This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

• Brhannan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Editing Katie Reider, and somehow has access to her personal materials (as per his image talk contrib here). Is not only hiding his sig (oversigning as "Nomad 2"), but also misreading policy and spamming the article AfD. Definite COI and MEMORIAL problem, as well as no understanding of policies. MSJapan (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Plexusnexus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another new account that somehow managed to come up with a "source" for Katie Reider posted on talk (9 minutes after account creation), knows enough to claim "critical mass" of sources, but has no other edits. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• 38.112.25.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - likely sock of Brhannan, as shown bythis diff, where the IP edits Brhannan's AfD comment. MSJapan (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I have to say that I disagree with this assesment. First, the "access to her personal materials" is a photo lifted from her web site? Don't we all have access to that? Second, being active in a deletion debate is not the same as "spamming." Finally, why should you be surprised that any new user is not familiar with or misreads the nuances of wikipedia policy? We don't exactly have a training program. -MrFizyx (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the contrib summary stated "the photo belonged to Katie"; that's not the same as "I got it off her website" (which is what the rationale said). And how would a random person know that it was her personal photo as opposed to a professional photographer's shot? Furthermore, we do have a training program; it's called the utilization of common sense, or "if you don't know what it does, don't touch it." We provide plenty of resources to use WP properly, and if people ignore them, that's their own problem. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Daredevil0405 (talk · contribs) added a non-notable political scorecard (0% for everyone!) from this lobbying group of questionable notability to scores of congresspersons. Additionally, he created an article on the pledge, and is now edit warring to re include the scorecard on various congresspersons pages. He appears to be involved with the organization taking the pledge in some way - see also 09blonegan‎ (talk · contribs). The scorecard seems to provide no value to the various congresspersons he is adding it to, and seems, to my eyes, to be designed to publicize the lobbying group. Help! Carte Rouge (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Deleted and salted. MER-C 03:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• A. Edward Moch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aedwardmoch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Supposed autobiography of a supposed psychic. He keeps creating the article after repeated warnings. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: deleted again by another sysop. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(hands up) That would have been me - was contemplating salting the page for repeated recreation, but wasn't sure as the recreation isn't persistent in a temporal sense. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Cherry Wilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Bkonrad, who states on his user page "My wife's mother was Cherry Wilder, who spent time in NZ, Oz and Deutschland. (Shameless plug: Check out Cherry's posthumously published book The Wanderer ISBN 0312874057)." has been editing Cherry Wilder as seen here. This is a clear conflict of interest, and the promotion of the book on his user page is in violation of "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam" WP:LINKSPAM Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, who has apparently taken leave of his senses, is beginning to look like a stalker [1]. I created the Cherry Wilder page long before I was aware of any WP:LINKSPAM. So I'm not sure what Ottava is accusing me of here. That I am guilty of violating a guideline that was still embryonic at the time. That having a link to the last book by my mother-in-law on my userpage makes me guilty of link spam? I've no problem with removing the blurb, that's not such a big deal -- but I find it hard to see that as spam -- I don't directly benefit in any way (I think my wife's sister may receive a few pennies in royalties every now and then). My reason for adding the link is that I thought it was an interesting book and something about myself that others might find interesting. Ottava seems to think I have some nefarious agenda. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned about your personal attacks. You have persisted in such. Furthermore, Bkonrad already "asked me to do something about it". Instead of correcting their behavior immediately, they chose to use this forum as a means to personally attack me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope that Ottava will list out some of the problems he perceives with this article. At first sight, I don't notice a neutrality problem. Do we need better sources? The article does not seem promotional. The complete list of short fiction seems too long, and might be trimmed or summarized. I don't see any third-party reviews of her work. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the only sources of the information is from his relationship, and the advertisement on his user page is troubling. There is no actual information on the person to provide notability, nor is there information except for a list of books. Is this article a "list" article? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article had been created by someone else. Cherry is a published author. I'm not sure what notability criteria are in place for authors these days. I merely happened upon it a long time back and expanded it a bit. Most of the details I added can be found in the published interviews under External links. At the time, External links were accepted as a form of citation -- Wikiepdia's guidance and the mechanisms supporting citations have evolved considerably since then. I think the only detail I added that might not be sourced was to change the line She died in Wellington after a long battle with cancer. because it was not really "long" and the use of "battle" seemed a little clichéd. Considering that my substantive edits to this article were among my very first edits at a time when standards were still being developed for editing, I'm sure the article could use some improvement. But again, I'm really not sure what Ottava sees as the problem here. older ≠ wiser 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean created by someone else and then you happened to be the first one to find it after a few days and then start expanding? You are, after all, the primary editor on the topic, and it almost seems to provide enough evidence to warrant a checkuser to compare you to Jose Ramos to make sure that you two aren't the same person, especially with Jose Ramos no longer editing after that time. It would appear, by looking at the logs, with you starting and he ending, and there being the cross over at Cherry Wilder, that there is a relationship between the accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, please do ask for a checkuser on myself and Jose Ramos. It is a preposterous and thoroughly baseless accusation. Aside from that edit, I don't believe I have ever crossed paths with Jose again. older ≠ wiser 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, the user quickly stopped posting after you joined, so claiming that you didn't cross paths again is a no argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And having edited the same article without any other evidence whatsoever is no basis for making accusations about sockpuppetry. You are the one who is engaging in incivility. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, stating that your wife would have an account, which would (I presume) would be using the same connection would already submit to the classification of puppet. There are reasonable uses for puppetry. However, it have a say on if you actually created the page or not. Regardless, other users say that the page is decent, but it will need third party sources to help verify notability and some other minor clean up. My major concern is with the promotional material on your talk page and to let the community know that there is a conflict in case anything in the future happens with the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To make accusations that two accounts by spouses (which occasionally, but not always) edit from the same connection are sockpuppets is a perversion of what the sock puppetry policy is about. To make claims about conflict of interest solely because you are peeved at me for daring to disagree with you about how disambiguation pages should be formatted and for calling you out for being rude and insulting to other editors -- well that is just puckish of you. Now that you've done your self-proclaimed duty to the community, perhaps now you might consider expending some effort in learning how to be just a little less obnoxious and annoying. older ≠ wiser 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, there are legitimate reasons for sockpuppet accounts. And making claims of conflict of interest? It is clear from your user page that there is one. You didn't have to post personal information about yourself and admittedly promote a book in conflict with WP:SPAM. By the way, you asked me to take action, so I obliged. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that two different people (even if related) having accounts is not sockpuppetry and for you to insinuate that is wrong. Your understanding of COI also appears to be faulty. I edited the page a while back and have for the most part let it be, precisely because I did not want to edit a topic of such personal interest. If I had a mind to, I could have expanded the article at great length with all manner of anecdotes. But as you acknowledge, "other users say that the page is decent", so I'm not sure where you get off making such accusations. As for my user page, what is or is not SPAM is not a bright shining line. If impartial editors were to *politely* raise objections on my talk page, I'd be more inclined to take them seriously and not as an annoyance simply looking to hound me. Yes, I "asked" you to take action on my talk page -- primarily because I thought that perhaps if you did ask in a public forum and saw that no one else agreed with you, you might, perhaps, possibly come to your senses. But alas, that doesn't seem likely. older ≠ wiser 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This talks about your (supposed) situation. Note: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the same articles,". Also, Wikipedia:CoI#Examples - "Close relationships ... Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest ... Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area." I think it is reasonable from the above to say that you fall under CoI and that you are united to your wife's account for Wikipedia purposes. Also, WP:SPAM is clear that you cannot advertise items, even on your own user page. If you still think that policy supports you, please say so now. I have already quoted policy that was quite clear on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well fine, it is pretty obvious that you just don't get it and rather than beginning with one of the core fundamental principles of Wikipedia and assume good faith, you prefer to slice and dice the minutiae of various other guidelines and policies to justify making baseless accusations. Suit yourself. I'm giving up on the possibility rational discourse with you. older ≠ wiser 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also a conflict here, her "daughter" edits on the page too. Perhaps this would be the same daughter that Bkonrad's user page admits to being married to? This account seems also to be created about the same time as Bkronrad's. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah you got it Sherlock. That's my wife alright. It's really not an accident that our accounts were created at the same time. Is it now a crime for a spouse to also have an account or are you simply on a witchhunt? Or perhaps you merely enjoy mudslinging? It appears your interest in this article is entirely motivated by your animosity towards me. Perhaps you'd care to explain yourself? older ≠ wiser 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your actions are extremely incivil and I ask for you to desist. Editing on topics that relate to yourself is frowned upon, and recent edits to the topic along with the promotional material on your user page are a breach. I asked you to remove the breach before, and you refused to. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How about if you stop making stupid and baseless accusations. Talk about incivil! Criminy. I'm sorry, but you are the one who is out of line here. older ≠ wiser 03:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article is reasonably written, and I do feel that the COI issues aren't too problematic here. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a source for the bio details. I think informal sources are acceptable for that, but it should be specified as more than personal knowledge.DGG (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated above, most of the biographical details can be found in the interviews under external links. I'd prefer not to edit the article myself so as to avoid any additional baseless accusations from the likes of Ottava Rima.

Resolved

 – One article deleted and editors inactive. JonHarder 11:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Minnesota Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Problem editors:

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

I just put a prod on the Minnesota Online article. After the fact I found a marketing plan that included editing Wikipedia in the list of priorities. I expect that prod to expire and the article deleted because the problem editors have had no activity for over a year. However, this article should go to AfD if it is contested. Is there anything else to do about this blatant abuse of Wikipedia? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current form of Minnesota Online doesn't have much value. If we could get any reliable third-party sources, the topic could conceivably be of interest. (A state-wide center, presumably government-supported, that takes care of online instruction). I'll not object to the PROD, but hope that someone comes up with better sources before the five days runs out. Now, about the other article listed: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System. I suggest that it be dropped from this report because I don't see any neutrality problems. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Both articles should remain as part of the documentation. The latter was created by a single purpose account that has only edited these two articles. Because there is a formal plan that enumerates Wikipedia as a marketing tool, these related organizations should both remain under scrutiny. Additionally, if user MnOnline edits again, the account probably should be blocked simply because the username is unacceptable (could be considered promotional and is likely a role account). ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The account, MnOnline, has not edited since January, 2007. Not clear that blocking it would have any value. The account Marceldesade has not edited since 2006. The Minnesota Online article was deleted via PROD. Although raising this issue as a possible concern was useful, I believe there is no continuing threat, so I suggest that the it be marked Resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ken Lamberton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Kenlamberton created an article about himself and is the primary editor of that article. As such, it mostly reads as a promo piece for his books and self promotion. I have made some attempts to neutralize the article, but he usually comes in a few hours later and puts in more stuff, though he seems to be of questionable notability. His edits are not minor, and he has ignored both myself and another editor's notes on his talk page regarding the WP:COI guideline, and does not use the talk page at all. There is a blatant lack of neutrality, as he neglects to mention his 12 year prison term for child molestation or another info that isn't directly related to bolstering his books. I'm not sure what else to do at this point? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Astro empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was recreated by a user who seems to be an admin for this online video game (see diff). Same user has also been actively participating in the article's current AfD discussion. Same user may have also participated in a past deletion review under a different name. MuZemike (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Xaman79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — User as described above for recreating the article. MuZemike (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Astro Empires (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Alleged former name of this user as cited in the above deletion review. MuZemike (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Dilenschneider Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Dilenschneider Group seems to be a PR firm that made considerable revisions to the Philip J. Purcell article. Maybe someone should check it out. Troopedagain (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping you can help me with a Conflict of Interest dispute I am engaged in with User: Zodon. I am a contributor of several articles related to HPV and cervical cancer. User: Zodon feels this is a conflict of interest due to the fact that I have consulted with QIAGEN, the manufacturer of the HPV test. However, I am also a board-certified internist with broad medical experience in HPV, who also is a contributor to ABC Medical News. All of the changes I have suggested are backed up by recent citations from the medical literature. However, Zodon has not responded to the medical facts I was using to update the copy; he seems to be basing his opinions only on the fact that I have consulted with QIAGEN-which is one of a number of companies with which I have worked (as have many physicians).

I am unsure whether Zodon is a community member like myslef or a Wikipedia editor, and whether he has any medical background. I would welcome having a dialogue on the medical content of what I am proposing, and would be happy to make edits based on a common understanding of the data (see Cervical Cancer as an example). Can you help facilitate a next step, so that we can continue to serve your readers with the most up-to-date information available? Thank you. Drsavard (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many of the edits Drsavard proposed removed material that was more neutral with regard to HPV testing, and put in material favoring HPV testing. Some of their edits were highly selective in what portions of the source they presented (only representing the pro-HPV testing side). While HPV testing has been shown to be useful in some cases, its utility in general cervical cancer screening is unproven. Since Drsavard consulted for QIAGEN (parent company of the makers of the HPV test), there seemed to be a potential COI.

I am preparing response to their more recent comments, just took a while to get some references, sorry for the delay. Zodon (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Gryffindor and myself are currently in an edit war. He or she was added several images to the KylieX2008 article. Because of the minimal content of the article, I have explained to him or her that numerous images should relate to the content (body text) whether than the subject. We are currently at two reverts each. I feel that him or her are taking this rather personally because it is their own work. In the External Links section, there is a link to the images in Wiki Commons and I think that is sufficient than slapping them in the article. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

All images pertain to the article itself. Please refer to Talk:KylieX2008#adding_images_to_this_article. You have numerously reverted edits of other users already as if you had some kind of monopoly on this topic. Gryffindor 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting here just for transparency. The creator and major editor of Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dagsy (talk · contribs), claims to be the marketing manager of Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. As such, I have marked this article as a potential conflict of interest. I also reduced the linkspam and the sales language and catalogue of books available to buy. This was reverted by Dagsy and re-reverted by me. I have contacted Dagsy (and his IP) on their userpages and left a uw-coi notice. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 07:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone review these removals by the subject of the abovelinked article? I usually keep an eye on the article but wanted some outside input to this. Skomorokh 10:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you ask him why? MER-C 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I bother Chuck far too often :) I was hoping someone else could look into it. Skomorokh 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for the subject, asking him why he called it 'removing inaccurate information.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• ((Puellanivis)) - She has a very real conflcit of interest in this topic as evidenced by her zealous promotion of her own personal ideology and uncivil behavior. The issue at hand was weather or not the definition of "Men who Have sex with men" includes transgender women (which, as the term has been used, can be anyone from a cross dresser to a post-op transsexual woman). I looked at a variety of sources and cited a variety of sources in a RfC on that article's talk page. They all either say explicitly that transgender women are msm, that we are considered along side msm, or they imply that we are MSM In response she has swore at me in the comments of the revision history of her talk page. I gnored this transgression and continued to deal with her from the standpoint of good faith and reason. Then she, wrote "I'm sorry, but my "biological gender" is female. There is no doubt in my mind that I had insufficient androgens during my natal period and came out under-virilized. When the brain (evidenced by my parents that I never acted correctly as a "boy") and the external body are in conflict... personally, I can't, and I don't know why you could, say that the external body wins out." It looks to me that she is hung up on issues of her own personal identity, her gender identity and presentation. She is unable to see how the subject of this article has no bearing on that. More importantly that her own personal feelings should have no bearing on it. Please help me to show her that her behavior on this matter is out of bounds. She is a good editor who I have historically agreed with more than I disagreed with. Hfarmer (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the COI tag to added to the article, on account of the fact that the editor in question isn't a major editor and there are plenty of other editors involved. As for the COI matter, the guideline says:
  • COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups.
• I don't see what interest is being promoted. This appears to be more about WP:NOR, in that the editor is using personal experience rather than reliable sources as the guide for what to include or exclude. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be very grateful if an experienced moderator / editor could intervene on the article - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Please refer to the exchanges under the section entitled 'Racist Quotes' on the discussion page, and the ensuing entries at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

I feel that the user User:PrinceOfCanada is way too closely involved in Monarchy-related articles, even going as far as to admit "...I'm a staunch Monarchist" on their User page.

With thanks in advance. Labcoat (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm anything but a moderator (some would say a provocateur), but just wanted to comment that this doesn't look like COI but rather POV - it would only be COI if the Prince himself, or his office/agents, were the "guilty party". Lots of editors have POV orientations of one kind or another; COI is when the person being writing about is doing the writing, no?Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, unless the user was related to (or employed by) the subject, I don't see a COI. It's POV. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. How could I then request the intervention of an experienced and uninvolved moderator to make some kind of judgment? Labcoat (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• ThomasDeLongeJr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) appears to be Tom DeLonge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Recently created Blink Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (since deleted) about forthcoming Blink-182 reunion video. – ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Toddfast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be "someone involved with zembly" [2]. Appears to be Todd Fast. Given uw-coi warning on 25 July.
• 66.125.85.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Whois shows this to be the ip of Todd A Fast

• Java Native Access‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) These editors added a History section on 5 August, containing detailed information about the contributions of some of the programmers involved in JNA, including Todd Fast. I've moved this section to talk for discussion.
• Zembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article created by user:Toddfast about a product created by Todd Fast.

Toddfast has continued editing Zembly, and added the section to Java Native Access, after being given a coi warning for his creation of Zembly. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sonicmanage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mikesonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have created/edited Sonic Management and articles about artists of that label: AM Radio (band), Kevin Ridel, Chris Pierce. BNutzer (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

GameIndustryMap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created an article titled Game Industry Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article is currently nominated for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Alwyn Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alwyncscott (talk · contribs)

I believe this article violates conflict of interest. It is autobiographical and its subject / author has chosen to eliminate factual edits that are true but may undermine his ability to use the page to promote himself. Example: I add that he was involved in a costly divorce, which is true. He undoes it.

Bookseven (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As suggested at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Alphabiotics I'm referring this article and user here.

Alphabiotics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Trisfb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The users contributions include signing his preferred version of article Developmental Alphabioticist Tristram Forrest-Brown wrote this wikipedia page entry. Visit his page at www.alphabiotics.co.uk [3] all of the users edits are to this article, and he has not engaged in dialogue with other editors as requested on his talk page -Hunting dog (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

after talking with trisfb, and helping him improve the article, i think that this is no longer a problem as such, the article is on its way to being much more neutral and balanced--Jac16888 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Warning someone who has vandalized your user page does not violate WP:COI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll make this short and sweet. I revert vandalism here at en.wp, and I wanted to ask a quick question: If a user vandalises your personal userpage, can it be seen as a Conflict of Interest if the user whose page was vandalised issues vandal warnings against the perpetrator? Should another user be asked to do this? Thanks. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. That type of COI is not the type that the Wikipedia guideline discusses, where an editor stands to gain financially or similarly based on the content of an article. So no worries. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• NebuAd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Funchords (talk · contribs)

Disclosure and Summary

I am the Director of Marketing at NebuAd. Given Wikipedia’s standards and conflict of interest guidelines, we were wondering if an editor would be willing to delete Funchords’ edits to the NebuAd article.

Background

Funchords is Robb Topolski. Mr. Topolski is a consultant for two Washington DC-based lobbying groups: Free Press and Public Knowledge.

On behalf of these two lobbying groups, Mr. Topolski wrote a report on NebuAd.

Conflict of Interest Concerns

Regardless of whether he is biased, Mr. Topolski’s 114 edits of the NebuAd article constitute a conflict of interest based on the following COI examples:

• Financial benefit: As a consultant to the aforementioned lobbyists on matters related to NebuAd, Mr. Topolski may “derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing.”

• Close relationships: Mr. Topolski’s relationships with the aforementioned lobbyists on matters related to NebuAd may “involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.”

Request

Based on these conflicts and the editorial guidance in Wikipedia:FAQ/Business, we request that an editor consider deleting the 114 edits made by Funchords.

Edgar Waingortin (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OUTING. Corvus cornix_talk 06:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Does not seem to be an outing issue. Funchords provides his full name on his userpage, and the above links are easily found via googling his name. -- Ned Scott 07:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Funchords makes this possible COI known on his userpage. He's one step ahead of Edgar here. -- Ned Scott 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this a little more, I'm not seeing any issue with Funchords. From his own talk page I even see him working with other editors about the article NebuAd. He's well involved with other editors, asking them for help and such, and the edits themselves seem fine. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any policy violations in the current article, except that the table showing which staff members from Claria are now employed at NebuAd may violate WP:Synthesis. I've already expressed an opinion to that effect on the article Talk. (I believe it violates SYN but not BLP). Edgar Waingortin of the NebuAd company has been carefully respecting the WP:COI guideline thus far. In fact, he previously posted at this noticeboard to explain his own role and his concerns about the article. Basically, he asked us to follow our own policy. Funchords is an editor who in real life opposes NebuAd's approach to modifying internet traffic, but most of the time he has been careful to stay within Wikipedia policy. I'd be happier if the abovementioned table were removed, but except for that, I think we are OK. I encourage the readers of this report to add NebuAd to their watchlist. It would also help to ensure the article's neutrality if we had more regular editors who are not COI-affected working on it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Speedied as a redirect to a deleted article by Tanthalas39. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

International House of Reiki is a new created article. The main intention appears to be advertisement and promotion of Reiki services of one company. I consider this unfair use of Wikipedia and vote for deletion. --Aaxxll (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Deleted and salted. MER-C 10:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Em Naswood has created the article Emi (Native American singer) about himself, with no citations, written in a biased way, containing superfluous non-notable content like this. I've tried to remove unencyclopaedic content, tagged the article with coi, neutral and unverified tags, and contacted the user on his talk page and the article's talk page with regard to the issues, but no reply. The user keeps removing the tags from the page; I don't want to edit war, so I thought you guys could take a look! Cheers - Toon⁰⁵ 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note to the above - I couldn't find any reliable sources to back up any of the claims to notability made so have nominated that article and Em (EP) for deletion at Afd (an IP also tried to remove the Afd tag) -Hunting dog (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have written a draft of an article about Allsport GPS. I was wondering if someone here could help me get this article ready to be published on Wikipedia. I am worried about the article having a biased tone, since I am affiliated with the parent company. Any help in cleaning it up would be greatly appreciated. Wikipedia's Business FAQ suggested that I first get assistance to publish an article, since I have a conflict of interest. My draft is currently residing here: User:Ek_elwing/myarticle Thank you! --Emma K (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Commented there. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked, indefinitely. MER-C 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fredfickle (talk · contribs) keeps removing sourced, wikified information on the Brad Mehldau article and replacing it with unsourced text dump. I requested that he not do so, but he has repeated it twice now, the third time the edit summary said he is doing it for Brad Mehldau. I have given him a uw-v3 warning and reverted yet again, and pointed him to WP:COI. Corvus cornix_talk 06:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just issued Fredfickle a uw-v4 warning. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Returned as Hthrkrns (talk · contribs), all sockpuppets blocked indef. See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredfickle. MER-C 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Esther Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ahnalira (talk · contribs)
• MoriahBaron (talk · contribs)
• Gacuster (talk · contribs)

Esther Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Ahnalira is the webmaster for Esther's web site. They have been edit warring and removing anything other than Esther's official biography from the article. There are also about four newbie editors with a minimal grasp of WP policy. All joined very recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhimaji (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I added article and user links to the above header. The three users I listed are new editors who started work since 1 August, and whose edit history seems entirely devoted to Hicks-related topics. A complex edit war is taking place, where some editors seem eager to show that Hicks played a role in the creation of The Secret (2006 film), while others (mostly the new ones who may have a COI) wanting to remove all mention of it. Even more surprising is that some editors are removing information taken directly from Esther Hicks' own web site. (It's hard to believe that anyone can be defamed by their own statements).

The behavior of the COI-affected editors is so aggressive that I fear some admin action may have to be taken, if we can't persuade them to comply with the WP:COI guideline. Even if everyone were carefully observing the COI rules, there would still be the job of creating a neutral article. But I'm sure that's a doable task. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to call particular attention to this diff link where one of the editors says "Added the first name where only Hicks was written and clarified definition of what she does slightly. As webmaster of Abraham-Hicks Publications, these changes were requested of me by Esther Hicks." It appears to me that Esther Hicks is behind this recent activity acting using one or more surrogates. My problem is not that they are editing but that 1) they are gutting the article beyond what makes any sense, and 2) have flat out said on the talk page that they do not have to discuss anything. Ninety percent of the edit warring going on at the article could be resolved if the parties would agree to discuss in good faith on the article talk page. Which is beginning to happen, slowly. So I hold out hope. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Per this report all the editors listed above have been blocked for sockpuppetry by User:AGK. There was also an ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have watched the events for the past few days from an outsider standpoint. I also enjoyed looking at everyones talk pages - some really interesting ones. After reading the last talk page, which was Ahnalira, it looks as if Bhmaji, Tmtoulouse, and Dayewalker are gloating and fringing on harassment. [4] I look forward to a spirited and non biased solution to this page.--70.197.94.180 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This IP editor above has no edits prior to tonight, as admitted in their first post here [5]. It should be noted this anon IP user is making the exact same edits as blocked sockmaster Ahnalira, as seen here [6]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As a person coming into this as purely coincidence, and a person who like anonymity and unbiased takes, I take offense to this. I merely stated that you three should also be looked at because of the tirade on Ahnalira. Quit the game playing and lets get down to a perfect page. Not looking to make friends, just a pure page we can all agree with.--70.196.44.49 (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

One mans tirade is another mans good advice. Which is what the information on the talk page was. If you are interested in helping with the article there are several outstanding points just waiting for feedback. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kicking someone while they are down is not good advice.. Its a cheap shot and cowardly. Lets keep it clean. As I said on the other page, one day academia will look at wiki as a reliable source and not a laughing stock.--70.196.44.49 (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)IP, This is not the place for your accusations. This is the noticeboard for a user with a clear conflict of interest who was blocked coincidentally just before you showed up. If you'd like to discuss the article, take it to the talk page. If you'd like to discuss anything else, I'd suggest you get a wikipedia ID so you'll have a talk page, as your IP has changed since the beginning of your discussions. Dayewalker (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Waccolon has stated on my talk page that he is the subject of the article Willie Colón. He has been adding unsourced additions, as well as some peacock terms. He openly admits that he doesnt understand the full procedures re: wikipedia entries, but he states that the article is "his resume"... which might cause an issue. Just an FYI. I'll let him know about this post. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article deleted via AfD. --MCB (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Vincebethel has been the primary editor for Vince Palamara; in fact, Vincebethel even claims to be Vince (see the comments for his user contribitions). This is getting a bit out of hand. Should he be allowed to edit his own biography in this manner? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was amused to see the section on his guitar playing. It seems to be mostly unverifiable (personal correspondence between the subject and others) and non-notable, e.g. playing guitar on cable access or YouTube is worth mentioning? --C S (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Much of his biography is unverifiable. He's not even a published author (unless you count his ebooks.) Is this something that would fall under "vanity"? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is now at AfD. Regardless of the COI issues as such, I don't believe the subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article. --MCB (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• BrentWiki2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has created what is probably an autobiography at Brent Littlefield and has removed "autobiography" and "notability" tags placed by two different editors. Only other edits consist of adding references to Brent Littlefield at Pollie Awards, American Association of Political Consultants, University of Maine, National Federation of Independent Business. Brent Littlefield doesn't necessarily need to be deleted (it's hard to tell at the moment), but the user's passion for self-promotion makes me doubtful about the validity of the notability expressed in the article and they won't engage on talk pages. Movingboxes (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There's clearly some COI here, but that's not the article's biggest problem. I suspect this would fail AFD due to serious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NOT. It's only 1 day old, so I would give the article (and the author) a few days to see if any improvement can be done. If not, AfD is the place to get the community's consensus on it. Arakunem^Talk 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the input. I was more concerned about the author's refusal to let any tags stay on the article, but it looks like multiple editors are looking at the article now and the problem will resolve itself however is best. Movingboxes (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Idiomag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Marginally notable website, created by single-use editor Idiogirl, written much like an advertisement.

Timestamp. MER-C 09:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All COI affected pages deleted. MER-C 02:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Mgover77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created his own article about himself, Michael Governale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and created two articles on computer products, Flopsy The Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Giggles Computer Funtime for Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both in which he has been involved in making. MuZemike (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Governale. MER-C 10:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Flopsy The Dog and Giggles Computer Funtime for Baby have both been tagged for speedy deletion (G11 - blatant advertising/spam). MuZemike (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Both have been G11'd. MuZemike (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Shyambhagat was the creator and (except for minor editors) the maintainer of the entry on Rajeev Masand. As his user talk page admits, he is in fact Rajeev. The bio article is mainly a vanity piece. That being said, unlike Vince Palamara, Masand is a movie review critic for CNN-IBN, a television channel in India, so I don't think notability is an issue. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Masand. MER-C 09:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Not a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE TO GO WITH THIS. There is some very suspicious (and racist) behavior by one (perhaps socketpuppetry) or two editors advocating terrorism of the July 2005 Bombings on this page. The admin has blocked content change. Please help. I am new to wiki and dont know how to fight them Do not let the terrorists win--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion page and left a message. Movingboxes (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming tedious. Accusations of sockpuppetry are severe, not to mention completely unfounded in this case. Nor was my comment about finding a Polish editor racist; the user in question is self-described as Polish, and I felt that someone speaking to her in her native language would have more success at explaining the numerous Wikipedia policies she doesn't understand. The accusation of advocating terrorism is beneath contempt. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say view it as closed here. Whatever this is (mainly content dispute), it's not remotely a COI issue. It has also been inappropriately raised at Wikiquette alerts [7], and is now being addressed as a conduct matter at WP:ANI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an issue that requires any COI investigation. There seems to be a consensus at ANI that this editor will be blocked if she continues in this vein. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Irvinghexham User_talk:Irvinghexham

User has a clear conflict of interest in his numerous edits to Irving Hexham and his wife Karla Poewe (whose article he began) his edits are disruptive and he has removed templates and citation tags without discussion. Teapotgeorge (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This editor has also added his works and his wife's to lists, and added fulsome praise of his wife's work, on Christian apologetics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User has acknowledged his connections to the articles and does seem to be working with the community on the talk pages to maintain NPOV. Arakunem^Talk 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Irving Hexham writes: Actually, I did not think that my comment in the article "Christian Apologetis" was "fulsome praise", of my "wife's work." But, I can see how it can be interpreted in that way and agree that these comments needed to be deleted. They were placed there before I was conversant with the rules governing Wikipeadia.

As far as the charge of that I was involved in a "conflict of interest" goes when I edited my wife's page three things may be said:

First, I plead guilty to not reading Wikipeadia rules in the first place.

Second, Wikipedia guidelines state that a: "conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor ... in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." They also add "no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists" and "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias."

Therefore, it seems to me that while my tone may not have been "neutral" enough it was not my intention to "promote" my or Karla's "interests" in a way incompatible with the "the aim of Wikipedia." Rather, it was to inform readers, particularly students, about her research.

Thirdly, all of my recent edits were in response to requests for verifiable citations which I attempted to provide to avoid the charge of "original research or unverifiable claims."

Finally, I apologize for my misunderstanding and am trying to understand Wikipeadia rules so that I avoid such things in the future. Irving Hexham (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• AfreeUsername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This new user is adding ((db-spam)) CSD notices to articles relating to web hosting companies, after apparently having his/her own article (BurlyHost.com) deleted. Scjessey (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Another admin has undone all of this editor's remaining G11 tags, and I left a warning at User talk:AfreeUsername. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• neiln4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Neiln4 is apparently Neil Nickolds, a contributor to Emporis.com (a commercial real estate company), who has been linking external reports written under his byline as references in numerous articles example diff, but see Contribs. He has also been adding linkspam (e.g., ref 14 and ref 11) from Patriot Aviation, which he may work for. In all cases I’ve examined, none of these entries is properly used as a reference citation in their respective articles. He seems to have stopped adding material after he was notified that his Patriot Aviation article was deleted as advertising, but his contributions to these other articles needs to be cleaned up. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this editor's contribution list, and it's disconcerting. I suggest that we remove *all* the links to Emporis.com that he added unless they are being used as references for actual statements in the article text. The Emporis pages are clogged with advertising and slow to load, so these links will not be a great loss. I'd welcome opinions from other editors. You can get the general idea if you just look at one or two of the Emporis pages. For example, open the last external link on M-Towers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the links not already removed by Ahunt. That's basically all of Neiln4's edits this year; only his original Dec. 2007 edits were constructive. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Terry Fugate-Wilcox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Actual Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 76.248.147.100 (talk · contribs)
• 99.12.242.53 (talk · contribs) - adds info identifying as "I" [8]
• 99.184.131.222 (talk · contribs) - identifies as uploader Fvlcrvm of this image [9]
• Fvlcrvm (talk · contribs) - self-identified in Wikimedia as Tery Fulgate-Wilcox [10] and later as Valerie Shakespeare [11] - his wife.

A group of accounts with very similar edit summary style, some which have self-identified as Terry Fulgate-Wilcox. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Terry Fugate-Wilcox is well-organized, has lots of good images and is not too promotional. Actual Art seems to need work on organization but the exposition is clear enough. Does anyone see a serious problem with either of these? Is there any support for deletion? One unusual touch is that the woman in Image:Weathering-wood-pc.jpg who is standing next to the wood sculpture is not fully dressed. There is no comment in the text about why this is appropriate or at all relevant to the art work (Image was uploaded by Fvlcrvm on August 20). EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I passed them to WikiProject Visual arts, and some editors from there have much improved them since my report above. However, the COI editing is still an issue. Fvlcrvm just signed as Valerie Shakespeare [12] who's an associate of Terry Fugate-Wilcox - his wife, in fact! - and founder of the Actual Art Foundation that sponsored his latest work. This is all a bit too close to home to be directly editing the article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that I am married to Tery Fugate-Wilcox, but I am also very involved in the art world, with many galleries, on the committees of several museums, etc. The artworld is unique in that we do not consider other galleries to be competitors, often working with each other. Many artists that I exhibited also showed with other galleries, as well. I feel a strong kinship with many artists, regardless of who they show with. I have tried, (& will try harder) to write only factual material, chosen & written without bias. I should point out, however, that all writing about art is biased, in one way or another. All critics either like the work or find fault with it & that is OK, even with the artist. Many a great career was built on "negative" criticism. Jackson Pollack being a prime example. It even got so a favorable review by certain critics was the "kiss of death" for an artist. I have to admit I think the work of Terry Fugate-Wilcox & all the Actual Artists is wonderful. But I honestly feel the same way about hundreds of other artists, as well. I love art. I can't help that. But I can write about it in an unbiased way & I do appreciate Wikipedia's need to keep their articles as unbiased as possible. Fvlcrvm (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC) regardless of the gallery they exhibit with.

One more thing: Someone said there are "a group of accounts with very similar edit summary style, some which have self-identified as Terry Fulgate-Wilcox". I have only one account, "Fvlcrvm". That is the account I asked Terry to put the redirect for his own name on. I don't know who has the other accounts. Did they edit TFW too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvlcrvm (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that I am married to Tery Fugate-Wilcox, but

We can forget everything after the "but". This close relationship to the subject means you should be following the WP:COI guidelines, which come down to saying you should help via the Talk page.

I don't know who has the other accounts. Did they edit TFW too?

Yes: click on the links provided at the top of this section. Looks to me like the same people editing without logging in: some actually identified themselves. For instance "added info & links & changed default search to last name only, since I am known both as Terry & Tery" is hardly open to doubt. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I already addressed that issue. Since my redirect from names that Tery Fugate-Wilcox actully uses & is known by kept being deleted, Tery did write a request that the redirects be allowed, since no one who knows him would find him under the spelling the Wikipedia article used.

As I said before, neither of us wrote or initiated the article. I only tried to add information that I thought would be of intertest to anyone looking up that name: specifically by adding photographs. I cannot understand how such photos could be added, except by us, since "entirely my own work" seems to be the main source of photography that is certain to avoid copyright issues. I guarantee you that if I discovered an article about myself or about my gallery, I would feel compelled to add any information I could to better that article, as well.

By the way, I am shocked to discover there is no article about Virginia Dwan or the famous Dwan Gallery of the '60's & '70's. She was a major force in the artworld & original patron of Minimalism, Conceptual Art, Earth/Environmental Art. I am not competent or knowledgeable enough to do it. Is there anyway I could put the suggestion out there for some one else to act on? 76.248.147.100 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the advice of Gordonofcartoon, used the link he/she offered & read closely the article on conflict of interest. The article was very specific about close relations taking great care to avoid bias. I noticed, however that there is no ban on editing by people close, even very close to the subject, provided they carefully maintain neutrality.

I have tried to write "Just the facts, ma'am" & hope I have succeeded. I appreciate any help or advice on that & will comply with any suggestions.76.248.147.100 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"No ban" is not carte blanche to edit. Being the wife of the subject is about as major a conflict of interest as it gets, and it's hard to believe anyone could write/edit entirely neutrally about their spouse. The suggestion is, you comply with the WP:COI guidelines and help via the Talk page only.

If you want to create an article about Virginia Dwan, that'd be great; there's no conflict of interest there. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I am not qualified to do so, (write an article about Dwan). I would, however like to propose it for someone more qualified. I suppose I could do a stub, maybe others would pick up on that.

You will notice that other editors wrote that the article on TFW was NOT too promotional. When I added references & images, I wrote NO OPINIONS whatsoever about the work, only telling the facts about public works done & uploading images of those works. I repeat: I see no conflict of interest there & other editors seem to agree. It is not as if this is a controvesial subject, with pros & cons being expressed. It is nothing more than a biography of an artist who did some public artworks; what they were, where they were & what was written about them. That information could be added by anyone who knows the information & has access to the images, without copyright issues... even the artist, himself.

As long as no promotional information, or expression of opinion is added, I see no COI, even in other articles I have noticed listed here. The guidelines do not restrict close friends/relatives to "help via the Talk page only". How could one upload any images for an article via a talk page?

I apologize for being so argumentative, but I set out to help Wikipedia, in good faith, & am still certain that I have done no wrong. I bettered the stub article with information, references & images...nothing more.

If Wikipedia really believes that is wrong, simply because of my unique position to have the facts, references & images, then I give up. I won't try to help any more, & believe me, your coverage of the artworld is woefully inadequate. You need all the help you can get! (See Jackson Pollock Robert Smithson Michael Heiser Jasper Johns ..I could go on all day.)Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The best move would be for you to discuss it with WikiProject Visual arts, where they have a deal of experience in what formats and what participation role are appropriate - and certainly they're always interested in informed views on new arts articles that'd be worth creating. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts.

I appreciate that you don't mean it to be promotional, but nevertheless the selection of material can be unconsciously promotional. I'm looking in particular at the section on the San Andreas Fault Sculpture Project. It's not a encyclopedic description of the work; it reads like a press release, bursting with superlatives to engage our enthusiasm (see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms)...

The acre of concrete will weigh 65,000 tons & will loom 20 feet high, 188 feet wide & 232 feet long on the floor the desert. The sculpture will employ low-exothermic air-entrained concrete which has been tested as one of the most durable construction materials known to man. The concrete, seemingly impossible to violate will be torn apart by the power in the Earth, like a piece of tissue paper etc

much of which comes verbatim from the promotional site [13]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I went back to change that & saw that someone else had already changed it. Thank you for that too. I really am trying to get the hang of being a good Wikipedian, but as i mentioned before to another editor who helped a great deal with the references, I am just newly computer literate, at 64, so I appreciate all the help I can get. Thanks again, Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's just an issue of "house style". Nothing at all wrong with promoting in a promotional context, but Wikipedia style needs to be lower-key. Also, as we can cross-reference to other articles, explanations can be terser because you can just link - say, to plate tectonics - rather than explaining from scratch. Still, this is content talk, which really goes on the Talk page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article deleted therefore problem solved--Jac16888 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Teancum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an apparent conflict of interest in the article Star wars battlefront conversion pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The lead of the article reads as follows: "It is being created by a team from the Gametoast community, led by Teancum." (diff) MuZemike (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't show that this conversion pack has much notability, and unofficial conversions rarely are, have you considered simply afd'ing it? I can't see it surviving one--Jac16888 (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Article has been prodded. If it's contested, (my guess is that it will be) then I will take it to AfD. MuZemike (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I temporarily blocked user:Richardcheese2 per the username policy, pending OTRS verification. Interestingly, the same user both claimed to be, and not to be, Richard Cheese, and was removing material from the Richard Cheese article. That user has not, apparently, provided verification. However, an unregistered user, User:71.102.69.42, has now taken up where the other user left off, editing the article and related pages about the person, and claiming to be that person.

WP:UN doesn't mention anything about anons making claims, only about user names, which is why I'm hesitant to block him. He's not adding contested information, and he's not currently making the exact same edits as the other account, although he has no current need to because the page currently reflects his preferred revision (which was done uncontroversially). But he posts frequent remarks in which he claims to be the person. I'm not sure if there's any conflict of interest exactly, at least not at this point, but what to do in this situation? Request verification from the anon user? Remove claims by the anon of being that person? Temp block the anon pending OTRS verification? Ignore it? Something else? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that he is who he claims to be: Obviously the potential for COI exists, but the edits both accounts have made have been to remove contentious information from a BLP, which is after all, policy, unless that info comes from a reliable source (i.e., more than the blogspace that was cited). Until that happens, I don't think we have a COI here. I do think that verifying the user's identity as you have suggested should be done, as this will determine the course of action regarding removal of the identity claims. If it turns out that the identity claim is false, then the WP:UN issue should be addressed, but the edits to the article still seem to be inline with BLP.Arakunem^Talk 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I know the onus is on the user to prove his identity, but perhaps it is not out of scope to initiate the contact in this case, since the user acknowledges much lack of understanding of Wikipedia procedures. And unless it's been fixed, the IP may never see the notice that he has a message on his talk page, so may not even know that we're waiting on him to contact OTRS. The email address he gave for his contact does match with the publicised email from the LATM website, so it would not require much in the way of digging to initiate that contact. Just a thought... Arakunem^Talk 16:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was less a COI concern than a what-to-do-in-this-situation concern. I've left messages on both his talk pages and another user has left a message on the article talk page regarding the process for providing verification. It's interesting too that the original account made post both claiming to be RC and suggesting that he wasn't. The latest impassioned post on the article talk page suggests it might be him after all. I guess we'll see. In the meantime, I haven't blocked the anon account; hopefully he'll just provide verification and we can move on. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article deleted

Georgia Wildlife Resources Division was written by GAWRDpr (talk · contribs), Obvious COI problem. Corvus cornix_talk 20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

problem has been solved, calling this resolved TravellingCari 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Egbertus (talk · contribs)
• Visitor22 (talk · contribs)

Affected articles:

• d'Alembert's paradox
• Navier–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness
• Navier–Stokes equations

(there are very long discussion on all these pages...)

Last year, the first article started being edited extensively by User:Visitor22 (see also User:Visitor222). This account admitted to being one of the authors of a paper by Hoffman and Johnson (Hoffman in particular), which featured heavily in these edits. This paper in its current form (as it is not yet published, see below) proposes a resolution to the paradox that is at odds with the mainstream view. There are not yet any citations or references to this paper except by the authors who are also including it in a book manuscript.

These edits were questioned by one editor who pointed out some issues with them. Later, another editor removed them and explained his problem with the edits on the talk page. Thus a dialogue was started between Visitor22 (Hoffman) and this last editor. While the discussion got somewhat technical on the merits of the paper, the resulting conclusion of this editor was that the work did not satisfy Wikipedia's policies requiring reliable sources that would demonstrate this is a significant view or one even deserving of a little mention. At this point, User:Egbertus appeared, who argued for inclusion of this material. Other editors were asked to comment, so I (and something like 4 other editors) made our comments. We agreed that the sourcing was not adequate. In fact, the paper does not appear to have even passed through a final acceptance yet, and the initial acceptance letter from the editor states that the language must be made less pompous and the claims should be weakened so that only a possible resolution to the paradox is proposed. I know this because the senior author has made this material availabe on his website (see Talk:Navier–Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Removed_section_.22Proposed_resolutions.22). At this point, Egbertus has traveled to several other Wikipedia pages, trying to insert mentions of this work.

Currently d'Alembert's paradox does not mention the work (as its inclusion was reverted by me and others), but Egbertus has been carefully crafting it to cast doubt on the mainstream view. It is clear from comments from other knowledagble editors in the subject and indeed the referee reports on the senior author's website, that there is virtually no doubt of the mainstream view in the fluid mechanics community. Nonetheless Egbertus refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia policy, stating that he believes Wikipedia needs to discuss frontier knowledge rather than relying on second-hand information.

Egbertus has been challenged several times to clarify his relation to the authors. Indeed, when I commented that I wondered if Hoffman knew what was going on here, Visitor22 showed up very quickly to make a comment. Egbertus has refused to answer or deny charges of COI. It is obvious s/he has a lot invested in promoting this work. Egbertus has been notified of the COI policy (but again, I doubt careful attention was paid to it). Can someone with some official standing here, e.g. an admin, warn this user to stop pushing this work on Wikipedia? I have better things to do than keep an eye on this person. --C S (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put forward my arguments at length on the talk pages, and do not repeat them here. I understand now that WP is not for scientists with first hand expertize, but for some other competence, maybe expert competence on the rules of WP as exercised by CS.

I am very surprised and certainly view WP very differently now than before. The d'Alembert article was a complete mess before Visitor22 entered, and I suppose the article will now be reverted to mess again. I understand that some people do not like the present version, even without any ref to HJ, because it tells a truth which is not so impressive. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I have learned something.Egbertus (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When I pointed Egbertus towards the possibilities of a conflict of interest for the first time, Egbertus initial response was in terms of "our interests", see this diff. Which response was altered shortly afterwards. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Crowsnest has rewritten the article opening to the new resolution proposed by HJ, without any reference to HJ. This is not science but just corrupt politics. Is there nobody on WP who does not like things like this? The various versions of the WP article are presented on the book web page [14] and show the coordinated effort by a group of wiki editors including CS and Crowsnest to suppress information and delete HJ from the WP world. It seems they have succeeded, but there are other worlds.Egbertus (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand this is an admittance that you are intimately related to Hoffman & Johnson, and that you have a conflict of interest.

You are of course free to believe that Wikipedia and the fluid mechanics community are conspiracing against you. But perhaps it is more effective — if you want to get your research published and discover new routes to the resolution of scientific problems — to consider the given critique and remarks with an open mind: there may be something of help and value in it. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I note with satisfaction that you are tilting towards the new resolution, and expect that you put in the proper references to the work by HJ. Yes, I try to have an open mind and hope that you have that as well. I think we share a common interest in advancing science and the way science is presented to a general audience, although I will choose other channels than WP. Best Egbertus (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC).

It is of interest that the German Wikipedia's article on d'Alembert's paradox continues to celebrate the wonderful success of Hoffman and Johnson in solving the problem. On March 8, 2007 an IP editor added an external link to their article with the title, "Finally: resolution of d'Alembert's Paradox". (That was the only edit on de.wiki by this IP). Unfortunately that article's Talk page is blank. I wonder if the German wiki has their own conflict of interest noticeboard? EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have an obligation to delete HJ completely from WP, including the German version. Go ahead EdJohnston. Crowsnest raises the possibility of a conspiracy against HJ behind the complete deletion of any ref. to their work, but does not deny that this is actually what goes on. Well, well.Egbertus (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As indicated by Egbertus in this diff, "...I change to Knol...", a new-written article appeared on D'Alembert's paradox at Knol. It is written by Claes Johnson, and gives Johan Hoffman as co-author. Simultaneous (within minutes) with the appearance of the new article on Knol, Egbertus added an external link to the d'Alembert's paradox article. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Crowsnest plays detective, but should better concentrate on putting together a comprehensible article on d'Alembert's paradox. After revision by Crowsnest it is a hopeless mess without conclusion and information value. What is a reader of this article supposed to get out from the concluding sentence: ..."resolutions are still lacking, but might be found using the mechanisms proposed by Prandtl (thin viscous boundary layers), Birkhoff (inviscid flow instability) or combinations thereof". Is WP a playgound for speculation by people who are not well informed and deliver nonsense?Egbertus (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

His main contributions have been two highly laudatory biographies of two rather obscure personalities: Edward_Mendelson, and P._W._Bill_Bailey_III. Practically the entire CV of Mendelson is on that page. Prof. Hugh also made Bill Bailey a "type designed" even though copying the fonts from some HP cartdriges in Metafont hardly qualifies one as a type designer. He did not list a single typeface designed by Bill Bailey.

So, Professor_Hugh likely is one of those individuals or he is closely associated with both of them. I'm requesting that his user page be tagged as such. His only contributions have been two very non-NPOV bio articles. VasileGaburici (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Edwin Freeman page was created by Efreeman.fcg (talk · contribs). I'm strongly leaning towards nominating the article for AfD, since the only role this actor has ever played that had a name he's something like 13th billed. But I wanted feedback before doing so. Corvus cornix_talk 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:TTUP - User:TTUP is going around to random pages and adding bibliographic entries to Texas Tech University Press publications: [[15]]. The entries are in some cases relevant, and in other cases only tangentially relevant. This user's editing appears to be a form of advertising by this press.Verklempt (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• In no way were we trying to simply advertise our books. We felt that Wikipedia would be a good place to list reliable references for anybody interested in a particular field. However, we will be more careful about this in the future. Sorry. TTUP (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your excuse seems disingenuous to me, given the fact that you're only adding references to your own employer's product line. This is evidence enough of spam advertising. If your employer's books turn out to be useful, they will be added in due course by other editors without your efforts.Verklempt (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If they're directly relevant, why not allow it? I would draw a stern line at anything not clearly relevant, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.104.91 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Standard link/user info and tracking URL follow. MER-C 09:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.ttup.ttu.edu

• ttup.ttu.edu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

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

• Vantage Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I suspect articles on clients of this company may need to be considered for COI issues and some potential spamminess. This morning, I came across changes by MarieLG (talk · contribs) at Asphalt plant that inserted some information about Intelleflex Corporation, which was also created by the same user. The changes involved adding to discussion of control involving RFID, and a reference to an obvious product release placed in a trade magazine. Some poking around suggested a connection with Vantage Communications, and with some investigation I turned up this blog entry from earlier this month indicating that the company is "leveraging" Wikipedia to benefit its clients. Quote: "We use it as a platform to develop a simple, easy-to-understand definition of what our clients do and to give them a stronger online presence." While some of the connected articles are okay, I'm uncertain about the notability of Columbitech, for example, and Vantage itself. Other related users appear to be MIvantage (talk · contribs) (created Xelerated), Marshall.rachel (talk · contribs), and probably others. I suggest some editors knowledgeable about COI take a look at these editors and at other Vantage clients (there aren't many listed on the website, but there's some) to ensure we don't have some surreptitious marketing going on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• User:Waynegerdes - A new user with the name "Waynegerdes" has made 10 edits so far and counting to the article Hypermiling. Some of these edits have already been reverted. The article, which was created beforehand, describes Wayne Gerdes, and Wayne Gerdes already redirects to this article. Though there is no evidence this user is really Wayne Gerdes who is behind this user, the account so far is a WP:SPA. Sebwite (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Update: User:Waynegerdes has now written on the talk page of Hypermiling, and admitted that is who he is. He signed his comment at the bottom: Wayne Gerdes - Owner/Admin of CleanMPG.com Sebwite (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

HughTheA4AndFriends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hugh The A4 and friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The COI is self-explanatory. User also made an extraordinary (and blatantly uncivil) threat on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh The A4 and friends to delete all Wikipedia articles (this will be reported in other venues). MuZemike (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article deleted; user page fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Indian Society for Trenchless Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Niranjanswarup (edit | [[Talk:User:Niranjanswarup|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- promotional user page
• Niranjanswarup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The creator and principal editor of this article, Niranjanswarup (read his user page - I'm tempted to create a "Best CV masquerading as a Wikipedia User page Award"), states that he is the Executive Director of the subject of the article. The article was once prodded, and the ((prod)) removed by this editor. It may well be that the subject is notable enough, but this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If a COI-affected editor creates an article that is informative, neutral and well-sourced we usually don't mind. The problem is that such an editor is more likely to write a promotional and unbalanced article. That's what seems to have happened here. I suggest that you nominate this article for WP:AFD. We already have an article on Trenchless technology that seems worthwhile, but this Indian Society does not seem to have inspired any full-length articles in any reliable sources. It's notability can't be shown. When I Googled I only saw a few passing mentions, and one press release. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Added WP:PROD. Since the creator of the article has been recently active, we will soon know if he can come up with any reliable sources. User:Niranjanswarup has been notified of this WP:COIN discussion but has not yet responded. I agree that the promotional nature of his User page is also a concern. If he responds here we can discuss that with him as well. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear All, First I would like to mention that the remarks on the page had asked that if I was the creator of this page I should not take offence and edit the text to address the concerns and remove the deletion notice. Was the webmaster required to edit that comment & I understood it incorrectly? I am sorry if that is the case. Regarding the promotional nature as has been indicated, it is clarified hat Indian Society for Trenchless Technology is a not-for-profit organization promoting Trenchless Technology in India. There are numorous Trechless projects under execution in India presently. Government of India is executing a complete project mission titled Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) which is using Trenchless in a major way in 63 cities across India. Total proposed investment in this mission is exceeding US$ 28 billion. (http://jnnurm.nic.in/) In addition the Gas Transmission and distribution company GAIL India Limited is Investing US$ 50 billion in major pipelines. (http://www.gail.nic.in/homepage/homenew.htm) In addition to these there are several other oil & gas companies developing their infrastructure where they require such technology. Telecom sector is another user sector where a major investment is being made. To verify the need one can google jnnurm/jnurm or 'trenchless in India'. The results would speak for themselves. With such huge demand it is natural that WP should provide information about Indian Society for Trenchless Technology to its visitor.(Niranjanswarup) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Really you should find press accounts of these activities that you can add to the article. If we don't see legitimate references there, the article may wind up being deleted. Even if trenchless technology is being used, according to your personal knowledge, we need to see an extremely specific URL so that it can be confirmed. A web site like http://jnnurm.nic.in is not very persuasive unless you tell us what page to look at. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No article => no problem. MER-C 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hguols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an article of a computer game titled Diadem of Maunstraut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user made the game himself/herself as shown in a posting on a forum here. This was discovered during a relisted AfD discussion for said article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diadem of Maunstraut). MuZemike (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – per Travellingcari Arakunem^Talk 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cimbali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created by someone from the company, using the company name so not hiding it, first edit summary says (Cimbali page upload). Doug Weller (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

user is blocked as a spam user name TravellingCari 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – per below Arakunem^Talk 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Casella Waste Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MichaelCasella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 208.254.40.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clear COI, new account likely previously editing as the IP who was also repeatedly inserting copyvio PR spam and deleting without explanation. User welcomed and warned, but worth keeping an eye on if someone has the time today. TravellingCari 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The article seems neutral and not promotional now, last edit on the 27th. Arakunem^Talk 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article speedied as below Arakunem^Talk 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Metznblitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Merchant Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) who is also the creator of the online game itself as well as an admin on the game's forum here. User has declined both a speedy deletion of the article (per G7) and a prod; the article is currently being AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merchant Empires. MuZemike (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i am not the creator of this game but a player since 2000 actually playing it
I am not an admin of this game and / or forum game, just an old player helping to
create an guide for new players at wiki document and
well seems that i dont got "lucky" trying get an article about this game here as is
Ogame article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metznblitz (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 

Article has been speedily deleted per G12 (blatant copyright infringement). MuZemike (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – per my below comments Arakunem^Talk 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Christopher George Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has recently been significantly revised by Communications MMPI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the name of the company of which Kennedy is President. Some of the additions are OK, some not. Rather than revert, I've done some cleanup and NPOV work, but more is needed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I just realized I misread the dates. For "recently" read "quite a while ago". . . Still, another eye on the article would greatly be appreciated. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That user has been banned as a promotional-only account. Your edits to restore NPOV look good, though additional cleanup is needed as you say. I'll tag it as such, so it shows up in the appropriate categories for the little wikignomes to have at it. Arakunem^Talk 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hammes Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article is written by User:Hammes, whose sole contributions is to this article. I and other users have attempted to mark this page with ((Template:COI)), but two users whose only edits at the time of this writing are at this article, User:66.162.118.90 and User:Fernandez315, are claiming that there's no conflict of interest apparent and are reverting any edits to add the COI tag to it. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article is up for AFD now, for COI and notability concerns. If it survives, we can re-visit it to ensure that the editors abide by NPOV if they wish to continue editing it. Arakunem^Talk 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – WP:RBI as spam. Arakunem^Talk 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Player82 spams with links to a (now deleted) blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't really know there's a COI here, unless we can positively tie the user to the blog, company, etc, though I will invoke WP:DUCK here. In any case, his links are spammy and irrelevant (being dead links), so your revert was appropriate. If they continue, they should be reverted as spam links and the user warned appropriately. If they continue past there, WP:AIV is the place for the next escalation. Thanks for your vigilance!

Resolved

 – No COI here Arakunem^Talk 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As of this writing, both pages claim that Google has released a beta of Google Chrome for Windows. Haven't checked on who or when on the Google Chrome page, but the diff says September 2 for the WebKit page, made by an anonymous IP address user, origin Deutsche Telekom. The Google Chrome Wikipedia page claims in the article that the release was made on September 2. Whoops! The page was just changed to say the release was made September 3, but the download is still not there on the Google Chrome web site.

However, at the time of this writing the Wikipedia article link to a Google Chrome page where the app release is supposedly to be found leads to a site where the download link for the software still points back to the site home page. My understanding is that Google Chrome is in fact due to be released later today, September 3. But it has not happened yet.

The Google Chrome page on Wikipedia also currently has a screengrab depicting Wikipedia displayed on Chrome running on Windows Vista. The source of the screengrab is unattributed. And there have been a flood of changes in the last few minutes while I was writing this post. Notice the dates of the footnote references.

These factors cause me to suspect that the two pages are being edited by persons with conflicts of interest preparing for the launch of Google Chrome later today. I discovered these page anomalies while researching for source materials on Google chrome because I had acquired information the product was scheduled for beta release today. Unfortunately, I lack the time to correct information that may well be accurate by the time I am done editing in any event.

But I suggest that these pages be critically examined for advertising and conflict of interest editing. I am not an enemy of either WebKit or Google Chrome. In fact I am genuinely interested in them and plan to take Chrome for a test drive as soon as it is released. However, I believe that events should not be described as having occurred when they have not yet happened. Wikipedi, ideally, is always accurate. Marbux (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It was released on September 2 (September 3 in Australia). http://www.google.com/chrome and if that redirects to Google's home page then it must be cached on your side (I have it on my system already). Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The link in the Wikipedia Chrome article is to the same URL you give. However, on that site, the software download link is on this page and still links back to the same URL you link. I never visited that URL until a few hours ago and I have repeatedly refreshed the page in my browser (Firefox 2.x). Since reading your post, I have tried the same URL in Opera and get the same result. I had never before visited that site in Opera. I am not being referred to Google's home page. I apologize for my sloppy use of the phrase "home page." From here, the download link points back to the same URL you identify, which I more accurately should have referred to as the "product home page."

I cannot verify either the information in the article or in your post using the link that you provide and that is used in the Wikipedia Chrome article as the source of the information that Chrome was released on September 2. When I view the page at the URL you provide, I see no mention that Chrome was released on September 2 and the download link for the software on the "further information" sub-page points back to the same URL you provide.

I do not wish to question your word and do not rule out the possibility that there is some internet trait I have never heard of that might produce an ability to download the software from Australia from the same site that has no download when viewed from the U.S. However, the diff page I linked says in the pre-edit portion that the release was scheduled for September 3, not September 2. Likewise, the Webkit Wikipedia page states that the release happened on September 3, but the referencing footnotes, 31 and 32, point to sites that contain no such information.

Cutting in the other direction, there is a Google press release datedlined September 2 from Mountainview, California (same time zone as me), stating that the product was released. And there is a very short [16]post on Google's blog] dated September 2 stating that the product was released and pointing readers to the same URL we both are discussing to download it.

All of this information cannot be accurate. The software either was released or was not and if released it was on a specific date. The Chrome article gives one date. The WebKit article gives another. I cannot definitively determine either whether or when the software was actually released with contradictory evidence and an inability to download the software from the URL we discuss or its subpages.

However, I can state definitively that I cannot verify the accuracy of the relevant information given in either of the Wikipedia articles using the information sources referenced in them; I can find no download link for the software on the site all seem to agree is where it should be other than a link pointing back to the product home page of the same Chrome site; and the two Wikipedia articles give different dates for the same event.

Given the contradictory relevant information and my inability to verify any of it, I would appreciate it if you might post the URL for the specific web page from which you downloaded the software. Something, perhaps more than one thing, needs fixed somewhere. :-) Marbux (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about? Chrome was available since around 2008-09-02 18:50 UTC, when the page http://www.google.com/chrome/ (which includes a download link) was activated. Simply do a search on any news source and you will probably see most of them mentioning Chrome and the release date. Maybe you are confused by the fact that Google planned to release this on 3 Sep but ultimately released in earlier? SmilingBoy (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Viewed from here in Oregon, there is no download URL link on this page. Sub-pages of the page at that URL have a download link title in the left sidebar, but the URL in that link points to http://www.google.com/chrome rather than to a download. But I am encountering more and more evidence that the software has in fact been released. My current guess is that there is a cache of pages on the internet somewhere between me and the Google server that has not been updated since before the launch, or another glitch between me and the page server. 24.20.204.191 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This really should be discussed on the respective articles' talk pages. I looked through the editing history of both articles, and I don't see any evidence of a COI in either case (edits made by someone at Google corporate, for example). If there are, please provide the diffs showing the relationship between the editors and the topics. This looks more like a concern over the verifiability of the dates listed, which is really for the articles' editors to work out on the talk pages. Arakunem^Talk 14:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm now leaning in the direction of proclaiming a technical glitch outside Wikipedia that is showing different versions of some web pages with particular URLS in different regions of the world. See above. For some unkown reason I am still getting what is apparently a pre-Chrome launch version of those pages in my browsers that linked from the Download link title to the parent page rather than to a download.

I believe my original post here was justified by the fact that folks are getting different results from the same URL in different parts of the world. From here, along with the information that was on the WebKit page that the launch had been scheduled for September 3, the fact that there was no download at the URL linked from Wikipedia created the appearance to me that folks were prepping Wikipedia pages for a product launch that had not yet occurred, saying that the product had been launched when everything I could see said that it was not yet available and was not scheduled to be available at that time. I don't think it was a giant mental leap under the circumstances to suspect COI and advertising. I agree that there is no obvious COI issue now and that the remaining issues should be resolved on the relevant pages rather than here. 24.20.204.191 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Someone even speculates that google has intentionally leaked the browser. Alternatively, they are making the link available at some locations but not in others. In any case, there is no reason to believe there is any COI here on Wikipedia, just confusion. Vesal (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More than confusion. Folks in different regions of the globe aren't getting the same version of a page at the same URL. I still see no download on the page others are downloading from. Just a Download link title but the link is a URL for a page rather than a URI for a download. My guess is that it's a technical glitch on the internet that is delivering me a pre-product launch version of the page. Google has a Firefox service that loads pages from Google's page caches rather than from the URL location to get faster response times. I'm going to turn that on and see if the page I get is any different.

It's conceivable to me that Google is delivering the post-Chrome launch download page from its page cache service prior to going live on the real URL, to slow the Chrome download rate for awhile before putting the same content at the URL given in the Wikipedia articles. If I recall correctly, that Firefox service caches pages at different regional centers. Wouldn't surprise me if Google has a similar service for MSIE. I never looked. Tried the service for a few days, but turned it off because you get URLs in the browser location bar that are different from the source page's original URL. I create a lot of hyperlinks, and prefer linking to the source pages rather than to Google's cache of them.

Also might be that Comcast (my ISP) has cached pages and hasn't updated its cache of heavily used pages since before the Chrome product launch (Comcast does cache pages ). I've never knowingly experienced this before. Can't say that I know enough about the technical inner workings of the Internet to say there are no other technical possibilities to explain the problem. I just know that from here in Springfield, Oregon, I'm not getting the same page other folks are getting from the same URL. 24.20.204.191 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone with multiple ips and sockpuppet accounts has been editing this article, whoever is editing the page is either herself or some people paid on her behalf. These editors continuously add information from her website and external links to it, with the intend of promoting her website and book. They have been editing the Spanish wikipedia also.

--205.181.102.108 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wandsworth Parks Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - TopCat666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a constable employed by Wandsworth Borough Council. Article talk has long running disputes over almost everything. User ignores reports from other councils used as references though clearly relevant, personally attacks (myself and others) and launches general accusations of POV pushing (though unable to tell me what my alleged POV is...). ninety:one 18:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User 91 has tried everything he can to get his personal view endorsed onto the article. He has reported TopCat666 to his employer, he has solicited other Wikipedians in a campaign against TopCat666. This is now the latest example, he has added numerous templates accusing various problems with the article and TopCat. He has been warned by admin for his POV's and accusing the Wandsworth Parks Police of breaking the law. Which he has done again. He appears to have made another username up, TOA63 in attempt to give Wikipedians the false impression this is someone independent. I suspect he is using both names because of only a three minute gap between two postings on the discussion page between the two usernames. He also falsely reports replies on the discussion page and is ignoring independent edits from admin Chrislk02, McGeddon, Timothy Titus and others. User 91 is bulling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying) in his edits and this should not be allowed to continue. I am actually quite new to Wiki as an editor if this needs to be forwarded to another area of Wiki, i.e. complaints etc please point me in the right direction. Wandsworth Police Officer (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Total BS. I have never complained to Wandsworth council. I have done exactly what I am supposed to do in this situations, and gone to RfC and the relevant WikiProject. I was not 'warned by an admin', we reached consensus over a misunderstanding on my part. I brought the matter up on his talk page, it was most certainly not a warning, and it had nothing to do with him being an admin. Please, exactly what on earth does 'falsely reports replies on the discussion page' mean? And when have I been 'ignoring independent edits'? Accusing me of having a sock is one of the most serious accusations you could make on Wikipedia, and totally untrue. Just because there is more than one person who disagrees with you doesn't mean they are all socks. Feel free to go to WP:RCU and ask them to investigate. If your accusations weren't so widespead and serious, this would be amusing. ninety:one 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you report TopCat666 to his employer? That is an entirely unacceptable action. Corvus cornix_talk 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

absolutely not, though it's an allegation i've now had thrown at me twice. the reactions of the various wandsworth officers have been disappointing (not least the wild accusation of sockpuppetry above), but not something i could complain about to the council. ninety:one 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – per below Arakunem^Talk 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's back, it's been here and just about all over the wiki before. New COI allegations. I'm unfamiliar with the org outside the March shitstorm here that resulted in the protection of the article. Don't have a ton of wiki time to devote to it. It definitely needs an eye if someone can help. TravellingCari 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh jeez.... *rolls up sleeves* Arakunem^Talk 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Peace seems to be restored. All sides express a desire to not edit war and stay within POV and COI guidelines. Arakunem^Talk 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Created by Tmtmanagement (talk · contribs) with a great deal of editing by Simpleelissa (talk · contribs). Besides the conflict of interest and bad article title, it's teeming with tags. Corvus cornix_talk 00:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking back into the edits of two users, who keep arguing with other contributors to various wiki articles on southern topics (states, cities, govt) in the American Civil War. They carry on edit wars, and work as a pair, effectively blocking normative contributions, and then harrasing contributors to back off or abandon articles. User:JimWae User:North Shoreman

The conflict of interest for us as Americans in the American Civil War pages lies in the fact that these pages should simply contain historical accounts of what was a two-sided war, treated in an academic way. These two editors have been tweaking southern articles with questionable POV material and views. Their user profiles indicate they are from New York and Ohio respectively. Given this particular topic, that can represent a COI. Of course where a user is from is not usually a problem, but in this case it can be. I caught wind of this last year with harrassment about a page I originated and created:

Winchester in the American Civil War - attempts to insert Lincoln quotes, having nothing to do with this topic

And then caught major flak when I added a secession date (small edit) in this page Confederate States of America - deletion of secesion dates for Arizona, followed by additions of what Lincoln is doing

Whereupon I found these two users also ganging up on other users in such pages as these: Declaration of Independence - trying to cite Lincoln as the most notable publicizer of this document Articles of Confederation - threatening and ganging up on various contributors

Generally I have moved on with other things I'm working on, but eventually these users will need to be dealt with in some way. I have made many contributions to Wiki, and plan many more Civil War topics and pages. I don't want these two stomping on top of this topic and the legitimate task force users out there who are diligently working in this topic area.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This accusation has very little bases in reality. I have several articles on my watchlist to which JimWae and North Shoreman are regular contributors. Rather than inserting POV into the articles, what I've seen in their edits would more accurately be characterized as insisting on reliable sources for dubious assertions. Because they occasionally deal with some other editors with hard-core POVs, the discussions are sometimes contentious. One small indication of the real bases for the accusation can be seen in the phrase Grayghost01 used here: was first alerted to this quite awhile back with an out-of-the-blue edit to my Winchester in the American Civil War page. (emphasis added). Seems the problem may be more mistaken sense of ownership. older ≠ wiser 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You will need to dig a bit deeper on this one. "Ownership" of the article is not the issue at hand, and I have zero issues with contributions from all wiki contributors. Like the majority of us I, too, "watch" pages I've created or contributed to, mainly to help monitor either vandalism or contributions which need fixing up, or checking for quality. The issue is that the American Civil War envokes strong feelings and POV's. I was first attracted to Wiki when reading on this topic. Back then, much to my dismay, I found serious POV problems in some of the articles. As a former professional military instructor, I have extensive experience writing curriculum, including Civil War topics for the USMC. I understand thoroughly the difference between historical documentation, analysis, and facts, compared to "blogging" that I've seen in some of these articles. The aforementioned users, without a doubt, have some good contributions to Wiki. However, they have a natural conflict of interest, and their obsession on editing articles which cover Confederate topics in particular has led to the banning of well known historical facts, which just so happen to conflict with their POV. Generally, they have a view of only allowing reference to historians with either a Northern view of the war, or a view in alignement with their POV. So, in the name of good reference work, a POV or conflict of interest can be easily meted out, all very disguised. I have asked these folks to be a little less hardlined in their POV, given their COI, but to no avail. Finally, the moniker "gray ghost" is within the bounds of individuality allowed by wiki, and keeping with proper respect for diversity. Similar monikers such as "north shoreman" are veined in the same way. Seeing how that point has alluded the commenters here, shows the systemic nature of only seeing things one way. In conclusion, references such as the famous "Confederate Military History" or "Make Me a Map of the Valley" are valid historical references, and within the bounds of what wiki allows. The attempt to disclude these and others, by the aforementioned users, is, indeed, a COI and POV issue. Thank you. Grayghost01 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• If one reads Grayghost's user page, one can begin to see that it is HIS agenda that is the problem, and it is his stated agenda there that is evidence of any conflict of interest. He wants to insert Confederate POV as fact in articles, & it is HE who wants others to abandon further edits to the article. He does not understand that articles are co-operative projects, & that articles on the Confederacy do not "belong to" its sympathizers. Other editors have repeatedly remarked that the date he wants to insert could very well find a place in the article, but each time he inserts it, he includes as purported fact other material that is clearly Confederate POV, while ignoring mention that the process of "secession" in Arizona on that date was simply a convention held by Confederate sympathizers who had not yet held any vote throughout the territory (thus, even less "process" than the other "secessions"). He repeatedly inserts claims that states seceded BECAUSE the North had "invaded" the South - which is not only unsourced editorial comment but flies in the face of the facts that they "seceded" before any movement of federal troops took place. --JimWae (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• I wish to add the remark here that the complainant did not do me the courtesy of notifying me that he had posted any complaint anywhere --JimWae (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand how any editing on Civil War articles can be a conflict of interest, unless someone is promoting a book, article, etc. Corvus cornix_talk 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who cares to read through the endless edit trail, you will find that I have contributed many well-composed pages, which are fairly good in overall style and content for good wiki quality. I do not cruise Civil War pages to insert blogging-nature POV of secession argumentation. The conflict of interest for this topic lies in revisionist editing, and Wiki has no category for reporting that. Given that these revisionist editors are mainly editing blog-materials into pages on southern states, locales, topics and articles of the ACW, it became apparant that the users doing all this were from Ohio and New York. Generally that's not an issue. But if a Russian was editing the Georgia website, constantly saying that Georgia is part of Russia, and a Georgian kept deleting out those edits, showing that Georgia is its own nation, one can see why home-of-record becomes a conflict of interest. Since the Older-Wiser user has the same conflict and POV, the outcome of his position is completely predictable. Nevertheless, I stand firmly on the principles that the various pages on southern states, topics and issues need to remain on-topic, straight-forward, and helpful for historical information. If two conflicting views need discussion, then a separate page should be created. In this case, those secession-reason oriented pages already DO exist, but the editors with the COI and POV are not content to keep the materials topically on those pages. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Russia-Georgia analogy falls totally apart -- Virgina is very clearly part of the United States. What you actually have is two Americans who spend a great deal of their time editing articles relating to arguably the most significant event in American history -- the Civil War. The professional historians working on the subject do not limt themselves to working only on matters within their own section and neither should wikipedia editors.

Despite the fact that this is clearly a content issue, Grayghost has repeatedly accused the two subjects of this complaint to charges of vandalism such as this [[17]], this [[18]], this [[19]], and this [[20]]. Like the frivolous vandalism charges, this complaint is equally frivolous. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with his putting two user names on this talk page with the wording "Users with POV Violations, for further documenting:" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 September 2008

Russ Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the subject of a conflict of interest by User:Damiens.rf. He asked for a citation for something. Fine. I'm not editing my own article WP:COI (although I have added negative material about me; presumably not a conflict of interest), but I think it's reasonable for me to provide a citation when asked, no? He didn't like the citation I provided. It was a pointer to one of a series of interviews by Dr. Bernie Aboba initially published on the webzine Internaut.com (which domain name now points elsewhere). Damiens called it a blog and reverted it. Well, whatever. I provided a different citation to a bio published on the non-profit board of which I am a member: The Open Source Initiative, presumably a reliable source. Not according to Damiens; he reverted it. I asked him to stop reverting these citations and to allow someone else to express an opinion about their quality. He refused and continued to remove these citations. I found a citation to a O'Reilly book (again, a reliable source), a chapter of which I am an author, which details the cited material. He reverted THAT also. I claim that he has a conflict of interest since nothing makes him happy, and he is not willing to let it rest and give another Wikipedia editor a chance to chime in. Anybody agree? Disagree? RussNelson (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I think Damiens might be removing too much, he is correct that online biographies don't carry much weight unless they are published by a reliable source. According to our Wikipedia policies, Russ Nelson is in fact a COI-affected editor, while Damiens is not. If the argument is that Damiens is going against normal article policy, Russ should wait for the assistance of other uninvolved editors rather than reverting Damiens.

Another concern is that there is not much sourced information to show the notability of Russ Nelson. Since he's played a long-time role in the open source movement, he has probably done more in actuality than what this article manages to say.

The stuff about the reason for Russ Nelson leaving the presidency of OSI seems excessive; it could be summarized more briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(RussNelson added this comment about EdJohnston's first paragraph:)

I agree with that .... but Damiens initiated this edit war by removing text. I think the text should remain until someone less emotionally involved than himself can edit the article. People have a bias against the unseen, so if Damiens removal is allowed to remain, it's likely to carry the day, and I think that, given his non-neutral edits (who removes three citations neutrally??), the text in question should remain for someone else to judge. The current state of affairs is that he hasn't removed the citations, so maybe he's seen the light? RussNelson (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO some blogs should be considered reputable sources. I have not looked at internaut.com, so I have no opinion as to how reputable it is. But I am absolutely mystified how anyone could claim, in good faith, that an O'Reilly book is not a reputable source. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the O'Reilly book should be cited. My own concern is that the statements attributed to the O'Reilly source may not be backed up there, so it's not exactly a reference. E.g. to serve as evidence for the statement that he has been making his living from Open Source since the days of Freemacs. There is no independent third-party confirmation of that, from an article authored by Russ Nelson in an O'Reilly collection. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if someone would ask Damiens.rf to stop removing this text and its citations, for the reasons I stated above. He simply REFUSES to abide by my request that someone else do this edit, and he CONTINUES to edit my pages even though he has an obvious (non-neutral) interest in my work. There are plenty of pages on wikipedia that need editing. The fact that he obsesses on me says that he should not edit the page describing me. I think this is within my rights to ask. RussNelson (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, I believe that I see a fundamental problem with WP:COI. Let's say that two wikipedia editors, one notable and editing using his real name, and another editing using a pseudonym, have a conflict over an edit, e.g. on Eric S. Raymond. The editor using a pseudonym has full freedom to make any edits to the bio page for the notable wikipedia editor. He is free to enforce Wikipedia policy down to the letter of the law, and the notable editor has no recourse other than whinging on the Talk: page. It may be that the wikipedia policy violations are nigglingly small. The notable editor can do nothing. So, my advice to notable people is: "Never edit wikipedia with your real name", which seems harmful to Wikipedia. Should the policy be changed so that editors who have conflicts with notable editors should be banned from editing their pages? Cuz Damiens.rf is still editing my bio page, to no good efffect.

I'm encouraged that other editors are moderating Damiens.rf evil influences (I'm WAY past assuming good faith on Damiens.rf's part). RussNelson (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "notable editor". There is, indeed, information attributable to reliable, verifiable, independent sources. --Damiens.rf 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Russ, I am most disturbed by your failure to understand our policies, your sense of ownership, and your personal attacks, like this edit summary:

• "What the fuck is wrong with you? LEAVE THIS REVERT FOR SOMEONE ELSE. IF YOU ARE RIGHT, THEY WILL AGREE WITH YOU."

That's way over the top. You are the subject of the article, hence YOU are the one who has a COI. Just because Damiens.rf apparently has an editorial conflict with you doesn't mean (s)he has a COI in the Wikipedia sense, as described here.

You have simply fallen victim to Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences:

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently. In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

You need to calm down and explain things dispassionately at the talk page. If you aren't getting anywhere, maybe you don't understand our policies, so refrain from editing the actual article and seek help. Your edit warring and abuse of other editors (in this case Damiens.rf) will only get you into trouble. You are the one at a disadvantage here, except if you have a serious WP:BLP issue. Then you would need to share your concerns at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- Fyslee / talk 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've explained things dispassionately. I understand that Damiens.rf a priori has no COI. I'm explaining that the evidence shows that he has developed an interest and cannot edit neutrally. There are plenty of Wikipedia editors and plenty of Wikipedia articles. I don't understand the lack of support I'm getting here. Why NOT suggest that Damiens.rf NOT make edits to my bio page? RussNelson (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not how things work here. You have no right to make such demands of other editors, but he might make such demands of you if your COI is interfering with you ability to neutrally edit the article, simply because you are the one with the COI. Of course he can't do that without getting support from some admins who can be convinced that the article needs protection from you, and that might be hard to get. Now if Damiens.rf breaks the rules here, then in some situations a topic block or article block can be used to protect the article, but that isn't the case here, or at least "yet". Until then you'll have to learn to hammer out a consensus together, or you'll have to seek more help. -- Fyslee / talk 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What amount of evidence is needed to show that an editor has gained a level of interest in an article such that they can no longer edit neutrally? I can't be the only person with a stalker following him around and changing his edits. RussNelson (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Since you have the COI, look in the mirror and ask it.

You have also just accused a fellow editor of stalking and that can get you in trouble for making an uncivil personal attack, if that editor makes a formal complaint. That's multiple (but usually combined) policy violations at one time. Be more careful and assume good faith. If the charge is really true, you'd better have watertight evidence of bad faith and real wiki-stalking. I think it's good you have stopped editing the article and are confining your activities to suggestions on the talk page, but keep them civil. For example, this edit summary isn't good at all!:

• "Stop. Obsessing. On. Me. Damiens.rf. Go. Away."

Get outside help from admins (not canvassing) if you need it. This happens to be a good place to do it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing that would help here is a return to WP:AGF and a little patience with each other. RussNelson is obviously familiar with WP:COI and trying to abide by it, but that doesn’t mean he’s equally familiar with WP:V, WP:RS and any other policies and guidelines that may apply to this situation. Accordingly, Damien.rf might make the extra effort to further explain why one of Russ’ posts is problematic and cordially guide him to the relevant guideline so he can become better informed about it. I’ve been editing here two years and there’s lots I still don’t know simply because I haven’t yet had to deal with them – so no matter how long anyone has been active on Wikipedia, there’s always some aspect of it were still newbies about, and WP:BITE still applies. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent advice. Now play nice with each other. No more personal attacks. Figure out the rules and abide by them. -- Fyslee / talk 05:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a starting point, where you assume that someone is editing in good faith even though you think their edits are wrong. I believe that that assumption is refuted by the facts of Damiens.rf's editing of pages I've edited. I also simply do not believe that when two editors have had a conflict, that one editor should be able to get revenge on the other by editing his bio page and insisting that every Wikipedia policy be followed to the letter in spite of WP:IAR. That's something that should be against Wikipedia policy. Maybe it doesn't happen often, but it's happening in this case. Damiens.rf has even admitted to stalking me over to Freemacs, and he didn't edit my bio until THREE DAYS after an edit disagreement at Eric S. Raymond. I've only stopped editing my bio page because it's clear to me that 1) Damiens.rf will continue to edit it and 2) Y'all won't stop him. His obsession scares me. Did you see him asking me for a photo? Creepy! RussNelson (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following your own advice about AGF. Once an editor has edited across from another editor, their edits will often begin to appear in the editor's watchlist, and that's not wikistalking. He will naturally hold an eye on your actions, just as you do his, and as he does on the articles you have edited, and that too is accepted here. There is no such thing as private editing here. Your actions here are a matter of public record. Asking for a picture in this manner is perfectly normal, since we like to illustrate our articles. It's good you removed your outing, as that can get you banned in short order. Leave any conflicts with this or other editors at the door to Wikipedia. Don't bring them here. -- Fyslee / talk 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Russ, you’ve been around the internet long enough to appreciate that it’s a limited form of communication in which motives and intentions are easily misread by presumption simply due to the lack of intonation and body language cues – that's one of the main reasons we have WP:AGF. FWIW, my recommendation would be that you both take a deep breath, forgive and – if not forget – ignore. Maybe later you can both sit down and enjoy a cup of tea over it, having recognized it for the mistaken impression it (probably) really is. If you really can’t come to terms, the more appropriate place to take your issue is to Requests for comment, as this is not really a COI issue at all. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just one comment. I didn't stalk you over to Freemacs, neither have I admitted doing so. Following the "admitted" link you provided, one can read my response about how I did reach that article: "There's a link from this article to the freemacs one, and that's probably how I got there." --Damiens.rf 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, then since we're back to assuming good faith, then how about restoring the text you deleted from my bio page? Cuz I'm sure that you didn't mean to delete something with three reasonable citations -- one of which is a published interview with me from 1994 written by Dr. Bernie Aboba (which you mistakenly called a blog -- but I'm assuming good faith, so I'm sure it's an honest mistake on your part). It appears to be a blog because the webzine (Internaut.com) at which it was originally published was decommissioned. But of course you wouldn't know that, so it was a perfectly good faith deletion for you to make. But now that you know better -- and you have no undue interest in me and are editing neutrally, you'll restore the removed text. Right? RussNelson (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nelson. I happy we're back to teamwork editing, and sorry if I failed to put myself gently in any prior occasion. About that published interview with you from 1994, I sincerely don't believe it classifies as a reliable source, at least not for the information you tried to source: the piece of the article that said "He has been making a living from Open Source support ever since then". This is so because that website/webzine doesn't appear to have a reputation for fact checking. Indeed, the text makes no attempt to endorse what is said on the interview. It's just a copy of whatever you told them so, even written in the first person. The text is explicitly labeled "Russ Nelson, as told to Bernard Aboba" (sic). It may be ok for a webzine to publish what you say about yourself, but Wikipedia is not interested in an article "Russ Nelson, as told to Wikipedia", that would be your version about your life and achievements. That's why we have policies requiring independent sources and some etiquette about writing articles about oneself.

Please, understand that this is not to say that you an unreliable person. Or that you're known to lie at iterviews and the like. This is really not about you, but about Wikipedia's reputation. Anybody can edit the articles here, and we're one of the most visited websites in the Internet. Without that rules, we would be too vulnerable to self-promotion attacks (we're already a being targeted). I hope you understand it all. If not, please just let me know. --Damiens.rf 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit summary from you, that may indicate I'm still failing to get my message to you. I wholeheartedly repeat, this is not about you, Russ. Saying you're not about a reliable source about yourself is not the same as calling you a liar. --Damiens.rf 14:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You know nothing about the Religious Society of Friends, do you? Members of the RSoF in fact ARE reliable sources about themselves. If they aren't, they won't be members of the RSoF for long. If you doubt that, then you should go to the member's meeting (in this case Ottawa Monthly Meeting, and lay out your case for the person's unreliability, and ask for a Committee of Concern. If in fact, I have said anything which is not true, then I WILL BE KICKED OUT OF MY MEETING. THEY WILL DISOWN ME. This is a fate far, far worse than any benefit I might gain from misrepresentation. RussNelson (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Russ, what you seem to be saying is that we should accept someone's statements as verifiable because they have taken a religious oath to tell the truth. Surely you can see the practical problems with that as a policy, no? It's not a case of trusting you personally -- heck, I'd take your word for practically anything, having known you from Usenet since the 1980s and sharing many of your political and social opintions, but if you step back from what you seem to think is an attack on your personal veracity, and spend some time with WP:V and WP:RS, I think you'd understand why Wikipedia requires established, reliable, third-party sources with an editing or vetting process. --MCB (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the indent reset. Phwew. No, this is not about an attack on my personal veracity. It is an attack on the Religious Society of Friends. As a member, the Religious Society of Friends is responsible for what I say. The RSoF is definitely established (350 years old), reliable (anybody willing to argue this?), and a third-party to myself and wikipedia. I'm not asking you to believe me just because I'm a nice guy. (Oh, and Quakers don't swear; there is no "religious oath" going on here; swearing creates two levels of veracity) I'm asking you to trust that the Religious Society of Friends stands by my words, and is willing to investigate any accusations of false speaking on my part (of which there have been none). RussNelson (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Russ, the disconnect here is that the Wikipedia standard for sourcing (listed here) can be summarized as Verifiability, not Truth. Thus while everything you say in an article may be 100% true and backed by the RSoF, the issue that causes the problem is is that of verification. Sources used in an article must be such that any person, with absolutely no familiarity with the subject, can very readily verify any fact stated therein. Thus, these sources tend to be books, news, even web sites if they are considered reliable. Don't look at the need for verification as "we don't trust you or RSoF so we want to see for ourselves", but rather as "In a site this big, a certain 'line in the sand' standard must be applied across the board or the admin staff goes bonkers from all the exceptions". In this case, the standard is published verification from a source that is in no way connected with the subject of the article. Arakunem^Talk 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The indent below matches up with :: You need to calm down. RussNelson (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we now have this dispute narrowed down to actually being a reliable sources issue. May I suggest you bring your particular points up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where this may best be resolved. And please keep up the AGF. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I still maintain that there is a problem with Wikipedia's COI policy. A and B have a fight, A has a bio page, B goes and edits in a picayune manner, B has a conflict of interest, A has NO recourse at all. The policy should say that if A and B have a conflict over an edit, then B should refrain from editing A's bio page. There's millions of pages; why should B be editing A's page? No reason to allow it. I expect that AT VERY LEAST, ONE PERSON should have ALREADY said to Damiens.rf "Don't edit Russ Nelson -- it's a WP:COI for you to be editing his bio three days after having a fight with him over Eric S. Raymond." Can you see how I would feel this is wicked unfair? Can you see how this breaks the assumption of good faith? RussNelson (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of "interest" here is at odds with that covered by WP:COI. An "interest" is typically a real-world advantage so some kind. Were damiens.rf a business competitor seeking to diminish your community standing in order to gain a competitive advantage in some market, that would be a WP:COI: "annoying Russ Nelson" is not an "interest" of this sort. Furthermore, I should note that damiens.rf's edits to Eric S. Raymond were of exactly the same nature as his edits to Russ Nelson (removing sources not established as reliable), so it would appear evident that this isn't about you so much as it is about damiens.rf's notions of notability in biographies of free software personalities. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You cannot prove that damiens.rf is NOT a business competitor. Eric Raymond and I are members of an organization. That organization has enemies. damiens.rf and I have a disagreement over an edit to another notable member's bio and suddenly he's editing my bio. Do you see my point? Wikipedia allows psedonymous edits -- but that does not mean that all edits should be allowed by all users. Why is no one willing to ask him (or her) to "move along; edit somebody else's bio?" It only seems reasonable to me, to protect Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. There are millions of editors and millions of pages; why defend one editor's right to make questionable edits to one page? RussNelson (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Users recently active:

• Csheppard1 (talk · contribs). Last edit Sept 10
• Mschwartz311 (talk · contribs). Last edit Aug 29
• 64.119.97.178 (talk · contribs). Last edit Aug 28

• Users not recently active:

• Maryland homework (talk · contribs). Last edit Aug 19
• Sullivanmovies (talk · contribs). Last edit July 30

• Articles affected:

• Kevin Sullivan (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Green Gables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Green Gables (1985 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Avonlea (1987 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wind at My Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Magic flute diaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted as copyright violation)
• Magic Flute Diaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Road to Avonlea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users Sullivanmovies (talk · contribs), Mschwartz311 (talk · contribs), Csheppard1 (talk · contribs), Maryland homework (talk · contribs), and 64.119.97.178 (talk · contribs) all appear to be single purpose accounts that edit articles related to the company Sullivan Productions. User:Sullivanmovies is obvious; the IP is actually sullivan-ent.com according to the WHOIS; and User:Mschwartz311 is very likely Michael Schwartz of Sullivan Productions. Recent edits include adding large amounts of copyvio promotional material about a line of books to an article about a movie. I'm bringing this here as suggested in this ANI report, which contains earlier examples of deliberate link-breaking and possible sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added links to the report header. At COIN it is usual to attempt to negotiate with editors who may have a COI. Delicious carbuncle, if you know of any attempts at Talk discussions with these editors, I hope you will make a note of that. It would also help to list the recent improper edits to narrow down the problem. (Some of the information these editors have added, while over-promotional, may conceivably be adding value). Blocks are sometimes considered if COI-affected editors persist in improper edits and refuse to engage in dialog. A very quick look suggests this is what is happening here. But we need to show that all dialog has been rejected before taking further action. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. User:Sullivanmovies was left a message regarding COI, among other things, in July. User:Mschwartz311 was left a message regarding COI in August, following my ANI report. None of the users appear to have ever responded to warning or messages left for them, nor did they participate in the two ANI discussions ([21] & [22] ). There may have been some dialogue on the now deleted Sullivan Entertainment, but I can't be sure. Yet more promotional material has been added today here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently active User:Csheppard1 has not responded to notifications of this discussion, nor to EdJohnston's personal request. It's clear that these editors are not interested in discussion. Meanwhile, these articles are turning into mini Sullivan Productions websites. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Csheppard1 offering to userfy the article on Sullivan Entertainment, after seeing the comment at Talk:Sullivan Entertainment. She seems to have removed the stuff from the article that was previously flagged as a copyvio, though obviously she should not have removed the speedy deletion tag. Let's see if there is a further response. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the comment was: "I am an administrator working for the Sullivan Entertainment Company---I was under the impression i could use company created information. I will rewrite the content.". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Csheppard1 has re-started the article with different copyvio material, and has yet to directly repond to any of the messages left. Can someone please try getting their attention with a block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No answer to the last two admin messages, and there was yet another copyvio in main space, so I blocked Csheppard1 12 hours. Let's hope for an appropriate response on her Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although blocking got the attention of one of the editors involved here, nothing has been done to address the earlier issues. I've started removing some of the more overtly promotional material that has recently been added, but much copyvio material still exists. The synopses for each film are easily confirmed copyvio; the "production notes" sections are very likely copyvio; and the season synopses on Wind at My Back are also likely copyvio. Adding ((copyvio)) tags for a section seems to break the rest of the article, so I've left it as for now, but I'd be grateful if someone could help me with this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't my usual hang-out, but the copyright problems board is. :) To tag a section, use ((subst:copyvio|url=whatevah)) and end with </div>. Alternatively, you can just excise it. I've done so for Wind at My Back, with a note explaining why at the article's talk and how to verify permission. I'll look at the rest and see what I can identify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize that copyvio is a big issue for us, but it would also be helpful if someone would just read through the articles listed at the head of this report and say whether they are good or bad articles. Indicate if any of them seem over-promotional. COI-affected editors can sometimes provide us with good material. We can work them over later to make them neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A good point, Ed. These articles are not new and have been quite happily sitting there, bothering no one until fairly recently when much of the promotional and/or copyvio material was added. Anyone reviewing them should take a look at the history, especially given my recent excisions and Moonriddengirl's likely future trimming. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on copyright issues but having trouble identifying some sources. The section on production notes, here, is either a copyright violation or original research, as it even includes uncited quotes from Sullivan. I've tagged the section as lacking sources. The plot summary at Anne of Green Gables is duplicative of part of this site, but it has been in our article since 2006, and there's no archived version of that external site that would allow me to verify that it came first. Given the date of copyright at the external site, it could well be us. Some material though is clearly duplicative, and I am revising or removing that with a note at the article's talk pages how to clear the material for use on Wikipedia. As far as neutrality, I have seen some obvious issues that arise naturally from the fact that PR text is generally promotional. For instance, from Anne of Avonlea (1987 film) we have "Sullivan loved the incredibly talented ensemble of performers he assembled...." If that's not gone by the time I get there, it will be soon. :) At a glance, I didn't see any problems with the Sullivan bio. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Again? I'm sure we've already been round this loop at least twice now. I can't imagine why this disruptive self-promoting spammer is not banned by now. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• There is plenty of sanctionable misbehavior in the past, including apparent vandalism of external links. However we are getting somewhere now with the active contributor, User:Csheppard1. The new articles are pretty and are reasonably-well-balanced, though I don't know if anyone has carefully checked for non-neutrality. The worst of the articles listed above is Wind at My Back, but I think the excesses there may have predated the work of the COI-affected people. I think we need an old-fashioned editor of content (do we still have any of those?) to go through some articles like Anne of Green Gables (1985 film) and prune out excessive stuff like the complete list of cast members and the complete list of awards. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I can't agree that any progress has been made. No actions have been taken to prevent the types of things that happened previously (such as the injection of large amounts of copyvio material); no one involved in the COI editing has responded to any of the concerns raised here; and the currently active editor is being paid to insert material about Sullivan Entertainment, so I can't see why we'd expect their edits to be either objective or neutral. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I've found another copyvio article that I missed earlier. Magic flute diaries created by User:Csheppard1 26 August. Tagged for speedy deletion as copyvio. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been spending time going back on my work and trying to neutralize everything. PLease be patient with me. This project started out as a means of making sure information was up to date and complete---it did for a time spin out of control but i am working to rectify all of my previous submissions. thank you for your help.

Csheppard1 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Timothy D. Naegele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article is written almost solely by User:Naegele.CyberGhostface (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  Loaded with weasel words and other information that will need to be removed, but the phrase "He wrote the financial institutions laws of the State of Maine, which now appear as Title 9-B of the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated" might just give it enough notability to survive, if all the extraneous material (Martindale rankings, personal life, etc) is cut. Also, User:Naegele probably should be counseled about 1. What Wikipedia and its COI policy is, and 2. That he doesn't own the article or its content, as those are usually things newbie editors aren't aware of. MBisanz ^talk 16:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – per below Rob Banzai (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the article Daniel Garlitsky is being written by the subject, User talk: Garlitsky. The article is overflowing with peacock words as well. I've added the COI and pressrelease tags only to have them deleted (without comment or discussion) by the editor. I've tried to explain why I added the tags and why they should be left until the problem is addressed. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem resolved. Editor made improvements. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article deleted. Further comments to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roberttheman2008. MER-C 08:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Roberttheman2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has inadvertently admitted to having taken some major involvement in a software article The SNES Game Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at the article's AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The SNES Game Maker, which is having known the person who is creating the software. MuZemike (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Note — A request for comment for user conduct has been initiated for said user. MuZemike (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tlaverty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), presumably the musician himself, created and has made over half of the edits to his biography. In addition, notability is questionable. Non-affiliated sources are thin and are not what the article is based on. Stealthound (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think notability questionable, AfD is the place to get it decided. No opinion on whether or not it is--I have not the least knowledge about this type of subject. DGG (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have never initiated an AFD, how is that done? Stealthound (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:AfD footer has the instructions. MER-C 13:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Laverty. MER-C 05:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article deleted at AFD Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the article and a bunch of obvious sock/meetpuppets are edit warring to spin this thing out of control. At the moment they want a succession box for his "office" as a community council member. For those who don't know, community councillors are normally elected unopposed and are the political equivalent of the PTA. Further, who he succeeded as community councillor is unverifiable. This is the latest in a succession of COI edits and spin. The article is being owned for promotional reasons.--Troikoalogo (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Still edit waring for preferred style on his own biography. Despite talk page consensus against him [23].--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The article states that someone with a conflict of interest may of edited it. I don't disguise my identity, so people can clearly see which edits have been made by me - my interest in the article has been declared through the notable Wikipedian tag. What they can't see is the conflicts of interests of the other editors, who are of a different political persuasion to me, who are trying to discredit me, by deleting the article about me a piece at time. If you check the edit histories of the people that have edited the talk page, many of them have only edited the article about me, and many of them only started when an online community consisting mainly of Liberal Democrats (I'm Labour & Co-op) asked its members to vandalise the page about me. Of course I have an interest in ensuring the article about me is accurate, as others to in discrediting, defaming and diluting me --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The tag is there to alert other editors to a problem; the tag is not the solution to the problem. The solution to the problem is that you stop editing the article. No one would object if you limited your edits to removing false or insulting statements. But you are adding material that many editors think exaggerates your accomplishments. It gives the appearance that you are using Wikipedia as a way of promoting yourself. It's best to back off, avoid adding anything, and limit yourself to edits that remove objectionable material.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history and Talk, I think the whole article needs a spot of independent attention, as there are a number of other single- and narrow-purpose accounts involved...

• ColonelBuendia99 (talk · contribs)
• Pontyboy (talk · contribs)
• Cardydwen (talk · contribs)
• Politicool (talk · contribs)
• Pontyslapper (talk · contribs)

... who all appear to have some political affiliation/antagonism perhaps close enough to be COI. It'd go a lot more smoothly if they all backed off and left it to editors who don't feel hot about the topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have done a short survey of the articles about other University of Glamorgan Alumni articles. The Sue Bale article does not have her employer referenced. The Kevin Brennan (politician) article does not have his education and career referenced, nor does the article about Lorna Dunkley reference her early biography. Mention is made of referencing my Circle of Friends invention, whereas there is no citation of the claimed greatest novel of Dan Rhodes. The Darren Morris article doesn't have any references at all, nor does Catherine Thomas, which also has a succession box. It seems to me that the article about me is undergoing some unfair level of scrutiny. People are removing content from this article, while similar content remains on others. I believe there needs to be action taken by administrators to ensure that notable living people, and not deleted, diluted or defamed by editors not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia's readers. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Rubbish. There has been no "defamation" here. Merely people removing unverifiable assertions and general puffery designed to make you look good. There's nothing negative in this article, and no-one suggesting there should be, it's just that we want it to be neutral and not over-egg the cake, as it were. CV are for spinning every achievement to make it look like a noble peace prize, wikipedia articles are not. (Oh and I suspect sock/meet puppetry here, but I could be wrong).--Troikoalogo (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just toned down the lead, removing 'influential' and 'noted' (replaced that with 'known'). After all, Kevan Brennan isn't called influential in the lead. :-)Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost immediately after I removed 'influential', JB posted to my talk page, and a few minutes later it was back. Doug Weller (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've never seen a signature before with a link to the editor's web page. Can I do that too? :-) Doug Weller (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't. I've requested that he remove the link from his signature. --Versageek 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have put in a smiley. Doug Weller (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is problematic - all the sources seem self-authored or self-published. Past claims that Bishop is an important figure in the evolution of various fields of the Internet seem unsupported (and a search for sources came up fruitless). As now written the article is plausible in saying Bishop is a respected IT professional, but that is only borderline as far as suggesting notability. It seems to go awfully deep into resume-type items. Were the article to evolve on its own vie edits from disinterested editors (assuming people had the urge to do so) the tone and focus would probably be a lot more like a typical Wikipedia biographical article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking at this, and am convinced that the claim to have developed a core technology for organizing online communities (the circle of friends claim) is another example of puffery. Apparently, circle of friends was a feature of a website that Bishop developed in 1999; it is similar to features in later websites such as Friendster. This similarity is used to make claims that these later websites used Bishop's technology (see the third sentence in the Friendster article). The two sources for this claim are written after the claim first appeared in Wikipedia, and it seems likely the WP article served as the source for these sources. My view is that the Circle of Friends (social network) article should be deleted, since it appears to have already created some mischief. Any thoughts?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite likely. It should go. Doug Weller (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circle_of_Friends_(social_network).--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Jonathan Bishop most likely should also be deleted. Mr. Bishop seems to be a good, intelligent, and productive person, but he just doesn't seem to meet the threshold for a WP article. I can't find anything that makes him more exceptional than the many good, intelligent, and productive people that I interact with every day, none of whom have a WP article. The article has been nominated for deletion twice, but in the previous nominations it was not clear the extent to which the article had served as a vehicle for advancing Mr. Bishop's own career, and the extent to which Mr. Bishop and SPAs had edited it. Is there any support for deletion?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The following claim (in the Jonathan Bishop article) to have invented a technology known as 'Circle of Friends' is what bothers me:

A graduate of Cardiff School of Art & Design (1998) Bishop established early presence in online communities, through his employment at Trefforest-based Broadway Studios, where he was managed by professional photographer Steve Powderhill[5] when he developed the Circle of Friends technique for social networking[6] during 1999, applying it to websites that preceded the existence of Friendster[7].

If there were a way to get this claim removed (or properly sourced to knowledgable outsiders who recognize his claim, which seems unlikely to occur) then the article might deserve to be kept. The underlying problem was well stated by Anthon.Eff in his AfD nomination of Circle of Friends (social network). EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Watching from the sidelines for a bit, I'll agree that there is some inherent feel of notability missing from this article. I can't place my finger on it, but somehow it just doesn't feel right. MBisanz ^talk 14:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at edit histories, the article, its Talk page and both previous AFDs look deeply compromised by multiple SPAs. Troikalogo just asked me if there are sufficient grounds for asking for CheckUser. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that after the Circle of Friends claim has been disposed of, the PARLE e-learning system is left as Mr. Bishop's sole possible claim to notability. But the system is not widely implemented--in fact, there is no evidence that it is implemented at all. For all we know, it could be purely conceptual, or a piece of software in a very imperfect alpha stage. These concerns have been raised before. It seems more than likely that puffery is at work here, just as it was with Circle of Friends.

As for CheckUser--several editors have already voiced suspicions about sock/meatpuppets, so it seems it would be appropriate to run the check. There is a related case here.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the AfD. It's here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Bishop_(3rd_nomination). --Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Deleted at author's request Arakunem^Talk 20:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• George Reece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Imogen Stile is determined to create and maintain the article about this obscure UK singer/songwriter. His private recording label is: Imogen Records! I can find no evidence that there is a person by that name, but it's not quite blatant enough for UAA reporting, I fear. Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article deleted. MER-C 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Teabonesix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created the video game Super Mario for MegaZeux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in which he/she is also editing the article. The article has many problems and was just nominated for deletion after a contested PROD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Mario for MegaZeux. MuZemike (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article deleted via AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

CLinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continually editing the article Charles Linden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in which they are also heavily advertising a product sold by a company owned the person in question. I would ask for assistance in this matter, as this is not the first time the user has been warned about COI. Thankyou. 90.213.123.55 (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I was signed out. Colliver55 (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)I would also like to add that the article is based on citations from the actual company, and contains no impartial citations. It is seriously flawed. Colliver55 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD would seem the proper first step for dealing with this article. if kept, we can then consider the content. DGG (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have placed the deletion tag on the article. If anyone objects (which I am certain they will), we can take it from there. Thankyou. Colliver55 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, your AfD nomination is incomplete. It will likely be procedurally de-listed unless the process is completed (following the steps as shown in the Deletion notice). Arakunem^Talk 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've created the necessary pages. Colliver55, if you go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Linden (2nd nomination) you can fill in the reason you propose deletion; I've moved your comment there from the first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Linden, which is now closed.

PS: I also removed a large chunk of copyvio from the Birmingham Post. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Leonardollockett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• So Was It Worth The Price That He Paid? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User is the author of the book described in the article. Article is currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Was It Worth The Price That He Paid?. However, it is believed that this user trying to game the system by moving the page multiple times in an attempt to shirk the deletion process (see [24], [25]. [26], [27]). MuZemike (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All deleted, user warned. TravellingCari 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – with reference to translation of official website; see Talk:BoA. Also not COI. Incivility can be dealt with elsewhere if it continues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Recently, Whotheman2006 has been removing sourced content from the BoA article. The content in question is BoA's influences, among whom are Britney Spears and Janet Jackson (and this is according to her official online website). Whotheman2006 keeps removing Britney Spears and Janet Jackson from the list of BoA's influences because (he says) it will lead to BoA's being compared with "that skank". (See his side of the conversation on my talk page.) As far as I know, there is no good reason to remove that content from the article. Ink Runner (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a COI, unless Whotheman2006 has some relation to BoA. He's got some strong opinions on her article, to be sure, but this is mainly a content dispute. In addition, I've left him a message regarding some rather uncivil comments. I recommend discussing on the article's talk page, which is a better place than on individual user talk pages, as it gets more eyes on the issue and helps to build a consensus. If you are unable to resolve the dispute there, the next steps can be found here. Arakunem^Talk 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW - civility issues and motives aside - Whotheman2006 appears to be correct. The official site doesn't explicitly list these artists as influences. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This user keeps editing articles on musicians who have CDs or are about to have CDs relased on the EMIClassics label (example: Joyce DiDonato). The content added is mostly copy pasted press releases from the either Artist Management websites or the EMI website. i have warned this user on the talk page but they continue with these edits.Nrswanson (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a-ha_awards

Regarding dispute with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Be_Black_Hole_Sun

|a-ha awards)) - Hi. Regarding the dispute I have with " Be Black Hole Sun " on the a-ha awards page. I have tried to explain to him or her my view on the issue, however " Be Black Hole Sun " keeps reverting my edits and is not willing to accept my view. This person only wants to include what he / she calls notable awards, while i want to inlcude all known awards a-ha has won. My problem with this is that I can't see how this person can dictate what a notable awards is and what is not. In my view, a won award is an award and i can't see how it can be a problem to include the awards on the list. I can't see how it can bother anyone. In my view, the article can only become better, including as much relevant information as possible. I have tried to explain to "Be Black Hole Sun " my view, but the person does not tolerate a different view. An adittional probblem to this is that " Be Black Hole Sun " reverts back to an even older version and the info on the page gets messed up ( numbers of total awards in the grid window etc ) I would appreciate your input on how to solve this. Mortyman (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked, indefinitely. MER-C 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, i'd like to become an admin, however user:Gogo Dodo strongly opposes.........If i nominate myself, id like assurances that there will be no backlashes from him or his fellow admins. . . .--Iva*Siwela (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate board. Please read the explanation at the top. WP:ANI is probably more appropriate, though even then... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• ERG Group
• Special:Contributions/203.23.27.1
• Special:Contributions/Deepfraught

A lot of text has recently been dumped into this article by an IP address belonging to the company itself, and by User:Deepfraught who has no other edits and I think is the same as 203.23.27.1.

The text certainly has the tone of something lifted from a corporate document and so may be a copyvio in addition to being too detailed and the wrong tone for WP.

ERG has recently been in the news because of an acrimonious contract dispute with CityRail. Providing more context about other aspects of ERG is fair but this is too much.

I'm not sure how to approach what may be well-intentioned edits and would appreciate guidance. I have no connection to ERG myself. Subsolar (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Article under issue: D'Alembert's paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Main user with COI: Egbertus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_26#promotion_efforts_at_d.27Alembert.27s_paradox_and_.22related.22_articles for the clear evidence and admission of COI.

Despite claiming to know better than to pursue COI edits to this article, Egbertus has just re-inserted a link to his Knol page [28] after already having been told this was against Wikipedia practice. He seems to think that the Google ranking of his Google Knol page (#3 according to him, although I cannot be replicate this even if it were relevant) makes it OK for him to do so.

He has already been warned countless times that this is not allowed and been warned about repercussions. I left a warning in the edit summary of my reversion also. It's time for some admin to step in and leave an actual stern warning on his user page. And it's time that someone actually did something here instead of continuing this to go on. This editor should have been blocked a long time ago. --C S (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this editor has been warned several times since August 5th about spamming his own work to Wikipedia, and has previously been blocked for 3RR, and has kept on going regardless, I have blocked him for one week. I invite review of the block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See also this, where Johnson admits that Visitor22 (c.q. Visitor222) is Hoffman and Egbertus is Johnson, the authors of the inserted COI material. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson does not seem to be very satisfied with Wikipedia. The above Knol is titled: "Wikipedia Inquisition". -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one day Knol will notice that sole-author articles aren't necessarily credible, if they don't have to undergo any community scrutiny. They have no referees, they have no community input, it's what you would end up with if all academic authors could submit their papers into journals with no review whatever. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the link that is the issue - in the knol, he claims that what he inserted _was_ a reference to a publication in a refereed journal, this contradicts your "they have no referees" and I'd like to know just what is going on. --Random832 (contribs) 18:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

They are claiming to have solved an historic problem in mathematical physics (D'Alembert's Paradox). So far, they are the only ones who see their work as a solution. They were arguing that it was enough that their paper was accepted for publication, and that this proves the point. Regular editors asked to see any third-party confirmation that they had solved the famous problem. (So far nothing has been offered). References to their paper were being repeatedly spammed on Wikipedia, against talk page consensus. There is more background on this in the previous COI report linked above, at WT:WPM, and at Talk:D'Alembert's paradox. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See his talk page for AfD'd bios he produced. VasileGaburici (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles created by this user:

• Games Convention Asis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maxime Villandre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxime Villandre
• Dan Scott (Game developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Scott (Game developer)
• Ole Thongsrinoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ole Thongsrinoon
• Jon Niermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) → deleted A7

There's a very likely COI here as GCA stands for "Games Convention Asis". MER-C 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Left a COI notice on his talk page. Notability issues aside, the article he wrote don't seem excessively promotional, though a couple of peacock words would need to be excised. We'll see what happens at the AfD's and can tweak those that survive. Arakunem^Talk 14:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User left a message for me in response to the COI temp. He says he now understands the rules better and will make changes accordingly. He has in fact made a few changes to the Ad-tagged articles and has asked for feedback on the respective talk pages. I feel good-faith from this editor and invite feedback on his contributions (as he has requested as well). Arakunem^Talk 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Los Angeles County Museum of Art
• 66.218.40.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sunkyokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LACMAadmin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

please see this note to my talk page explaining exactly what they're doing. I'm going to try and explain it again but another voice may help. TravellingCari 19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See specifically, this edit:

Hello

The press office at LACMA will be making multiple updates to the wiki page. Please do not delete these edits. Our team here at the museum will be overseeing the page on a daily basis.

Best, Karla, Marketing and Press Coordinator, LACMA, kbraun@lacma.org

Ouch! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Subtle, isn't it. Just added another account. Going off line so can't play whack a mole. Will be back in the evening to help if you all haven't managed to resolve it. I think it's in good hands though. Thanks! TravellingCari 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to stink of WP:OWN. MuZemike (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• See also Contemporary Projects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now deleted Contemporary Projects more copyvio spam. It's going to take forever to find all the spam I think. TravellingCari 03:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Luke Lonergan is chief tech officer and co-founder of the above corporation. He wrote an article with no assertions of notability, somebody else nominated it as a nn corp, I deleted it. His only edits have been to abuse me for deleting it, to say that if I think he has a COI then he'll instruct somebody else to make his arguments for him, and to insert references to Greenplum and Greenplum products into other articles. He doesn't seem to take the concept of COI very seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article deleted. MER-C 08:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• GodsAndMortals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gods And Mortals MMORPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an obvious COI here. User has been notified and article tagged. MuZemike (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gods And Mortals MMORPG. MuZemike (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no question of the COI. Watching the AfD now, but it seems to be headed to a predictable result. Arakunem^Talk 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Harbhajan Singh Yogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk · contribs)

Distinctly rose-tinted article about Yogi Bhajan, which underwent a major expansion early this year [29] and continuing edits since, via a SPA editor who appears to be a close disciple - see Who is Guru Fatha Singh? ("Guru Fatha Singh met Yogi Bhajan, master of Kundalini Yoga and spiritual director of the 3HO Foundation, later that year. Soon after, he received from him his new spiritual name and began his decades-long tutelage under the master's expert eye"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa has replied [30], and there's definite cause for concern: "I wrote the article and happen to be the best authority on the life of Yogi Bhajan, as I am currently writing his biography". Which makes him ideal for identifying sources, except he doesn't currently "get" the problem with original research ("I have personally spoken with the former High Commissioner and found that he held Yogi Bhajan in high regard"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

MSHSAA (talk · contribs) - Removed criticism from article. The username is the initials of the association, making an obvious conflict of interest. Crossman33 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on the editor's Talk page as well as a uw-coi warning, might help. Corvus cornix_talk 21:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the removal of the criticism was done back in feb(and has been reverted), and MSHSAA has not edited since then, i think that its safe to say no action needed here--Jac16888 (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

--Jac16888 (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sylvester Braithwaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - written almost exclusively by Nonameplayer (talk · contribs) who the author link on Image:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg and other publicly available sources[31][32][33] suggest is related to the subject. McWomble (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonameplayer has admitted the relationship to the subject and has expressed intent to stay within guidelines. I don't think anything further is needed. Arakunem^Talk 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• CyberLink Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• YouCam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CyberLink Media Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CyberLink SoftDMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PowerDirector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PowerDVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors

• Menschenfressender Riese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick Saunders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stubydo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CyberLink and it's products are being spammed into wikipedia. Product articles are taking the form of datasheets (listing specifications and features) that are used to advertise products. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted those articles, and a few more related ones, that were blatant advertising (CSD G11). If anybody disagrees, except for the COI editors above, please let me know and I will recreate them for you. Meanwhile, I think the above three accounts may be sock puppets because their editing fits together chronologically and they are indistringuishable from one another. All appear to be single purpose COI accounts. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nick Saunders. Jehochman ^Talk 11:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of socks were found and indef blocked. I think this matter is now resolved. Thank you, Duffbeerforme, for your work on this case! Jehochman ^Talk 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User blocked indef--Jac16888 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Limmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - New user Dlimond has made repeated edits which, depending on how they are viewed, would seem to be vandalism, contravene either WP:COI, WP:BLP and probably all three. The edits focus not on the subject of the article, but a relative, and are not very complementary. juux ☠ 11:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's patent defamation and must stay out of the article. Bump an admin if it happens again. MER-C 14:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to tell anyway what's going on. Could be plain vandalism. Could be Limmy himself trying to generate Wikidrama by trolling with a fictional persona (since his podcasts involve playing with different personas). Easiest just to treat as plain WP:BLP breach until more information, if any, is forthcoming. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a 3RR warning for Dlimond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but there is precedent for giving such an account an indef block as a vandal-only account. Let's see if he reverts again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Though not an egregious case of COI, I thought I would make note of:

• ESUOHNIT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tintern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and

• Justanintern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who are adding content and articles on the authors who are published by Tin House Books. Katr67 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles created by these accounts:

• Keith Lee Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Adam Braver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lucy Corin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Win McCormack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jim Krusoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lucia Nevai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure about the notability of these but it's best to wait for a little while for some are still ((underconstruction)). MER-C 07:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a couple of those would pass notability if more sources were found, and the users are not overtly making the articles sound like advertisements. However since I noticed that most of these authors have only had book-length work published by Tin House Books, which itself may not be notable (Tin House is notable, is their publishing arm?), I am bit suspicious. Other sources obviously need to found. Katr67 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Justanintern, ESUOHNIT and 76.105.140.131 are continuing to edit. I've attempted to communicate with him/her and s/he has been informed of this discussion. Katr67 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

91.77.57.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and

Asstrafficcontroller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been blocked

the eXile - formerly a giveaway paper - has ceased publishing and moved to a blog format. Dsol and his related IP addresses have continued to spam for the blog in the article. The article itself is essentially fancruft and spam.

Another user has removed some of the eXile spam in a different article and warned user 91.77.57.180 not to reinsert the spam/advertising. see User talk:91.77.57.180

Dsol (who has mostly given up using his username) has a problem with ownership on the eXile article and is essentially a s.p.a. with all his contributions related to the eXile and its fancruft.

24.127.162.147 (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I take offense to this for multiple reasons. First, I have no connection to that IP. I would agree to an IP check by an Admin. Second, all my contributions do not relate to the eXile. Third, it is not appropriate to complain in this way about me at a noticeboard without making any good faith effort to engage in discussion on the relevant pages or to contact me, or letting me know in any way shape or form that someone has a problem with my edits.

I should add that a number of anonymous IPs and accounts have (unlike mine) been repeatedly blocked and banned for attempting to remove information from the eXile, disparaging it and the editors who have worked on its article, and refusing to engage in discussion. I think the facts of this case are clear but if there is any doubt I would encourage those interested to read the talk pages of the eXile and to ask me if there are any questions. Dsol (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dsol saying "I have no connection to that IP" is transparently false Proof. Repeating transparent falsehoods [34] does not make them true.

24.127.162.147 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That fact that I mistakenly thought I was reverting to an edit by me, when I was actually reverting to an IPs edits, is not "proof" that the IP is me. As noted above, I would encourage any interested admin to run an IP check. That would be "proof." What has been done here is calling me a liar with less than zero evidence. Dsol (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the following paragraph to WP:COI to reflect the actual state of matters.[35] Please familiarize yourself with this, and feel free to discuss if you think this does not reflect actual practice.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing. In case the editor does not identity themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

Thank you for you help, and thank you to User:FayssalF for reviewing this edit.[36] Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User has stated that he/she has no affiliation with the company indirectly being promoted. Chaldor (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Automated wearable artificial kidney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I'm concerned that the contributor has a COI with this article. I have reverted the seemingly spam like links to this page from kidney related pages. I believe the motivation was to push for the company that was externally linked from this article until I removed it.

There was however, one thing stopping me from tagging this as a csd: this is actually somewhat relevant medicine. It is upcoming and new, but there are a couple publications out about it. It will be rapidly evolving and it may likely be a commercial technology at one point. I'm not sure if it warrants its own article, but at the very least, I would rather not lose all the information presented there until editors have a chance to sort through it and perhaps merge it into the relevant articles (or even improve it so it can stand on its own). I am not certain what to do with the COI and the article, so I am appealing here for help. Chaldor (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i would to clarify that i do not have a COI with the article, as explained in my talk page discussion with Chaldor. Thank you so much for the help. Limjason (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - LP has been making contributions to various Shell to Sea (a group against a controversial Irish oil pipeline) related articles. Many of these articles are overflowing with POV, weasel words, etc. I set about cleaning them up over the weekend, noticed LP was heavily involved, and saw he admitted to a WP:COI here (being involved with the campaign). I warned (first edit was a mistake) him, and he replied this morning he wouldn't make controversial edits, but then he reverted all of my NPOV edits (all the edits, not just sections) I made over the weekend. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, Falcon9x5's "cleaning" has involved blanking, whitewashing, deletion of references, and peppering articles with weasel words. I haven't blindly reverted all his edits, and have added requested sources where practical (i.e. where it didn't necessitate wading through an ocean of weaseling in order to save the source requests). Falcon's assertion that my edits are controversial doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I freely admit being involved with the campaign. Nothing I see in WP:COI would indicate that this precludes me from editing related articles. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist has been blatantly violating the WP:COI for years. None so blind as those who cannot or will not see. Snappy56 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the part of WP:COI you believe I am violating.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Also, "...editing articles related to...your organization..." - something that should be avoided, or have great caution exercised, neither of which you've done. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I believe I have exercised caution. Unlike your wholesale blanking of links to newspaper articles that don't tally with your point of view, insertion of nauseating weasel words (insinuating that the crippling of old men is somehow not violent) etc. etc. There's no need to keep thanking me, I'm happy to set you straight.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It really seems that neither of these editors are blameless and could both moderate their editing style especially on Shell to Sea. Much of Falcon9x5's editing has been removal of apparently justifiable text and looks like extreme whitewashing to make the article seem there is little opposition or resistance. On the other hand Lapsed Pacifist's edits are perhaps somewhat tainted by his interest in the controversy but not to the extent that Falcon suggests. However if there are verifiable sources that text should not be removed without discussion. ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Having looked through the my changes in the Shell to Sea article, I'm not really sure what could be considered extreme whitewashing. As I see it, all of my contributions were legitimate, removing WP:POV, a huge number of WP:WEASEL words - I don't think I removed any verifiable sources. I removed some indymedia.ie ones, but it can not be considered WP:V. Also, I don't think any of this excuses the fact that LP has a conflict of interest. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Both editors have breached 3RR and as appropriate I have left them both a warning. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I'm well aware of 3RR and have not breached it - at least not on the article you linked to (and no others that I'm aware of - I try to be careful about it). Thanks! Fin©™ 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review this history of Corrib gas project one of the related articles associated with the same topic above. Clearly looks like 3RR to me. ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed it - Corrib gas project history: R1, R2, R3 (no breach). Shell to Sea history: R1, R2 (no breach). I haven't broken 3RR. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Corrib gas project history clearly is an edit war between Falcon9x5 and LP. How can Falcon's 3 examples R1, R2, R3 not be a breach of 3RR? Please explain, as I seem to be missing something here or the edit war definition has changed recently. Whatever. ww2censor (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR is making more than three reversions in 24 hours. I have made exactly three. Hence, no breach of 3RR. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Bear in mind that 3RR does not automatically grant the right to revert 3 times per day. If an obvious edit war breaks out, administrative action could be taken even if 3RR is not technically violated. Arakunem^Talk 19:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, I was just making the point that I didn't break 3RR. The discussion's spiralled away from the original point (LP's COI). Thanks! Fin©™ 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And from a second pertinent point brought up by ww2censor:

Much of Falcon9x5's editing has been removal of apparently justifiable text and looks like extreme whitewashing to make the article seem there is little opposition or resistance.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not. Relevant. You still have a COI, regardless of my edits. Fin©™ 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW personally I think there is evidence of violation of WP:UNDUE by LP across a range of articles in trying to promote the importance of a topic, good enough evidence that this is WP:COI driven (as in self declaration above that he was a protestor) and evident evidence that this is being maintained aggressively in the face of a significant number of editors down-playing the over-emphasised subjects. I have not as yet checked the edit patterns of all the editors who are pushing the other way to be sure there are no socks involved and probably someone should do that. If there aren't socks I think some sort of acceptance of COI and UNDUE on the part of LP and some sort of limitation (e.g. LP agreeing to stick to 1RR on material relating to Shell to Sea) would improve the project. However these are just my opinions, I am really too busy to get into a long discussion and I don't do many COI cases so it would be good if some other admin else looked at it (including whether the editors who keep putting back look substantial and independent). --BozMo talk 20:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Simple Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wehwalt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to know if this constitutes a COI. At the Simple Plan article there is an editor who knows the band in real life, his relationship is thus that he gets free passes to the band's shows. This relationship seems to be effecting his willingness to allow NPOV statements to be included the article. An archive of his talk page shows that he previously quit the WikiProject centering around this band in order to avoid COI concerns. There also comments at another user's talk page detailing his relationship with the band. I have tried discussing the issue with the editor but no progress has been made. Aurum ore (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I filled in the header with the article name and the user names. This band is so famous they have their own Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Simple Plan. I have notified User:Wehwalt that he's being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the band. I edit the Simple Plan article because of my liking of the band. If this is a COI concern please ignore this comment. However, I know that editors tend to edit articles with subject matters that interest them; I know that most editors can edit without bias. Wehwalt is one such editor that is acting without a bias. Your fixation, Aurum one, with adding the 'Emo' genre into the article is the reason for this report. I would like to remind you that your two (very flimsy) sources are in an extreme minority. Faced with hundreds of articles reporting the band to be pop punk, your opinion can not be included in the article. Sorry. Please stop acting childish. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Poe Joe sums it up well. I am a fan of the band who has become a "friend of the band", I see them at the shows, I rarely to never see them away from the venue, and who they put on the guest list. I should add that I can well afford to pay for a ticket, and that my travel expenses (which I pay) to get to the shows are many times the cost of a ticket. I can't imagine that for a $30 ticket, I have bought a COI. All this is disclosed on SP's talk page, and I believe on my talk page archives. Any conflict (I don't think there is) has been adequately disclosed. Aurum ore's theory, if he has one, is simply nuts. I'm not even clear on how he is saying there is a COI, unless he says I can be bought so cheaply. I am a fan, and take an interest in the band, and as Poe Joe says, people edit what they are interested in.

Editors are free to look through my edits to the SP and related articles; they are uniformly NPOV and aimed at improving the articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt and Poe Joe, I know your feelings on the matter, and I know my feelings on the matter. I have come here to get an outside opinion. I should have notified you that you were being discussed here, and for that I apologize. Aurum ore (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

From your discussion here, and an admittedly brief look over the article an its talk page, i don't think that this can be classed as a COI, rathers its simply an edit conflict about whether to call them emo or pop punk, and you need to stop changing it, leave it as it is until your debate is resolved. If i can be so bold as to make a suggestion for a solution to this conflict though, why not a compromise. On the talk page you say there are sources for either, why not put change the header to something like "Simple Plan is a French Canadian pop punk<ref>/Emo<ref> band. If you are willing to make such a compromise, it would solve all the drama, and save you all from a lot of tension--Jac16888 (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally never meant to imply that I wanted "pop punk" to be removed. I'd be perfectly happy to have them both listed since there are references for each. Aurum ore (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Again, your flimsy sources are in an extremely small minority when faced with the hundreds of reliable sources calling them pop punk. 'Emo' must not be included as a genre. -- Poe Joe (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) First of all, this is not the place for you to be having this discussion, and secondly, if you're not willing to compromise over something so trivial, this is likely to get dragged on for a long time--Jac16888 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Poe Joe, again I am already aware of your stance. This is not the place to discuss our personal views on the subject, that's what the talk page is for. I am here solely for other editor's opinions as to whether Wehwalt's previous comments constitute a COI. Aurum ore (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so. In view of the fact that Aurum ore began this discussion by alleging that I was not willing to "allow NPOV edits", Poe Joe is certainly within his rights to acquaint other editors as to what the matter in dispute is. And Jac16888, you made a proposal on this page relevant to the content; certainly Poe Joe is within his rights to respond.

Aurum ore has acknowledged that I have disclosed on talk page, which is the proper way of handling such things. I very much question the way that Aurum ore has gone about this. Deep in a content dispute in which he has failed to convince any other editor, either myself or Poe Joe (who certainly has no COI), he makes an issue of this disclosed matter. Aurum ore, incidently, has used this techniques of invoking questionable reviews as RS to add "emo" to the genre of at least one other band, New Found Glory through tendentious edits. And aside from the current content dispute, in which no regular editor of the page has agreed with him, he cannot point to a single edit made by me which is inconsistent with WP policies.

WP:COI says that "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." There is no there there in Aurum ore's arguments, who appears to be in full flown retreat since now he is saying that he just wants a second opinion. Dragging the name of another WP editor through this board is not acceptable without a solid basis for doing so, and he doesn't have any basis--other than the possibility that I can be bought for a thirty dollar concert ticket. That's not a sustainable position. But any stick works to beat a dog.

I'd really like an uninvolved admin to look at this, and see if Aurum ore should be topic blocked on the subject of music for misuse of this page. I also note that he did not notify me of the allegations he was making against me, another editor had to do that. While I like to AGF, the assumption can be worn away, and given Aurum ore's words and conduct, it is hard to AGF with him/her anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wewhalt, the COI guideline suggests first approaching the editor directly on the matter, which I have at Simple Plan's talk page. It then suggests bringing the matter either here or to WP:DR. I am not trying to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Simple Plan is not linked to WP:NPOVD, which is what content dispute redirects to on the COI article. I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter with other editors such as Poe Joe, and have even continued to discuss the matter with you at the Talk Page after bringing the matter here. Aurum ore (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unorthodox to discuss music genres here on this page. But it's not the first time this problem has come up on Wikipedia. Can you tell us, briefly, how you think music genre disputes ought to be settled? Do you know of any successful examples where you think a genre issue was correctly laid to rest using reliable sources? (If this discussion gets too verbose we can move it elsewhere, but I personally would like to know the answer). EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked Aurum ore to get some news articles in which Simple Plan is called emo. I think that there has to be a threshold showing of news coverage (or articles on the band, not opinion reviews in other words) in which the band is called by the second genre. I would say that if he can come up with a significant number of such articles, or, since band genres and also terminology shift over time, a smaller number from a discrete period of time, then I'd tend to accede to a second genre, with the location of the mention within the article to be negotiated. I'm thinking that if 20 percent of news articles/feature articles on the band mention the proposed genre, that would be good enough. But reviews are opinions, necessarily so, and I can't give them weight. Unhappily, Aurum ore chose to stand on the review articles he posited, and did not respond to my request. If it's less than 20 percent (I'd even make it 15), then I think it falls under WP:UNDUE. I can't give you an example of genre disputes that were resolved, because I mostly don't follow such things. It was Aurum ore's assertions that emo should be listed coequally with pop punk when I follow the news coverage of SP reasonably closely and I know that news articles always call them pop punk that brought me into this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing we might want to do is move the question of whether CD reviews are considered RS over to the RS noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt and Poe Joe, I have tired to be very courteous to you throughout our discussions. I have never insulted you or your viewpoints, so please do not continue to insult mine. You never requested that I find additional references to back up my statement (the closest you got was asking: where are all the newspaper reports that call SP emo? You never indicated that offering more references would have any effect on your opinion. A statement you made on Poe Joe's talk page when you asked him to join the discussion indicated that you intended on prolonging the dispute until I went away rather than engaging in meaningful discussion.

Typically they get discouraged or else bored and go away after a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Aurum ore (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not only false, it is demonstrably false. Here are some quotes from our discussion:

". In a nutshell--you have a couple of reviews that call them emo, which may or may not be RS, it doesn't matter. But I'm looking at the news stories on the recent tour, and news article after news article calls them pop punk and doesn't call them emo.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"

"According to WP:UNDUE, small minority views (which you seem to admit yours is, they are the views of individual reviewers, you have two of them, and one refers to the music on the first two CDs) are not to be given space on WP. Reviews are close to personal opinion, which are not to be used for WP:RS except under limited conditions that don't apply here, where are all the newspaper reports that call SP emo? Here's a few of the recent ones that call them pop punk! I'm in a hurry or I'd put in more.[7][8][9][10] (there are many more, and news articles are far more reliable than reviews) I would hesitate to call your UK source a "major component of the mainstream media", leaving a brief Rolling Stone review. Whereas newspapers routinely refer to SP as a pop punk band. WP:UNDUE is a subset of WP:NPOV. Those who call SP emo are not a significant minority, therefore we do not put them in. And to paraphrase Poe Joe, that pretty much says it all!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"

"You've given a couple of opinion pieces about music, reviews in other words. You haven't shown a single news piece. If this is a significant minority view, and not just "flat earth", you should be able to show that there are many news reports that refer to them as an emo band. Two reviewers are "flat earth", not a significant minority. You know, the sort of coverage they get when they play a city. Not just the opinion of two reviewers, but offhand references in serious news reports.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)"

Thus, your claim that I never asked you for more sources, or more RS, is not true. I find it amazing that you choose to link directly to matters you feel support your claims, but if you don't, you just make an offhand characterization (although clearly untrue). I would expect you to be both civil and truthful when bringing matters to this page. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to make the discussion more accessable to outside editors, I am detailing my reasons for initiating this discussion with links for each instance: I am aware that Wehwalt previously commented on his relationship with the band on the article's talk page. However the statement is not current and does not include all the details of his relationship. The statement was posted on 9 February 2007. He did not remove his name from the WikiProject until December 2007, indicating that his relationship with the band had changed, to the extent that he now feared COI concenrns in regards to his continued participation. When questioned by Poe Joe about his departure he stated:

"Uh, given that I get a pass now from the band, I feared WP:COI concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC) "[37]

He has also made statements indicating that he knows the band well enough to receive favors or perks for his friends:

I haven´t forgotten (though I will probably have to remind them) but don´t expect it soon. I´ve seen the schedule, nothing your way anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[38]

One of his edit summaries indicates that he speaks to the band outside of shows, and has spoken with them on the phone:

Well, call it OR if you want, but i got a call[39]

When I made a good faith edit with several reliable sources, he reverted it without discussion. No previous discussions had adressed the sources in question. He has a history of reverting genre edits to the article without discussing them at the talk page[40][41], or in some cases doing so without even explaining what he was reverting in the edit summary.[42] In a few instances he has said this was due to previous conensus at the talk page, however none of the discussions in question appear to have arrived at any form of consensus.[43]He has also removed article headers without discussing them [44] and has even taken it upon himself to correct statements backed by the band's official site, replacing it with his personal knowledge.[45]

I trust the opinions of the editors at this article and will gladly abide by their decision regarding Wehwalt. Although, I have tried to keep relatively level headed and assume good faith throughout the discussion, I admit that my temper has risen and as such will take a few days' leave from this discussion in order to cool off. Aurum ore (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah. Why did you, Aurum ore, add my name on there? How in the Sam Hill do I have a conflict of interest?! Now, it is beyond obvious that you are reporting us only to gain an advantage in this content dispute. I strongly urge you to drop this COI case, so that we can continue this discussion civilly on the Simple Plan talk page. -- Poe Joe (talk)

I didn't add your name to the discussion header, one of the other editors did. I assume it's because Wewhalt made comments regarding his relationship with the band on your talk page. I'm not accusing you at all of having a COI. Aurum ore (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually rather shocked at the uncivil tone taken by Aurum ore, whether or not he is here to read it, and the misleading and incorrect characterizations he has given. I think we know that Aurum ore spent a considerable amount of time last night looking for anything he could use against me, and in most cases did not content himself with the link, but posted his own (wrong) conclusions based on them. This is uncivil and he has failed to WP:AGF. For example, [46] is a reversal of vandalism. Take a look at the previous edit, it puts some kid's name in as the producer. I do not get calls from the band, or release non public info on the band (not that I ever have any), so there goes that right now. There is a consensus, stated after discussion on the talk page, that SP is pop punk, and unsourced changes to that get reverted as a matter of course. Usually they come from IP addresses. Too bad I didn't post detailed edit summaries, but on a page which receives a lot of vandalism, you get into a habit of being rather summary. And yes, most disruptive editors, whether or not you fall into that category, do get bored and go away after a while.

Moving on to other items in the kitchen sink he has thrown at me, [47]. Of course I removed the unencyclopedic tag; the editor failed to state any specific concerns and what were we supposed to do, guess? The tag says "please discuss on talk page"; the editor did not start a talk page discussion. Other tags, properly applied, have remained on the articles concerning the band[48] (double tag, inserted December 2007 and remained ever since). [49], the call was from the Foundation, and they were supposed to modify their web page, which they never did, unfortunately. That was after I applied for a ticket, and was called back to be told it was sold out. Um, given that I didn't go, that hardly makes Aurum ore's case! I thought it would be helpful to put the information it was sold out on WP pending the official announcement, which unfortunately never came. Aurum ore is mistaking tongue in cheek edit summaries because he is hoping to see violations of WP policy. [50] common courtesy to let another fan know if SP is coming their way, jeez. And when I did let Poe Joe know, I backed it up with a link. Something wrong with that?

Concerning my edit about COI concerns, I felt that in a wikiproject, I might get more deference than I deserved, and thus resigned from the wikiproject. That is a matter of my personal ethics, and not of WP COI standards. I'm still not clear on what basis Aurum ore is even contending there is a COI (other than his kitchen sink approach to dispute resolution). Is he still saying a thirty dollar concert ticket buys a Wikipedia shill? If so, he hasn't shown it. At the worst, all he's shown is carelessness in editing in an article which makes no pretentions to be a FA. And his attempt, and general incivilities, very much leaves his own ability to properly engage on this article open to question. I note he has said he won't engage with me any more, just with Poe Joe. Guess what. Even if I did have a COI, which I do not, I'd still be able to participate on talk page. Aurum ore's "I won't talk with you but I will talk with him" displays a rather childish attitute (to borrow Poe Joe's phrasing).

You did not post with reliable sources; you posted with opinion reviews. When you persisted, I told you that. Your editing is tendentious, to say the least, and now you are throwing in the kitchen sink in an effort to gain your ends. This is uncivil and wrong. Perhaps an opinion review is good enough for [51] this list, whereby one mention in any music review of "emo" makes you emo, but we've asked, repeatedly, repeatedly, Aurum ore to post news articles, feature articles which refer to SP as emo. He won't even reply. The regular editors of the Simple Plan article properly refused Aurum ore's attempts to insert the "emo" genre under WP:UNDUE (if he can't find news or feature articles . . . ) and told him of the need to find pieces which were more than someone's personal opinion. Unfortunately, his responses have been to come here and try to get me thrown off the article, without good cause. I have refrained from going back and looking at Aurum ore's edits, forcing him to defend everything he has done against a hostile editor, like he has done for me.

Poe Joe has stated that Aurum ore is engaging in this discussion to get an advantage in a content dispute. I agree, it is proved beyond doubt. I've quoted from what WP:COI has said are the consequences of that, and unlike Aurum ore, see no need to repeat myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, the position that a review is not a RS is one I've taken before, in a context [52] almost a year old and having nothing to do with SP. I've edited with a consistent position. The band itself could edit, if it wanted to (maybe they do, I have no idea) so long as they maintained NPOV. I say again, where's the COI?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Though this debate could be of interest, I no longer perceive any COI issue. I suggest that the discussion continue at Talk:Simple Plan, and this thread be closed for COIN purposes. Is there any reason for more investigation here? EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If there's no COI, then there's no COI. Consider it closed. Thanks for looking into it, though. Aurum ore (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – COI policies explained, article brought into NPOV Arakunem^Talk 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Elias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- After checking the article, I noticed some diffs that may need to be checked[53] [54]. Given the nature of the edits I think A WP:COI may be present, but since this is a biography of a living person the edits may have merit. But I still think they should be checked. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Article is provided directly by the artist "Quentin Elias" by electro boy inc records. His current managment and record label. All that has been put in the article are facts and are documented so by links directing there integrity and documentation.

If the person needs to talk to his representation feel free to without deleting the truth.

flash electro boy inc records electroboyinc@aol.com

or

Quentin Elias qnyc@mac.com

• Cdrkit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An unregistered user has made a few tendentious edits to the cdrkit article, where he declared various sources unreliable and removed or ((fact))ed cited content without (IMO) good reason. [REDACT unintentional OUTING. See WP:COI and WP:OUTING for guidance.Jehochman ^Talk 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)]
• I'm reluctant to begin reverting his edits without some outside review concurring with my assessment of the situation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't force the issue of his identity, especially as a condition of being allowed to edit the article. COI says that *if* he is Schilling, he is not automatically precluded from editing, as long as he maintains a neutral POV. If his editing does not maintain NPOV, then that is its own problem (regardless of who he is) and those edits should be addressed accordingly. He should not be removing cited facts from the article without a proper explanation, though he is right to also request cites of some claims made in the article. I would start by opening a discussion section on the article's Talk page, and leave the IP a note on his talk. Alternately, as it appears his IP changes from session to session, leave a note about the discussion as an edit summary. Opening the dialog though is key here, as otherwise it will just become an edit war. Arakunem^Talk 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• You can report this case at WP:NPOVN. Let's not identify editors by name, unless they do so themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also please draw WP:OTRS and the email address to this editor's attention if you believe they may need private advice in handling issues with an article concerning their own interests. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Elias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See Talk:Quentin_Elias#The_future_of_the_article. COI from management, 'nuff said. Keegan^talk 05:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I see much clue was dispensed. Article is fairly quiescent now. Arakunem^Talk 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)