. Starr I suggest you post an incident at BLPN. We shouldn't discount the fact that the editor may be pretending to be the subject, but I think we should AGF that he is, until given reason not to believe he is otherwise.   little green rosetta(talk)
          central scrutinizer                      22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Insomesia, it seems that you have an axe to grind with the tag itself. Several editors feel that the article is essentially terrible and needs a great deal of cleanup due to the edits of an editor claiming to be the subject of the article. If that's not a clear reason to apply the tag, I don't know what is. If you have a problem with the tag itself, taking it up on the tag's talk page would be a good idea but I can tell you that editors have attempted to delete the tag several times for the reasons that you give and each time, the TfD has failed. If you'd like to start a discussion about requiring bullet points on the talk page when applying the tag, I'd be interested in that conversation. OlYeller21Talktome 22:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
          • LGR, as usual i find your arguments rather disingenuous but if you now want to strictly enforce BLP by all means start an RfC or some other complaint board thread. You seem very comfortable doing that. Insomesia (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I have an issue with the tag being applied with no evidence of what clean-up is required. I asked you to detail your concerns and at least that has now started. Insomesia (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm not the one who has BLP concerns with the article, why would I start an incident? In fact, I removed some BLP from the article already. Your complaint about the tag is not gaining any traction so I suggest you work with others at the appropriate talk page.   little green rosetta(talk)
              central scrutinizer                              00:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
              • You mean as I have been doing for months? Thanks for the advice! Insomesia (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Parenting styles

Randy's edits have improved from yesterday, when his contribution Christian parenting was speedily deleted as promotion. However, Randy appears to still be here solely to advance book publisher's agenda, though I can't see his deleted contributions to see what exactly the overlap is from yesterday's deleted content. Randy seems to be unaware of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:COI. So far, Randy has also been uncommunicative on his talk page. Biosthmors (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The deleted article was basically an ad for a particular book on the topic, one which Bowen has also written about repeatedly off-Wikipedia. He is apparently the Rodney Bowen whose twitter feed describes him as "dad, Bible student, marketing director... social media practitioner". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I reached out to him via e-mail to see if that would help. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Received a reply via e-mail, he didn't realize the talk page, hopefully we can work this out. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rock Mafia

I came across this user, Squidwarddthe2nd, whose 51 edits include 43 on the article Rock Mafia (a group of music producers) and the rest are on related subjects. The article is very positive, and very detailed - containing every track they've produced, in a list longer than is normal. Someone tried to add a picture and it was removed by this user with the reason 'I am the copyright owner at Rock Mafia' This user hasn't been very active recently but the article does also have a lot of edits from unregistered users who've not edited other articles. I also note similar trends in the article on Antonina Armato, a member of Rock Mafia.

Not sure what can be done but does definitely seem like a COI. Rayman60 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC) update: twitter account for squidwardthe2nd is for someone who describes themselves as 'studio elf at Rock Mafia'

Lucas Secon

I came across this article which had several issues I tried to address, namely lack of sources, poor spelling & grammar, slang and a rather detailed discography with poor formatting. My edits were reverted by this user with this reason: Why are you taking out productions i have done?-like Travie McCoy"Need You"?.It is not up to you what goes in. It has been noted on the talk page many years ago that there are issues with this page, but this has not been fixed. There are several unregistered users active on this account, whose sole contributions are adding info to this article and corresponding links on related articles e.g. if this artist works with another one, that other artist's page will be edited to reflect the fact. It seems this page is monitored and unfavourable edits are resisted. Rather than getting drawn into an edit war, I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the COI board. Thanks Rayman60 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Drscarlat

This user has just spent the last two hours doing nothing but adding citations to the external links section of perhaps two dozen articles. Judging from his/her username, they may have a CoI here. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 03:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I just provided a standard COI warning and a specific caution against adding links to articles. It's up to admins to decide if this situation warrants more attention. Andrew327 05:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the editor has stopped, at least for now. Although we should look out for fresh additions of that citation into other articles. Andrew327 18:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dimitri Lokhonia Bloomex

I am the founder and president of Bloomex- the floral company oeprating in Canada, USA and Australia. The current article does not reflect true picture about me and my company mainly because of efforts of editors CliffC and recently User:Gwickwire , who I believe is the same person. You can see that their comments are very subjective and directed againts me personally. I appreciate if you can ban them from article editing and let other people edit the article to reflect true story. Dimitri Lokhonia (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is for reporting users with a COI problem. You have a COI problem. It reflects the true picture, what's in reliable sources. Deal with it. If you don't like it, don't run your company that way. gwickwiretalkediting 23:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The page as it stands appears reliably sourced, but thanks for disclosing your COI and mentioning the issue here. a13ean (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Aranmula International Airport

The user is edit-warring - removing referenced information about controversy without explanation, while adding promotional-sounding content glorifying the corporation that is building this airport. I have warned him twice already to which he didn't respond. I think it's clear from his editing pattern that he has a COI. — Yerpo Eh? 07:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Riley

I came across this article which rang a few alarm bells. I fixed some formatting issues and looked at the history. I saw the article was created and dominated by a person whose only contributions were to this article. I googled them and there are many sources saying someone of the same name is head of PR at the company at which the article subject is CEO/founder. I had also expected the article on the company Daisy Group to have the same issues and it also has been written with a positive slant on the subject, but this time with several unregistered users with no other edits and one user Angelj38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only contributions are on this article. Rayman60 (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Global Gateway Logistics City

On recent changes I came across the above article and nominated it under CSD. After it was deleted I saw that it had been deleted four times before. Looking at the editor's other edits, there was some other material that seemed promotional, both images and text, added to History of Clark Air Base and Clark Veterans Cemetery. Previously, an ip editor (119.93.66.202) had made similarly promotional-toned edits, often referencing Global Gateway Logistics City, to Pugo, La Union, Angeles, Philippines, and History of Clark Air Base. This leads me to suspect a CoI, possibly through involvement with Peregrine development (a name referenced frequently in some of the additions) or the Clark Veterans Cemetery Restoration Association, also frequently referenced with a promotional tone. I am not sure how to proceed. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 10:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's time to put some salt on Global Gateway Logistics City.--ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It is now under indefinite create protection, thank to a request by Ukexpat to the fine folks at WP:RFPP. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine

A Perth-based communications agency with the name of Clarity Communications states First Quantum Minerals, owner of the Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine, as one of its customers on its website. Seems there is a conflict of interest to me there. Calistemon (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User name reported to WP:UAA as a clear breach of the user name policy.--ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

List of reported UFO sightings

User may be photographer mentioned in their edits of this article. May be using article as a convenient anti-gravity vehicle for promotion of their photography business. has inserted more or less the same content here, here, and here. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

GEO Group

I ran across this article just now: FAU Stadium’s New Prison Sponsor Is Frantically Trying To Wipe Abuse Allegations From Wikipedia. I'm running a temperature of about 103 right now so I'm not sure what's going on but the article needs attention. OlYeller21Talktome 02:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  • It looks like other editors have been on this for a while. Indeed, this occurrence itself is now talked about in the article. Qworty (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Mind if I ask how they resolved the IP address to the company? I just used the WHOIS and rDNS tools here and didn't get any obvious clues as to who it was. --Drm310 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about an IP. Abraham Cohen, the user that's mentioned in all the articles, can be linked fairly easily to GEO through previous news articles mentioning that he's a spokesperson and Facebook (I didn't even check their official website). A user on the talk page also suggests that Pablo Paez, a GEO employee, edited the page. The edit history shows a large number of SPAs adding and deleting large amounts of text and while I didn't go through all of the IPs, I did find that 12.175.32.19 edited the page and belongs to GEO Group. Several of the IPs are from New York City, oddly. Tomorrow, I think I'll be up to searching through accounts for connections but I'm not sure that it's needed at this point, unless the GEO employees would have a vested interest in whitewashing other articles. Can anyone think of other articles/subjects that GEO Group employees might have an interest in altering? FAU Stadium is the only one I can think of. OlYeller21Talktome 23:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll check all of these articles tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. OlYeller21Talktome 00:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That took significantly longer to do than I expected.
WesleyToday and Chrisowu5 are SPAs that have only edited GEO Group related articles and seem to have done so in a promotional way. Neither have edited in over a year. I think Cornell Companies is the only article that needs attention at this point. Activist and WhisperToMe seem to be interested in this subject, based on who I've seen editing these articles. I see no connection between either of them and GEO Group at all outside a typical Wikipedian's interest in editing a subject. I invited them here in case they wish to comment, as they seem to have some level of expertise with the subject.
Unless they see a bigger problem, I'm going to stop here. The organization's lack of experience with WP showed and they were obviously transparent in their scrubbing to the point where a layperson and journalist caught them. I'm not seeing any indication of a widespread problem. OlYeller21Talktome 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I have edited the pages for Cornell, GEO and CCA in the past, as well as many hundreds of other edits in the last five or six years. It was I who noted that the mystery man, Pablo Paez, was editing GEO articles over three years ago. He's the spokesperson who rarely speaks, is mostly "unavailable," or does not return messages, or can't comment on matters that might involve "litigation," except to issue some Pollyannish puffery once in a while. The ruckus started by Abraham Cohen's FAU/GEO whitewash this past week was a new one for me, as their sanitizing efforts normally essentially go unnoticed, but this industry is thoroughly dedicated to removing any negative information about itself, no matter how well sourced or patently factual. Cornell, another loathsome corporation disappeared into the maw of GEO a few years ago, after years of non-prosecution of far worse behavior than their typical inmate might have engaged upon. That followed the consumption of another slightly lesser player in the for-profit lockup industry, CSC (formerly Esmor), which was similarly consumed by GEO. That corporation quickly disgorged youth component YSI, however, keeping that sleazy bunch in existence, however diminished. This is hardly the only industry that makes sure its Wiki image stays squeaky clean. I suspect the Koch brothers have full time minders watching what might be said. They're the real Winston Smiths of our era, their toilers in the Ministry of Truth, erasers always at the ready. Activist (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that the best articles, instead of having "controversy" sections, have information that has criticism and praised mixed throughout the article. I'll ask the NPOV noticeboard how to rearrange the information to go away from the "controversies" WhisperToMe (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I started Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Dealing_with_criticism_section_of_a_private_prison_company WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately so far there is no response on the noticeboard. I do think we need to also filter the criticism. If it is of a particular facility, just make an article on the facility and mention the bad things there, and only mention criticism of GEO on the GEO page if the criticism discusses allegations of or possibilities of issues with GEO itself, and not merely one of its prisons. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
GEO's problems are not unique to particular facilities, though some are worse than others. They are corporate, and ubiquitous. I don't think sequestering the problems on a plethora of discreet pages would give an accurate picture of the pervasive atmosphere of incompetence and chronic major incidents. It would be like discussing the demise of a baseball team on 163 separate pages, each referring to a separate game, as if the common thread was unimportant. Activist (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has to rely on what reliable sources (mostly secondary sources) say, and it has to do on an explicit basis. Find articles which say explicitly "there is a pervasive atmosphere of incompetence and chronic major incidents in the GEO system" and use those articles. If those articles use specific incidents and say "these show a pattern" that is okay. Just make sure there is no Wikipedia:Synthesis original research. If there is no article saying that 163 separate incidents are part of a trend, Wikipedia cannot say it's a trend. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • My two cents: I'm not sure there is a COI in the traditional sense, but there sure looks like an agenda (and some conspiracy theories) at work here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    Apparently, GEO has admitted to editing the page under a shared account. The COI is clear but like I've said before, I believe that those editors aren't editing now and won't be back soon. All that's left is to deal with POV/undue weight issues. I really try to avoid undue weight arguments as it's almost impossible to provide any sort of scientific assessment of the situation. Everyone basically throws their opinions into a hat and a consensus is never achieved. I think there are some parties involved that harbor emotional opinions about the incident so the more eyes we can get on this situation, the better. OlYeller21Talktome 22:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about the Cohen account. I mean User:Activist. He seems to have a real campaign over the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You've involved me in a Noticeboard issue without notifying me, Niteshift. Isn't that against Wikipedia policy? I've only just discovered this a moment ago. Activist (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, YOU involved yourself when you repsonded here! No, there is no policy that I notify you that I responded to a discussion you've already been involved in. Get a grip. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Ordering me to "get a grip" is hardly the sort of behavior I thought was permissible on Wikipedia. I was not the subject of any complaint and for you to claim no responsibility to notify me when you were complaining about me seems tendentious. You have access to my talk page. You know what the requirements are for such notification. I think an apology is in order. Activist (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You are correct. An apology is in order. You should apologize to Niteshift36. You posted to this thread on this noticeboard at 22:31, 23 February 2013 and again at 01:52, 4 March 2013, and when Niteshift36 mentioned you at 13:17, 5 March 2013 you falsely claimed "You've involved me in a Noticeboard issue without notifying me." I look forward to reading your apology for doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not an order, it's a suggestion. You clearly ignored that suggestion and returned to whine complain about a policy breach that doesn't exist. Yes, I do know what the requirements are. No, I have no responsibility to notify you about a discussion you'd already posted in twice. I will not be apologizing and if you don't like it, ANI is that way. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

International Swaps and Derivatives Association ‎

This user, with a declared COI, needs help in updating the article. After he tried to post a rather un-neutral version, I explained things on his talk page, and encouraged him to do a sandbox draft, which he has done at User:Prokurator/sandbox; but although it is more neutral in tone, it still reads as the ISDA telling the world about itself, and is referenced only to the ISDA website. The current article has some references, though they are more about the association's "Master Agreement" than the association itself. I have suggested that he (a) look for independent references and (b) consider what is actually inaccurate in the present article. Any assistance in either making the new draft encyclopedic or improving the current article to be accurate and up-to-date would be welcome. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hannah McKeand

This article has largely been written by its subject. Could someone experienced at doing so please drop by her user talk and explain nicely about our policy on autobiographical editing - thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

One editor at Michael Servetus may be connected to the institute of the same name

User JDeMarcos is a trustee of the Michael Servetus Institute. His books have been paid by the Michael Servetus institute. Now he tries to destroy any information on a new theory, based on primary sources, which is groundbreaking and would mean that the Michael Servetus institute is not located in the previous birthplace. Biographies have been relying on a falsification in an Act, or Notarial protocol. A registry made by a Civil Notay in 1504, but which contains surprisingly, information from 1537 and 1529. It was althered, after those years and very possibly in the XX century. Basically the previous theory does not have any primary official source that would assure for instance that Pedro is a brother of Michael. And DeMarcos cannot provide any new primary source on this. Many parts of the article do not take in count when a document is official or not, and how the name " Servetus" does not show up in any official document, ( every document that requires previous inspected information). This user is trying to block a groundbreaking theory, because it would mean the institute would lose influence in the Servetus experts (it is actually kind of late for that) , and would not be able to pay for his works anymore. Works by DeMarcos, paid by the Michael Servetus Institute http://www.miguelservet.org/servetus/publications.htm#19

Except for the first line above, I can't make any sense of this wall of text or a similar one here. I think there's an issue with a language barrier. a13ean (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that this issue was already settled. Previously there was also a dispute resolution on fringe research that user Alice Alaster and a few others were implementing in the article, and I am committed to preserving the terms of that resolution as long as no new evidence based on reliable sources is provided (which has not). I am available about any further discussion on this issue as required by administrators or mediators. --Jdemarcos (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you please provide links to some of the works in question, so we can try to determine if they meet our criteria for reliable source? Often groundbreaking theories don't become reliable sources until they are vetted by the broader academic community, but are sometimes worth mentioning as alternative views. a13ean (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the DRN case, I have to agree with its findings. This does not appears to be the right venue for continuing the discussion. a13ean (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Dr Gonzalez has all his publications and communications, inspected by the International Society for the HIstory of Medicine, Specialiced Magazines such as Pliegos de Bibliofilia. For instance one can check how the whole government of Tunis went to his lecture in 1998, or how the president of Spain went to his Malaga Congress in 1996. http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/profile.html ( 25 pdf's some in english)He was also granted the Palace of Bo Magna Room, in Padua congress, and he is praised in the reviews of the ISHM, even by the president, and the editor and secretaries, Check here Tricot, Lellouche, Kottek, etc, on Other authro's publications. http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/links.html Every member has to be historian or physician. And every communication is Peer reviewed, by a scientific comitee. He is also a member of the French History of Medicine. And his discoveries where presented also in the Royal academy of Medicine of Barcelona. www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs There in 1996 one can check how he was giving a lecture in the Michael Servetus Institute, one can see the major of Villanueva de Sijena, the promotor, and director too. And many news. But basically, now DeMarcos, tries to deny any discovery this person made, cause it can mean, less money for his books from the institute. Gonzalez was expelled in 2005 from the MSI, cause of thinking differently, and now the MSI, has asked DeMarcos to attack and prevent information of Gonzalez to be in the wikipedia article. And he removed as much as he could. It makes sense. He gets his book paid.

DeMarcos means maybe there were 7 editors who denounced this, maybe they are " a few".No access to pdf sources were gotten in the previous DNR study, nor it was accounted that Marcos gets his books paid by the MSI, even twice.WP:NOPAY--Alice Alaster (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Due to the edit warring I have fully protected Michael Servetus for five days. I recommend that the parties follow the usual steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Alice Alaster, it is expected that you will become familiar with the Wikipedia norms and with our standards for reliable sourcing. If you continue to pursue this battle without any deference to the previous consensus it is possible you will be blocked for disruptive editing. When you can't find any other editors who agree with your changes, you should take that as a sign. I have modified the header of this section to make it neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but I guess you mean " When you can't find any other editors who agree with your changes" you mean " DeMarcos", because most of them agreed with me. Or better said, I agreed with most of who did not agree with Demarcos, as far as I can remember, Bernstein, Belousov, Nathan Preston, Shäffer,Serné, and there were some more I cant recall now.
Alice Alaster, those editors agreed with you on promoting fringe research. The proof is that you only quote from one source, i.e. www.michaelservetusresearch.com (Dr. Echeverría's own website), or his book El amor a la verdad (paid and edited by the regional government where Tudela is located), or you refer to congress minutes and unknown publishing houses that have proven impossible to verify. BTW, I am not paid by the Michael Servetus Institute, or any other institution for that matter, and I would appreciate some protection against this persistent slandering and attack on privacy. My role here is that of a regular Wikipedia editor with a wide variety of interests (see my history of contributions), and not a SPA (unlike some of the users you mention). --Jdemarcos (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No. They agreed with me on defending the new arising and very powerful all explaning theory, supported by the ISHM and the Royal Academy of Medicien of Catalonia, as well as published in many many sources and very acclaimed by editors and presidents of Peer reviewed systems. It is you who want it to be fringe. It is ground Breaking. But Supported, so no fringe. No, the proof is that that website has not one source but multiple writers talking about him in " other author publications" and with direct pdf files to peer reviewed magazines such as Pliegos de Bibliofilia, or every communication in the ISHM, so it is peer reviewed by them, and not a thing that " gonzalez " says but supported and registered by the whole ISHM. Same that the Royal academy of Medicine congress in 2011. There it can be checked in the news i provided, how they talk of what Gonzalez found out and support it too. You got money from the Michael Servetus Institute for your books. As it is proved by the edition of two of your books, provided in the link I posted. So yes, you indirectly ( not realy so indirectly at all!!) get money from them for your own purposes. The edition of the government of Navarre is of a 15% of the total amount of the book, that is 1000 euros, as one can check in the registry of Grants by the Governmen of Navarre, as Bernstein said. So the Researcher paid for 85% of his book. And the goverment of navarre suported his research way before he would start talking of his Tudela origin. SO basically, the money he was granted was while he was saying Servetus was born in the old birthplace. As anyone can check in your El Pais article, " The detective of Servetus". Anyone can check in your editions how it was you who tried to denounce a monetary benefit by Gonzalez, by saying Michael was born here or there. And now we can check it was you who got a TOTAL full paid edition of your books by the MSI. Now everyone can check most of the whole text of the Peer Reviewed communications all through this 18 years, of Gonzalez, with full support of the ISHM, the Royal Academy of Medicine of Catalonia, and all the national newspapers who published and verified it too. You have your books paid by the MSI, and you are afraid of losing that. I am sorry it is not acceptable. WP:NOPAY
  • Regular participants here at COIN may have some suggestions on how to proceed. The topic has been previously discussed here at COIN, at DRN and at ANI. All of these prior discussions occurrred in August 2012:
The thread at DRN shows an editor trying to promote the work on Servetus by Francisco González Echeverría, whose theory is presented at http://michaelservetusresearch.com. The discussion at DRN appeared to show that González's theory has not yet received mainstream support. Unless Alice Alaster has found new evidence (since August 2012) showing other scholars commenting on Gonzalez and approving his findings in peer-reviewed journals I suggest that she accept the result of the last DRN discussion. — EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
As the dispute resolution volunteer who closed the DRN case, I fully agree with EdJohnston. Despite repeated requests, I saw zero citations to reliable sources. There were claims of "peer review" aplenty, but the citations were things like a table of contents, a bibliography, and a random page that made no mention of the topic at hand. I see a bunch of the same "wall of text" claims here, and I see no point in wasting my time checking on the off chance that there is something new. If I see a concise claim (ten words max, five is better) followed by a proper citation, I will check the cite. Show me a couple of those if you want to convince me. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Before you had no access to any of the real publications now you have access to 25 out of his 38. in his profile section. It is not a wall of text. Every publication has its pdf, and you can check it all. It is not just an image, but a pdf one can download. Enough Material. Also, It was said here, and it was provided the precise link and page of the scholars praising Gonzalez in the Academic Journal Vesalius in Dec 2012. It is not a concise cite? it is Kotteks one, Lelouche can go like for a page, praising all he things is worthy, which is mostly for him all the book. Also in that same page you have access to the last publication, also peer reviewed by the magazine Principe de Viana. Nov 2012. http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/profile.html Apparently you did not see now most of his works are online. You can contact Principe de Viana magazine, as a part of the Dep of Culture of Navarre Gov, all official magazine is peer reviewed, or just check the Vesalius Journal of the International Society for the History of Medicine, for checking peer review systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noah Bernstein (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
What part of "Show me a concise claim (ten words max, five is better) followed by a proper citation" are you having trouble understanding? The link you posted above is not a link to a peer-reviewed paper. Are you having trouble understanding what a peer-reviewed paper is? --Guy Macon (talk)
From that list , 1999 pliegos de Bibliofilia is peer reviewed, Historia 16, is also peer reviewed though it is more accesible. And the last one from 2013. I have problems on what you want. A peer reviewed paper, is published in the peer reviewed Principe de Viana, whole article, reviewed by the two peers of the magazine, plus recomendations they use for carrying out their judgement. You have the whole text here http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/pdf/NaturalizacionFrancesaMiguelServet.pdf I already provided it. What more do you need. A concise clam in the text? ok this in Spanish Page 153 second paragraph of the 35-pages peer reviewed article:

1-page 153 second paragraph- Francisco Javier Gonzalez Echeverria," La naturalizacio Francesa de Miguel de Villanueva( Miguel Servet)" Principe de Viana, nº 255 year 2012

  • "Como conclusiones del presente trabajo, señalaremos que su nombre y apellido real era el de Miguel de Villanueva, que era nativo de Tudela de Navarra, con un padre apellidado De Villanueva del que no conocemos, por ahora, más datos. No hay datos de filiación de Antón Serveto y Miguel, que solo añade el apellido «Servet» en las ocasiones más peligrosas para él y, también, para su familia de Sijena (Huesca).
  • "As a conclusion to this work, we will point that his real first and second names were Miguel de Villanueva, native from Tudela of Navarre, with a father named De Villanueva. We do not know more data on him yet. THere is no data of father- relationship between Anton Servetus and Michael. He is only named " Servet" in the few dangerous occasions for him, which are also dangerous for his family in Villanueva de Sijena."


Basically this is the conclusion to all his previous pages of documents, where he shows documents of Anton Servetus, De Villanueva here and there, the French royal document of naturalization, verification in the chamber des comptes, and registry at Paris University.

You can find same peer reviewed information in Lellouche.in the academic Journal -Vesalius article PDF, which I referred: http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/pdf/Vessu2012.pdf

2-page 55-Third paragraph, 4th line Alain Lellouche -"El amor a la verdad ( vida y Obra de Miguel Servet)Tudela 2011"- Vesalius Journal Vol XVIII-No 1, 2012

  • "La naissance de Michel Servet ( né d'un père De Villanuova, de un beau-père Rèves, et d'une mère juive Zaporta) a liu probablement en 1511, à Tudela. Une Ville de Navarre."
  • "The birth of Michael Servetus ( born by a Father, De Villanueva, from a step-father Reves -he uses the alias here but refers to Anton Serveto alias Reves, yes- and a Jewish mother Zaporta) happened probably in 1511, in Tudela, a town of Navarre."

Do I need to provide more exact citacions on every aspect that is contained in the article of Gonzalez peer reviewed by Principe de Viana editor council? I can. But it is basically that, wrong name and birthplace--Noah Bernstein (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, 2012 p55-56 http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/pdf/Vessu2012.pdf here you have Dr Lellouche secr of the ISHM and of the French Society for the History of Medicine and hemeritus Professor Samuel Kottek, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, praising the outstanding research of Gonzalez, in French and English, in the academic Journal Vesalius, of the International Society for the History of Medicine. No one had ever got more than a page in a book review, the peer review system for both paper and book reviews are limited to a page. And again, it is a peer reviewed text, same than the whole ISHM. Just in case DeMarcos says again" it is a book review". It is a book review, which is peer reviewed as all the information in Vesalius, before a scientific committee, from the prologue, notes, to the colophon. And if anyone says the contrary we can contact Collins, editor of Vesalius, and he can tell us all. And also in Principe de Viana, dep of Culture of Navarre, a peer reviewed magazine( by two peer reviewers as anyone can check in their policy) published the whole naturalization of Michael de Villanueva, with all his support. This is also new,http://michaelservetusresearch.com/ENGLISH/pdf/NaturalizacionFrancesaMiguelServet.pdf--Alice Alaster (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Alice Alaster, the naturalization of "Michel de Villeneufve" is not new, it was published in 1953 by F. Rude, "La naturalisation de Michel Servet", in B. Becker (Ed.), Autour de Michel Servet et de Sébastien Castellion, H.D. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon N.V., Haarlem (Netherlands), Echeverría adds nothing to it, just his peculiar interpretation that Servetus used his own true name, and not a false persona while living in hiding in France as the prevailing academic consensus says. The article published in Príncipe de Viana (again, edited by the regional Government by Navarre) is also by Echeverría (Text). You keep quoting works from your favorite author (apparently the only one you care to read), but further independent examination and discussion is needed. --Jdemarcos (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The whole article is about a peer reviewed study on how this implies, his true name is not Michael Servetus. And yes, it is peer reviewed, which is what matters. And it is new. I did not know that the Institute had edited your books. You accuse others of doing it and what happens is you do it yourself. These all happened to be about money, and the future funds you woud get. Now I see it. http://www.miguelservet.org/servetus/publications.htm#19--Noah Bernstein (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, a link to something other than a peer reviewed publication. This time it is a list of publications. If, as you claim, there exists a peer-reviewed study, please cite it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I answered to some of those citacions in other section I just edited. We can go deep with Pliegos de Bibliofilia which is also peer reviewed. And more. I will dont worry. --Noah Bernstein (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not discussing that Echeverría's research, as a fringe or minority position, deserves to be mentioned in the article according to relevance. This is already done in the article according to the terms agreed in the DRN. However, undue weight should not be given as to misrepresent what is nowadays the majority or common opinion about the subject. Quoting the policies in WP:FRINGE, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.". The established academic consensus, not just in most of Spain (except probably Tudela of Navarre) but also internationally about Michael Servetus is that this is his true name, and he was born in the town of Villanueva. Saying that Servetus is not his true name and that he was born elsewhere is fringe research currently supported only by Dr. Echeverría and the political authorities of Navarre. Furthermore, if you read the book reviews in ISHM's journal, Vesalius (2012) found in Echeverría's website, both reviewers call him "Servet" and not any other name, and while praising the edition and Echeverría's research effort, neither of them claim that Echeverría's research makes invalid what other scholars have written about Servetus' life and identity. One of the reviewers also mentions that Dr. Echeverría is the ISHM "national delegate in Spain", which is an interesting fact that may help to explain many things about the alleged role of the ISHM on this issue. --Jdemarcos (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps as much as your oppinion is explained by being a trustee of the institute located in the old birthplace. He is called Servetus, cause everyone knows this historical figure by that name, same than with Erasmus, Bucer, Capito, Stalin or Oecolammpadius. They are never referred by their true name. Michael is famous everywhere as " Servetus" and it is fine. As long as it is reminded that is not his true name. Thos scholars clearly say his true name is not that one. As it was cited. But they see no problem in calling him by that name, so people can understand easier, and know who they are talking about, Gonzalez does it too, in his whole study on " El Amor a la Verdad. Vida y Obra de Miguel Servet" not " Miguel de Villanueva" but he still defends all throughout the book a new identity of Michael with a true name " De Villanueva". There is not much to talk about that--Alice Alaster (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No, this document was lost and your sources, referred it wrongly during more than 50 years , cause nobody checked it. Gonzalez tracked it as Bernstein said, during months and finally found it, thanks to a relative of the original discoverer, Vellein, after checking the old castle it was supposed to be at. Again you come here to the same thing " Gonzalez did nothing" which is what you want people to hear. We do not talk about that. We talk about it was published there, after being peer reviewed, and your comments on this trying to talk of what you are interested should be noticed by the administrators. If we would have to talk about what he did we could talk of the Jewish converso origin , first proof in 1999, or we could talk of the new editions he found of the ex postremis doctorum bible of 1542, or the 10 new works, or the document of Juan Serveto, or things like that, but are we here for that? Gonzalez recovered the lost document, and showed it to the public for the first time ( his policy, when it comes to trust on publications he always publishes the primary sources, so everyrone can check he says the truth, a thing none else does. University of Paris registry published by him too, for the first time, or many other documents)and corrected multiple errors by Rude. What is new is THE PUBLICATION in the specialized magazine Principe de Viana is peer reviewed, do you have anything to say about it? Good. That is what we talk about, not about what you think on Gonzalez's research, but on what peer reviewed systems think of it.Second, the Academic Journal Vesalius too, with Prof Kottek and Allain Lellouche, too. Those are my fav authors too as you can see. And it is funny you talk about deep study, but the MSI did not research any of this, nor the new works, it is not what they say, it is what they dont say. Tell me a study, aside of the absurd two pages of Alcala, saying reasons for denying this. Can u provide anything? that is the best proof of the lack of honesty you have. It is required but nobody did any study or gave any data from your institute. It is a dogma. So, Kottek and Lellouche in the academic Journal Vesalius, and specialized Magazine peer reviewed too, Principe de Viana. You should not edit if you get such ammount of money for your books from the MSI, it is beyond a normal COI.--Alice Alaster (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC

We should not get distracted by the issue here. Gonzalez published this information in peer reviewed systems after august 2012, aprox Nov 2012. And other scholars praised him in peer reviewed academic journals of big international Societies with a peer reviewers, aprox dec 2012. I think that is what was asked from Alice. We are not here for talking on intentions, or the discoveries of Gonzalez. And DeMarcos true motivations are funds for his books, and to try do hide this researcher who is breaking the old theory up. SO it is all about the money he could not get, if the institute would not work someday. It has to be hard to pay for your own books.--Noah Bernstein (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel sad and disappointed about where this discussion is moving. So your whole point is to finger-point at me with the false accusation that I am getting money from my activity in Wikipedia or from any book I have written in my life??? If it's of any use, I swear to God that I am not earning any money from this. Do I need to answer any more questions about my personal and scholarly life? Do you need any financial records? Bank account movements? Or you both have already dictated sentence against me and whatever I say does not matter? --Jdemarcos (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
you Jumped on the wagon of accusing Gonzalez of having a grant by the Gov of Navarre, tryign to say he was just saying Michael was born there, cause of money. You already noted repeatedly Gonzalez had his book paid by the Gov of Navarre, ( which is true, in a 15%). You have your books paid by the Michael Servetus Institute, and you can test some of your own medicine. You are not " earning" money. You are saving money. And the balance is positive. Call it as you want. I do not trust your swears, nor I am moved by your cries. I trust what I see, and your books are paid by the same people who defend, and by the same people who try to block Gonzalez's research. You dictated sentence against someone who was not around, and could not defend himself. 4 fingers for you. Anyway, I think there is not much to be said here. Alice provided the information she was asked. After checking it I think it is what it was expected for dictating a new resolution. --Noah Bernstein (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal: Split into separate DRN and COIN cases.

Clearly this has become a discussion about a content dispute rather that a discussion about a conflict of interest. I suggest that this entire case be closed/collapsed, that anyone who wishes to discuss the potential conflict of interest be invited to file a new COI case with the promise that any content-dispute-related material will be removed or collapsed, and that anyone who wishes to discuss the content dispute be invited to file a new DRN case with the promise that any COI-related material will be removed or collapsed. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A sensible proposal. As far as I am concerned, I think that the previous CoI resolution and the previous dispute resolution are still valid and there has not been any relevant development lately that could justify this new CoI accusation or modify the terms on which the DRN was stated. On the other hand, some serious accusations against my good faith editing have been made against me, such as this one by user Noah Bernstein (supported by user Alice Alaster) and this one by user Alice Alaster. Accusing other editors of bad faith with no proof and using Talk pages and notice boards like this one for personal attacks is not, IMO, acceptable behavior and ways to stop this from happening again should be considered. --Jdemarcos (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Further comments on fringe research added by Alice Alaster in Talk page

Please note everybody that user Alice Alaster has added these comments, insisting on her promotion of fringe research using Dr. Echeverría's book and articles as the only "valid" source on the topic, and concluding that I "will not be allowed" to keep editing the article. Apparently Alice Alaster has already made a decision about who can edit the Wikipedia and who can't... BTW her arguments and sources are the same as those used by user Anatoly Ilych Belousov in a previous DR (see here and here) and then a CoI. Same sources, same arguments, same purpose... Nothing new under the sun. --Jdemarcos (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the academic journals I quoted for Guy Macon, something new under the Sun, by Kotteck and Lellouch. I said you will not be allowed to amputate, not that you cannot edit the article, you are free to do so, but you should find constructive things to write about. It is you who merely amputates in your editions. Did you see other editors removing some part of the dull and senseless theological huge paragraph you edited? You do not like to cut that cause it was you who edited it , and for you are a theologian, you like it. Well that is ok. Learn to respect as you are respected. My commentaries were as a reply to some defender, I noted it was you who was saying that quote he said for defending again" yourself" and that those are magazines, accesible from the website, and not an information " coming from the same place",according to his reasoning, then any author with many publications, acccesible from a same website, lacks an worth, nevermind where he published the pdfs one can download from the website, a great theory. And I remeber you again, something new under the sun, Kotteck and Lellouch. I cited it. A second sun. Anything to say about it?--Alice Alaster (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Hay (publicist)

Editor is dedicated to writing promotional articles based around Jonathan Hay (publicist) (afd) such as Jonathan Hay Publicity (afd), Hoopla Worldwide (Another Hay publicity company), Sabrina (pop singer) (Hay's partner wife, cofounder of Hoopla Worldwide), Audio Stepchild (band featuring Sabrina and with Hoopla Worldwide), Birdgang clothing (key people include Jonathan Hay and Sabrina Hale of Hoopla Worldwide), A Different Kind Of Christmas (released on Hoopla Worldwide), Knoc's Ville (released on Hoola Worldwide, Hay was a producer).
Earlier history has a wider variety of subjects but a closer look show how many are connected, eg:

Chris Johnson (running back) - "Johnson told publicists Jonathan Hay and Justin Melo for SOHH."
Days of the New - Crew Members Over The Years - Jonathan Hay - from source His publicist did say he had a lot on his mind. “Travis is very excited about the interview,” Jonathan Hay told me.
Hood Star - The comic book style artwork was designed by Sabrina Hale and Jonathan Hay of Hoopla Worldwide.
Knoc's Ville - Label = Hoopla
Untitled (How Does It Feel) - Sabrina and Record producer Tracy Tyler remade and commercially released
Amil (rapper) - In 2008, the song "Who I Am" (prod. Jonathan Hay & Sky Michaels) was released
Haven't You Heard... - The album artwork, design and graphics was done by Sabrina Hale and Jonathan Hay of Hoopla Worldwide.

Most articles are overly promotional and have a history of bad sourcing. Some contain what looks like straight out lies. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The user who is me does edits are centered around all things based in Louisville, Kentucky which is where I am. These are things that I pay attention to. This label "Hoopla Worldwide" is based in Louisville, Kentucky along with every other page I have created. There is nothing wrong with that or any kind of confilct of interest. I pay attention to music, entertainment and basketball (Louisville based things). This is a personal attack on me that you went around to every page I created and flagged. Sure, I add to much information, I agree on that. But I add that information so it can be removed, if it's too much. HELP me, quit trying to HURT me. I've never made one edit where you have said this "shouldn't be there because....". But to say these things "are straight out lies" just proves your attack. I back everything up with sources (whether you duffbeerforme think it reliable or not). I pay attention to Jonathan Hay because he is a person from Louisville (who now lives in LA) who is doing notable things. I pay attention to all the Louisville sports teams, players, etc. Causeandedit (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, causeandedit (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely, so this issue can probably be closed. Most of the articles are in AfD, so their merits can be discussed there. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

John A. Pérez

I am a staffer for California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez. New Assembly rules allow us to start participating in social sites. I've made a number of suggested additions (contained in my Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reelpolitik/sandbox) for the Speaker's page — trying to Be Bold in the areas of legislation and leadership/management of the Assembly...while being respectful of COI guidelines and working my hardest to maintain NPOV and Verifiability.

I look forward to working with the community here to flesh out information on the Speaker, the Assembly, and its members — many of whom are new (the largest freshman class ever) and only have stubs for pages.

Apologies for missteps in practice and format by this humble noob. I am excited to grow as an editor here...about time I did my part for the site I so often rely on.

Thanks,

Jeremy D. Thompson — Special Assistant to John A. Pérez, Speaker of the California Assembly (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be aware of some of this stuff already, but referring to WP as a "social site" makes me want to direct you to WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 07:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Aware of some, but not all, and very open to learn. So thanks for the link. Should have been more broad in my description... The gate is open for us to venture out of our yard (sites built and maintained by the state) and into the world (WIkipedia, soc nets and everywhere else). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reelpolitik (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
One of the challenges with your situation is that volunteers here want to "approve" every change in advance, when it's made by a person in your position, but they often don't show up in advance to give you feedback.
The usual thing to do is to propose one change (often involving one paragraph or one short section, rather than the whole article) at a time, on the talk page for the article in question, and see if you get any responses. If you wait for a week or two with no reply, then it's usually okay to make the change. Just keep in mind that when you make that heretofore-unopposed change, you may suddenly discover that there are a million people who had serious objections to it, but who couldn't be bothered to tell you that when you were politely requesting that information originally. So you've been warned: ask first, and don't be surprised if asking first is an imperfect solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Since you're so open about this, and such an excellent example for others, I have helped you with a detailed critique on your user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Alan Rowe Kelly

User is creating and editing articles relating to himself and his work. Repeated attempts at communication on his talk page have gone unanswered thus far. Drm310 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Snacko

Username suggests COI and WP:SPA. Persistent removal of templates, lousy sourcing, etc. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how there could be a COI. SmartSE (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, now I see that esnacko.com redirects to aviatorgear.com. Block on the way. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Gmod

I believe Granttheron has a conflict of interest. Sure enough a quick google of "Grant Theron" and "Olympus games" gives us his twitter account. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 10:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

None of this seems notable from what I can tell. I have PRODed Skylar Kreisher and Olympus Games and reverted the changes to Gmod. SmartSE (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the edits he made to Mod (video gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 209.159.183.132 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Encouraging staff to contribute to Wikipedia

The large non-profit organization I work for is wanting to improve their low-traffic Wikipedia article. (I mention low-traffic because I'm not sure there are any active non-COI editors who would be interested in taking suggestions for improvements, but it's definitely a notable topic.) Rather than having a single person responsible for it, I suggested maybe sending an e-mail out to all of the staff (though I suspect many staff don't read these announcements), suggesting that they look over our article and add content they feel should be in it, or make suggestions on the talk page. We'd include a brief note about neutral/non-promotional content and citing sources, and I'd monitor activity on it -- I'm definitely on board with the Wikipedia policies. Any thoughts on this? Testaccount55 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple of charities have done things like this, and it sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. What's most important is providing sources about the organization: the more WP:Independent sources you can add, the better.
Another problem that we occasionally see is someone trying WP:Build the web by spamming it into unrelated or semi-related articles. So avoid "An example of a charity that uses fund accounting is ____" or "According to ____, people should eat a healthful diet" or anything like that in other articles.
Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. There are probably a few articles where wikilinks could be added, but I think the big ones are already in place. Fortunately there are a lot of news sources that cover aspects of the organization -- and possibly statistics from third parties as well. Testaccount55 (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The great thing about our guidelines and policies is that there is no ambiguity as to what can and cannot be inserted into an article. It doesn't matter if you're an employee of the company or organization or not, material must be neutral and well-sourced. As long as you and everyone else (regardless of affiliation) follow those guidelines, the end result will be a valuable encyclopedic article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
If you could tell us what the article is, that would be really helpful. That way more people can monitor it for traffic.
That said, I think that, for sufficiently large values of "large", this is likely to be a really bad idea, unless somehow you have an organization that is composed of a lot of people who already edit wikipedia, or unless you have provided training for them somehow. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
What CommandLine said. This already smells bad: "I'm going to watch out for my cow-orkers' COI, but I won't tell you what article I invited them to edit." — Brianhe (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to post the article on here in a different context, but I don't particularly want those in my organization to be able to identify me with my main account/edit history or even this discussion. I would likely create a new account for editing the organization's article in the future and disclose my COI on there. This appears to be a legitimate use for an alternative account, as mentioned on WP:SOCK#LEGIT under Privacy.
To provide some additional background, I was approached about updating the organization's Wikipedia page by public relations staff. Their initial intention was for one of them or for me to be responsible for updating the Wikipedia article, but I expressed my concerns about a conflict of interest. I suggested this option as an alternative. I feel there are at least two big advantages: Contributing is completely voluntary (not someone's job), and there are multiple people contributing, which is a great way to generate content, even if that content does need to be monitored and cleaned up by others. I understand your concern, but I'd appreciate it if you would assume good faith for the purpose of this discussion.
UseTheCommandLine, the organization has a little over 300 staff, though a majority are part-time staff. Though there are a lot of staff in a lot of different departments, I don't think there will be an overwhelming response by any means. Testaccount55 (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
You may want to remind your bosses that once it gets public that they have encouraged their employees to edit their article, much of the new "awareness" by the press will be BAD and they may wish to rethink their suggestion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Guess I could try that route if the general consensus is that it's a bad idea. I don't think a more complete Wikipedia article is going to get us any media attention though... Testaccount55 (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I brought these concerns to the attention of our public relations staff. They agreed that we should give it some time to see what the general consensus is here. So please comment! Generally I am hearing two answers: That it would be fine as long as we comply with Wikipedia guidelines (neutrality, verifiability, etc.), and that it is not a good idea under any circumstances. I'd also be open to any alternative suggestions. Thanks. Testaccount55 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The "1) Be upfront about conflict of interest and 2) bring reliable sources to the talk page for non-COI editors to evaluate and include if appropriate" is never a bad thing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
So, two things here. One, we cannot stop you from doing this, and we don't necessarily want to, because we recognize that a lot of articles are neglected and outdated and only the people related to the subject have any real interest and time to update them. And we appreciate that you came in here seeking guidance. But, the best way to go about this is to let us know which articles will be involved in this effort, and get a few non-involved eyes on them so we can all have our checks and balances and go home happy at the end of the day. Agree? Once you're ready to start doing this, just come in here and let us know. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. You're exactly right about the situation -- the problem with simply posting sources on the talk page is that the article doesn't really have any active editors. I will run this idea by others, and post here if we follow through with it. I'll wait till tomorrow for more comments though. Thanks. Testaccount55 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with most of what has been said already, about both the potential positives and the negatives. There's an additional point related to the one I made above, and maybe it's overly subtle and not liable to be meaningful. But the fact that you have 300 employees, many of whom are part timers, and management may be telling them to edit the wikipedia page, I think it's useful to consider how that directive will be interpreted. It might be completely blown off. But it also might be interpreted as an admonition that "if you want to keep your job, put strongly positive information on the wikipedia page about our organization." And maybe there will be users who think that if their contributions just stay up until leadership sees it, that will be a Good Thing for them. I realize that is an extreme, purely hypothetical case; I use it mainly to illustrate the issue of power dynamics, and why I feel like this is a very bad idea. There is a similar sort of thing that happens from time to time with school projects that edit WP so there is certainly some precedent. And while admins can fairly easily lock down an article, that's probably best avoided, both from organizational and PR standpoints. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'm going to recommend posting suggestions on the talk page, and may end up making additions to the article myself if I find there are no active non-COI editors (disclosing my COI and posting here as well). I'll give FreeRangeFrog's idea as an alternative, "riskier" option, but I suspect they'll err on the side of caution. Testaccount55 (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You might also keep in mind that most people lose interest in Wikipedia fairly quickly, so an all-out push to collect suitable information might result in a lot of work for a short timespan, and a year from now, probably none of them will bother with any of it.
The potential for "bad publicity" depends on the situation. You might get negative publicity if you tried to whitewash an organization that's already in the news for a big problem, but if you seem to be trying neutrally, the odds are that nobody will actually care in the end. Or, to put it another way: Somebody does this every single day of the year, and when was the last time you personally read a news article about them doing so? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

I am asking for people familiar with a conflict of interest to pls take a look at Talk:Jack the Ripper#Proposal to add new information.Moxy (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Turks in the United Kingdom

Michaeledmond keeps removing content on behalf of a person or company. I have already warned him. Cncmaster's slave (my master) 17:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm honestly a bit more concerned about the content that he's adding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Jozef van Wissem

This editor claimed to be the subject of the article multiple times ([24] [25] [26]). I think he has a conflict of interest, and is using Wikipedia to promote his own interest at the expense of neutrality. 123.225.67.183 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

the subject states hereby that the wikipedia article on him is poorly sourced and contains multiple errors.Jozefvanwissem (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I noticed today that there was an edit warring in the article, and the IP editor blindly reverting everybody and giving out warnings, so I also gave them a warning. No idea whose version is correct though.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Ymblanter said that he/she gave them a warning, but he/she didn't give a warning to Jozefvanwissem. It is incomprehensible to me. 124.85.188.112 (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Because you already warned them and Galassi.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I didn't warn them about the edit war. It's a different thing, and we are here to discuss a COI issue. 124.85.188.112 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We are here to resolve the dispute, even if that means proving that the subject of the article is correct and you are wrong. We do not prohibit people from correcting errors in our articles about them.

The disputed changes seem a bit odd to me. They include:

The middle two are sourced, but it's entirely possible that they are outdated, i.e., that we should say that Jozef formerly was one half of the duo and formerly collaborated with these people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically concerning Jarmusch, I do not know what is the difference between a collaborator and a guest musician. Does [27] somehow helps? This is a reliable source from 2011?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry Ymblanter, but the WNYC source doesn't help. We discuss whether Jeanne Madic is featuered on the album or not.
Either way, WhatamIdoing has proved that the changes are controversial. Although Jozefvanwissem/Jozefboys/24.42.67.83 is allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, controversial edits like this should be discussed on Talk:Jozef van Wissem as per WP:COIU. 122.17.92.54 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Still, I believe that Jozef van Wissem knows whether Jeanne Madic was featured on the album. The easies for us would be if he issues a statement about it somewhere, which could include an official website or a blog.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. 123.224.107.253 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I have not proven that the changes are or should be controversial; I have only asked for more information about the specific points.
Also, the facts do matter, because we can and should use our WP:Editorial discretion to omit information that we are cetain is outdated or incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
No one said the facts don't matter. If you want to ask for more information about the specific points, then please join the discussion at Talk:Jozef van Wissem. This is not the place. FWIW, If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit (WP:COIU). 123.224.107.253 (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Who says that this dispute resolution noticeboard is not the place to resolve this dispute? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This is not the dispute resolution noticeboard. 123.224.107.253 (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Then pls take it there, I am afraid we are past all other steps, and the edit warring continues.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
DRN is not the only dispute resolution noticeboard. COIN, NORN, NPOVN, and others are also dispute resolution noticeboards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that people need to back down on this issue. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see the evidence that some of these older statements are still true. Perhaps we can compromise on language that says they were true without committing to a current status on some of these issues? Meet me at the article talk page for further discussion. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The "it's verifiable" group seems to believe that just because something was true five years ago, that it will be true throughout eternity. This really shouldn't be that difficult. It was true, and it is no longer true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

P.Sheshadri

User is creating and adding to articles about subjects with which they are self-identified. Subjects appear notable, but articles are sparsely sourced and contain much original research and plot descriptions, and little in the way of encyclopedic content, which gives the impression that they're promotional. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Much of the recently added content consisted of plot descriptions copied from the director's website. I've removed as much as I could find. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a clear-cut case of narrow self interest and/or promotion, and I think some articles P.Sheshadri created are unambiguous advertising or promotion. 122.26.208.37 (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

LisaMoughans and Nexans

Hi, all, I'd like to report an issue with User:Lmoughannexans and the article Nexans. This user, presumably the Nexans employee Lisa Moughan (as a quick check of the page history shows, she also has used the accounts User:LisaMoughan and User:Lmoughan), has been adding some seriously spammy stuff to the Nexans article, and reverting others when they try to remove the cruft. I decided to take it here instead of getting involved in an edit war or anything. Admittedly, I haven't tried talk page discussion, so this report might be premature, but I don't think that will be particularly effective in this case. Nevertheless, I'll try if y'all consider it a prerequisite to a report on this board. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Spammy indeed and a copyvio to boot. I have reverted their edits today and shall keep watch. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Joe Terranova

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

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

Article heavily edited by subject. I have done some despamming and recommended that the subject use the talk page to discuss, advice that has so far gone unheeded.--ukexpat (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Their edits are certainly problematic as they are adding copyrighted and promotional material. I can't seem to find a single neutral version of the article since it was created by the single purpose account interglobal (talk · contribs). Looking around, I'm not even sure whether the subject is notable - I certainly can't find any articles about him in high-quality newspapers. I think we'd be best off stubbing it to the bare facts and keeping a watch on it from now on to ensure it remains neutral. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree with stubbing. Good solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bat Creek inscription and User:HuMcCulloch

Bat Creek inscription (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

User:HuMcCulloch is self identified as one of the sources used in Bat Creek inscription. He has removed content from a published expert on hoaxes (who is citing a peer reviewed study) that runs counter to the theories that User:HuMcCulloch espouses. What is the appropriate manner to deal with User:HuMcCulloch's conflict of interest? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to fairly tell the whole story, because the info you keep adding biases the lead by endorsing the hypothesis published in 2010 as if it were now (in less than 3 years) a universal and uncontested "truth". It is not; the hypothesis published in 2010 is still a hypothesis, many disagree with it or find it seriously wanting, and it should be presented as a hypothesis, not endorsed by wikipedia just because it's your personal favorite hypothesis. HuMcC also made it clear when he "removed" it, that the information would be more suitable the body of the article, and he invited you to place it there, just not in the Lede for an obvious bias. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me this is a content dispute (unless we broadly construe "i think this goes/doesn't go here" as COI) but looking at the back and forth (and I remind you all of WP:3RR), the paragraph in question along with the source should be included in the article, but it's placed and phrased in a way that appears to (attempt to?) discredit the entirety of the article. Good fringe/cryptozoology/archaeological mystery/etc articles follow a pattern of a brief, neutral point/counterpoint introduction, followed by more detailed analysis of sources in the body. That's not the case here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the Edit Summary for the indicated removal, "(Too detailed for lead paragraph, duplicates 2nd para. You may add Feder's opinion in section Recent Discussion if you like.)" I had previously announced my intention on the page's Talk page, in order to solicit informal discussion of the change there. According to WP:Lead, the lead paragraph should focus on what, where, when and who, leaving proposed interpretations for later paragraphs or the body. The removed opinion is already encompassed (though only in appropriate detail) in the second paragraph of the lead, making it redundant. I've invited User:TheRedPenOfDoom (or TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, as the user prefers to be known) to insert the opinion in question as a direct quote in the appropriate section, "Recent Discussion", where this POV is discussed in greater detail. HuMcCulloch (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The "what, where, when and who," about a fringe theory/hoax is the fact that it is a fringe theory/hoax - and to not present it as such in the lead paragraph is to completely violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BEGIN. "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
But that is not really why we are here. We are here to gauge whether it is appropriate for User:HuMcCulloch to remove from the lead reliable sources that present views that run counter to the views that he has published. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Mr McCulloch, from the perspective of an outside (uninvolved) observer, it would seem your conflict of interest with regard to the subject at hand has been fairly well established. The fact that you, personally, are mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article (although said opening paragraph seems to be in dispute) makes you one of the subjects of the article, even if you aren't the primary subject. Editing the article itself would be (by most editors here) strongly discouraged. If fact the conflict of interest policy makes that very clear also. Under such circumstances, editors are generally encouraged to contribute to the talk page of the article only and not the article itself. As it stands, I think any editor would be well within their rights to add the {{COI}} template to the article, citing your contributions to date. This has the potential to be professionally embarrassing, which is not an ideal outcome under any circumstances. For a similar history, you might like to have a look at the article, talk page and user talk pages associated with Roza Bal. It shouldn't take you long to see the parallels. Can I strongly suggest you limit your activity with regard to the Bat Creek inscription article to it's talk page only, before editors are prompted to take (entirely appropriate) action to deal with the conflicted editing. This would certainly not prevent you from contributing your thoughts at the talk page, making suggestions, presenting your case or discussing the subject in general or in detail. But I suspect that your continuing to edit the article itself might eventually result in your being blocked or banned from editing in this particular subject area. Stalwart111 09:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll just say firstly that HuMcCulloch clearly does have a COI here, and that he & I both edit Franks Casket (an important but enigmatic Anglo-Saxon piece in the British Museum) where he also has a COI as holder of & publicist for a minority (but not really fringe) view about what some scenes represent - he has web pages about it. There I think his editing has been pretty neutral - his and other minority views are represented but not given excessive prominence imo. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
If simply being "a holder of & publicist for" viewpoints is a COI, that could get into a slippery slope since the same could be said for a few other participants who may have web pages about the same topics they are interested in. I'm not an expert on this board but surely we wouldn't tell editors that if they edit a wikipedia article they are interested in, they are never allowed to publish any websites off of wikipedia about the same topic? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the distinction, Til, is that most people who blog about their topic-of-interest, or start a Facebook page about it, would never be cited as a reliable source. Here, the editor in question seems to be (accepted by consensus) a reliable source for the purposes of this subject. That changes the game a bit. Stalwart111 00:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Once you start quoting yourself as a source there is a COI. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Stalwart and Johnbod. However, the only reason a COI is an issue here is that I have always been open about who I am. I'm the author of McCulloch 1988 etc., and as such am relatively informed about the subject, unlike say User:TheRedPenOfDoom, who opened this discussion and who has repeatedly conflated Sequoyah (1821) with Cyrus Thomas (1894). If my user name were say "TMCoT, aka The Masked Crusader of Truth" or some such, there would be no issue.
With only a couple exceptions all the other editors on the page are pseudonymous, so there is no way of knowing whether they have a similar "COI". If I am to be banned from editing for my involvement with the topic, I would suggest that all pseudonymous editors likewise be banned, unless they affirm (honor system?) a list of who they are not on the page's talk page, and then refrain from editing material relating to all other sources. User:TheRedPenofDoom has already voluntarily affirmed on my talk page that he or she is not Mainfort or Kwas or Feder, but such an affirmation should be on the page's talk page where all editors can find it, not on a user talk page.
Note that my name was recently first added to the lead section (not the lead paragraph per Stalwart) by User:PiCo, who entered the discussion only through the NPOV noticeboard, and that my name was already in the body of the article, along with all my articles now cited, long before I became involved. Should informed authors who edit articles (and who identify themselves) be banned from being mentioned in the article by other users? HuMcCulloch (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
No, they shouldn't be banned from being mentioned, and there's nothing they can do about it if others mention them. That said, despite the propensity for "writing" common between authors and WP editors, notable authors who also edit WP are (from my perspective) fairly few and far between. But for those who fit both categories, this is a conflict we have seen a few times (per the example I gave). It doesn't really matter if you are included in the "opening paragraph" (by whatever definition) or elsewhere in the article (or arguably even in the reflist) - you become one of the subjects of the article and the COI policy strongly suggests you shouldn't edit an article about yourself. I understand your comments about you being open about who you are - had you registered with even a less-obvious username, your conflict might not have been detected by other editors. However, had you done so and then later identified (after long-term editing of the article) as Mr McCulloch, there's a good chance it would have created even more drama. There are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of editors here with hidden conflicts that we will never be able to detect - commercial, cultural, social. It is one of the ongoing criticisms of WP. But for now, it is what it is and continuing to edit with a declared conflict won't have good results. Stalwart111 00:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been pondering this, and I keep coming back to the same issue: McCulloch is using his own article as a source, and all indications are that this article doesn't have significant scholarly traction. I cannot get away from the picture of him as a perhaps better read than most amateur with an interest in the field who is pushing a position which scholars doesn't accept. Mangoe (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Til mentions other editors with websites, and I'm guessing he means me. Yes, I have a website that has a lot of fringe archaeology - [[28]] - but it's a site that hosts material or links to material that others have written. Hu's site on the other hand is a site where the content it material that he's written. Not only that, but Hu's had several articles published. He is a major contributor of published material relevant to the topic - it's not just his website that gives him a COI. I don't think that having a website with links to other websites or even hosting some articles gives me a COI. Hu on the other hand has a clear COI and I've always been unhappy about his adding his own material to the article. I still think that in such cases the editor should suggest additions of their own material on the talk page, and the same should apply to any content changes that might be contentious. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is so cut-and-dried as some editors are making it out to be. First, being "a major contributor of published material relevant to the topic" is what we call "an expert", and being an expert is not a COI. The COI guideline explicitly permits experts to edit and explicitly permits people who have published relevant books, papers, articles, etc. to cite their own work (within reason).
I think that the path forward is not to push the expert out, but for everyone to take a step back and solve your content dispute through the normal content dispute channels, such as WP:Requests for comment or the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard.
We ultimately want, if possible, to have both a happy community and good content. Neither of those goals are going to be achieved by kicking an expert out of this article. You can all help improve matters by being moderate in your actions and comments. So let's have a little less removal of divergent ideas and a little more effort to describe them accurately as well as a little less comment about who is doing something and a little more more attention to what is being done and how each of you can improve the article's content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
As we have been around too many times, his expertise is highly questioned. He is certainly not an academic in the field. Even then I would be very suspicious of a real academic pushing his own material in a controversial subject; I would not for instance take at face value the edits of John Crossan on the state of biblical textual studies. Mangoe (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
"Academic" is one of the latest buzzwords that people have been throwing around like it means something it doesn't. According to wiktionary, the English definition of "academic" as a noun is: 1) a disciple of Plato, 2) anyone attached to any institute of higher learning, or otherwise engaged in scholarly pursuits. Doesn't mention anything about a membership card, street cred, or litmus test. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Til, it's disingenuous to go through this definitionalism since you know perfectly well what we mean. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that we would ever accept a standard that anyone who studies a subject to any degree becomes an authority whose expertise is to be respected. I also see that M-W gives as first definition "a member of an institution of learning" so that "an academic in the field" would be someone in (say) the history department, not just anybody. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If I know exactly what you mean, it's only from the context in which the word is being used, because it is only quite recently indeed (on wikipedia in fact) that I started seeing it used in the context of some kind of elite status or club with ill-defined membership or membership qualifications. It seems to have replaced last year's word "scholar", after the attempt to redefine that word in the same way failed. But I know that you are looking for some word to mean what you want it to mean, as imaginary as that concept is. Maybe the closest thing was Soviet Academics, where only those who said what they were approved to say had a seat at the table. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
My impression actually is that Soviet science was a lot more like what you want, where if someone's wild idea caught the fancy of the right politico, it was worked on at the expense of what the rest of the scientific community thought. Look, you're just talking around the problem right now. There's no standard that's any good in which we allow someone to promote his own ideas, using himself as a reference, when we can see quite plainly that his ideas have no traction with anyone who has actual credentials. We're never going to back down from that, and we should never back down from that. If you want to build Fortipedia, by all means go off and do it; it would be amusing. But not here. Mangoe (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
"Actual credentials". There you go again, man! I'm tellin' you, that's the Soviet Plan! They're the ones that tried to set up a Central Credentialing Authority Without Which Nothing is Credentialed. It broke down, over disagreement over which cat got to be the actual Authority. There's never really been anything like that internationally, although it makes a great fairy tale for junior wikipedians. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Returning to the point, I thought that's why Jimbo had made it poignantly clear at the foundation of this project that the "actual credentials" thing would never be an issue; that the neophyte and even kids could contribute content alongside the "experts". But it seems to be becoming an issue again lately. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Til, your comparing apples and seaweed. Jimbo was talking about who could edit. But he wasn't discussing conflict of interest as it applies to editing, and more importantly he wasn't talking about whose viewpoints should appear in an article and how much those viewpoints should be represented in an article, which is what the credentials issue is about. You seem to be suggesting that someone with a background in a non-related field should be given as much weight as someone in a related field. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I actually have no idea what his background is in, I just know what he has published on it goes into great detail from different angles, and is referenced. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
He is an economist who is referencing himself. We've been around this, over and over, and I am failing to find other people other than credulous Fortean/fringe writers who us him as an authority. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, should have been clearer. What I meant to say is, I don't give a flying you know what what his original or additional background is in, as long as he's obviously done his homework. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As User:Whatamidoing has noted, the WP:Conflict of Interest policy states, "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion" (Citing yourself). The issue, then, seems to be one of relevance and extent, not one of COI, and then only when I am adding to references to my own work. If I am citing others' work, it may or may not be relevant, balanced, etc, but it is not a COI per se. As I mentioned above, it was User:PiCo, not myself, who added my name to the lead section recently. I in fact eliminated the reference PiCo added there to my 1993 BAR article, since I felt it gave that article undue attention for the lead.

The COI guidelines are primarily concerned with financial interest. If this were an article about a privately owned artifact of questioned authenticity, the owner would have a clear financial COI. However, I have no financial stake in this Smithsonian-owned artifact. In fact, the Smithsonian Mound Survey made a point of requiring landowners to relinquish any claim to artifacts the Mound Survey teams found, expressly to eliminate any financial incentive for fraud. HuMcCulloch (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"The COI guidelines are primarily concerned with financial interest." -- The fact that there is an entire section (WP:SELFCITE, the one you just quoted) based on non-financial CoIs would seem to suggest otherwise. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If users think that PiCo's addition of my name to the lead section gives me undue attention, the first two sentences of the third paragraph could be changed to, "A 1988 article in Tennessee Anthropologist compared the letters of the inscription to both Paleo-Hebrew and Cherokee and concluded that the fit as Paleo-Hebrew was substantially better than Cherokee. It also reported a radiocarbon date on associated wood fragments consistent with Gordon's dating of the script." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuMcCulloch (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC) HuMcCulloch (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Even though this complaint has not yet been resolved on this noticeboard, the complainant, User:TheRedPenOfDoom has re-reverted the edit in question. His or her revision has re-introduced two instances of plain sloppy scholarship: 2010 is given as the date of Mainfot and Kwas (2004), and Mainfort and Kwas (1993) is given as the source of a direct quote from McCarter (1993). In violation of WP:NPOV, the complainant has stated as a fact that the inscription is not Cherokee. Although this happens to be my own contention (McCulloch 1988), authorities Thomas (1894) and McKusick (1979) disagree, so that Wikipedia's voice should not take my side on this issue. The complainant's revision has also crammed far more than is appropriate into the first paragraph of the lead section, thereby duplicating several points that are already made later in the lead section.
On March 13, I outlined these problems at length on the page's Talk page, and have even proposed several comprises that would allow the complainant's POV to be heard more forcefully, if not endorsed as Wikipedia's voice, in the lead and text. No one has objected to my proposed changes, so it seems appropriate for me to now make them.
However, on March 9, I was threatened here by User:Stalwart111 with dire consequences if I ever dared to edit the Bat Creek inscription page again. As this user put it, "Can I strongly suggest you limit your activity with regard to the Bat Creek inscription article to it's talk page only, before editors are prompted to take (entirely appropriate) action to deal with the conflicted editing. This would certainly not prevent you from contributing your thoughts at the talk page, making suggestions, presenting your case or discussing the subject in general or in detail. But I suspect that your continuing to edit the article itself might eventually result in your being blocked or banned from editing in this particular subject area."
Can I ask for some sort of official resolution of the complaint by [TheRedPenOfDoom], either endorsing or rejecting the above threat by [User:Stalwart111]? Who is supposed to make such a decision? HuMcCulloch (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor I would agree with Stalwart that it would be best for you to limit your edits to making suggestions on the talk page, as is quite normal when there is a clear conflict of interest, as there is here. The current version of the lede seems to summarise the article very well.Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Please note that a Wikipedia LEAD, a section with a concise summary of the article, is quite different from a journalist lede, an uninformative but catchy "hook" to capture the reader's attention: "The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (The news-journalism jargon term lede is sometimes used, but Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic ledes serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads."
In order for the lead to be concise, its first paragraph should not duplicate the remainder of the lead, as in the complainant's version of the lead. Nor should it give wrong dates, misattribute sources, or give an incorrect publication venue for a key article, as detailed in my 3/13 comment on the article's talk page.
So if I were say to give the correct date for Mainfort and Kwas (2004)'s announcement of their discovery of an illustration that is similar to the inscription in question, what would happen? Is there/will there be a fatwa barring me from any future editing on this page? On any topic on Wikipedia? Who hands down such a decree? HuMcCulloch (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You seem be be patently ignoring parts of WP:LEAD, except for your desire for "consise" which you wish to use to chop out or hide information. But to remind you yet again, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is. ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence. If the article is about a fictional character or place, say so." This article is about a faux artifact and that MUST be clear from the intro sentence. Additional information about its inauthenticity should then be expanded upon in more general manner in the rest of the lead. "summariz(ing) the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. ..(With) emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. " ie. It is a fake artifact. Claims have been made that it was A and B, but the scholarly consensus is that those claims were wrong.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I feel it's probably worth pointing out that my commentary was not a threat, nor was it intended to be. I'm not an admin and would have no capacity to block you or take any other form of action, even if I wanted to. Even if I were, having commented here would make me thoroughly WP:INVOLVED so I still wouldn't. My commentary was simply my own reflection on what I've seen happen to a number of other editors in a similar situation to yours. You can heed my friendly warning or not, my commentary carries no more weight than anyone else's. More, "you probably shouldn't touch that electric fence" than "climb that fence and I'll shoot", though I don't begrudge you for missing the nuance in that distinction. More specifically (to borrow your metaphor) - there is no fatwa, but a self-imposed religious holiday might allow you to avoid unecessary drama. If the community (WP:CONSENSUS interpreted by an admin) is sufficiently concerned about the COI, they can impose a ban. Again, see Talk:Roza Bal. Stalwart111 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I was reading your comment more like "climb that fence and one of us just might hurt you real bad." This leaves it ambiguous as to whether anything is going to happen at all, who is going to do the threatened harm, and just what form it might take -- perhaps an administrator will surely cut both my hands off, or perhaps a chorus of ordinary users will just call me names. But it seems to me that a "chilling effect" was surely intended. Meanwhile, however, User:Dougweller, an administrator who has edited the page in question and is very familiar with the topic, has made a responsive suggestion over on the Bat Creek inscription talk page so I'll take him up on his offer over there. HuMcCulloch (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the admonition "Editors should follow the guidance on Conflict of Interest or they will likely suffer the consequences of not following the COI" should have a "chilling effect" on people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Let the record show that over on the WP:Bat Creek inscription page, the complainant, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, also known as TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, has now backed down on one of the original points of contention, namely whether Mainfort and Kwas (2004) was published in 2010 or 2004. HuMcCulloch (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a court room, nor is it WP:DRN - the issue here (the only issue) is a potential or actual conflict of interest and whether or not something should be done about that. Typically, nothing much is actually decided here. Rather, it's a chance for editors to raise suspected conflicts and allow those with the suspected conflict to respond. It's also designed to allow conflicted editors to declare that conflict and seek assistance from non-conflicted editors in editing particular articles. So in this instance, a conflict has been raised and that conflict has been accepted by you (openly declared in fact). The question now is whether other editors believe that conflict has skewed (or has the potential to skew) your editing. Beyond that, what you do is up to you. If there is a strong feeling among the community that it has or might, others may recommend a course of action (as I did). You can either choose to heed that advice or not. If you choose not to, you continue to edit and editors raise further concerns, it's likely that would be done at WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U. Both of those venues are frequented by admins with the capacity to block/ban/topic-ban, etc. As for my comment; you can interpret it any way you chose - I've explain how it was intended and it is entirely consistent with what other editors have been told in the past. Stalwart111 04:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess there's only one way to test User:Stalwart111's "friendly warning" that I might be electrocuted or something if I dare touch a word on the Bat Creek inscription page, so I plan to test this by correcting the erroneous attribution by the complainant, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, of a direct quote by McCarter (1993) to Mainfort and Kwas (1993). I don't see what conceivable COI I would have in giving McCarter his just credit. If I light up like a Christmas tree, we'll know Stalwart was right. (I'll be away from internet for about 3 days starting tomorrow morning, so I'll have to remain in suspense until I reconnect.) HuMcCulloch (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Agonism

This user appears to have a preoccupation with getting a name check for a particular academic. Virtually every source cited is by this academic at the website http://academia.edu/ .--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The article in question actually removed any suspected "name dropping" prior to this entry, although the article retains the relevant reference, which is properly included and conforms with standard policy on Wikipedia. TracedInAir (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not any one particular article, but the entire edit history causing the problem here. It is largely a heap of spam mentioning the works of one particular academic.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And all these edits have been entirely relevant to the discussions in which they take place and add to the content of the Wikipedia entry, as is the purpose of this website after all. You do not have a valid point here whatsoever. So what if I made some edits in a short period of time? I felt compelled to make a contribution and in each instance I have added context and proper citation. The bigger and more important question here is why have you taken my contributions as your own personal crusade, which suggests you have some kind of conflict of interest with "one particular academic" more than anything else. But beyond this, to suggest my entries have only mentioned "one particular academic" is disingenuous, as clearly I have included the works of more than just one academic when and where relevant in the edits I have made. TracedInAir (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have let this go if the name dropping had been restricted to two or three articles. However, there has been such a spree of mentioning the works of this academic that there is a clear probability of conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The is pretty obvious WP:BOOKSPAM - the mass addition of links to Springer's articles to the 'Further reading' section and trying to weave in references to Springer in every single article. Perhaps the most telling example is the edits to Discourse where IP 154.20.33.119 (either the same person as TracedInAir or an accomplice) added a paragraph on Foucault's analysis of dicourse, which had a little plug for Springer tagged at the end. I removed the part mentioning Springer. IP returned to restore the reference. If they are concerned with improving the page, why should it matter who is mentioned as the contemporary theorist? The fact that this is repeated across a number of pages (some of which aren't even directed relevant to the subect) suggests that the intent is to bring attention to the author. -SFK2 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Simply not true on many levels. To suggest "some of which aren't even directed relevant to the subject" shows a clear ignorance of the substantive content of the concepts you are editing, perhaps if you followed the links and read the articles that are being referenced you could stand to actually learn something... which in itself is a testament to the importance of their inclusion. Also to suggest that any time a theorist's name is mentioned it is a "conflict of interest" or a "little plug" strains your credibility. It is actually called proper citation within academia, but perhaps Wikipedia marches to its own drum. Your contradiction here is so glaringly obvious it almost hurts. In the entry on Discourse for example you delete the passage "Simon Springer in particular has attempted to bring greater conceptual clarity to how neoliberalim might be understood through a Foucauldian notion of discourse" but you leave in place "Chris Weedon, one of the best known scholars working in the feminist poststructuralist tradition". The latter is much more of a plug in terms of highlighting the ostensible importance or preeminence of a scholar, while the former is merely citing the work one particular scholar has done which is of primary relevance to the discussion at hand. The clear conflict of interest here is SFK2 and ianmacm, who evidently have some sort of grude against Springer and don't want to see his work mentioned. Otherwise, why are you deleting references to his work that exist in entries like WikiLeaks that predate my own edit, which was done merely to clean up the citation? TracedInAir (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unconvincing. Editing Wikipedia articles is about more than adding links to the work of the same author over and over again. It is unsurprising that this has been flagged as WP:BOOKSPAM by several editors. Wikipedia is not a blog or vanity publisher.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Note that I have reported this user at WP:AN3 based on this edit[29] after this warning[30]. I hope that's OK. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that these edits are problematic. Whether TracedInAir is Springer is irrelevant, but it is very unusual for a new editor to come along and only add references written by one author across such a range of articles. It is only natural that we should question why someone would do so. As for TracedInAir accusing ianmacm and SFK2 of having a COI, that is completely ludicrous and makes me more suspicious than I was before. I'm surprised no one has linked WP:REFSPAM already - it is a more relevant part of the policy than WP:BOOKSPAM. I'll try and explain things to them from our POV. SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This AfD discussion [31] sheds tremendous light on this issue. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That was created by Simon Springer (talk · contribs). There are also 24.108.200.198 (talk · contribs) and 203.173.148.108 (talk · contribs) who showed a similar editing pattern to TracedInAir (I found these here and using WP:WIKIBLAME.) I'm not sure this was all malicious, but regardless, early-career researchers shouldn't be referencing their own papers due to WP:OR. SmartSE (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
218.186.12.249 (talk · contribs) too (in April 2010). I'm working to clean up what I can. SmartSE (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
203.109.209.43 (talk · contribs) as well. I think we've cleaned everything up though now. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

And by "cleaning up" you mean targeted vandalism by going through and erasing any and every mention of Springer and his work despite the relevance and obvious contribution of this work to the themes and entries in question. How fascinating that you have such extensive knowledge of all the areas in which he works to make such sweeping judgements. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Oh but wait, he's just some "lesser academic", so who cares right? Grab the pitchforks and charge full steam ahead! This is the modern day equivalent of a bonafide witch hunt. Well done! My question though, is when do we start going through and deleting references to all those other "lesser academics" who are mentioned in various articles across Wikipedia? After all, it would seem that one has to be Michel Foucault, David Harvey or Judith Butler to be worthy of inclusion lest the "senior editors" rise up and strike down those who dare to recognize that valuable contributions are often made by newer academics and even by noobs to Wikipedia. It never ceases to amaze me just how much people get off on bullying. Hope you're satisfied now that you've cleansed this website from the terrible threat that any mention of Springer posed to the happy Wikipedia community! Better hope his career goes in the tank too, because otherwise you might be faced with the prospect of users other than myself including mention of him too and that would keep you really busy burning books, er, I mean deleting edits. TracedInAir (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. Your gross hyperbole and sarcasm does not hide the fact that you've ignored multiple warnings regarding WP:COI, WP:REFSPAM and WP:BOOKSPAM. We can explain it again if you wish. But if you insist on playing the victim, then I think we're done here. -SFK2 (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if it makes you feel better to dismiss legitimate concerns as "hyperbole" then so be it. This has so obviously turned into a crusade it actually makes my head spin. I can play the same as you too though... I suggest you and your friends read WP:VANDAL, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:EQ, WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:GAME. There, now I feel a glowing sense of puffed up self-importance too! Part of the problem here is the whole "consensus" mentality that exists on Wikipedia, so it is the ultimate in irony that this all came up in the entry on Agonism, which as a concept is all about the importance of dissensus (no such entry on Wikipedia! Go figure! lol) and the notion that all individuals are presupposed as equals and treated as legitimate claimants to public considerations. Dissensus is absolutely essential for democratic practice and functioning, where systems that rely exclusively on consensus are actually representative of the tyranny of the majority. But then again, I don't expect that you and your team know anything about agonism or any of the other topics that you have deleted Springer from, because if you actually did you wouldn't have engaged in the rampant acts of vandalism that you have committed. TracedInAir (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the deal. I'm totally uninvolved. You're wrong. You BOOKSPAMmed. Too bad. If you feel these people have violated the policies you linked, go to WP:ANI and make a report. And while you're at it, prepare for an indefinite block, because that's all that will come out of a report there. We don't operate on "democratic practice", we operate on consensus. Right now, consensus is against you. Either stop and accept it, or leave. Also, you saying these users have committed "rampant acts of vandalism" is a WP:PA and a WP:CIVIL violation. gwickwiretalkediting 15:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... if you say I "BOOKSPAMmed" that is somehow a totally legitimate comment, but if I say someone else engaged in vandalism then that is a "personal attack"? The contradictions just get deeper and deeper. Here I am thinking both comments are opinions. I suppose the difference is that where as I've been quite willing to try and learn as I go and modify my edits to meet with website policies, the editors that have come out to greet me so warmly have made it a personal campaign to annihilate any and all references to Springer on this entire website, despite the clear relevance and appropriateness of his inclusion in most of the entries where reference to him has appeared. So yes, I see very clearly that you work not on democracy, but consensus (i.e., tyranny of the majority). What a great system! TracedInAir (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a personal attack because you know it's blatantly wrong. If you have an issue with this, go to WP:ANI. If not, or if you're too worried that you will get blocked (which you will if you go to ANI), then drop it. I said you bookspammed. You bookspammed. You called other users vandals, which they aren't. You can't do that. You haven't been willing to learn, you continue to try to make your bookspam okay, when it's not. If you don't like the system, leave. gwickwiretalkediting 16:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Another brilliant response where you position yourself as the voice of god. "I said you bookspammed. You bookspammed. You called other users vandals, which they aren't. You can't do that." I mean honestly, do you actually hear yourself? Do you seriously not recognize the contradiction? You think it is ok to state as a matter of fact what you think I know? When did you get inside my head and become me? Good grief. TracedInAir (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I say you know that nobody vandalized but you, because I assume that you are a smart, sane individual. If you can't see that you are in the wrong here, then you shouldn't be editing. You added an author to pages it isn't even related to (or only remotely), which is the definition of "bookspamming". You apparently cannot see that. If you continue on this path I will ask for you to be blocked for obvious COI and refusal to hear when you're told you're violating policies. gwickwiretalkediting 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I added anything that "isn't even related to (or only remotely)" the entries demonstrates your clear, profound and utter ignorance of the topics in question. Each of the edits I made inserts an article that has a clear and relevant linkage to the discussion, so the inclusion of the author is most definitely warranted. Simply because you don't recognize that connection yourself doesn't make it any less true. I assume that you are a smart, sane individual and can admit when you don't have even so much as a working knowledge of these topics, whereas in contrast, I actually do and was attempting to make meaningful contributions. Deleting these additions constitutes blanking vandalism precisely because my edits attempted to make a meaningful contribution to the entries on the basis of good faith and the deletions were made without explanation other than an assumed COI. So much for good faith! I have admitted that initially I inserted mere citations in the "further reading" sections. I didn't know any better as a noob. Other editors warned me that this was wrong, and so I went back and added paragraph descriptions of what the actual contribution was, cited additional authors to add content and description, and spent significant time and energy to demonstrate the relevance and improve the entry. In other words, I tried to make good, I really did. But to no avail, I was immediately pegged as a "bookspammer" and good faith was most certainly not extended to me. Instead, I was pounced on and persecuted, which kicked off an "edit war", which again I had no knowledge of what such a thing even was as a newcomer. This was followed by a campaign to purge any mention of Springer from this website through multiple acts of vandalism (again unexplained deletions) that for some bizarre reason is being tolerated. All the hard work I put in to adding paragraphs of text was wiped out or selectively edited to keep the other authors I cited and only delete Springer. If it looks like a witch hunt, swims like a witch hunt, and quacks like a witch hunt, well then... Also, your instance that I'm a bookspammer is insulting and ill-informed, so again I will refer you here WP:BITE and ask you to stop using this term to describe me as I interpret it as a personal attack. Thank you. TracedInAir (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Report me if you wish, but I'll refer you to WP:BOOMERANG in which you will be blocked for continued WP:IDHT after being told you bookspammed. You added the same author to multiple different articles. That's almost your only contributions that I can find. You are spamming that author in. If you were constructively adding things, you would've added multiple authors, or only one article. But no, you massively spammed this author into many many pages. It's being tolerated (the removals) because you are in the wrong. I personally have a strong belief now that you may in fact be Springer or related to (PR person, coworker, endearing fan, etc.) Springer. If not, you would've dropped this by now. The WP:CONSENSUS is against you here. Drop the stick and back away, and go back to improving the encyclopedia, all of us. gwickwiretalkediting 01:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Careful now, you're engaging in what can be considered an attempt at outing WP:OUTING, which is strictly forbidden by this community. Yes I am a fan of Springer's work and a great many other geographers as well. I saw value in adding some of this insight into the articles I edited. My bad for the way I initially went about this, but again, I tried to make good but wasn't given the chance. Also, do you think it is only non-fans editing the Justin Bieber entry? Or non-Christians editing the Jesus Christ entry? Your suspicions are irrelevant. Most people edit where their interests are. I'm not going to start editing the quantum physics entry, because it is not in my interest. So I suggest you knock it off with the speculation, which seems to me to be a pretty serious violation of the rules around here. In addition, I don't have to bow or concede anything to you so quit thinking of yourself as somehow above me. You're not. Want me to shut up? Stop posting your personal attacks here W:NPA and I'll gladly drop it. I defend my actions because my only "crime" was a desire to contribute and a lack of experience with how to actually do that in a way that was acceptable to the community. You're insistence that I was acting in bad faith is what is so offensive, because I was actually acting in good faith. If you feel you need to attempt to have me banned, then go for it. What have I got to lose? Any edit I ever make from here on out will just be deleted anyway so I could really care less. TracedInAir (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Please note that the correct expression is I couldn't really care less, what you have written above doesn't mean what you intend it to mean.[32] CaptainScreebo Parley! 11:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, you can defend your actions, but I'll be asking for an administrator to block you because you aren't listening and you aren't here to collaborate. By the way, no outing going on here. I just said there's a strong possibility you are related to this person, which is even more likely now that you've continued like this. If I were you, I would just drop the stick and back away, and go edit something different. gwickwiretalkediting 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Barber

IP 195.47.223.5, which is registered to Pearson plc has been editing the article on their adviser Sir Michael Barber, as well as other articles relating to Pearson (and articles on a variety of unrelated topics). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Could I have a response on this one please? If just to say that my request is badly formed? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Quin Snyder article being censored by someone who claims Snyder as "client"

I just got this message by user:strs2010:


Strs2010's account is a single-use account that's been wiping the Snyder article since 2010 including facts referred to in this article. See this edit of Strs2010 I reverted. Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone tell me if I'm wrong but here's what they need to do. If something is actually defamatory/negative and unsoruced, we must remove it now. If it's either sourced, or not defamatory/negative, then they need to contact the legal team. Regardless, we aren't going to remove something because they "claim it's defamatory" or looks bad if it's sourced. That's where they'd need to contact the WMF Legal Team. I'll take a look in a minute, and make some changes if necessary. gwickwiretalkediting 20:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this person is just mad that the coach had committed some minor transgressions and had to resign from one job. That's sourced, and I'm not going to remove it, but others can take a look if they so wish to. gwickwiretalkediting 20:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the source, and it doesn't support the claim made in the article. (Source gets us from A to B, but the article was trying to go all the way from A to C.)
As for the picture, if they represent Snyder, why not get Snyder to release a free picture, since we're using the best/most recent free picture available. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I was looking, but clicked the wrong paragraphs' sources, and subsequently compared the wrong parts.. Note to self don't edit while eating. Still, I agree with the removal -for now- until such time as someone provides a source. However, if they want the image removed, they'll have to provide a *better* free picture, or we can't do anything. gwickwiretalkediting 20:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to have any picture. That image is really quite poor (although I see nothing "insulting" about it or the caption). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. It will probably be more productive to direct Strs2010 there, rather than carry on trying to get someone blocked for removing obviously defamatory statements. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Pasadena City College

User:PCC1924 is a representative of Pasadena City College, founded in 1924. This diff confirms the COI in the edit summary. User:PCC1924 has been continually blanking content and entire sections, in an attempt to manage the article and remove negative content about the school. Another editor requested help from the community, to which I responded. See User talk:Johnmperry#Need to report persistent vandalism. Over the past couple of days, there has been a continual battle between User:PCC1924 and User:Johnmperry, who has been attempting to address the removal of content by reverting the actions of User:PCC1924. Warnings have been offered, which have been ignored. I think at this point, we need some intervention. Cindy(need help?) 19:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Edited to add: This edit summary states that the school is in a contract conflict with teachers union or contract negotiations with the union. The editor is clearly attempting to protect the image of the school by removing all objectionable (and sourced) content. I'm thinking I should have just taken this to AN/I. Thoughts? Cindy(need help?) 22:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Clear COI. Did you notice that Pasadena City College was established in 1924 and the username is PCC1924? I advise taking it to to ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure I noticed, I thought that was clear in my initial statement, albeit I didn't bold the letters. ;) Will watch and see if the editor continues regardless of the multiple COI notices on the user's talk page, then take it to ANI. Thanks. Cindy(need help?) 10:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This is still happening [33], now with an IP editor from the school. Another account, User:Pasadena City College has also entered the fray. Although their edits have been uncontroversial, I'm sure they're going to get banned as per WP:ORGNAME.

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Danh108 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. Jan18th acts like he owns the article and reverts even reasonable edits if they don't follow his POV.
    1. Musslewhite reference adjustment
    2. DJ Reference
    3. cherry picking references, hypocrisy
  2. Jan18th inserts sensationalised account of domain name dispute omitting the name of the respondent. It was an intellectual property dispute as to whether “Brahma Kumaris” was a trademark, and therefore BKWSU would also own the domain name registered by the Respondent. The BKWSU was unsuccessful.
  3. Jan18th makes description of brahmakumaris.info sound promotional, "An independent resource accurately documenting the beliefs and lifestyle of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, including many of its channeled messages."
  4. Jan18th reverts this edit and 7 minutes later notifies me it is a "personal attack". This is consistent with the view January 18th has a close connection with the advocacy group brahmakumaris.info and it's leader/the Respondent. His objection is that the Respondent to the domain name dispute is non notable. The fact that January 18th perceives this as a personal attack exposes the personal connection between January 18th, and the Respondent's Advocacy group i.e. a neutral statement is taken personally, because there is a conflict of interest being concealed.
  5. Strange interaction between J18 and Riveros11 on main article page and talk page. There seems to be some bad blood between them here with a lot of conversation being deleted by Jan18th. It looks very similar to the dispute between the two main editors involved in the article arbitration case. Vecrumba notes that both editors should not be editing as per COI.
  6. Jan18th also represented himself as a BKWSU editor when he first started editing under Jan18th, and used a writing style that appeared to have limited English language skills. In the fact pattern that is emerging, it appears this may have been a strategy to conceal his conflict of interest. The account has now evolved into labelling most other editors as BKWSU ‘adherents’ or ‘followers’, and has even corrected my use of the apostrophe, one of the hardest things to grasp in the English language. This auto-assumption about other editors and slightly aggressive style is the same as on the website brahmakumaris.info. In summary, January 18th intentionally sort to misrepresent his identity, and now that he has slowly taken over/full control of the page, has now dispensed with this subterfuge.
  7. January 18th unilaterally deleted tags re conflict of interest and cherry picking without addressing the concerns.
  8. January 18th has been disruptive on other pages: Meditation, Meditation(2), Licorise.
  9. Another editor has complained of off-wiki attacks. The discussions in the latter hyperlink also makes direct references of a personal association between January 18th and the Advocacy group brahmakumaris.info, and at no time does January 18th ever refute the suggestion. Rather January 18th makes posts which reveal intimate knowledge of the dispute. There also appears to be some level of personal associate between these two editors.

Kind Regards, Danh108 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

From his userpage, Danh108 (talk · contribs · logs) states he is a long term adherent of the Brahma Kumaris religion, and has referred to himself as a "sevadhari" (servant). This COI notice is merely a disingenuous personal attack with the intention of repeatedly outing another editor.
Any unsubstantiated claimed and references to non-notable private individuals should be oversighted. [34], [35], [36], [37]
Danh108 is new SPA with little prior procedural experience or guidelines. Consequently, I am forced to question if, for this fully formed complaint to suddenly arise with details going back years, whether this is not just yet another in a long series of WP:TAGTEAM efforts on behalf of Brahma Kumari editors. As he makes no reference to his adherence in this complaint, it would seem the COI is on his side.
If it is a content dispute, then other avenues should have been explore before bringing this. I have previously encouraged him to gain more experience on uninvolved topics where he has no contentious vested interest.
(* Please note when I use the term cult I am using in the academic sense of the word as the movement is neither a sect nor a fuly established religion.) Thanks. --Januarythe18th (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it's inappropriate to respond to January 18th's comments above prior to Wiki admin getting involved. However I note that the majority of the response above continues the strategy of making false claims about me, rather than actually addressing the concerns I have raised or giving any plausible alternative explanation. The lack of any hyperlinks/evidence is because there is no substance, just empty allegations. I am no ones servant, nor an adherent to any cult, nor do I even find many of the BKWSU beliefs that scientifically plausible. I have openly stated my circumstances on my user page before I started editing.
My profession makes reading background material/archives and filing reports like this fairly straight forward for me. I also questioned January 18th about some of the things I was reading in the history archives back on January 20th. Where I lack competency is knowing where/how to complain about problem editors, how to make hyperlinks, where to place brackets, and as January 18th points out, how to indent properly etc. It is embarrassing how long it's taken me to act on this problem and how much of my weekend was spent assembling this.
There has been substantial discussion with January 18th and I advised I felt we had reached a dead end, with all my edits being reverted within hours, including my COI tag. If anything I felt there was no choice but to get some administrative support. Probably some regard should be given to January 18th's incredible dedication in monitoring any minute change to the page, however by studying some of the history I think the real reason for that has now been exposed. It's not an identity being exposed, it's a conflict of interest.
Regards Danh108 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Reading January 18th's latest post on my talk page, the penny has just dropped that I think I flushed out more than I realised. This post gives me the impression of an admission not only of a massive conflict and years of deceiving Wiki, but as an admission of actual identity. I really appreciate January 18th coming clean about this. However the alleged outing was not intended, but a bi-product of the COI case. Had the situation not been concealed and people been more open, this would not have happened. I have amended references in my above explanation to "the Respondent", albeit that January 18th has himself posted the reference material that names the Respondent that was crucial in joining up some dots in my research.
Kind Regards Danh108 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you're jumping to conclusions here Danh. You're a new user. I've drawn your attention to various policies before and suggest way for you to develop your editing skills and the topic in question.
You were clearly involved in using this forum to out and discredit someone you consider to be a critic of your religion. You still are. I drew your attention to that. Policy in such matters is clear WP:OUTING. --Januarythe18th (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Advice: The two of you should calm down and stop attacking each other. It's time for both of you to WP:WALK for a while. I've reviewed the article and made some adjustments and I think it's in pretty good shape right now. Certainly, other seasoned editors should take a look at it as well. But you two need to stop your WP:EDITWAR and back off this article--and back off from each other. Serving as a referee between you two will soon become tedious for any admins who become involved, and blocks may ensue. Thank you for your patience. Qworty (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Qworty. I was really hoping an editor/admin would see this and have time to look at the evidence and links above and give feedback based on that. I haven't been edit warring and have only really been active for about the last 7 days after 6 weeks without even looking at Wiki - so I don't find the comments made accurately reflect on the situation. I certainly don't agree that the article is in good shape. How can an article with such an overblown and poorly referenced "criticism" section, and a sensationalised and creative interpretation of a primary source (domain name dispute), possibly not be unduly weighted? Any attempts by me to clean these up simply get reverted.
Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
PS - for the sake of clarity, I like January 18th and find him to be a very intelligent editor. Plenty of his edits and our discussions have made me both laugh and smile. I never expected the evidence above linking January 18th to the Advocacy group brahmakumaris.info would result in him making accusations of 'outing'. I went fishing and stumbled across evidence January 18th was closely associated to the Advocacy group brahmakumaris.info because he wouldn't let me edit the page but I never knew he was the leader of that group/owner of that page. I would have thought that means he should not be editing the page at all, let alone being dedicated to making the Wiki page look just like his website.
I apologise for any shortcomings in my response regarding Qworty's advice - I also never expected someone to give advice without even looking at the issue of conflict raised, and then to tell me to start my own website if I wanted to run a promotion - that is exactly my complaint against January 18th! Bit of a let down for a new editor to get that kind of response. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Danh, all you're doing is using this forum to make a convoluted personal attack intent on damaging my credibility and attempting to draw others into your edit warring which, it has to be said, is purely in the service of your religion.
You're making allegations without any grounds whatsoever in an attempt to out me as this individual.
What you have called a "scope of admission" [38] is in reality your own increasing 'scale of accusations'. There have been no "admissions", all I did was point out policy to you (WP:OUTING) [39]. Even if it was relevant, you have no evidence to prove what you are claiming even exists.
Unfortunately, these sort of tactics are what the Wikipedia has come to expect from followers of the Brahma Kumaris.
On more than one occasion, I have made suggestions to you about how to developed your skills and progress [40]. As Qworty has said, if you want to advocate your religion, then the best thing to do is start your own website. This is my final comment on the matter except to say that I think all the attempts at outing or Poisoning the Well should be removed. --Januarythe18th (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Januarythe18th. For the sake of evidence I note this is the first time you have introduced the language "out me as this individual". I can see you are trying to position yourself away from your earlier admission of conflict of interest and will no doubt now be seeking to explain your initial comments with something like: "I didn't mean he was 'outing me', oh no, I just meant that when danh108 mentioned some random person, I spontaneously took that really personally by mistake - not because it's me. Of course I just meant he was trying to out someone other guy who isn't even part of the discussion! Not the real me". I guess it's a good afterthought to try and recover from outing yourself. And what about your masquerading as a BKWSU editor when you first starting editing? My favourite was, where you were actually promoting the meditation course for the BKWSU!
The evidence (in paragraph above, and the rest at the top of this section) is not being addressed. But, in my words, the only response being given is: "because danh108 doeesn't agree with me, he must be some BK religious zealot trying to whitewash the page with promotional religious material". I can find one piece of evidence, and good on Qworty for pointing this out, I agreed with him and am waiting for his suggested edit to fix the issue. If you have other concerns, please provide the evidence/links, otherwise I think it will be clear to experienced Wikipedia folk who is Poisoning the Well. For example, you alleged WP:TAGTEAM, which without any evidence is considered [uncivil]. I wish I had someone to tag with! The problem for me is I'm out of depth and you're my only friend in the Wiki community so far - and I'm not sure you like me much.
If you really want to disprove the COI, it is easy, just answer this one question: 1. Why do you have such a profound, detailed and intimate knowledge of BKWSU, and an amazing dedication to controlling the content of the page? At the moment, one explanation is that it arises from a self interest in advocating the views of another group with it's own webpage and agenda's, but there could be a plausible alternative explanation - here is your chance to provide that.
Kind Regards Danh108 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

BP

There is a discussion, if the drafts prepared by editor who has declared his COI and have been posted for reviewing/editing at the article's talk page, should be considered as as unpublished primary sources or not. Interpretation of WP:COI and WP:PSTS is needed. Please feel free to comment at the BP's talk page. Beagel (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This topic needs many more eyes. The more the better. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It isn't declaring a COI to follow procedures and use an excepted name per our policy. Transparency, disclosure and NOT EDITING the article means they have complied. All this does is prove to major corporations that they should not follow our policies as it only create drama from editors that want to point fingers.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Direct COI representatives to talk pages: disclosure and review

Hi folks,

If you've been following the controversy surrounding Arturo at BP's proposing talk page drafts at the BP article, you'll note there's a lot of discussion about COI. I originally explained that I had connected Arturo to an active editor at the article, Rangoon 11 through OTRS, but I was mixing up prior work I had done. Arturo didn't write in to OTRS and I didn't put him in contact with Rangoon, who became more controversial over 2012 editing debates.

In another situation I was asked, this time through OTRS to provide guidance to a government representative from the U.S. Government at NDAA 2012. I made a disclosure on the talk page about this originating from OTRS and had the gov representative also make a COI disclsoure on the talk page as well. After that an active talk page editor Darouet engaged with this representative and they came to some consensus about appropriate changes.

Concerns have been raised that there is some kind of "pipeline" wherein an ticket from OTRS or from other sources will direct a COI representative to the talk page where they will link up with an editor who will implement their changes by proxy.

My question is, what kinds of COI disclosures are required from us, as we provide guidance to these COI folks. Noting that I tell them to stick to the talk page, of course. But still, there are concerns that this process is somehow putting COI reps in touch with active but biased Wikipedians at the article. How do we remove that perception of impropriety?

Specifically, if you lead a COI rep to a talk page, and someone responds to their suggestions, is our role done? How do we make clear that we are not blessing the COI reps' suggestions or facilitating some biased process?

This is important to resolve, for me at least, as I frequently provide guidance to folks with COI and want to avoid the appearance of something untowards going on and want to make our review processes more robust so that inadvertent bias doesn't creep in to the article.

Best,

Ocaasi t | c 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi, the key point is that when dealing with article subjects via OTRS, you are dealing with sources. Journalists never allow sources to write their articles, or to suggest language for their articles. If they quote a source's words, they put it in quotation marks, or make clear in some other way who the source is. I know Wikipedia is not a news organization, but journalists follow that rule for very good reasons, and those reasons apply to us too.
So how to disclose these relationships is only part of the problem. The first issue is that they are being handled poorly. Sources should never be encouraged to write articles or parts of articles, directly or by proxy. (Note: I'm excluding from this a borderline notable BLP asking us to make clear that X. What's inappropriate here is that multinationals and governments are being treated as though they are Joe Blow with a personal problem.)
I looked at Talk:National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 after seeing Petra ask you about it, and saw a post from you saying: "I've been asked in my capacity as an WP:OTRS volunteer to address some specific readers' criticisms about this article. Over the next few days and possibly weeks I'll be working with those readers to help them express their views and to navigate our policies." [41] Later you again referred to these people as "The Readers: "I just had a nice long chat with The Readers. At this point they're not comfortable editing themselves ..." [42]
I take it from what you've written above that "The Readers" were a branch of the American government. Can you clarify what happened here? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all: Ocaasi has written on my talk page to let me know that there is a discussion here on his editing of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, also writing that he'd like to give me the opportunity to respond if I see that necessary. I'll write below what happened, as I best remember it. I first read about the NDAA 2012 legislation while it was being drafted, and was concerned about it, and surprised to see that wikipedia had no article on it. So I wrote the first draft and was heavily involved in the article for some time afterwards. The article received a lot of traffic because of the understandable controversy that emerged over the legislation, and some of that was reflected in editing of the article. At some point, Ocaasi posted on the talk pages of the article, writing that he had been contacted by someone (later User:Quirin42) who didn't want to edit directly, and had a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, Ocaasi obliquely suggested, but did not directly state that the party he was bringing to the talk pages was someone affiliated with and working for the American government. Ocaasi did make it clear that he did not necessarily endorse their views. When Quirin42 began editing, he made it clear he was working for the American government.
Ocaasi responded very politely to all inquiries and collated a very impressive list of sources, and I engaged with the editor, Quirin42, on the talk pages. At one point I was willing to make a compromise with Quirin42 that I wasn't very comfortable with, at which point Ocaasi intervened and stated that all changes would need to be rigorously backed by sources. At that point asked another editor whom I very much trust, Thucydides411, for his opinion, and he wrote that Quirin42's proposed changes obscured the effect of the legislation and contradicted most available sources. At that point, Quirin42 stopped contributing.
So, I certainly never worked for Ocaasi, and in the end I think he acted according to wikipedia's policies, by demanding that all statements be rigorously sourced and therefore verifiable. I do wish it had been a little clearer, for me and from the very beginning, that Quirin42 was working for the government. Also, though Ocaasi didn't represent Quirin42's position and explicitly stated this, as a slightly greener editor at that time this wasn't wholly clear to me, and I was embarrassed to feel obliged to change the article for Quirin42. I'm thankful to Ocaasi and Thucydides411 for preventing that, and teaching me something.
Note that I'm also posted this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ocaasi#Declaring_COI. Thanks! -Darouet (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
My apologies Darouet if it wasn't absolutely clear that Quirin was from the U.S. Government. I thought that his COI declaration suggested that. Indeed it was the case. I think you did a good job of engaging with a COI editor and am glad you learned from the experience.
Slim, "The readers" was a term I used before Quirin made a COI declaration on the article talk page. He was a representative from the U.S. government. I helped him summarize some criticisms and then assisted him to discuss proposed changes with other editors. In the end, the only changes which were made would have been those that represented the views of published reliable sources with due weight, and which gained consensus on the talk page. I believe although the COI disclosure could have been more robust (something I'll work on in the future), that this still represents best practice for dealing with COI editors, as expressed in WP:COI, and also quite clearly affirmed by Jimbo this week.
Slim, I'm also waiting to see the results of the WT:COI discussion about COI representatives proposing drafts. I will defer to the consensus in that discussion for how to best handle future cases. I hear your position, but I'm not sure it represents a consensus. In fact, it appears that it might be going against what is considered best practice at the moment. COI representatives aren't ghostwriting articles, they're making suggestions which need review. I am interested in making that review process more robust and would like to continue working on that, where you input is welcome.
I have also asked for feedback from the OTRS team for how to handle these situations better. Ocaasi t | c 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ocaasi, the small group of editors who think what happened at BP is okay are massively out of step with the real world. Wikipedia will lose huge amounts of credibility if this continues, and the companies you are advising to do this risk being damaged. Common sense has to step in, and we have to find consensus among Wikipedians who understand the issues and the dangers. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I put in the ec note before even trying to save this - the edits are going fast and furious. Slim's links to your discussions look pretty scary, "slippery slope" comes to mind. I don't see any special reason to help put large organizations' welfare over the regular editor's welfare. Why not just help you basic individual editor instead? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Darouet, that's very helpful. Ocaasi wrote that he had put whoever contacted OTRS in touch with you. Is that correct?
The reason I'm asking, and the thing I'm concerned about, is that it seems OTRS volunteers are being persuaded to allow governments and multinationals to rewrite articles, either directly or by suggesting language. And that they may be putting those organizations in direct contact with editors who they believe will not say no. This stands to reason: if you want to help someone you are not going to introduce him to an editor who will raise objections. But in these cases, objections would be the most appropriate response.
If that didn't happen in this case, because people realized that the government's changes would have contradicted most of the sources, that's good. I'm really glad to hear that. But the approach should not have been handled that way in the first place; volunteer editors should not be put in that position. Elsewhere we've seen at least one multinational rewrite large sections of the article about itself in exactly that way. So I think we do need to pin down this issue of how to keep sources (article subjects) at arm's length, except for the usual BLP exceptions. We do want to be told "this is factually incorrect, please fix it, and here's a source." We don't want to be told: "And here are thousands of words of the language we want you to use." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 talk-page discussion we're referring to is here. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks SlimVirgin and Ocaasi for letting me know. In this case, things did work out, and I think that Ocaasi's efforts were exemplary by 1) providing a host of sources and 2) demanding that wikipedia's core policies be followed during the process. The great difficulty with the OTRS system, at least in the experience I had at NDAA 2012, is that it encourages volunteers to act on behalf of the party with a COI, and begins to pass that COI onto the volunteer... For instance Ocaasi was asked to represent a viewpoint and an interest that fundamentally contradicted those of the encyclopedia, wikipedia's policies, his own personal sense, and the viewpoints of the editors. But, when Ocaasi brought forward the case, I think he felt somehow, and I certainly felt, that we were all representing wikipedia's interests by representing the government. I might be wrong in all this, but the very procedure creates an awkward situation in which you feel you're helping a bashful editor, through an official wikipedia policy, by arguing on their behalf and against yourself as an editor.
Now, Quirin42 would have argued that what was happening was a good thing, and bringing the NDAA 2012 article towards neutrality. I don't agree, and I don't think Ocaasi would either. But that's why Quirin42 works for the government, whereas I don't, and would rather contribute to an encyclopedia. Anyway, just my sense of the situation. -Darouet (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Darouet, that sense of 'acting on behalf of a party with a COI' is absolutely wrong, was never intended, and should not happen in the future. I did convey a viewpoint that was from a COI party, and if I did not make clear that we have absolutely no responsibility to do what they think is best, then the process failed. The intention was never to have Wikipedia represent the government's interest, only for the talk page discussion to consider a COI viewpoint.
I just want to make abundantly clear, if it wasn't already that I did not select or appoint Darouet. He responded independently on the talk page. I did quickly evaluate that s/he was a sharp and capable editor and then monitored the discussion to keep it on track. I am very much open to suggestions about how to make sure individual editors, even when they're smart and unbiased, are not a single point of failure. Right now I'm aware the COI Noticeboard posts would be helpful. But we'll have to do more. For example, Template:Edit requests are typically responded to by a single editor. We need some form of {{COI edit request}} or {{COI draft}} template so that anyone can find these situations easily.
I'm also willing to create some kind of boilerplate language for COI disclosures on talk pages or in the WP:COI or WP:PSCOI pages which strongly affirm that interests expressed by COI parties have zero special powers, regardless of whether they appear through OTRS or anywhere else. I'm currently working on such language in my userspace but will offer it at the relevant guideline pages soon.
I understand Slim that you don't want any of this happening, at all, and you want to Shift the Bright Line further than just no direct editing to also no drafts. But, while that discussion is ongoing, and while drafts are being presented, we should work to improve the process nonetheless. Perhaps consider it a back-up strategy, should your view of how things should work not gain consensus. Ocaasi t | c 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's exactly the problem, Darouet; you express it very well. Actually, I'd be willing to bet that Quirin42 was surprised that he was allowed to do it.

I think some editors (and I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but because of several of these cases that I've looked at) are finding themselves in the same position as physicians trying to deal with the pharmaceutical industry. They are flattered, made to feel important, asked to give talks, language and sources are suggested, whole draft articles are offered that the physician can put her name to, gifts and money flow freely. Wikipedia has to resist this, or we'll end up with a host of articles ghostwritten by companies and governments, and volunteer editors made to feel uncomfortable, pressured, or so burned out arguing against it that they stop editing.

Another editor wrote that pride was getting in the way of solving this problem, because editors don't want to acknowledge that they can be hoodwinked by PR departments (or governments, or whatever). We all like to think that we're smart enough to see through inappropriate approaches or charm offensives, but the reality is that otherwise intelligent people get caught up in this kind of thing every day. This is why the academic community is increasingly looking for ways to deal with conflict of interest. Wikipedia can't turn in the opposite direction and try to take us back to the 1980s.

There's a good New York Times article here about a physician who became a drug rep and eventually realized that the roles were mutually exclusive; it's worth reading to see how he slid out of the physician role without even realizing it. Similarly, we have to be really careful that we're not sliding out of the Wikipedian role without realizing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that Ocaasi certainly didn't appoint me, and didn't try to represent Quirin42. Ever since this event happened I've had the highest respect for Ocaasi as an editor and have often wished that editors of their calibre were working on troubled pages. The difficulty arises, and I think that Ocaasi is acknowledging this, when we create a situation in which we feel institutionally compelled to edit on behalf of the COI party. I know that this isn't what anybody intends: on the contrary, I think I remember reading, long ago when involved in the NDAA 2012 discussion, that the whole COI and OTRS process is meant to formalize and improve something which is going to be happening whether we like it or not. I'm not best positioned to evaluate how well the system has worked, but I was skeptical then and remain so.
If I can make one last comment, hoping I'm not going beyond what's necessary here: large companies, institutions, and governments are able to field tremendous resources in order to generate favorable public opinion via blogs, advertisements, public relations campaigns, lobbying, inside scoops to journalists, and finances ordinary people have no access to. This is reflected in media coverage itself, and contributes to the phenomenon of national news services almost always finding themselves backing the national and foreign policy aims of the governments that host them. These organizations are already involved openly or otherwise in editing wikipedia, but it doesn't seem as though we need to make special efforts to have their views represented, beyond what is already expressed in media coverage, over which they have no small influence anyway. -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ocaasi did say he had put the government rep in touch with you: "Typically for OTRS requests I first investigate the claims myself and see if it's something minor I can handle. If it involves anything complex or controversial I'll look for an active, non-POV pushing editor at the article's talk page/history whom I respect to put the person in touch with ... at NDAA 2012 that person was Darouet." [43]
Perhaps he meant that he passed your name to the rep. Ocaasi, can you clarify what happened? I'm asking because I think this goes to the heart of the problem (on all these articles, not just this one).
Darouet, what you wrote above: "The difficulty arises ... when we create a situation in which we feel institutionally compelled to edit on behalf of the COI party." This is exactly right, and when OTRS is involved it is very much worse, because there's a perception that it's the Foundation. Even without OTRS involvement, there's a sense of politeness and wanting to be decent. This is why I really dislike the "we're here to help!" slogan of the COI pages Ocaasi has written. Actually we're not. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, which will sometimes require definitely not helping in the ways discussed here. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Slim, Daroet simply responded on the talk page; that is precisely what I meant by "put the person in touch with". Darouet seemed active and knowledgeable, I maintained some eye on the conversation, Darouet talked with Quirin42, Quirin42 eventually left Wikipedia, and that's the full extent of things.
Slim, the tone of the COI pages I've written is designed to get people to be transparent rather than secretive. It's not encouraging them to go against our mission but to express themselves publicly. I recognize it might seem too "cheery" considering conflicting agendas, but you really have to keep in mind that secretive editing is happening all the time, and these rare moments of disclosure are really bright spots in an otherwise invisible and unregulated process. Ocaasi t | c 21:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You're moving from an "is" to an "ought". Vandalism is happening all the time, but that doesn't mean we ought to encourage it. I wish you would take the point that no professional publisher would let this happen, and that Wikipedia is striving to be a publication people can trust. So we can't ignore what is done in the real world, or push Wikipedia back to the dark ages before people began to learn how to handle conflict of interest. Let me ask you: have you read any of the scholarly literature on conflict of interest? Okay, rather than leave you with a loaded question, I'm editing this post to add that I'm guessing you haven't. I really strongly suggest you make a start on that, given that you're working in this area at so many different levels, including editor, admin, OTRS volunteer, guideline writer, and a person who goes out to speak to PR people. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I took the question in good faith, no worries. If it's a ought, it's a conditional ought, as in 'if you engage with Wikipedia, do it this way'. I'm most familiar with COI in the medical field. We apparently share a common appreciation for Ben Goldacre whom I view as a thought-leader on this and especially relevant to the work I do with Wiki Project Med Foundation. Any time I speak with someone in the Pharmaceutical industry, I make sure they're aware of the pernicious dynamics going on in medicine (particularly with not disclosing trial data), and I recommend they read Goldacre's books and watch his talks so that they understand why they are so distrusted. If you'd like to send me a link to or copy of a solid overview of the COI literature, I'd appreciate it. Ocaasi t | c 21:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
People in the pharmaceutical industry are already aware of this; it's some Wikipedians who are not aware of it. I don't have a reading list I can hand you (it would take me as long to compile one as it would take you). I think if you want to represent Wikipedia at so many levels in this area, it makes sense for you to know how the publishing industry normally handles it. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
By the way, when I refer to "is-ought," I meant Is–ought problem. It's a fallacy to argue that X happens all the time, therefore we ought to facilitate it. We ought to facilitate it if it's otherwise a good thing, and we ought not to facilitate it if it's otherwise a bad thing, but whether it happens already doesn't tell us whether it's good or bad.
Too many people are arguing that companies are doing this under the radar anyway, and therefore we ought to encourage them to do it openly. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. One isn't in conflict of interest when one follows the guidelines and is not compromising the project. We have a behavioral guideline for editors to follow. When they do they are not a COI editor, they just have close associations. There is a difference and of all of the discussion going on, this is the one issue being exaggerated, ignored or just misinterpreted. If Arturo of BP is not placing his outside interest above those of Wikipedia...he is not a COI editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Ocaasi, is there guidance anywhere for the types of content issues OTRS volunteers should get involved in? My understanding was always that regular edit requests should be referred to the article talk page; that is, OTRS volunteers shouldn't act as "super editors" for regular content issues (as opposed to legal ones or sensitive BLP issues). But I can't find that written down anywhere, so I could be wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, OTRS volunteers do not have any special powers at all. We just lead people to talk pages and help them go through the normal consensus process. I'm working on language to make that abundantly clear and will propose it shortly. Ocaasi t | c 02:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_62&oldid=1090672363"