USER:Radarradio and 203.1.211.150

I must admit, I am reasonably new to this, but I have been watching a few music related articles, and have noticed this user which is a radio station 1) creating articles about itself and 2) citing its own "blog" in support of the above articles. There are other examples which you will see when you look at the IP Contribs. I'm not sure if this is ok, but from the WP:COI it doesnt seem right... Teachingwedge (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just found this User: Auspeto who is clearly from the same employer and doing the same thing - Advertising and using Wikipedia as a Soapbox. Can someone please help me with what the correct process is, because this does not appear right - everytime you go to an article about music, this user (via numerous sockpuppets) has inserted trivial and non-notable information which also amounts to original research along the lines of "X recently revealed on Radar Radio that..." Teachingwedge (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
No? No-one cares? Or have I posted in the wrong place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teachingwedge (talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Luxury_Stranger

Article is written by the person/entity it is describing, with few references and sources. Also, no indication as to the entity's importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.52.18 (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've reverted the edits made by TrueLuxuryStranger (talk · contribs) as they were unsourced and probably based on their own knowledge rather than being verifiable. If they were still active they would be blocked for having an inappropriate username, but since they haven't edited in a few weeks there's no point. I'll keep an eye on the article to make sure it doesn't happen again. SmartSE (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ross Richie

The user name is the same as the article name who is also a founder of Boom! Studios. User has been warned. -Triwbe (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Stay

The user has noted at Talk:Wetzel Whitaker that he is the grandson of the subject in Jesse Stay. The article, which was originally speedied (A7) in 2007, was recreated recently and tagged for notability. However the editor has removed the tag without fixing any issues, simply claiming that his grandfather is notable. Nothing further yet but it might be worth following. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that if the creator of an article removes a legitimate notability tag without fixing any issues, it's an affirmative statement that the creator thinks the article is good enough to survive AFD, so I nominated for AFD and we can let the community decide. I'm removing the COI tag; if the article meets N, there's nothing wrong with the article other than MOS issues. THF (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Sangshik Han

Obvious one -- advised against autobiography, has ignored this advice and carried on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one to keep an eye on too, since he is the current president - Berea University of Graduate Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Griswaldo (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the autobiography tag. What's not neutral about the writing? Did the editor delete mention of a controversy about himself? Is he edit-warring? The COI tags are to notify editors of a potential NPOV problem, not to punish editors who happen to have a conflict of interest but are complying with the guideline. I don't see anything controversial on that page other than the lack of sourcing. (The Berea University of Graduate Studies article is certainly more problematic.)
If the issue is that the subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then the proper response is an AFD nomination. THF (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that both articles are very suspect. The weblink provided is broken and the only links that turn up on Google to to the blacgradsdavis.com site, which appears to be claiming a non-existent association with UC-Davis. Not only are there no reliable, verifiable sources for either article, I don't think there's evidence any of this is real. Msnicki (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a working link for the university - [1], but we need someone who reads Korean to sort this out.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Here are some additional links that might be helpful (note that there has been a name change to Berea International Theological Seminary) - [2], [3], [4], [5]. It is a start, but I think the school is real at least. Maybe not notable though.Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The first and fourth of those are Wikipedia mirrors, so aren't appropriate to bootstrap the article. The other two aren't really RS, though are certainly counterevidence against a hoax. I've added a ((notability)) tag. If Berea isn't notable, then Han isn't, either, and both articles should be deleted. THF (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

PR representative

User:Lawrencewarwick declares himself to be part of a "partner in Websketching.com which is a website developer and online marketing firm." He also says he has "permission from Author Wolk to write about him". He has edited almost exclusively the bio of Arthur Alan Wolk. Is this okay per WP:COI? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly hasn't been neutral editing. For example, in the first version: "As a result of his seasoned courtroom skills, aviation industry savvy and technical aircraft knowledge, Arthur has been named to the steering committees of every major airline disaster ..." [6] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I had missed this section when I posted at a new section below but we are talking about the same problem. Racepacket (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User Lawrencewarwick and Arthur Alan Wolk

This user had admitted that his firm is being paid to "represent" (in a non-legal sense) Arthur Alan Wolk on the web. He had promised to stop editing these articles. He has restarted making edits that "spin" this article to minimize criticism of its subject. I suggest a topic ban on Arthur Alan Wolk. Racepacket (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly allowed to edit this article especially to correct "spins" designed to maximize criticism of the subject as Racepacket has done. My recent edit of Wolk filing a lawsuit against NTSB was unbiased and reported the facts about the suit the facts were obtained from the source cited this was not a spin but fair reporting of the facts reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer on December 19,2000.LEW (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Before deleting content that I add I suggest you discuss it firstLEW (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. If there is something wrong with an edit, leave it to someone not involved to correct. (By the way, LEW is actually User:Lawrencewarwick.) Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
There are proper ways to edit with a COI, and thousands of people here have done so. there are also improper ways, and many times more than that have tried to do so. The involvement of Wolk's admitted representatives, and that of someone whom Wolk has been singularly unhelpful in discussing this and related articles. In particular, a party to a lawsuit against another editor (or their representative) should not under any conditions whatsoever be editing an article about the other party or closely related articles. This is the grossest sort of COI editing possible. It is of course better to edit with an admitted than a concealed COI, but that is not enough in cases like this. The most the parties should do here is place comments on the talk pages of the articles in question, and on the talk pages of any afd's or other Wikipedia process concerning those articles. The edits will then be evaluated by neutral editors, of whom thee is no shortage. I therefore ask that LEW and THF and any other editors similarly involved from editing article space or engaging in deletion/merge/etc. processes regarding this & related articles, and from editing each others talk pages or otherwise commenting on each other. As mentioned in earlier discussion it is in any case foolhardy for a party to a lawsuit to comment on it in public. A person who would do that should not be editing the article here, for their passions have clearly superseded their judgement. If consensus approves, we can record it as a formal topic ban. Otherwise it is my warning that I (& others if they choose) will block any of them ediing this material. If either party thinks they have been libeled here, the recourse is OTRS, not editing the pages. If there is actual libel, OTRS can be trusted to remove it and hide it. In order to insure fairness and avoid unconscious bias, I myself will not edit the article, and I think that should apply also to anyone else enforcing this. I will proceed from this point if there is support for my position. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Lawrencewarwick should definitely not be editing it, and the same applies to anyone who has real-life conflict with Wolk. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Concur with DGG and SV. There are plenty of eyes on these articles, so any suggested changes on LEW's or THF's part should be brought up on the talk page. ArakunemTalk 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but our guidelines don't forbid any editing of articles and this isn't the correct venue to seek consensus for a topic ban. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with DGG's position, and support formalization as a topic ban if necessary. VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Also agree strongly with DGG. And while Smartse is correct that policy on its own doesn't absolutely forbid COI editing, someone who has been warned by an admin against carrying on -- a judgement emerging from observation of previous editing on that article -- would be quite foolish in persisting after such a warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
And I should add that any attempt to influence edits by asserting OWNership and asking that people check them with someone else before posting is , in my opinion, harassment at the very least, and must not be repeated. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I strongly concur with everything DGG, Slim and Nomo have said here. This nonsense must stop. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. Articles are not owned by those who pay for them. There is a clear conflict of interest here.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is my name being dragged into this? I've never edited any of these articles, and have voluntarily agreed not to so much as discuss them on wiki over three days ago, despite the fact that I haven't violated a single guideline. Please stop WP:HOUNDing me. THF (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, THF has not been editing in this area, and was mentioned only because he would have a COI *if* he did. He should definitely not be under consideration for any topic ban or other sanction here. ArakunemTalk 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Right, amended to LEW, and a warning that it will be extended to anyone editing on his behalf, and to THF if he returns to the articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Please correct: "return" suggests that I was previously at the articles. Which I wasn't. THF (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
"Return" is appropriate given your participation in the AfD (indeed, your initiation of it -- which requires an edit to the actual article). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't nominate the Wolk article for deletion. I nominated a forked article for deletion that everyone on Wikipedia agreed should be deleted and that Wolk's representative requested deletion of--and it was about a lawsuit that I won, which I disclosed in the nomination, so it was against my interest to nominate it, so I fail to see the problem. My participation in the AfD complied with WP:COI. Change WP:COI if you think there is something wrong with someone following it to the letter. The only disruption has come from people bringing frivolous complaints about my guideline-compliant behavior. THF (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Give it a rest, THF. You claimed that you hadn't edited any of the articles. This is untrue, and you carried on in the AfD after being advised not to do so by an admin. So you have no basis for claiming that people are treating you unfairly. Do you really want to continue discussing this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
He was treated unfairly. Admins may advise people on better practices, but unless they are actually enforcing policy they have no grounds to demand someone stop doing something. In a grey area like this you can't expect someone to simply hop to it the minute an admin tells them to stop doing something that the relevant guideline does not ban them from. Also THF complied even with the advice not to edit this area at all after very little discussion. Compared to what he actually did, and in the context of what he quickly promised not to do the amount of negative attention he's getting on this could easily be construed as WP:HARASSMENT. I suggest everyone lets this go.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I would oppose a general topic ban of LEW but would support one as construed above by DGG. If we ban him from all related pages we likely drive a known COI editor into anonymity. It is preferable to limit his participation to the talk page, per current WP:COI recommendations. If he is actually the representative of the BLP subject, then this is an appropriate extension of how we would treat that individual on his own entry. It also makes LEW's involvement with the topic transparent, something we ought to protect as long as we can. You topic ban him and he'll just return anonymously. Perhaps someone spots this down the road but that will only lead to more drama.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

right, and my proposed topic ban recognized this: I suggested banning from article space on the topic, not article talk space. ~ said this. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
DGG, I didn't realize you proposed a "topic ban". Jehochman specifically proposed a "topic ban" after you made your comment which did not make any such specifications, and I was responding to that. I would of course agree with the ban that you are proposing but I didn't realize that was what others were responding to. I've altered my comment to reflect this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger

Both accounts admit to being the subject of the article. Only the first account has edited the article; the second account is now demanding the deletion of the article because it's not being edited to his satisfaction, including the exclusion of an unfavorable article he doesn't like. Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Now see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sassy Pandez

Hi, guys. I'd like to request extra eyes on this for a while. This article has a looong and embattled history where it has been subverted for promotional reasons and efforts have been made to whitewash it. It's been going on for years. See User talk:AquilaUK for some prior conversations. See also this recent note at my talk page where her webmanager refers to vague concerns about the content of the article. It does not seem unrelated that a new user called User:Lawyers 13 has now attempted to remove sourced information, [7], under claim that this is "false." It is, of course, demonstrably not. I've added more sourcing to prove it. If there were any doubt that she is the same woman, her legal name is mentioned in the article, there are pictures, and one of the promo pictures at this management website is the same one used in this profile at the Sun. I don't believe we should reference articles from The Sun (this 2008 article, for instance, is not included.) But that she worked for them for years is well and thoroughly documented.

We've attempted to address their reasonable concerns in the past, including removing her real name from the article because she emphasized that she had stalker concerns. Her real name has been publicized in the press, but she is of marginal notability. Information related to her well-publicized, long-term personal relationship with Sol Campbell was trimmed for the same reason. ([8]). I believe, though, that as she is evidently attempting a bit of a separation in her career ([9]), that we may see some efforts to rewrite history. I am long involved in this, and it really needs additional eyes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Her handlers are trying to get us to split her past history from her present history into separate articles, arguing that having the truth in Wikipedia is interfering with her efforts to rebrand herself and making her a less saleable commodity, and that we should therefore falsify her history by splitting her into "Old Coke" and "New Coke" and pretending there is not a single human being underlying both brands, because otherwise the problems to her of having an article here outweigh the benefits (besides, her PR people didn't even get to approve the article's creation). This is accompanied by mysterious and ponderous mutterings about "legal issues we can't discuss in a public forum" and the like (not to the NLT level; just hints and whines). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Rharles

Rharles has created a few pages on Bloomberg media personalities, such as Julianna Goldman. However, User:Rharles states: "Rob Harles is Head of Social Meida for Bloomberg LP. He leads Social Media strategy and is responsible for building and managing customer communities and social channels globally." Furthermore, Julianna Goldman is basically a copy-and-paste job from Bloomberg's own website: [10] In addition to the Julianna Goldman article, Rharles has also created articles for Bloomberg employees Christine Harper, Jonathan Weil, Craig Torres and Michael Liebreich which are identically formatted. I don't see any edits that don't relate to Bloomberg employees. GabrielF (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that mandapanda22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also edited articles about Bloomberg media personalities and her user page is a bio of Bloomberg anchor Deirdre Bolton. I don't know if she is actually claiming to be Bolton or just put that content on her user page as a test or by mistake. GabrielF (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I also found GMichele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a similar editing history. From the looks of this it's a long term problem which needs a lot of clean up. Regardless of the COI, there are also big problems with the unsourced BLP information that is clearly based on OR, rather than sources. This obviously needs to stop and editors with a COI to Bloomberg should follow WP:BESTCOI, which involved not creating any pages related to Bloomberg, as well as only commenting on the talk pages of articles. SmartSE (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mark a hillman

Resolved
 – Deleted via WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest from single purpose account, with only apparent intention promotional. JNW (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim Eyman

EymanTim (talk · contribs) is either the subject of the article, or is violating the User name rules. Corvus cornixtalk 03:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If he has valuable information to contribute, it might actually be useful. He just needs to make sure that he is contributing in the "third person" from reliable peer-reviewed sources, not his own take or opinion...--Novus Orator 04:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, a persons own name is not a username vio. However, if you are impersonating someone well-known then that's a username vio. --Addihockey10e-mail 01:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Promotion of an Author

Resolved
 – Question seems to have been answered Mr. R00t Talk 23:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris Gair (talk · contribs) has contintued after a COI warning to Promote books relating to author Dominic Streatfeild whose BLP he created, putting links to it in multiple articles [11][12] [13] and BLPs [14][15][16]. Extra Scrutiny is welcome The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any conflict of interest from what I can tell. The biography isn't particularly well sourced, but it doesn't have classic COI signs like unsourced DOB and family deals. Some of the links and references inserted into other articles violate the external links guideline, but I think that these were probably made in good faith, and I've removed those that I felt were not appropriate. The books appear to be sufficiently notable and the articles are neutrally written as well, maybe with a few too many external links, but I don't think that's a major problem. SmartSE (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi SmartSE and The Resident Anthropologist - I read through the guidelines for external links (Links normally to be avoided) and thought that the source interviews that the author has released on his website could be interpreted as a 'link to an official page of the article's subject'. I guess that was wrong! So, as a rule of thumb I should always avoid linking to source material written by authors directly on their sites - even if it directly relates to the Wiki subject? Chris Gair (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2010 (GMT)
The links are ok in the DS biography, but they should only be added where they are highly relevant to the article subject. Simply adding links to them all over the place makes you look like a spammer. If you add a reference, it should be because you've used the source to write the article, not just because it is in someway related to the article subject. Edits like this set off my reference spamming alarm, even though you appear to be adding them in good faith. Hmm, just came across this which changes things and is indicative of a possible COI. If you are indeed the developer of the site then you should not be linking to it. SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
FWIW I think that the interview with the Int Corps interrogator was pretty apposite to an article about Interrogation. It would be preferable to embody it in the article in some way, adding value to the article, rather than bolting on at the end.
That said, there was no need to add links to every page.
ALR (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi All - Ok, so I think I understand what I should be doing here (besides doing this at 19:14 pm on a Saturday evening). I think what you are saying here is that just because I feel that something (an external resource) may contain unique information, that absolutely does not mean I should just post a link to it - as a reference - that is spamming, and devalues the quality of the article. What I should be doing is reviewing the external content in detail and contributing highly relevant information only, to the body of the article. It is the quality of the information within the article that I should focus on rather than providing links to lots of external resources - this is the spamming thing that is not good. Ok. So, for example, just before writing this, I removed the references I added from the Stress and Duress Wiki entry and added them as 'External Links' at the bottom of the entry. However, on reflection, these are not actually valid external links for this article (although they may be related to the subject matter). What I should in fact be doing, is re-reviewing the content of the interviews and IF there is anything specifically related to the article, extract that text and include the facts directly - NOT just link to something externally. Thanks everyone for your advice - I think I am begining to understand here. If you'll excuse me, I have some editing to do! Chris Gair (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (GMT)
Put simply, yes, because we're an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. It's not necessarily so simple though, because you have a COI with the site you're linking to also and as primary sources, interviews may not be the best place to get information to use in articles. As I said before, I'd ask that you do not link to the site. SmartSE (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Resolved
 – Issue solved Mr. R00t Talk 23:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've come across a pattern (e.g., 1, 2 and 3) in which another editor has given himself credit as the developer of various software products, sometimes even more prominently than given to the original authors. None of the articles are tagged to indicate his involvement. Due to some past interaction with this individual (4 and 5) I do not feel it would be wise for me take any action. I'm hoping a more experienced editor might be able to take a completely independent look at the situation. Msnicki (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting round to commenting sooner, at first clance, this is potentially a fairly wide scale issue, so I'm going to list any possible articles that need looking at below and try to look at it in more detail soon. SmartSE (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
sure - if there's some problem with NPOV, etc., I'd like to know. This has been discussed before TEDickey (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

William Spindler

This smells of autobiography, and I don't like the unexplained removal of notability tags diff nor the large undue-weight chunk added to Magic realism. He may well be notable, but the bio article at least needs cleanup for OR. 217.44.19.162 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A lot of self-references, flimsy on actual objective sources that support notability. JNW (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

VG Chartz and Brett Walton

Special:Contributions/TadjHolmes has a strong interest in the articles VG Chartz and Brett Walton (an article about the webmaster of VG Chartz that TadjHolmes created). All his edits have to do with VG Chartz, Brett Walton or related sister sites of VG Chartz, and he is regularly in dispute with other editors concerning the content of VG Chartz-related articles. Someone asked him some time ago if he has any connection to VG Chartz, to which he replied no. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Then I would also suggest a conflict of interest for Megata Sanshiro and VGChartz. Megata has a history of defacing the VGChartz article. TadjHolmes (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no defacing going on. The problem is that sourced information critical of VGChartz (which is not just hearsay - most people in VG journal know of the issue) should be part of the summary of the article, among the other changes being made. Tadj seems to be intent on hiding this and instead filling the article with favorable promotional material about the website (website sections, major contributors). We have to treat such sources without bias and that means covering the bad as well as the good, and not pushing either side too much. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Firstly can I remind everyone not to out other editors, we should comment on contributions rather than the contributor, if someone has a COI it is apparent from their edits, rather than any other information. I've removed information from the previous posts and the versions of the page where outing was visible have been deleted from view. I agree that there is a problem related to these articles and agree that TadjHolmes may well have a COI based on the single purpose nature of their contributions, particularly ones such as this which is be arguing over whether VG Chartz is a RS or not and this where referenced material was removed with an edit summary of "removing spam". I've never heard of this site til today, but will keep an eye on the article and try to ensure it remains accurate and neutral. I've added JadamHosey to this report as they may also have a COI based on the edits they have made today, as a brand new user. If these users do have a COI, I'd ask that they follow WP:BESTCOI and only make suggestions on the talk page of the articles, particularly as editing the articles directly may have unintended consequences. SmartSE (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about the links and Google cache page I had posted. As for my "history of defacing the VGChartz article", I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean when I only ever edited the article twice[17]. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a general comment on this - I was the user that originally suspected and asked about the COI, but after receiving a negative answer, I took the user at their word and let it be. However, their editing pattern (only VGChartz-related articles) and aggressive removal of negative VGChartz coverage/content means I still have my doubts. Likewise with the second user (Jadam), who only appeared today, and seems to be even more aggressive in their removal of negative items. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Added another user. I'll leave to those who know better to see if it's relevant. --Teancum (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also added an IP that is campaigning for it to be an accepted RS here. I'll try to look into this more later on. SmartSE (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Found this link earlier (an admin on the VGChartz forum saying he wants to get VGChartz in Wikipedia articles) - gimme a shout if it's taken down or something. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thread deleted , but still in Google's cache. - X201 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I've reopened the SPI and reported the two users, they certainly pass the duck test and I'll add that link as evidence of meatpuppetry as it clearly shows they are trying to overturn a long running consensus. SmartSE (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
And what would the issue be with that if there is good reason to review the longstanding consensus? There is as much of a conflict of interest with those who fundamentally oppose VGChartz and do everything in their power to deface articles and claim the site is unreliable despite evidence to the contrary. Maybe some more senior Wikipedia editors (with no personal connection) need to get involved so this may actually be reviewed in a fair and neutral manner. Also it is not technically meatpuppetry - that would be an editor asking other users to support a given dispute of which there is no evidence in this case. The forum post merely asked for users to contribute to improve the article, bring it up to date and so on. There is no malice or meatpuppetry evident here.92.28.197.234 (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Obviously consensus can change but it shouldn't be initiated by someone with a COI. The discussion you started seems to suggest it hasn't changed and in my opinion you have a COI because your interest is in VGC being accepted as an RS, rather than being here to improve the project as a whole. WP:COI makes this very clear: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." There are no "senior editors" here, but if you think those discussing it at the video games wikiproject have personal reasons to reject VGC as an RS, I could post at WP:RSN to get a wider discussion started. SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon

Tom Butler (also using an IP) is the creator of this whole subject and the controller of the phenomenon's organisation, as well as it's major promoter, together with his wife Lisa. He has been warned repeatedly since the creation of the article to be careful because of his obvious COI (including financial), but he's edit warring to keep out notable criticism of his nonsense. We need more eyes on the situation as there are other editors and IPs who are also trying to remove criticisms from notable individuals and organisations. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the IP edit, I simply forgot I was logged out.
I did not create the article--tried to get it deleted--and I am no longer a leading authority in the field. As a 501c3, we do not make a cent on the subject, and in fact, study many subjects. The article is grossly in error and I have not made an effort to change that. The only edits I have made concerns vandalism, and unfair ganging up by the skeptical editors.
A passing editor noted that the Randi bit did not seem relevant. Two skeptical editors came to shoo him away. If you look at the edit, he has a good point. The only support of relevance for the Randi challenge is a link to a Randi blog ranting about someone. While Randi's website may manage to be taken as a reliable source (Only Wikipedia skeptics would agree), a blog rant certainly does not qualify. I have invited the editors to find a better reference. Instead, they prefer to run to mommy. Tom Butler (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the RS/N. You have a massive COI and your repeated editing of the article to protect your interests isn't proper. If you only stuck to fixing facts and fighting vandalism it would be a different matter, but you don't. You have been warned many times during the years and yet you persist. A topic ban would be a suitable way of preventing you from protecting your interests. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten your own words, which are the wise approach:
  • "...I really should not contribute to any of the paranormal articles beyond things like logical errors and such because I am involved in one [http;aaevp.com] and am a Spiritualist. So I focus mostly on consensus and helping others who are trying to keep things at least reasonable...."[18]
This version of your talk page, before being cleared, reveals many warnings about your COI, incivility, personal attacks, noticeboard reports, etc.. This isn't a new situation and it needs to stop. A topic ban seems to be the only way. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that you just want to avoid having to use good editing practices by eliminating anyone who might force you to do so. My topic ban would only support the skeptical editors and would not serve the need for balance in Wikipedia.

If you think I am so COI, you should inform yourself a little. ATransC is funding a study to determine whether or not radio-sweep (frank's Box) actually produces EVP. If I was so determined to influence the EVP article, why would I defend their right to include reference to technology I think is bogus? Tom Butler (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a topic ban from electronic voice is the best solution. Even looking at the recent edit history of Electronic voice phenomenon, it appears that Tom and his IP are both edit-warring. When a COI-affected editor uses an edit war to promote the significance of material that he identifies with in real life, it gets into WP:Disruptive editing, which is blockable. If he would agree to confine his activities to the talk page he would not be in trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The IP thing was an oversight. I always try to compromise, but please note that three of the long-time skeptical editors have now gathered to assure out voting the editor who originally questioned the Randi item as inappropriate. I try to assure that none of my edits are in support of point of view. The article is poorly written and I make no effort to change that. We have long since changed the name and web address of our organization but I have made no effort to update the information because it would seem to be self-serving.
On the other hand, the skeptical editors are clearly promoting a point of view.
I will stick to the talk page. Can I come to you to help make corrections, such as vandalism or unilateral edits such as those made by Lucky? Tom Butler (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Using the talk page is perfect, since Tom's input is still valued. Balance can still be achieved with his input. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am the person who made the original modification, which I have rationalized on the article's discussion page. I have no interest in EVP, beyond wanting to read something about it after seeing it referenced elsewhere, but I am annoyed by the "Prove a negative" nature of the description of the Randi prize, demonstrable by the text added to this article. Blanket promotion of a point of view seems as disingenuous as what this fellow is being accused of.Adjensen (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, you have made this objection before. What do you have against content that expresses a POV? As long as it isn't editorializing injection of unsourced POV, but documentation of POV in RS, we're just following what we're supposed to do according to NPOV. Our articles are full of POV, and if there are conflicting POV, we are supposed to document them. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I have NOT made this objection before. I have little interest in these paranormal things and put little to no faith in it. But I have an objection to anyone claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is what the statement "The prize remains uncollected" attempts to claim. If there are specific instances of the Randi Foundation evaluating whatever this is, it should be included in the article as criticism. Saying that a general skeptic group is a relevant organization to this (and every other paranormal claim) is as honest as saying that the American Atheists is a relevant organization when discussing the Jewish Defense League or St. Nicholas. And claiming that Randi specifically addresses the issue by posting a blog rant by someone whining because some proponent of this won't come play in Randi's sandbox is not a valid claim.Adjensen (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah hem....you have indeed made that objection. Here's an instance in an edit summary where you object to the inclusion of "non-NPOV" content":
  • "Removed irrelevant organization with a non-NPOV, added comment regarding this to the discussion page." diff
If we don't include content from sources and organizations with a POV, especially an opposing POV, we'd lose much of our content here, violate NPOV, and our articles would be "duh" and fail to document the sum total of human knowledge. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I made that objection before... about an hour before. I took the comment "you have made this objection before" as meaning in the past. Prior to this article, I have had nothing to do with your Randi foundation.Adjensen (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay. BTW, it's not "my" foundation. I have nothing to do with it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again, kindly defend the statement that, similar to what you're trying to do here, every article on religion needs to have a reference to the American Atheists, with the notation that "No one has proved the existence of deities." Putting Randi's foundation reference on the page regarding paranormal studies in general, fine. Putting a specific instance of Randi debunking this particular subject (and debunking is NOT whining about someone who won't play, or refusing to test someone because they won't agree to your rules -- there's nothing wrong with either, but it is evidence of nothing) would be fine as well. Throwing this reference as a relevant organization, along with the "discrediting without a shred of evidence" statement that "The prize is uncollected" is shabby scholarship and criticism without basis.Adjensen (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You object too strongly. You are again using strawman arguments. I'm not going to defend a statement that neither I nor other editors have made. Your further statements likewise are strawman arguments not born out by an examination of what has actually transpired. No editor has claimed that EVP has been debunked by JREF or by the fact the prize "has never been claimed". That phrase was simply placed there by someone, presumably as a description of the nature of the prize and the facts surrounding it. Since the way it was placed could be misinterpreted by readers, I have removed it, but not for the reasons you are stating. No editor was making any claims about EVP being debunked by JREF. JREF and the million dollar prize can still be mentioned without that happening, simply because there are believers in EVP who have applied for the prize. That shows the Randi million dollar challenge applies to claims like EVP. They are considered so much bunk that JREF is willing to risk a million dollars if it can be proven. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Rather than criticizing me, how about if you address the question that I raise? You defend a generic statement applied to a specific instance, please address the generic statement applied to a specific instance that I raised, or simply accept the fact that you've applied a generic statement to a specific instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjensen (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
??? Haven't you read anything I've written? That one phrase was one little part of the content about JREF in several spots which were all removed by those seeking to remove criticism from the article, and that was part of it. The content got restored, but with improved specificity. I then noted the objection to that one phrase and removed it. So you see, you actually did get what you wanted, at least that part of it. Why are you still bitching? Are you dissatisfied that all the criticism hasn't been removed? That would violate NPOV. Why not just stop. Really. You've gotten what you wanted. Be satisfied. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not against criticism, I am against implied refutation by means of supposition. However, the purpose of this thread is your faulting this Tom guy for backing out the change that you now agree was valid. I don't know him, I don't know you, I don't know what history there is, but in this instance, I removed something that struck me as irrelevant, and he defended said removal. But I'm the one who made that change and argued the basis, not him. Adjensen (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity

Since the prior report closed with no direct result and with an eventual escalation to ArbCom, I would like board regulars to be aware I have set up a workgroup section for further discussion of COI in the longevity topic area. Comments on this thread will be kept in mind there. Incidentally, all identities are per self-disclosures. JJB 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential problem with about to exist article - Steve Mycoe

This advert asks for somebody to create an article for an author who seems to be called Steve Mycoe. Someone should keep an eye on it I guess... Malick78 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've watchlisted Steve Mycoe and Steven Mycoe. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar

The article has recently been radically changed and become one-sided and non-neutral (see diff). Criticism has been removed and the legal issues have been represented solely from Oktar's point of view with no context for what the complaints against him were in a number of the legal cases. Alternative or critical viewpoints have been ignored or appear to be deliberately removed from the article. Single purpose accounts with likely conflict of interest include User:Geoffry Thomas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Mark201202 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Refer to Talk:Adnan Oktar#Neutrality and proposal for rollback. An independent assessment and recommendations would be useful to reduce conflict if rollback is needed. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some neutrality issues here, but a better place for those would be NPOV/N I think. We can't discuss unsubstantiated hunches about COI here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree and I see it's also being discussed at FTN so I don't think there is anything to be done here. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I wish to dispute Fæ's claim of conflict of interest. He has brought incorrect information. CONTRARY TO HIS CLAIMS. I do NOT knows any of the other authors. I have not deleted any references from the original text. The case was discussed AND CLOSED before even giving me a chance to REPLY. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User Crakkerjakk

Crakkerjakk (talk · contribs) and Sigma0 1 (talk · contribs) created Kipp Marcus , IdeaConnection and have been editing in conjunction.These articles are listed on Elance are being done by a single firm called Bluebike Terminologies .Here is the advertisement for IdeaConnection and here is the Advertisement for Kipp Marcus .This is clear Conflict of interest and possible paid editing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer

IP editor claiming to be a co-worker of Elmo Shropshire made a number of unsourced edits to the article, leaving only an e-mail address. Since the user was editing from an IP, I wasn't sure that a uw- message would get to her. At the same time, I hate to simply revert because chances are good the information is largely accurate, if in need of editing for style and neutrality. Powers T 03:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

MikeWazowski (talk · contribs) looks to have taken care of things for the moment by reverting (they had also edited other related articles). If they're adding unsourced information, then it is best to just revert, remember the burden is on the contributor to provide a reference for anything you challenge. SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrovector_space

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 24.85.145.159 (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC) The article appears to have been written as a self-promotion by Dr. A. Ungar. Most references are to his work. His views on dark matter, as expressed in this article, are not shared by professional astrophysicists, however, no clarification or disclaimer is provided.

The article requires heavy editing from a neutral point of view.

I'm not so sure, the main editors have all worked on other articles, and if Abraham Albert Ungar was here promoting himself, I'm 90% certain that his name wouldn't be a red link. I see on the talk page there are some comments about possible original research but I'm afraid there's no way of me telling whether that is the case or not. I'll drop a note at WT:PHYSICS asking someone who might know something about it to take a look, just to make sure. Thanks for posting though. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Billy McEwan

User appears to be a single purpose account, making point of view edits relating to a controversial football transfer deal involving Clayton Donaldson, a player managed by McEwan. The account appears to be pushing the point of view of the agent involved in the deal, Andy Sprott. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the content because it had undue weight within the (short) biography. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Good call, that didn't really have anything to do with the subject of the article anyway. SmartSE (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Magnolia_CMS

I'm the CTO of Magnolia and closely associated with Magnolia CMS, the topic of the above page. This page was marked with a COI tag by author Dreamyshade a while back. I since revised the text to be more neutral after reviewing Wikipedia guidelines on neutral point of view and COI. The original objector Dreamyshade then suggested that I request assistance from other editors on this noticeboard to verify that the revised text is fine.

The revised text is posted on the article talk page with a request for comments. The original discussion thread and comments are on the user talk pages here and here. I'd appreciate it if someone could look at it and suggest feedback or modifications necessary, with a view to removing the COI and advertising tags currently on the page. All suggestions are welcome. Note that citations for the facts stated in the article are available, however I haven't yet added them in, so please let me know if you would those in place before reviewing it and I can add them in. Many thanks in advance for your time and assistance. Bkraft (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, I've left some pointers on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Curious about my own possible COI

I am writing this in an attempt to preemptively determine if I would be in violation of COI and what might be done. By way of backround, I suffer from Spontaneous Cerebrospinal Fluid Leak Syndrome. I am also the primary/major contributor editor to the article, which is a Good Article and has underdone extensive Peer Review. Along with a professor of mine at my university, I am writing a scholarly review article which surveys the literature and reports on the latest in the condition, including treatment protocols, etc. This will be published in a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, subjected to all the same academic and professional standards that any other published science article is subjected to. It has been determined that this review article would qualify as a Secondary Source, which will help the existing article in several ways, in addition to being a major source of pride for myself. What I would like to ask is thus- once this article is published, am I allowed to edit the Wikipedia article using my own published scholarly article? I realize COI is not a blanket ban on editing and one must be very careful, but I naturally have more concern than normal since I both suffer from this condition and writing about it. I simply want to avoid any possibly problems. I look forward to your replies. Sincerely, Basket of Puppies 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it's okay, so long as the use complies with WP:WEIGHT. Best practice is to collaborate with another editor to avoid fights later with some in the Wikipedia community that have their own private standards of WP:COI enforcement that vary wildly from the guideline itself. (One of these days I'm going to write a Wikipedia:COI and Strangers on a Train essay. Cf. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Requested_edit, supra.) THF (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, you can. Wikipedia:COI#Citing oneself says it is ok to reference your own publications so long as they are relevant to the article and the citing is not excessive. WP:SELFCITE is kind of relevant, but if your review is being written in conjunction with a professor and then being peer reviewed it is obviously not self published. I can't see any problems using a reference in the way you propose. SmartSE (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Perfect. I'll make sure to have close collaboration with the reference in question and make sure I am being balanced. Thanks for the very quick replies! Basket of Puppies 23:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:TheRealFennShysa

Seems to have a connection to Jeffrey P. Dennis. It is possible that they are the same person. Constantly add sections to cartoon related articles about sexuality based solely on Dennis's writing. Claims to be doing it because of WP:NOTCENSORED but it doesn't seem to apply here. JDDJS (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC) :I was wrong. Definitely not the same person because the user has misunderstood what Dennis was writing about. Still might have a conflict interest but is less likely and this section can be deleted. JDDJS (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I was doing was reverting edits that deleted sourced paragraphs. I will also attest that I have no interest or connection to this Dennis person - I just reverted what appears to be either vandalism or WP:POINT violations. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears I was wrong about your conflict of interest and I apologize for that. However I do feel that adding those was not needed. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cartoon Sexuality ---JDDJS (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian artists

Leningradartist (talk · contribs)

Not the first time someone noticed this problem, see this link:[19]...Modernist (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit

There's a WP:UNDUE problem at the outdated Ted Frank, where there are 80 words devoted to Usenet and only 118 to the legal work of Frank's law firm (and zero to Frank's current think-tank affiliation), even though the most substantial secondary coverage of Frank (as opposed to passing mentions) are in articles about his legal work: [20][21][22] (and many more listed at [23]). Center for Class Action Fairness is in similar need of updating. I don't think that these would be controversial changes to the articles, but given that some complain about WP:COI violations when I edit mainspace of subjects that have a tertiary relationship to me (or even subjects where I simply have a publicly-stated opinion), I'd rather not rely on the claim in WP:COI that it is alright to make non-controversial changes in mainspace. I've had first-hand experience with lazy reporters relying on inaccurate Wikipedia articles, so you can understand why I'd like to keep this article up-to-date given that the community has decided that this BLP should exist.

Thanks in advance for a neutral editor's work on this BLP: I'd be happy to reciprocate by putting in some time beefing up a non-controversial law-related article of your choice. THF (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you can write out the edits you think should be made, on the talk page or in a userspace version of the articles, and then I (or someone else) can check them over to make sure they are neutral? SmartSE (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, so it' normal for Usenet to have more weight than ABA Journal or stuff like that. Feel free to complain to WP:OTRS. Other biography subjects had more luck getting their biography adjusted that way. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dwell (retailer)

I noticed the article back in June 2010, and placed a WP:REF tag on it due to a lack of inline citations. Since that point on an irregular basis, the anon 81.100.64.222 has either reverted to earlier versions, or placed a series of escalating threats on my talkpage when I have flagged issues/inserted items, even though I have offered to assist in creating a suitably referenced article. This afternoon, I have had three threats placed on my talkpage, the last of which was removed by Wayne Olajuwon, who also had comments placed on his talkage. I am convinced that Dwell does meet WP:NOTAB for companies, but the effort required to both create a suitable article and educated a newbie Anon in WP:COI is beyond me in this case! All and any assistance would be appreciated. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

81.100.64.222 seems to be making a legal theat here as well as in other posts that use forms of the word 'libel'. --CliffC (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and also to ban me. The legal threat is associated with moving the HQ hundreds of miles, but their own website seems only to refer to Milton Keynes. Hence why I concluded stepping away and placing a discussion here was the best for all. Dwell is worthy of an article, but desperately needs third party refs. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I think it is appropriate that a person understands their legal obligations when placing information in the public domain. Specifically user Trident13 may not claim Dwell has it's head office in Milton Keynes because of a confusion on his/her part from the website. This is NOT stated on the website, and negligence may not be used as a defense in the UK legal system. It is technically an act of libel to make a false claim in writing. I am sorry user Trident13 does not like this; perhaps he could lobby for the law to be changed with his local MP.

With reference to Dwell article, all external links are third party links not written or collaborated on by Dwell. They merely document factual occurences in the history of the company. User Trident13 repeatedly vandalises the article by the removal of these links, due to a personal feud/grudge against myself, seen by him as a 'newbie'. Insulting others aside, there is nothing nonfactual in the article, and it attempts to be a source of quick facts on the company for those who seek them.

The Dwell article should be allowed to grow; with factual data placed there by those who know their source(s) are accurate, and their facts correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dwell retail, company website, Terms & Conditions - write to Dwell Retail Ltd, Milton Keynes. I hope others can now see the "opportunity" here. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's cute... That part of the website pertains to returned goods and/or order queries. Dwell's head office is in London. The point is not up for debate. No matter how much you think your error was justified, or justifiable, let us not confuse fact with fiction. The law does not, and I like to think of Wikipedia as a place that contains fact, not fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If there were a reliable source that says the headquarters are in London, there would not be debate. Now, I can find a job listing on the dwell website that refers to the job as "[b]ased in our head office at Oxford Circus, London," but that source won't be long-lived, and it's not secondary. —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This says they are "Wimbledon based". 81.100, can you please try to remain civil, Trident13 is only trying to maintain our policies, but some of your edit summaries have not been particularly polite towards them. SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Dwell Retail article keeps being tagged by user Trident13 as lacking inline references - a quick glance at it shows most of the article is made up of inline references; there are no fewer than five in the short body of the article. Please can we not have this tag on this article as it is incorrect. The article clearly does not lack inline references. 81.100.64.222 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Genetic algorithm

There is currently an ongoing argument on the article's talk page concerning the inclusion of new material in the article. The user above has proposed inserting material with references to his own publications, even though there are no other secondary sources backing up his works. I cannot say for sure whether there is a COI here, and personally I may be leaning toward there not being one, but I wanted to get an outside opinion on this matter. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this issue needs consideration here. Of course COI is involved (an editor has unequivocally stated that they wrote a certain thesis, and they want the thesis used to add certain information to Genetic algorithm). After a very long discussion (five months, I think), the editor has now said that they accept the consensus to not include the sentence (diff), so there is nothing to discuss here. If another editor wants to continue the discussion, that should be elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Johnuniq. If the user in question was continuing to push hard for inclusion of their own material, that might be a concern. But they seem to be acting in good faith, even going so far as to accept mediation via Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-29/Genetic_algorithms. If another editor wants to continue the discussion, then perhaps either try another mediation case, or post to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Catholic school

I think this article promotes the subject of the article 68.173.136.40 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Could you be a bit more specific? Then we may be able to help.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

KMGi (advertising agency)

The article KMGi (advertising agency) was recently tagged with ((COI)) Some improvements have already been made, very helpfully by the editor who added the COI tag. If there is more that could be improved, any suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     22:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the article? I've read over it and it appears to be in a neutral tone and doesn't include any promotional content. If it's suggestions for general improvements that don't have much to do with conflict-of-interest editing, I would suggest adding some unique things the agency has done, any awards, and anything else that would make the agency itself stand out (things that make it notable). Due to your conflict-of-interest, I believe posting suggestions on the talk page with the ((Request edit)) template would be the most appropriate route. If you have any questions on whether the content is appropriate, you could also post here. Netalarmtalk 02:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Good idea about the ((Request edit)) template, I didn't know about that!     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     11:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Songs From The Howling Sea

 Deferred to the spam project & article taken to AfD. Netalarmtalk 00:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The article Songs From The Howling Sea has been uploaded by User:Thehowlingsea, who appears to be the sole editor. It has no references. ISP User:78.146.54.207 has made 21 edits to other articles, all of them promoting this subject. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 11:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The user account was already blocked today by an admin. The COI issues may be moot then, in favor of cleanup via Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#The_Howling_Sea.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)    
The spam has been clean up I believe. We can continue monitoring the topic to see if it's being added to more articles. Regarding the article itself, would you suggest sending it to AfD? I'm not able to find significant coverage of it on Google, just MySpace and Facebook pages. Netalarmtalk 14:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd lean towards AfD. There's the one cite from London Evening Standard[24], but in a casual search I couldn't find any more secondary cites. It's possible this could be rescued, but as it is now, doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. If it is rescueable, the list of songs should probably go. I was going to suggest that the songs themselves could go to the commons -- but they are licensed as CC-BY-NC (attribution, non-commercial only) so that's not doable.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     15:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
AfD located here. This issue appears to be resolved from a conflict of interest standpoint. Netalarmtalk 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Dweck

The Biography article Michael Dweck was recently tagged with ((COI)). The editor who added the tag made no edits, and did not leave any suggestions for improvement. The article itself had a previous assessment via Articles for Creation, where some small modifications where made. If there is more that could be improved, any suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[citation needed] for 00:44, 2 December 2010 Daniel J. Leivick (talk | contribs) (9,878 bytes) (article created by paid editor) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
What does this have to do with a conflict of interest? I know the editor may have a conflict of interest with the subject, but the article itself seems fine and within guidelines. If you're seeking input on how to improve the article in general, there are multiple pages dedicated to that. See Wikipedia:Starting an article and Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Again, I can see no pressing issues with the article that need to be addressed. Netalarmtalk 00:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If no one sees any issues (most importantly with NPOV and/or cleanup, as the COI tag says), then I'd suggest removing the COI tag.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     01:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The tag was added because the tagger believed it was created by a paid editor. If it was indeed paid editing, I believe the tag is there to make sure that other users check and make sure the article is written from a neutral POV. Quickly reading over it, it appears to be neutral. I guess one may say the article focuses a lot on the awards and accomplishments, which may be merged into one section. Netalarmtalk 02:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the subject but the article seems neutral and well-written. If the author has a conflict of interest, it isn't apparent in the writing. I can see no benefit in having a massive tag defacing it. Anthony (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this in detail, but a quick check found one error, he was the first living photographer, not artist to be exhibited at Sotherby's. Until an indendent editor has checked all the contents, the tag may well need to stay. Similarly artnet.com is used heavily as a a reference, but pages like this are self published - I can't establish whether the others are or not. SmartSE (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, some good comments. We'll have to review the refs for primary vs. secondary status.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:ChicagoAIP and American Institute of Philanthropy

 Left warning, user blocked for spam username Netalarmtalk 00:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a supporter of any effort to protect the public from charity scams, but ChicagoAIP (talk · contribs) may be a bit too aggressive in his editing style. If he is connected to AIP, he should state that connection, and he should avoid taking POV-pushing quotations from AIP and placing them in articles. diff diffdiff Would these articles be stronger if ChicagoAIP had sourced these edits back to AIP's sources? One can reference AIP or AIP's findings without a glowing description of the organization, which Wikipedia does not necessarily endorse. By the way, AIP has a Chicago mailing address. Again, I respect his enthusiasim, but not his undeclared COI. Racepacket (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Motion chart

Iwaterpolo has previously been warned by two editors not to make links to SOCR as noted on an of this noticeboard. When making an otherwise helpful edit he also added a link to SORC. I'd give him another notice, but I feel like I'm talking to a wall at this point. 018 (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Guy Bavli

The article Guy Bavli was recently tagged with ((COI)) Some improvements have already been made, very helpfully by the editor who added the COI tag. If there is more that could be improved, any suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex Konanykhin

The Biography article Alex Konanykhin was recently tagged with ((COI)) Some improvements have already been made, very helpfully by the editor who added the COI tag. If there is more that could be improved, any suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     22:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

COI, BLP, edit warring--it's a grand slam

Reported single purpose account KingCast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism; request denied with the explanation that this user's edits don't constitute vandalism. Before I could respond request was removed from AIV page. Taking it here, pissed. It requires some fine hairsplitting to not accept a history of edit-warring, COI violations with links to unacceptable sources, and likely violations of BLP as block-worthy. Hell, I'll report this at improper usernames page, since it's the same as the blog being promoted. JNW (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I find this interesting [25]. Regardless of one's thoughts on the politician in question--and to put it tactfully the senator elect holds very little appeal for this contributor--the continued posts are unacceptable without the presence of objective reliable sources. Given the blog from which this emanates, the accusation that Wikipedia is censoring posts, the name of this account and its single-purpose agenda, I expect this will merit further attention. JNW (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam: Why are my sources not objective or reliable, most of them are COURT DOCUMENTS or Kelly Ayotte's OWN REPORT when you go to the requested pages. I have a law degree, got an A in Constitutional Law, have changed First Amendment Law in Nashua, have a Mayoral Commendation from former Mayor Bernard Streeter for so doing. I changed the link when it was not acceptable for me to use tinyurl, so what gives?

How can things be more objective than a court document?

And by the way, I don't commit Defamation, I have worked for the Indianapolis Star as a reporter and Editor at the Ohio Call & Post many years ago so I don't play around with inaccuracies folks, I bust on bad journalists who DO:

Read the Joanna Marinova v. Boston Herald post and watch my short video on that. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2010/11/kingcast-gets-another-visit-from-joanna.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1x3dn_YGnU

Now gosh dang it, I'm going after a very powerful person, and I am doing it with accuracy or she would have been all over my arse already but she can't because there's nothing inaccurate about what I am reporting. You guys are getting in the way of Justice, heck if you read the comments in my blog I was going to seek a vandalism complaint before my accurate posts were themselves stricken.

I respectfully request a well-reasoned response on Monday at [redacted], thank you. Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People 617.543.8085m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.33.26 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a welcome template to 68.184.33.26's talk page to help the user, who apparently is evading the block of user KingCast, better understand how Wikipedia works. --CliffC (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Mr. King: One thing I appreciate is your honesty, which makes it easier to pinpoint the issues: There's nothing objective about your mission, as you say, in "going after" a person--as an attorney and journalist you know that, and understand that you can surely use your blog to that end, but not an encyclopedia. You're citing yourself and editing under a clear conflict of interest--if the proceedings you reference have received extensive coverage in newspapers or journals they're okay, but my guess is that this individual is a party to thousands of court documents....as well, Wikipedia's goal is not the achievement of justice, a noble and subjective cause. It is concerned with reliably sourced factual content, without personal or political agenda. In other words, neutrality. That is why I may find the subject not at all to my taste, but attempt to honor the guidelines regarding her biography nonetheless. And it's not unreasonable to wonder if there isn't a little self-publicizing here, too. Again, your background suggests you understand these distinctions already.... JNW (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree that more eyes on this would be good, particularly as there are major BLP issues with the content being added. For others, the article in question is Kelly Ayotte. I have it watchlisted and will certainly protect/block as needed, but hopefully it won't be.
Chris, it appears you are watching this. Your blog and website is a good place to publicize the material and concerns that you have about Ms. Ayotte. Unfortunately, until what we call secondary sources (mainstream newspapers, magazines etc) publish about the matter, it cannot and will not be included on Wikipedia. This is because of our non-negotiable policies about WP:Verifiability, no original research and in particular articles about living people. This last specifically forbids us to use court documents in articles about living people unless information has been published elsewhere in the media, for example. You may feel that WP is standing in the way of justice, but we are not in the truth or getting-the-word-out-there business. --Slp1 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I was not aware the Court Documents were not permissible. How could that be reasonable across the board, I could see that with respect to Pleadings but what about Court Orders by a Judge or a Jury Verdict? Also, "going gfter" Kelly Ayotte in my lawsuit and publishing facts about her on Wiki are two different things, are they not? If the facts are true the motivation is wholly irrelevant as others are free to submit counter facts, no? WP is in the business of presenting verifiable information about public figures, so WP is indeed involved in "getting the word out." I'll respond more fully soon, but we are clearly at a negative sum game with respect to waiting for mainstream press to report these matters, you know they are lapdog media who never once covered my RSA 91-A Right to Know case against Kelly Ayotte and the Town of Franconia, but Littleton Courier did and they totally agreed with me so do they count? From my online journal I asked:

27 September 2007

KingCast asks the Concord Monitor and Union Leader when they will cover the pending RSA 91-A lawsuit of KingCast v. NH AG Kelly Ayotte et al.

So I guess by virtue of the fact that I no longer work for a large daily because I went to law school, what I say is not valid despite the fact that I apply all reasonable standards in verification of my claims.

So for the record is the Littleton Courier mainstream enough? They agreed with me that Bruce McKay violated town policy on pursuit and OC Spray and Kelly never investigated that.

So for the record may I use document generated pursuant to Public Records Requests to the NH Department of Safety?

So for the record may I use the NH legislative record to show that Bruce McKay Highway Bills HB 1428 and SB 154 were kicked to the curb?

So for the record may I state that I testified at both hearings as that is a matter of public record?

Lastly, as to "self promotion" I am promoting the First Amendment and accuracy about government not published in the major media, so to that extent WP is indeed standing in the way of Justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would assume then that if I resubmit with links to other media sources that my material will stay, correct? Because my motivation is irrelevant and if others are concerned then they can counter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

23 Nov. -- it has been about five (5) days since I posted these questions yet no answer. Also, if a noted and well-respected author like, say, Casey Sherman writes a book in which he says Kelly Ayotte's investigation was bogus, will you let that stand? What if he is recorded making public statements to the same effect? Can those come in?

And are you telling me that you have never reported on the fact that a lawsuit was filed against a living person? Christopher King, J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 23 Nov. 3:20p -- "Here's I'm waiting so patiently, lying on the floor.... I'm just tryin' to do this jigsaw puzzle.... before it rains.... anymore nonsense......" Christopher King, J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 27 November 2010 -- I am still waiting for a response to the specific questions set forth. I understand your concerns and I have addressed them in Good Faith, please advise. YouTube did just that, and I won, as I usually do: http://kellyayottesenate.blogspot.com/2010/11/kingcast-first-amendment-wins-again-on_27.html

Christopher King, J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 29 Nov. almost 30 Nov -- 11:02pm -- still no word. I asked a specific set of questions based on the guidelines you presented. Please advise. Meanwhile I gave and heard some interesting testimony related to Kelly Ayotte at today's NH Supreme Court hearings: http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2010/11/kingcast-dave-coltin-mike-puiia-and.html

Christopher King, J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, wow. Perhaps one issue here is Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read - that means that the discussion is very long and involved, and it is not easy for people to find the exact issue/issues that should be discussed. Also please be aware that, unlike the real world, Wikipedia has no deadline, so patience is a virtue here.
If you are a party to a lawsuit, it is highly recommended that you do not do any editing concerning anything related to the lawsuit. There are many avenues outside wikipedia to take up a cause.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     12:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Christopher. I confess that your posts are a bit difficult for me to understand, but basically from what I see is that none of your suggested references are reliable secondary sources. Things that you have done, including letters/posts etc on your blog and elsewhere on the internet are not appropriate as sources, as has been explained before. A record of a legislative assembly is a reliable primary source, and it sounds as if you are thinking of using it in a way that we would call original research. Like it or not, WP does not position itself as a means of getting the news out. If newspapers, magazines, books, media have chosen not to cover a specific issue, then WP does not either.
On the other hand, if a book is published by a reliable book publisher about Ms. Ayotte, then yes, that would likely be okay. If the Littleton Courier published something about Ms. Ayotte, then yes, that is probably a reliable source. It needs to be about her, not about the issue in question, and any material included from it would need to be looked at closely from the perspective of WP:UNDUE.
I think your other point is that having a COI means that your points can be correct, and that your motivation need not necessarily be a concern; this is true, but it does affect the lens through which people see the material, and how one follows WP policies and guidelines. Asking people for advice here was a very good approach. If you want to pursue editing the article, I suggest you make a specific suggestion of the text you want to include, along with links to the reliable secondary references supporting it, to the talkpage of Kelly Ayotte's article. That way other editors can give you some more specific opinions about the material you want to include. --Slp1 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Welner

I suspect the currently 2 most active SPAs,— Stewaj7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. &— Empirical9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. may be employed by the Subject or his associates in the legal profession, perhaps as interns, with management of this BLP as part of their job duties. Their terminolgy is often laced with the words "defamatory","malicious", and "malign" yet they never say "smear" which is more of a layman's term.

This recent edit by 1 of the SPAs,"Many legal circles are aware of Dr. Welner and his work - prior to Khadr, how do you think this editor got involved in editing this page and ensuring Dr. Welner's reputation in the community is not continuosly maligned by the advocates of the most recent defendant?" adds some evidence to my suspicion,maybe.

I noticed the article 1 month ago and a history review quickly indicated it was a classic puff piece having been controlled(deleting the most benign non-compliments) primarily by a sequence of SPAs since its inception 3.5 years ago. There was also a series of edits[26] by someone claiming to be Dr. Welnerhimself.

The Pittsburg Tribune-Review wrote an article wherein they said; "Welner admits liking the greater amount of control over the editorial process he has when his articles appear under his own imprimatur."

Examples (there are literally a dozen or more of these) "I encourage Mr.grantevans2 to watch his false accusations...This attempt to introduce defamatory content and malign Dr. Welner"[27]edit by Stewaj7 " inserting content that can only be seen as meant to malign a BLP is creating a platform for defamation and this editor stands behind that fact."[28] edit by Empirical9.

Here is an example gathered by another editor of how they work to control article content.

Perhaps this does not rise to the level required for there to be a Conflict of Interest issue, I do not know. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I have notified Stewaj7 and Empirical9 of this COI report and invited them to respond here. The article on Michael Welner was placed under full protection by Airplaneman between November 1 and November 6. I reimposed the full protection on 26 November per the following edit warring complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive145#User:Empirical9 and User:Stewaj7 reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Protected). This appeared to be a case of promotional editing but not all parties had received 3RR warnings, so I opted for protection. The idea was to have the editors at WP:COIN check out the bona fides of Stewaj7 and Empirical9. Edit-warring to reinsert a favorable slant on an article subject violates numerous policies. I invite discussion of that here. There is also a history of sockpuppetry, as you can see at the head of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • My impression from the SPI added to the top of this page after my previous post (Stewaj7 was blocked for a week for sock puppetry) is that we're dealing with 1-2 astute sockpuppeteers or colleagues relatives of the subject. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I do not appreciate being called a sockpuppet because in responding to irresponsible editing I did not use uneducated words such as 'smear'. Forgive my education, but the terms malicious and platform of defamation fit the description of the edits much better and hence, those were the terms I chose to use. I came to edit this page after noticing that it had undergone specific section changes related only to the most recent legal case Dr. Welner had worked on, a terrorism case in which he had gained public enemies. Am I Dr. Welner - no I am not. However, I am a fan of his work, have respected him for many years and became outraged at the blatant attempt Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) was making to turn the BLP into a lefist page about Omar Khadr. After numerous back and forth with said editor, pleading with him to use the talk page to reach consensus and to stop reverting edits on the basis of his agenda, we reached a consensus on a paragraph regarding that case. Then, he continued to find sourcing issues, etc., and because I had begun a back and forth with him and he preferred to revert edits and make accusations about the BLP than to research Dr. Welner and find the sources, I did, to bring the page back to its orginal NPOV. Isn't this the point of Wikipedia? To inform, be consise and have appropriate sourcing? However, Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) began to get the Khadr itch again and inserted an entire section into the BLP on this topic, completely inappropriate and disproportinate. I reverted and responded on the talk page. This is the same with the fee section - which I provided him the Wiki links to multiple expert witnesses (Henry Lee, Richard Ofshe, Stephen L Golding) who are well known, renowned in their field, and do NOT post their fees on their Wiki page. The continuous reinserting of this section, without consensus, can only be assumed to be due to a need to malign the page because of an agenda and I warned said editor of that. This was when he put the page on the noticeboard. I took every step I could to work him him and reach consensus, to have both points of view in each paragraph. In fact, 95% of the fee paragraph currently in place on the BLP was written by me. I am no sockpuppet, but I do know the legal system, the expert witness system and the mental health system. I also know an agenda when I see one.Empirical9 (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This sequence makes it pretty obvious that there is some ongoing sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry:

  • Empirical9 posts at 16:38, 24 November 2010: "Unfortunately, due to the continued nature of your edits, good faith cannot be assumed. It is clear that you have scoured Dr. Welner’s publication record for any reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to overly flavor and contaminate this BLP with references to his opinions on the issue, cherrypicking those quotes you deem favorable to your position. At this point, references to Israel and terrorism are completely disproportionate to his professional focus and mislead readers about the concentration of his attention. While you see fit to raise his discussion of Arafat, you notably do not mention the numerous terrorist figures from other countires also discussed, in detail, by Dr. Welner in that same chapter."
"Moslem terrorism is your obsession - which is only too clear through your edits and continued scouring of particular references for cherrypicked quotes - perhaps appropriate as you have come to this page to maliciously retaliate for Dr. Welner's testimony in the prosecution's case against an admitted al-Qaeda terrorist. This has been amply demonstrated by your efforts to give Dr. Welner’s effectiveness in Khadr overemphasis, at the expense of his many accomplishments that have nothing to do with this sub-topic as well as your newfound 'editing' interest in giving any statements he made relating to Gaza or the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as terrorism, in general, extreme overemphasis. Not because this is Dr. Welner’s fixation – but because it is yours. Again, this is clearly demonstrated by both this talk page and your 'edits' to the page Mr.grantevans|contribs|talk."
"If you endeavor to inject neutrality to this page, you can begin by representing his many opinions which by now you are aware of, or by refraining from giving this page an artificially ethnocentric slant."[29]
  • Stewaj7 posts at 20:28, 24 November 2010, virtually the same thing, using almost identical language, with only minor differences in wording: "It is clear that Mr.grantevans has scoured Dr. Welner’s publication record for any reference to the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to overly flavor and contaminate this BLP with references to his opinions on the issue. At this point, references to Israel and terrorism are way disproportionate to his professional focus, the corpus of his work, and mislead the reader about the concentration of his attention. You see fit, for example, to raise his discussion of the psychopath Arafat -- although in the same chapter you referenced, Dr. Welner devoted significant attention to many terrorist figures from other countries as well. Moslem terrorism is your obsession, perhaps appropriate as you have come to this page to maliciously retaliate for the admitted al-Qaeda terrorist that you support, amply demonstrated by your efforts to give Dr. Welner’s effectiveness in Khadr overemphasis, at the expense of his many accomplishments that have nothing to do with this sub-topic. Not because this is Dr. Welner’s fixation – but because it is yours. If you endeavor to inject neutrality to this page, you can begin by representing his many opinions which by now you are aware of, or by refraining from giving this page an artificially ethnocentric slant"[30]
  • Anon IP 68.200.186.183 posts at 17:04, 26 November 2010: Two days later puts Stewaj7's post above in quotes, adds "I second the above! here." [31]
  • Stewaj7 then signs a second post by the Anon IP.[32] So, Stewaj7 is using the anon IP to second his own post?
  • Stewaj7 then tries to cover his/her tracks by deleting Stewaj7's Nov 24 post parroting Empirical9's post and the Anon IP's post seconding Stewaj7's post. [33]

It's pretty obvious from the foregoing alone, that Stewaj7, Empirical9 and 69.200 etc are all the same editor. The broader editing behavior make it even more obvious. Fladrif (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken this up at SPI as well. [34] Fladrif (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have responded to these inflammatory and false accusations on the SPI page. There is no basis for this claim against my editing, it is uncalled for and unnecessary. The above 'trail' makes no sense and only derives that myself and Stewaj7 shared the same consideration to protect the integrity of the page. It is unfortunate to the arguments made on the talk page that Stewaj7 copied my text for parts of his/her arguments. I was unaware of this. However, if one looks closely at the history of the article, you will see that I indeed have reverted and changed edits that he/she made. Empirical9 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
To address the claim brought against me, having been accused not 2 times of intentional sock puppetry and now meal puppetry, I can only offer this. I did copy and revise a comment written by another editor with the goal of pasting the comment on User:Mr.grantevans2 talk page. However, in my haste I accidentally copied it onto Michael Welner discussion page. Trying to cover my tracks, as the thoughts were clearly plagiarized from another editor, I made several revisions. However, I do not see why I must defend myself against a person, who has demonstrated themselves to be a meal puppet of User:Mr.grantevans2 - this will be further outlined on in a claim placed on the appropriate administrator page. As I have noted numerous times the editor who brought this claim has some investment in the sabotage of Michael Welner page and is doing all they can to disrupt the Wikipedia community with their agenda.Stewaj7 (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Another red flag for sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and COI is the fixation of these SPA editors with the transcript in the Khadr case:

This IP is one of the several IP's that Stewaj7's has logged in under and later signed.[35] Transcripts cost hundreds of dollars for a single day's transcript. No uninvolved person would order the trial transcript in that case, only someone directly involved in the case.
How would Empirical9 know what the unpublished transcript will reflect if he is not directly involved in the case?
Again, how would Stewaj7 purport to know that an unpublished trial transcript will show if he is not directly involved? And, as there is no mention whatsoever in the press about when the trial transcript will be available, how would he know that again if not directly involved?

WP:DUCK would seem to be an appropriate standard to apply to this COI issue. It is not plausible that these SPAs are uninvolved with the subject. Fladrif (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the logic of Fladrif (talk). Notwithstanding the COI aspect, regardless of what the reason may be, these 2 SPAs are only going to impede constructive editing on the Michael Welner BLP, in my opinion. Surely if they wish to contribute to Wikipedia, they can find another article to edit; and if they are not interested in anything else, then maybe that in itself speaks volumes. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Glennconti

Months long history of spam and COI promoting "name a star" services like the one. This editor has an axe to grind with any article that criticizes services which "name" a star for a fee, and is using Wikipedia to promote his business and businesses like his. Numerous editors have pointed him to POV and COI guidelines without success. This editor began by creating an article promoting a business he appears to be associated with. When that was speedily deleted, moved on to creating Star naming controversy and its link farm to websites selling star names. That article was deleted after an AFD. Moved on to an edit war in the star article claiming this FA status article lacked a neutral point of view. Numerous editors disagreed. Has since moved onto adding links to his business and self published references promoting the businesses of star naming in Stars named after people and now in International Star Registry. RadioFan (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion at International Star Registry seems to have refocused on his conflict of interest and the suggest edit he wants. From his latest posts there regarding a suggested edit, he may finally understand the proper way to contribute to articles he has a conflict of interest with. I would think that if he is able to find multiple reliable third party sources that support his change, we could seriously consider changing it, as long as it maintains a neutral point of view. Oh, I forgot to mention, I just named a star for every user on Wikipedia =P. Netalarmtalk 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
That was kind of you, could you name mine "Bob" and make it extra twinkly please? As for our star peddling friend, I'm hoping he's changed his striped but notice a pendulum swing over previous comments between cooperation and anger. I dont see the edit request hes made as necessary. The existing quote is valid from a reliable source. His problem with the current wording is its harshness. Problem is this harshness is shared by other critics of these businesses as well. --RadioFan (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I notice than another editor has undone this edit by Glennconti, which simply adds a link at International Star Registry to point to a page written by him on a privately-operated web site which sells the star names whose legitimacy is questioned by astronomers. This is on the edge of the serious abuse which admins are allowed to take action on. Wikipedia does not officially care what the status of star names is, but we do care when people appear to be using our articles for spam purposes. Since Glennconti is not a new editor, I think he has run out of his grace period and any further nonsense should be quickly addressed. If further edits of the same type occur, I think that an indefinite block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been careful to confine my edits to the Discussion page hoping to get editors to see that the article is POV. I have had to be ridiculed for my efforts. However I do have a couple of editors that seem to agree that the article is POV. I have abandoned my efforts to link to my self published article because I agree that it is original research. I feel it is overly harsh to disallow me from contributing to WP as I sincerely have NPOV as my aim. Glennconti (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)— Glennconti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The only other editor on that talk page who has expressed any concerns with the POV of that article has been an anonymous IP address which I cant help but wonder if there is also some WP:Sock Puppetry going on here. Please dont misread other editors working with you on proposed edits as agreeing with you. We are helping ensure the edits remain as neutral as possible.--RadioFan (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Sock Pupperty? That IP address edit is from 2008? I would have had to have been very patient indeed if that was me. I think you are stretching things a bit here. Glennconti (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the record, since you first came here, you have done nothing except edit to publicize and defend your industry. NOTHING! You have not reverted vandalism, worked to improve articles, cleaned up typographic errors, commented on Articles for Discussion outside the star-naming industry, nothing. Why should we tolerate your continuous efforts here when you are contributing nothing? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone block Glennconti for spamming/disruption already and let's have done with it. – ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Untrue, I have edited Geena Davis Bio and the Kathleen Hays bio. I have contributed to the Star article also via the discusssion page. Editors on Star thought I was able to reduce POV in a featured article. Glennconti (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Technically correct; a whole four edits (out of hundreds) not related to stars and star naming. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a note, the editor has not directly edited articles on the topic after this was brought up at this noticeboard and after a more detailed explanation / discussion was held. Relevant sections on the talk page of said article. Netalarmtalk 21:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I brought this discussion here because Glennconti appears, essentially, to be a WP:SPA. To his credit he has stopped editing since the COI concerns were brought up and is allowing others do the editing of star naming industry related articles. However, if you read through the TALK page, Glennconti continues to confuse POV with COI and appears not to be happy until someone agrees with him and turns the article into one that better promotes his industry. The question for this discussion is, will this account be used to better Wikipedia?--RadioFan (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not looking to promote my industry. I just take issue with denigration of it as I feel it is POV without some balancing counterpoint. As has been said I have operated on this point from the TALK pages and not directly. WP has about 4 or 5 articles covering the same controversy. I tried to make it one but the article was deleted. It is indeed a controversy that is why editors always have strong opinions without even realizing it. Even RadioFan admits having an negative opinion on this matter. That being said, I understand the seriousness of the issue before me and would request another chance, I will confine myself to areas where ther is no COI issues.Glennconti (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The article has included quotes from ISR's FAQ defending its position since March 2009, your first edit to this article was over a year later. I'm sorry you dont feel that this company or your industry is getting a fair shake but that's not always how it works. The content of the article is based in the available 3rd party references, most of which do not have a favorable view of this company or the industry. After multiple warnings, this account has been used solely to push for a more favorable depiction of this industry when the references just dont support it. The references that have been produced are either primary ones (ISR's FAQ page), of questionable reliability (the survey of star name website visitors), or written by you. Even the most recent edits that were performed on your behalf (after toning down a bit) use references that spend 90% of the column inches criticizing star naming only adding that there is some measure of educational benefit in the concluding sentences. Again, if you have specific concerns about the content of the article, please raise them and they will be addressed. You question my and other editors ability to edit this article fairly because we have an overall negative opinion of this industry makes it hard not to see your intentions here as purely promotional. It is possible to edit articles from a neutral point of view despite personal opinions. Everyone has opinions, not everyone has a conflict of interest as you do. It is very difficult to maintain a neutral point of view with a conflict of interest, which is why the practice is strongly discouraged and highly scrutinized. While I applaud your recent restraint, your history still stands. You've edited existing articles, created new articles, added external links, and even referenced sources written by you all in promotion of your own business and your industry as a whole. Your most recent responses on the ISR article's talk page and responses here say "I'll do what you say" but nowhere have I seen anything that indicates you understand Wikipedia's COI policies. --RadioFan (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know what else to say. I have been here only 6 months. I would think I have a learning period in order to get used to the protocols. And I have said I won't edit articles where there is a COI. You certainly feel strongly against me and the star naming industry that is for certain from your writings. As far as references from astronomer's go, the International Astronomical Union has come out against commercial star naming so you are right the majority of the astronomers are against it. This is only counter balanced by consumers; the majority of which demand to name stars even over the astronomer's objections. Consumers aren't writing reference-able articles, astronomers are. But star naming consumers far out number the astronomers that are objecting to the practice. Glennconti (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
We're not asking for consumers to write articles that may be used in the article. We're asking for articles on the topic written by reputable third party sources, such as newspapers. If you can find some verifiable and reliable source that states that consumers enjoy naming stars even though those names are not official, you can suggest someone add it to the article. However, it seems you already get that point, judging from your posts on the article's talk page. Let's move on to your understanding of the conflict of interest guideline. If you haven't already, I believe reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest would be very beneficial to you. The concern of the other editors is that you have been largely exclusively editing articles related to commercial star naming and seeking to tone down the referenced criticism of the industry. In short, people view your editing as simply trying to portray the commercial star naming industry in way to benefit the industry. You are more than welcome to contribute the those articles, but due to your conflict of interest, we ask you to make suggestions on the talk page. Netalarmtalk 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion I have read the wp:COI guideline again. I still think it would be better if I confine my edits to areas other than star naming for now. I am always looking for new references on the subject and would revisit my position if new material was to become available in the press or elsewhere. And if I was to find new source material I would only make WP aware via the talk pages. As a side note, of late even though I have a declared interest in the star naming industry, I have sincerely tried to think in terms of NPOV. I have been guilty of trying to tone down criticism of my industry which I feel promotes a NPOV; as opposed to directly promoting my industry. This may seem like a subtle distinction. The criticism against my industry from astronomers is as the moderate astronomer Tammy Plotner calls it is "very scathing". As an analogy PETA would have us all be vegetarians. And if the meat producers tried and tone down criticism in WP that would be a considered bad for WP? And we all know consumers demand meat. But I understand that I can not make direct edits. Thanks again for anyone who thinks I deserve greater patience. I have definitely learned from this experience. Glennconti (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Inter-American Foundation

The article for the Inter-American Foundation contains information that is outdated or erroneous and lacks inline citations. I would like to make corrections and updates to the article. I'm currently employed by this agency as a Public Affairs Specialist and would like to avoid COI.

Some of the proposed changes include:

I would like some advice on how to proceed to make these and other updates while avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Efrias iaf (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! Your post here is a good start. While it is highly advised to be careful when doing edits under a COI, it is not forbidden to edit under a COI. I'd suggest posting this information also to the talk page of the article (Talk:Inter-American Foundation). You may be able to find some editors willing to help. If not, the next step would be to add more specific info to the talk page about your proposed edits. If that still does not attract anyone to help, then post a message here and then proceed with caution and start the editing yourself. Unfortunately, there does not yet seem to be any agreed consensus on how long one should wait.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just added Inter-American Foundation to my watchlist and will respond on its talk page, or react to any article edits, so please feel free to improve the article. Re the SourceWatch link: I think we should proceed slowly on that. At the article talk page, you might offer some brief evidence for your above claims. The relevant guideline is WP:EL. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Ditto, I've watchlisted and would be glad to help. In a quickie check of google I found many references to the IAF, so there is good chance of finding reliable sources to back up most of the changes requested.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     11:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I agree that removing the Source Watch reference is a sensitive issue. It will not be an edit I would make. I'm no hurry and willing to thread very carefuly. I only made a very superficial case here, but a lot of the information in there is just inaccurate. I will do as you recommend and make a more detailed case for its removal on the article's talk page. (Maybe this isn't the right place to ask, but I was able to figure out how to start a conversation here, but I can't seem to do the same in the Inter-American Foundation’s talk page). It seems to lead me to the discussion page for the US Government Wiki project.

I'm also concerned about self-citing. Some of the facts like the numbers of grants we fund or the naming of a new president are only really available through our website, press releases and publications. I would prefer to cite others as much as possible. If any of the self-citations are troubling I am more than happy if anyone offers alternatives to the text or a source to cite.

Efrias iaf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Concept Online Reputation Management

Resolved
 – User blocked, watching articles. Netalarmtalk 06:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Concept ORM lists following as its clients on its website, and User:Conceptorm has created/edited these articles:

Most of the articles are not blatant adverts, and the user has been careful to support notability with references. utcursch | talk 06:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

">Netalarm]]talk 05:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Srspublicrelations and MizzFIT

Resolved
 – User blocked, article deleted. Thanks for reporting! Netalarmtalk 05:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suspiciously name SPA's only edits were to create the article MizzFIT, which is now at AfD. I found a website http://www.srspublicrelations.com/ which does not have any content at this time. Racepacket (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

F. Richard Hauck

Resolved
 – Article deleted, user instructed. ArakunemTalk 18:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

F. Richard Hauck is being heavily edited by User:FRichardHauck. Kansan (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Illiana Tersy and User:IlianaTersy

Resolved
 – Article deleted A7, user instructed. ArakunemTalk 18:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible WP:AUTOBIO concern. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Steemer

Both users warned for adding promotional material and for copyright violation from a puff piece in the Columbus Dispatch. Account 70.228.185.2 is registered to "Stanley Steemer International, Inc. (Dublin HQ)" and I have invited them to bring their COI to the talk page. Their edits have also removed properly-cited material about the company's involvement in NASCAR, don't know what that's all about. Unfortunately, I've been restoring a longstanding joke see-also for Cleveland steamer along with the rest of the earlier article, I'll remove it after my next revert. --CliffC (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why a company that promotes itself on Wikipedia would want to remove something mentioning their relationship with NASCAR, but you never know what people may be thinking... Conflict of interest warning posted to AdrienneSender and watchlisted the main page. The article itself looks clean, but Google doesn't show many sources indicating notability. It's most likely notable, but I'll double check when I have time and add information if I find any. Netalarmtalk 06:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Sfacademyorchestra and San Francisco Academy Orchestra

Not only does Sfacademyorchestra (talk · contribs) have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to editing the San Francisco Academy Orchestra article, they removed my coi template from the article. Corvus cornixtalk 18:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a problem at many levels. See UAA entry here Fladrif (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
User blocked. I'm not good with music, but I can't find any reliable sources covering the orchestra. Is it just me or are there really no reliable sources? Netalarmtalk 06:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict Continuum

With the speculation on editors, and complaints of civility and AGF, and just want to flag up the COI here with the editor User:Amedea, during the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conflict Continuum. Widefox (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching the user now, but I believe the multiple conflict of interest notices are enough to get the user to understand the point. Regarding the AfD, I believe most users commenting there and your note at the bottom are sufficient to allow other users to know that the user has a conflict of interest with the topic. @Amedea: Please understand the users are strongly encouraged to refrain from editing articles that they may have a conflict of interest with. Any changes that you want to make should be made on the article's talk page with the ((Requested edit)) template. If anyone wants to take up the civility issue, WP:WQA would be the place to do that. Netalarmtalk 06:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

List of alumni of Wesley College, Melbourne

This is a walled garden tended by one or more alumni/alumnae, who insist on adding hundreds of non-notables to the list because they know them. Can I get some input here? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's largely been cleaned up; just needs a final check of the existing entries. Watchlisted in case anything comes up in the future. Netalarmtalk 05:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Davidian Seventh-day Adventist

I am in the process of writing factual information regarding the inception and beliefs of Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. It would be appreciated if members of the Seventh-day Adventist church would not rewrite this article to slant it to their understanding of this movement (eg. "offshoot") and that quotes used show primary references (quotes from the founder of the movement, V T Houteff, or those that lived at Mt. Carmel Centre under the administration of V T Houteff such as Bonnie Smith) and not secondary sources such as other authors commenting on the validity of the movement, founder or beliefs.

I have made comments to this effect in the discussion section of this article but changes continue to happen anyway. Is there any way that I can ensure greater authenticity to the original Davidian history, message and founder instead of allowing anyone outside of the organization to slant the article? Tonadachi (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the edits made by some users that have removed your additions - they probably aren't members of the church. I can't really see which side would be "correct" in this article, since both additions are being done without citing a verifiable third party source. While you are free to continue editing the article, please understand that all additions should be referenced to acceptable and reliable sources. Guides on how to include references in the article may be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. I'm watching the article and will step in if anything comes up, and I've also cleaned up the article to use standard headers and moved some sections around. [[User:Netalarm|<font color="#00AA11

Jelena Karleuša

The user edited the article on Dec 4 and removed all unflattering content. I initially reversed their edit but then found most of it was sourced to a gossip website so I took it out again. Today they have done a complete re-write of the article and said in an edit summary "add,rm., Im authentic representative (PR Manager) of Jelena Karleusa, pereson this page represents." Thank you --Diannaa (Talk) 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The revert back to the pre-conflict of interest editing solves the issue on the article, and the warning should let the the user understand the relevant guidelines. So far it looks largely resolved, but I'm watching the article + user and will jump in if anything else comes up. Netalarmtalk 05:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Today I have again had to revert back to the non-COI version as they reinserted all the puffery and unsourced content. Thanks --Diannaa (Talk) 21:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dick Beardsley

I posted about this here in October. User claims to be wife of subject, and is continuing to aggressively edit page. This time, she is repeatedly inserting copyvio content that is promotional [42], [43], [44]. A couple of the edits are IPs, but it's the same editor. User has left talk messages on my page suggesting that I have a personal vendetta against subject [45], telling me to "back off" and "leave the page alone" [46], [47], and also claiming emotional stress regarding the article's content [48]. The most recent message TO ME was after another editor removed a copyvio from the page! Since user feels targeted, I feel it is best for me to step away and get others involved. Thank you CutOffTies (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see the user feels biten, but they also have many misunderstandings about dealing with Wikipedia. There's a lot of evidence they are claiming ownership of the article, and not yet understanding usage of copyrighted material. As per the previous suggestion in the october notice, the article doesn't have enough references, currently, to support more then a stub. Would suggesting the user contact OTRS be of any help?     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     15:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I suppose spelling out OTRS may be helpful (despite the fact that the welcome/COI notice and advice on how to deal with articles about yourself has been left on the user's talk page , though the text the user is inserting is promotional --CutOffTies (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Cleaned up the section on the foundation and added some citation needed tags to a few claims. The editor hasn't edited in a while, but if he does, we can try explaining again - if that doesn't work, we can consider blocking. Netalarmtalk 06:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Undent - user just edited and is not listening to copyright guidelines [49], [50]. Also, as said before in this case, and in this edit by Netalarm [51] , the info doesn't belong in the page anyhow --CutOffTies (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nabil Gamin Miskinyar

Hi. This article was tagged for copyright investigation on 11/30. I did not find any evidence that it was a copyvio, but it's in pretty bad shape; judging by the talk page comment, it is a resume that was posted on Wikipedia by somebody as a favor to the subject. It shows; the lead includes gems like, "Combine astute strategic, media, business, journalism, and financial skills with a 35+ year track record. Progressive, decisive, and innovative, highly valued for expertise interpreting corporate media vision and strategy, translating objectives into actionable plans, and providing decisive leadership to multi-functional, cross-cultural teams." The individual seems likely to be notable, but the article needs some aggressive pruning. Given the talk page comment, I suspect a language barrier may interfere with the uploader doing substantial work on it. I'm working on the perpetual copyright backlog so don't have time myself, but felt like this article needed attention badly enough to bring it up here in case any of you felt like taking it on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you didn't send it to AFD? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because I don't send articles to AfD without researching them, and I lack time to research it. There's been a backlog at WP:CP since Thanksgiving, though we made substantial progress on it yesterday. I'm hoping to knock it out today. The cool thing about Wikipedia is that it's collaborative, and it allows people with different focal points to draw together to create quality content. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
If all the information is true, he is likely notable under GNG, so taking to AFD kind of flies in the face of "Afd is not cleanup". That said, the article is a resume, and only has one source (which only supports one sentence in the article). It is definitely in need of heavy copyediting and sourcing. Meanwhile the Prod clock is ticking now. If I can find an hour or 2 free, I'll see what I can do. ArakunemTalk 18:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia should have an article about him; I don't know. What I know is that "being a professional journalist for 25 years" doesn't meet the standard given at the relevant notability guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

TV Guide's employee Tubesurfer (again)

As stated in the previous discussion, this user is an employee of TVGuide.com and states this on his/her user page along with the information that the person is aware of the guidelines. Despite this, a question and warning on the talk page, the previous discussion and the various reverts by multiple users this user continues to spam TVGuide everywhere, it has already been said that the plot for aired episodes does not need a citation as it uses a primary source. But Tubesurfer keeps adding redundant references everywhere. Taking the last week, every edit from Tubesurfer has included the addition of TVGuide, some appropriate citations, some redundant and spam-like. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding why you think no source is preferable to an inline citation to a magazine. A citation may not be required for this purpose, but you appear to be claiming that sources are not permitted for this purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The plot uses the episode itself as a primary source, a secondary reference is unneeded in this case, take a look at pretty much every television episode or movie plot on wikipedia or see the guidelines, for example WP:MOSFILM. Once the media has been released it becomes a primary source. I'm not saying they are not permitted, they are incredibly redundant, unneeded and actively removed, Tubesurfer replaces references from other sites with equal references from his/her site (TVGuide) adds redundant references, , this is in essence WP:LINKSPAM. As this users goal is to add his/her site as much as possible. "if you find TV Guide links in the external link section of a TV article, we didn't put it there - and the same goes for any news references", this is the exact opposite of what this user does. Continued by "We'll always go through discussion pages", which never happens (user has made a grand total of 20 talk page edits vs >1000 article edits). Since the source is the show itself, any other references are unneeded when talking plot. The fact that this user keeps adding them and "work[s] in Online Marketing for TV Guide" is to much like advertisement. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that "a secondary reference is unneeded" is irrelevant. The presence of a citation to a secondary source is better than the presence of a citation to a primary source, and significantly better than the complete absence of any citations at all.
The removal of other, equally good sources, is, however, quite troubling, as is the spammy nature of this single-purpose account. I hope that Tubesurfer will join this discussion, ideally beginning with an explanation of why the children's taunt, "Liar, liar, pants on fire" doesn't apply to the false claims he makes at User:Tubesurfer#TV_Guide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, the fact that this user works for TVGuide and does nothing but add TVGuide links is to me clear COI. Also, the fact that basically not a single plot of released media on wikipedia has a reference should indicate that these are basically not wanted, and they are actively removed once the media is released. The fact that this user goes out of his/her way to add these pointless references is basic link-spam. I too hope that Tubesurfer joins this discussion but taking that this user didn't bother to answer my initial question and later didn't bother to comment on the first discussion makes me doubt it. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Xeworlebi. Convention has it that such refs are not needed, and in this particular case, since they point to a page full of ad banners, and the links were placed by TVG Marketing, the COI is too glaring to ignore. If, on a case-by-case basis on article talk pages, consensus by non-coi editors is that such a link is desirable, then by all means it should be re-added. ArakunemTalk 18:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, Tubesurfer has been indeffed by OrangeMike. ArakunemTalk 18:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

2PR FM

These users appear to have an agenda against 2PR FM and other internet radio stations, citing referenced articles about web radio stations for deletion as 'not notable' whilst vehemently defending articles about over the air stations with non-third-party sources. Attempts to discuss any problems with them result in flaming responses. Whitewater111 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just restored the 2PR FM article, but it seems to be the target of much vandalism, that I don't know how long it will remain there for. Lukepowner (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This notice board is for conflicts of interest. If you're having issues with editors' responses to your messages or lack thereof, please see the instructions at WP:Dispute resolution. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
122.104.213.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MBoerebach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Whitewater111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lukepowner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitewater111 all of these have been confirmed to be the same editor who also just happens to be the owner of the internet webcast known as 2PR FM, which was recently deleted as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2PR FM. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Karthik Naralasetty and User:Karthikn4us

Resolved
 – Article deleted A7, User instructed. ArakunemTalk 18:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible WP:AUTOBIO concerns. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

information Note: Article has been recreated and is now at articles for deletion. Discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karthik Naralasetty. Netalarmtalk 05:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

User:MBMadmirer

To his credit, when he created this account, he immediately admitted to a conflict of interest, in that he is a big fan of, and indirectly receives money from, Koch Industries. To his debit, he has since edited exclusively within the topic that he has a conflict on, and has edited in way that confirms that he is unable to be neutral.

I thought that declaring the conflict was just the first step; the next would be to carefully edit in a way that does not run afoul of it. Instead, his sole expressed interest has been in making Koch look better, which I believe qualifies him as a WP:SPA.

I would like something done about this, although I leave the details in your hands.

Full disclosure: I have a minor COI in this, in that I've disagreed with some of his edits. However, I do not hold a personal grudge and my own political views are not so very different from his. I am simply bothered by his one-note support for Koch against all reliable sources and applicable policies. Dylan Flaherty 11:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you show a diff where there's a violation? A quick perusal shows talk-page edits (which WP:COI explicitly permits--see the top of the COIN page) and non-controversial mainspace edits that don't seem to violate NPOV, but I haven't delved deeply and may well have missed an older edit that may be problematic. A POV is not a COI; otherwise, just about everyone editing on that page would be barred from the articles. (My COI: in the 1990s, I represented clients adverse to Charles Koch and Koch Pipeline. I've unsuccessfully applied to the Koch Foundation for a grant for my non-profit organization.) THF (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have seen zero sign of any improper edits by the person at all. Raising a COI charge when nothing is amiss ill-serves WP. Nor have I seen any sign that his edits have not been neutral. In fact, he seems to be extremely careful about stating any opinions which are not neuttral. Collect (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, THF and Collect. We know each other from various Koch-related articles, where both of you edit with a consistent tilt favoring Koch. Where you differ from MBMadmirer is that you edit other articles and you show some level of neutrality. Given your history, though, I'm not surprised that you don't recognize the pattern of behavior that MBMadmirerer follows. Fortunately, we're have more eyes on this than yours. Dylan Flaherty 01:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Where the other editors have a "tilt" which does not conform to your own, and no consensus has backed your own "tilt" perhaps you ought to consider that either all the others are "tilted', or that your edits do not meet NPOV. Your complaint here is not warranted by fact. Collect (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
THF, I just took a quick look, and it seems from your talk page that you're not at all unfamiliar with COI issues. Given this, I'm surprised that you don't recognize them when you see them. Are you sure you want to say that MBMadmirer is not crossing the line? Dylan Flaherty 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I said that you've provided no evidence that MBMAdmirer is crossing the line, not that no evidence exists. I looked at the first fifty edits on MBMAdmirer's page and saw nothing; I admitted that that didn't mean that he hadn't had problems earlier. The fact that you respond to my good-faith inquiry with a violation of WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE creates certain inferences about the validity of your complaint against MBMAdmirer, but I'm keeping an open mind. Still waiting for a single diff showing an unreasonable mainspace edit. What I see now is an abuse of the noticeboard to try to win a content dispute with an editor editing in good faith and complying with the guidelines. THF (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Collect, I'm going to have to learn to research before I stick my foot in my mouth. You're also no stranger to COI, yourself. In fact, you've made a habit [52][53] of helping editors with COI's get their changes into place. It looks like you have a clear COI here. Dylan Flaherty 01:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have made zero improper edits, and I have no COI with Koch whatsoever. None. Nada. BTW, attacking others willy-nilly in an ill-founded complaint does not impress many at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Um, I think we are looking at MBMadmirer here, not THF or Collect. Please WP:AGF. And you have still not provided the requested diffs of the alleged malfeasance. Turning the tables on other editors where you have not provided the requested diffs is not likely to produce the result you desire. Please provide diffs and treat other editors respectfully. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Help me out: would assuming good faith involve ignoring the fact that you've been accused of COI violations yourself as well as the fact that I asked your accuser, Will Beback, for assistance here? At what point does good faith end and blind faith begin? Dylan Flaherty 04:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This is simple. You need to provide diffs as requested. You provided diffs of things you did not like about the editors commenting here, but no diffs about MBMadmirer. I just specifically asked you again to provide the diffs and your response was to attack me instead, making your record 3 for 3. I am pretty certain at this point that you have no diffs to provide and this matter should now be closed for being unsupported by the moving party. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif asked me to comment here. The user has posted a notice that says, in part:

If he follows his own plan then problems should be minimized. However, if he starts editing articles without first gaining consensus, and if those edits tend to "accentuate the positive and minimize the negative" in regard to his client, then there's a significant problem.   Will Beback  talk  09:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And at this point zero improper edits were made. Collect (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up, Collect, because it's not at all true.

MBMadmirer hasn't edited for long, at least not under this name, but all of the edits are on Koch-related subjects, which makes it a WP:SPA. Their talk-space edits show tireless advocacy for Koch, and their article edits include adding peacock terms that are changed back by consensus [55] and defending the Koch's reputation [56][57]. There is, per Will's requirement, a clear pattern of trying to "accentuate the positive and minimize the negative", including edits against consensus. While my research was not comprehensive, two items my attention:

Based on this, I believe that MBMadmirer has crossed the line. Dylan Flaherty 04:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Quite at random I selected "Repeatedly downplaying relationship between Koch and FW [61][62]" to see if the diffs supported the claims made by Dylan Flaherty. They did not. The edits were fine. True, MBMadmirer made comments in the history comments, but the actual edits made on the actual Wiki page were helpful and fully compliant with his COI concerns and WP:COI generally.
Just to be sure, I also evaluated "Trying to hide the connection between Koch and AFP [63]". That too was a dead end since the claimed evil is negated by MBMadmirer's history comment that looks properly made in good faith, at the very least. Any editor might have made the same edit for the same reason.
Based on the above and the previous behaviour of Dylan Flaherty, I can see we have an editor on a WP:SOAPBOX. MBMadmirer is innocent of the claimed COI charge. I move that the case be dismissed with prejudice. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, the fact that you've been (quite justly, in my view) accused of your own COI issues makes you less than neutral. As for the details of your argument, they're demonstrably wrong. Let's look at the actual changes in detail.
The first was the insertion of "In 1984". The date is correct, but nowhere else in the paragraph do we give dates for the founding of our organizations, so the insertion seems odd. Any doubt is removed by their edit message, which reads "The Koch/FW relationship is ancient. Attempts to make it sound current are highly misleading. Frankly, I think that shouldn't be in the page at all". This change was fairly harmless, but shows intent and premeditation.
When they returned to the same issue, they directly removed the statement that Koch founded FreedomWorks. Now, as they pointed out in the edit comment, "Koch founded a predecessor organization", CSE, which then split into FW and AFP. And, in fact, that's what the article now says, in as many words. However, the edit was to remove Koch entirely, which was especially disruptive since the entire paragraph was about Koch, so it was unclear why we were even mentioning FW in that context. The key here is that, rather than correcting a fine point, which I fully support, they removed all mention, with the goal of disassociating Koch from the actions of FW.
The last of the edits I highlighted was the removal of "which is funded by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation where David H. Koch is chairman". This likewise damaged the paragraph, because it became unclear why Obama's comments about AFP are "critical of the Koch brothers", as the article says. More weirdly, the stated reason for the whitewashing was tax law! Putting aside the obvious WP:OR, if the concern was over the implications of the word "funded", the right answer would have been to change it to "supported", which is accurate enough and says nothing that could be seen as conflicting with tax law.
So, despite your handwaving about the edits being "fine", and your AGF-violating accusations of soapboxing, I believe it's very clear that MBMadmirer has edited with bias and against consensus. In any case, thank you for providing an excuse to go into some detail about why the editing patten shows bias. You've done a lot to help me make my case here. Dylan Flaherty 07:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
IOW, every single editor you disagree with has a COI? Perhaps Robbie Burn;s prayer should be invoked here. And muddying your complaint by accusing everyone else of COI makes precious little sense here. Really. Collect (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm neutral here. The only Koch I know is Mayor Ed Koch.
And I love how you admit the first diff I discussed really was harmless: "This change was fairly harmless, but shows intent and premeditation." I love it because not only is it an admission against interest, but your seeing "intent and premeditation" clearly puts you on the soapbox that you disclaim. So there's a credibility problem where you are listing "fairly harmless" diffs to promote your soapbox about his "intent and premeditation".
The credibility problems head for the sewer when you stated, "More weirdly, the stated reason for the whitewashing was tax law!" Setting aside your claim of "whitewashing", the stated reason was not tax law. Instead, it was that "the text was definitely false and uncited"--in short, it violated WP:RS/WP:OR/what have you. His actual history comment was, "it would be tax fraud for a 501c3 to give money to a 501c4. the text was definitely false and uncited." So he started by making an observation and ended with legitimate and even compelling reasons for removing the material that are fully compliant with Wiki editing precepts, unless, of course, you believe false and uncited material should be on Wiki pages. Yet you cast it as "More weirdly, the stated reason for the whitewashing was tax law!" That is simply false.
So you make false statements, backed up with more false statements, and you supply diffs even you admit are "fairly harmless". I even had to remove some of your WP:BLP from this page. This show is over. Let's move along here. Is there anyone watching who can close this matter before it wastes further time? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The edit comment about 501c3 and 501c4 organizations was pure original research on their part, as the article says nothing about this. I really have no clue if it's even true, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Where I won't give them that benefit is in their use of this as an excuse to remove the entire mention of Koch, rather than change one word to avoid potentially suggesting that some law was broken (although nobody actually suggested any such thing). With all due respect, if this is the quality of argumentation you have at your disposal, there is no reason to for me to respond further. Instead, I will leave it to other, more neutral, parties to decide for themselves, certain that they will be unswayed by your reasoning. Dylan Flaherty 10:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm neutral. I'm looking at your suggested diffs even after ignoring your attacking every other editor who asked for diffs. I'm finding they are lacking as are your explanations. I'm am saying so. That is not a lack of neutrality. You keep putting your own foot in your own mouth. You should voluntarily withdraw your claims here. For example, you just said, "The edit comment about 501c3 and 501c4 organizations was pure original research on their part, as the article says nothing about this." But you told us the guy "whitewashed" the article with this, and now you are saying "the article says nothing about this". More importantly, you just said "The edit comment about 501c3 and 501c4 organizations was pure original research on their part...." It is a history comment. WP:OR applies to Wikipedia text, not to history comments. In sum, you make false claims, you attack editors who ask for diffs, when you finally supply the diffs you eventually admit they are "harmless", and you only make statements that worsen your own case. This is not a lack of neutrality on my part. This is a lack of credibility on yours. Innocent mistakes happen all the time. Backing them up with personal attacks is a whole different ball game. And you are winning that one right now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything new or noteworthy in your response, so I'm just going to rest my case. Again, I am confident that you are as unconvincing to others as you are to me. I'm going to go read a banned book now. Dylan Flaherty 12:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your cavalier attitude is shocking. You have called into question MBMadmirer's honesty and integrity regarding his statements vis-a-vis COI. He remains accused by you, and you make light of the situation. You have the burden of proof. The proof you have provided has been shown to be flimsy at best but mostly simply nonexistent. Scoffing at me does not help your case. Either improve your case or withdraw it. Don't just enjoy the feeling of keeping MBMadmirer on the hot seat. If you are resting your case, as you claim, then it time for people to decide. Let me go first:
No, I've called into question their ability to edit neutrally, something they themselves called into question with their COI announcement. Dylan Flaherty 14:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm looking for neutral third parties to get involved. Dylan Flaherty 21:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem

For the reasons I've given above, including the diffs, I see a problem here and would like some help. Dylan Flaherty 14:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dylan's diagnosis; but given my own ideology, I'm not the best editor to do it. Neither is LAEC, who signed the "No Problem" note below this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
OrangeMike, just note that I did not sign the "no problem" note below. That heading was created by Dylan Flaherty who wiped out the heading I had and substituted his own. Apparently, it is a POV heading as it seems to have affected your view of my vote. You need to look at all the talk above. The problem is not my signing the "no problem" note, rather it is that Dylan Flaherty has produced no substantive diffs that support his claim. None. The diffs he did provide are not as he described them, indeed, he even called one "fairly harmless". Dylan Flaherty simply has not made his case.
OrangeMike, you are well respected, why don't you take a look at Dylan Flaherty's diffs and even make your own analysis of the issue raised to see whether or not a COI problem exists. I don't see it. No other editor here does either. Do you? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
OrangeMike, I completely understand if you wish to avoid the appearance of COI in dealing with a COI issue. :-)
My only concern is that, with the exception of LAEG and a pair of editors who have their own COI issues with regard to MTBadmirer, this entry hasn't gotten much response. Perhaps you could poke another administrator to take a look and judge for themselves, one whose neutrality is beyond question. Dylan Flaherty 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no "COI issues with regard to MTBadmirer". I never heard of him until I first came here. The observation that no proof was provided has nothing to do with COI even if COI did exist. The length of time MTBadmirer stays in Dylan Flaherty's baseless noose is beginning to border on outrageous. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
As nooses go, this one is pretty loose and comfortable. More like a rope necklace, really. Your analogy fails on many counts, the key one being that I'm not asking anyone to hang him, or even block him. Please, stop adding drama to this. We have a serious issue and you're not really helping. Dylan Flaherty 05:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem

MBMadmirer is innocent of the charges for the reasons stated above and given Dylan Flaherty has rested his case. I move to close this matter now. Anyone else? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There are no "charges" and this is not a court of law. We know they have a COI because they said so. What we're trying to do is determine how it's affecting their edits. Dylan Flaherty 05:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dropping in because I (correctly) predicted Dylan's name plus this subhead crossing my watchlist would make a good read. Yes, by all means, Admirer is managing a COI quite well for a new user, especially compared to some. And yes, close the matter now, to prevent Dylan from being tempted to repeat the behavior demonstrated three times above by accusing me of COI because I commented at a mediation cabal case that had something to do with him and Koch (I write for WorldNetDaily). Hoping that my mentioning it will preclude his doing so, JJB 05:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am amused by the extent that people with their own COI's come in here to defend someone with a COI. The irony is delicious.
I can't help but to notice that you've tossed out generalities without saying anything about the specific diffs. I'll let that speak for itself. Dylan Flaherty 07:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to know what would happen if I handed you a shovel. Specifics are unnecessary when one is speaking verbum sat, but otherwise: the three diffs analyzed above are ordinary changes like adding a year or correcting a fact, which also have the colorable effect of presenting Koch in an oh-so-slightly better light. A COI editor is not barred from edits that correct undisputed facts or insert encyclopedic details he may have special access to. If you have evidence that the editor knew the dates or tax status are other than stated, that would be editing against COI, but you haven't presented any; and if such evidence arose, a COI editor should state a position and then stay relatively out of the debate or editing of the point, but it hasn't reached that phase.

Now this is the COI noticeboard and you've had 4 of 5 board watchers find no COI and you've accused them all of COI (when what you mean is alignment of interest, which does not arise to the level of conflict). Board watchers are presumed to know the topic area for the most part, and though there are exceptions these are handled by obtaining broad consensus. The 5th editor, OrangeMike, admits in effect his interests are aligned with yours and so he might not be the best judge. This is known as broad board consensus and it is appropriate for you to be quiet now. I correctly predicted, based on your name and subthread title, that there would be a likelihood of disruption here, and I then correctly predicted that you would accuse me of COI. Your habit above of responding about editors rather than answering editors' questions is not limited to this thread, and you are amassing evidence against yourself. Don't keep my prediction string going by personally attacking me next, thanks. JJB 13:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice, but anyone can claim after the fact to have made correct predictions, so you'll have to pardon my skepticism. In any case, I received even better advice from a better source, so I'm going to follow it, instead. Dylan Flaherty 05:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians

Resolved
 – All users blocked for socking. Netalarmtalk 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The listed editors' names match their edits - designed to promote this branch of the Rosicrucians and their products. Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I warned one user that didn't receive any information about conflict of interest. The article is up at articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians, with the canvassing and conflict of interest problem continuing there. The discussion has been tagged with ((Not a vote)). I don't think there are any more issues that aren't being addressed at the deletion discussion. Netalarmtalk 05:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research

User operating in offical capacity as 'communications manager' (see editor's talk page) in editing and creating articles. I'm not sure if I should revert edits or allow to stand (or blank and afd the article). The editing is clearly for promotional reasons, but content may be notable. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article was previously at articles for creation (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research), but the user created the article himself after the article was failed multiple times for a lack of coverage by reliable third party sources that establish notability. In fact, the AfC one is still there and is pending review. Can you find sources that state the notability of the subject? If not, we may go the AfD route. Netalarmtalk 03:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It looks like a big University / private partnership, which means that by its very size it will have coverage (politicians statments, statements by particular scientists). The difference is if you created the article from third party media, it would probably be focused on a few particular projects. An Australian google comes up with a number of mentions of TIAR [[64]]

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We should be able to clean it up, since those search results and the type of project it is look promising. The massive amount of external links is a big problem, but we'll be able to convert some of them to references, move the useful ones to an external links section, and remove the unnecessary ones. Netalarmtalk 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it is promising that notability can be established, as seen by some good hits on google and other places. But a lot of work is needed to keep the current content, in any way. A stubbing and re-start might be required. The editor who created the article is new and feels bitten, but they may be a good case for rehabilitation.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     04:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Basic cleanup done, but we're going to need more to get it up to standards. If the user wants, he can request to be adopted through the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program. Netalarmtalk 22:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Christina Amrani

Now working on third attempt (unable to determine authors of earlier versions as they have been speedied) to write a promo for a company called Cocktail Wax, on this occasion very slightly disguised as an autobiography of herself. Article tagged for speedy but very strong COI with warnings given.  Velella  Velella Talk   00:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bablingo

Resolved
 – User blocked, spam removed. Netalarmtalk 05:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Promoting a website of the same name by adding spam links.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User blocked for spamming, LinkSearch found no more links to the site, and search found no mention of the site anywhere on Wikipedia. Marking as resolved, but will watch for links in the future. Netalarmtalk 05:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Kinda Hibrawi

This editor is pretty clearly the subject, from her posts to other pages ("my photographer gave me permission to upload images of myself onto the Kinda Hibrawi page"). The "article" reeks of the press release/advertisement. Orange Mike | Talk 22:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Bmcglobal and Carvelli

This User, whose User name probably violates the use of names of companies, appears to have a conflict of interest concerning the Carvelli article, I have reverted the User's edits due to lack of sourcing of a BLP, but those edits indicated that Carvelli is represented by BMC Global. I'm not too sure about the notability of the subject, either. I've issued COI and BLp warnings to the User. Corvus cornixtalk 07:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bled Castle

The username is the Slovene version of the title of the article, therefore I assume a COI. Eleassar my talk 12:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Andrea Kalin

User has been warned about COI, but this single-purpose account continues to make edits and refuses to discuss COI issues on his talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Alan A.

User created a minimally passable BLP article. Based on username I feel fairly confident that the user is the subject of the article. I have already tagged the article as autobiographical, given the user a Welcome-COI, and uw-coi (with additional rationalle for why they should stop editing the article). I suspect that the IP address was the user logged out as the improvements were re-inforcing the article in the same writing style. While I was writing this COI report the article was CSD:A7ed, but I suspect the user will re-create it as they have a vested interest. Hasteur (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User has re-created the article again, it's CSD:A7 nominated, the user is contesting the nomination. I've given them annother warning to be aware of Conflict of Interest. Hasteur (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ocoles

This editor has been exclusively adding links to material on his webpage, with him as the author, even in situations where it's only mildly relevant or related to the article. Seems like a clear case of self-promotion and COI. Vertigo Acid (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Warned the user about conflict of interest and removed a few of the more inappropriate links, but LinkSearch still shows that there are 12 links. Some of them are used as references. If anyone wants, the remaining links need to be checked, with the inappropriate ones removed. The user is basically referencing claims to reviews that he has written. Netalarmtalk 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated WP:COI violation on South China Sea-related articles

User talk:119.93.24.59 and User talk:122.52.226.221 have repeatedly added material to a wide range of South China Sea-related articles, despite being warned and reverted many times by other editors. The edits involve the addition of a long list of names of people, which satisfies neither WP:N or WP:V, as well as a paragraph promoting a company and/or establishment. Both IPs, according to Geolocate (122.52.226.221, 119.93.24.59) are registered under the ISP "DENR MINES AND GEOSCIENCES", and are located in "MANILA, PHILIPPINES", and hence the addition of information relating to the Geosciences establishment in the Philippines warrants as a WP:COI. The articles in question are:

Both IPs refuse to respond when warned or reverted, and do not appear to be willing to engage in discussion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom O'Neil

See the contributions by this user. I have no experience with this type of issue, so I hope someone here can deal with this as appropriate. --Mepolypse (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mrx1015

Mrx1015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) devotes ximself entirely to boosting one James Horley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), including making inflated but unsourced claims about his having been the first to use telemetry in car racing. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've notified this editor that he's being discussed here. The James Horley article is back at AfD yet again per WP:Articles for deletion/James Horley (3rd nomination) but re-nominating it so soon may be tempting fate. Nobody is very happy about the sourcing for this article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Multi-wiki suspected COI

I'd like some comment/guidance on what to do about a specific user who persistently appears to be advertising a particular author considered fringe by bona fide editors.

User:BANTASAN shows up every few weeks and inserts references to a web "publication" by an author called Michel Morvan (the so-called Dictionnaire étymologique basque, Internet/Lexilogos, 2009. This author falls well short of WP:IRS as he violates just about every rule of historical linguistics known to mankind. He also inserts similar edits on other wikis, such as the French one. BANTASAN very rarely contributes any other sort of edit that I'm beginning to suspect a real COI.

Several editors (me and USER:Dumu Eduba in particular) have tried to reason on his talk page but without much success.

For examples on the English Wiki see:

This editor's contribution history on other wikis follows the same MO:

I don't know on how many others. But it's beginning to cost a serious amount of time chasing after this person. What does one normally do in such a case? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is really a case of WP:FRINGE editing you need to have a discussion about that and reach a consensus somewhere. That could serve as a basis for eventual admin action against this user. I am notifying him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
We have, on numerous occassions in passing and in an open debate on BANTASAN's talk page not too long ago where User:Dumu Eduba, User:Trigaranus, me and User:kwami (who's an admin and works on many language related articles) tried to explain to BANTASAN why this is not passing Wikipedia:RS. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

St. Mary's College of Engineering and Technology

I strongly believe that "Developer: Syed Aqhil Ahmed From Csit Department" (as taken from the current version of the article) to be the person behind the Shalaqeel user account. I templated them yesterday with the COI notice and strongly suggested that they not edit the article. Over the night (my time) the article had it's validly placed maintenance templates removed twice by user in question and reference links turned back into standard external site links. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Shaqeel has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring per WP:AN3#User:Shalaqeel reported by Hasteur (talk) (Result:48h). EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Luxury101

Resolved
 – Article deleted, LinkSearch is clean. Netalarmtalk 19:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Single topic editor developing a highly spammy article about a Travel programme overwhelmed with self congratulation and self-importance - clearly witten by the presenter, the producer or a paid minion. The article itself might not stand up to AfD but that is another issue. It also looks as though the only other significant editor User:81.136.167.178 may be a sock of User:Luxury101 or that user failing to sign in. Velella  Velella Talk   16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged it for G11 speedy, it is just way too spammy/peacocky to clean up. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Academy at Dundee Ranch

Extended content added to then removed from Academy at Dundee Ranch
==Controversy==

The School was operated on the grounds of a former adventure Hotel and was complete with a Swimming Pool, Air Conditioning and Horse Stables; and according to the Owners was a very nice place to be. These facts were later satirized by the leading cartoonist of Costa Rica in the countries leading periodical La Nacion by a Cartoon showing a Large Healthy American "Gringo" Student Dressed in designer shorts and Ts complete with Air Jordon Nikies sipping on a Pina Cola-ta as a reporter was asking him how badly he was being abused at Dundee .... while a Costa Rican PANNI housed student was shown lying starving in the dirt. One Student claimed that food being withheld as punishment. This was claim was also claimed by the child's parent. But the majority of student's there were troubled and had long histories of not telling the truth and some were later quoted to say that many believed if they could make the facility look bad they would be able to get their parents to bring them home. [1] Former students complained of emotional scars due to their stay there.[2]

The Controversy Started when a U.S National one Sue Flowers a non-custodial parent who had lost all custody rights to her child for alleged Drug abuse in the U.S came to Costa Rica to attempt to get the Costa Rican officials to release the child to her which would have been a form of Kidnapping having lost visitation rights in Court in the U.S. Ms Flowers in this foiled attempt to illegally remove the child claimed her Daughter Nichole Denniken was being abused at the Ranch to the local prosecutor in Atenas and brought a formal complaint by herself and Mr Bruce Harris of Casa Allanza a child rights advocacy group tied to Covenant House of New York. Mr Harris later admitted he had never actually been to the facilities and was a year later convicted of having a 3 year love affair with a 16 year old Guatemalan Boy and fled the Country and Casa Allanza was immediately closed. The Local Prosecutor looked into the complaint and had the ORJODA the FBI of Costa Rica actually go to the facilities and Interview the Child. Miss Denniken said she had not been abused in any form and the complaint was filed away having no merit. While the Local prosecutor was on vacation a temporary rotating prosecutor Mr Vargas came to the office in Atenas. Fernando Vargas is the same prosecutor who three years later was fired for use of excessive force in the removal of squatters near the resort of Los Suenos near Jaco. [3] A judgment in Louisiana caused Costa Rican authorities to re-investigate the facilities.[4] Mr Vargas went to the facilities in may of 2003 accompanied by a female Judge Gabriela Sanchez who under Costa Rican law was necessary for him to investigate on the campus site. The administration later claimed he tried to force Nichole Denniken to recant her previous Testimony for over 2 hours and only after the girl in tears asked the Judge to have him leave her alone did the interview stop. At that point the Judge told Mr. Vargas his diligence was over and that no one had said they were abused in any form and that this was over and the issue was closed. Mr Vargas vehemently disagreed and said the child was brain washed and told the Judge he was now in authority and control as a result in direct defiance of Costa Rican Law. He Ordered all staff and parents into the Parking Lot at Gun Point and all students to the cafeteria where he proclaimed himself their liberator and told them that the rules of the school no longer applied and in Costa Rica they could "Do whatever they wished" and soon about 40 of the more hardcore students started to destroy the facility while over 169 of the students went out to the parking lot to stand with the staff while the rest began to act out. As the situation went further out of control and students were assaulting each other sexually in front of the Police; Mr Vargas and the Costa Rican Authorities simply left and the staff was allowed to get the facilities back under control and Order was restored... Three days later Mr Vargas reappeared at the school demanding to re-interview the students. Mr Lichfield who had returned from the U.S and wasn't in the country when the original riot happened but immediately returned the next day to Costa Rica called the U.S Embassy Consulate General as Mr. Vargas was again agitating the students...The Consulate General first asked where Mr Vargas was who at that time had left the property and was wanting to speak to Mr Lichfield at the front entrance; on hearing this The Consulate General told Mr Lichfield to go ask Mr Vargas to get on the Phone and speak with her and the Minister of Security for the whole country who was with her in her office at the time. The Consulate also warned Mr Lichfield to not resist arrest which Mr Lichfield thought was strange until he later learned that the only way he could be arrested and held without charges or warrant under Costa Rican law was if he left his property or campus. Mr Lichfield later said he believed his arrest at that point was orchestrated and that he was simply a sacrificial lamb to cover the abuses and embarrassment of a bungled investigation that resulted in Riots and false allegations. Acting in good faith after talking to the U.S Consulate and the Security Minister Mr Lichfield went to the gate and asked Mr Vargas to come to talk on the Phone. Mr Vargas motioned and waved for him to come closer to him to talk and the moment Mr. Lichfield stepped off his property four armed Police tackled him and cuffed him and arrested him. As soon as this was done and Mr Lichfield was being transported to Jail in San Jose. Mr Vargas returned to the cafeteria had the staff and Parents who had flown down to be with their children after the first riot were all at gun point again held in the parking lot and a new round of Riots began till the Minister of Security Called and spoke directly to Mr. Vargas and he and all other authorities promptly left and the Consulate General Ordered the Director Dr Harold Dable to get the students back in control. The school administration felt at that point the staff and students were no longer safe and after talking with Mr Lichfield on the Phone the decision was made that even though it would destroy him financially that the students were no longer safe here and to shut the school down and close with help of the embassy under Emergency status return the student to the U.S [5] riot occurred at the facility in May 2003,[6][7] leading to its closure. The Costa Rican immigration authorities found that 100 of the 193 children enrolled in the program did not have appropriate migration papers.[8]

Due to the closure U.S. Representative George Miller asked U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate WWASP.[9]

Narvin Lichfield, who was the Owner at the time of the facility's closure, was jailed in Costa Rica for a brief period at the time of the closure. He was later tried in Costa Rica on charges of coercion, holding minors against their will, and "crimes of an international character" (violating a law based on international treaties, specifically referring to torture).

On February 21, 2007 a three-judge panel found Narvin Lichfield innocent of any and all charges of abuse. No witnesses of the alleged abuses showed up for the trial. During the trial the prosecutor told the court that there was insufficient evidence and testimony to link Lichfield to the alleged crimes for which he was accused. Also the Prosecutor on the Morning of the second day of the trial went so far as to ask the Judges to Acquit Mr Lichfield and remarked he frankly didn't know why the case was brought in the first place and that there was no real evidence to the allegations to start with [10] Later it was found that Lichfield had never even personally met the two boys in question one of whom never signed their allegation or later reveled by the prosecutor had been improperly interviewed the other Cody Crawford who was Court Ordered for multiple burglaries of homes in Oregon later was Jailed in the U.S for Assaulting his Court appointed Therapist when he was returned to Oregon and is now 24 years old and was recently Investigated in the of Firebombing a Mosque in Oregon [11] The Tico Times reported that the judges said they believed the students at Dundee had been abused, but there was no proof that that Lichfield ordered the abuse.[12] Three other Academy employees, all Jamaicans, had been wanted in connection with the same case, but they fled Costa Rica following the closure of the Academy.[13]

Following the acquittal, Lichfield claimed in an e-mail to A.M. Costa Rica that when the school was raided, police stood by and watched youths sexually assault each other, that police held parents and staff at gunpoint and that one parent was ordered at gunpoint to hang up the phone when she attempted to phone the U.S. Embassy for help, and that police left the school in a shambles.[8]

  • ((Dundee Ranch Academy))
  • ((narv9))

Dear Wikipedia The article above is the one I edited with out removing others edits 3 times over the last 4 hours only to have it completely replaced and all my edits removed.The Editor of the original article is one <redacted>

who keep removing my edits(3 again times in last 4 hours ) who operates competing Marketing Outlets for Troubled Teens schools and receives money per placement of each child she places with competing schools and so in effect besides her actions being highly inflammatory they are actually basic libel and defamation Internet trade torts that she illegally practices on such sites as this one. My Name is Narvin Lichfield and since the article above are all about me personally and my business there should be no one allowed to edit who is part of a competing business with it falling under the basic trade torts and basic Conflict of Interest Issues and policies of Wikipedia.

Sincerely

Narvin Lichfield feel free to contact me at [redacted] concerning this

Also Pillars of Hope in the top paragraph was never a WWASP school and was and is completely Independent program — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narv9 (talk • contribs)

The Black Tulip (2010 film)

Chris A. Cole, who admitted to being (User:67.250.12.122),[73] the Co-Producer of The Black Tulip (2010 film) and at Breadwinner Productions, has been editing that film article against an onslaught from User:Nomasmentiras. Nomasmentiras has been blocked, but clearly had a conflict of interest in the film. With two COI editors, there likely will be more. There is an OTRS ticket and things seem quiet at the moment. I'm posting here to add this to the COIN radar. Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I added SPAs 76.172.59.26 and WEKG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hans Zeiger

Resolved

This article has a link to a web site written by an opposing political party. Misc. quotes are taken out of context and cited to a political blog biased against the person. 67.185.147.131 (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

More of a WP:BLP issue than a WP:COI issue, but I've cleaned up the article and put it on my watchlist. THF (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Anika Noni Rose

There is a website called http://moviemikes.com. User Moviemikes created an account and then edited two articles, one of which was Rose's article. In each, he put in assertions and cited to his own website. In the Rose article he stated the following: "Rose did not provide the signing [sic] voice for the role of Princess Tiana in 'The Princess and the Frog'." He cited an interview he supposedly did of Rose in November here. Putting aside the obvious conflict, it was a fairly major statement he made. I don't know for sure whether it's true, but it doesn't seem to be borne out by websites that indicate that Rose's voice is featured on the movie soundtrack. See here and here. Nor is there any indication that someone else sang the voice of the lead on IMDb. I have reverted the change and put a warning on his Talk page. I have also put a notice that his username violates policy. However, what disturbs me most is the actual assertion he is making that is indeed borne out by the report of the interview on his website, which, by the way, appears on the surface to be legitimate (it explains who the reporters are, etc.). I could find nothing else in support of the assertion on the web, although I may simply not be doing good enough searches.Bbb23 (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Alex Konanykhin

Hi. I have suggested that the ((coi)) tag be removed from the BLP of Alex Konanykhin, in favour of declared COI statements. For related discussion, please see Talk:Alex Konanykhin. Also see archive of first COI/N notice. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     12:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Slovio

Newly registered user Blognik indicates that he created the Slovio computer language in 1999 as "the first viable and usable inter-slavic langauge created since the demise of Old Church Slavonic." He now is at DRV requesting that the article be restored. At the Sllvio DRV nomination, I removed numerous purportedly WP:BLP issues from the nomination.[74] It appears the nominator believes those important to be in the nomination and reinserted some.[75] Most of Blognik's posts around Wikipedia appear to be, at a minimum, in violation of WP:BLP. I'm listing here for record purposes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Philabundance

I have removed the ((coi)) tag from the Philabundance article, and replaced it with an ((underconstruction)) tag. Caberra stated on their talk page that s/he is an official representative of the organization. I've had on- and off-wiki discussions with the user. Caberra seems interested in helping in a wikipedia-friendly way. I've offered to help with the article (on a 'Pro bono' basis, along with other users). Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ern Phang

I have removed the ((coi)) tag from the BLP article Ern Phang, and replaced it with an ((underconstruction)) tag. Note that there is a current discussion regarding notability on Talk:Ern_Phang. I am in contact with the subject of the article, and they have expressed interest in helping in a wikipedia-friendly manner. Also note that the user who placed the ((coi)) tag is currently blocked[76] and unable to elaborate on their statements. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


Hello,

I have been trying very hard to deal with a very stubborn editor who is interfering with a page on a living person (I have absolutely no relationship to either individual). The page is moderated by a user Ronz, but he is refusing to allow any neutral or well sourced edits to be made, but is allowing material that is controversial and inaccurate to be displayed. I have tried very hard to set this out, there is a consensus that I am taking the right approach, but the editor who is controlling the page, still is interfering with the process. It has now gotten quite tiresome, as it has dragged out over days. One can see the discussion on "Courtesy notice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Science%26HiTechReviewer#Courtesy_notice

This discussion has gone on elsewhere on the talk page of Naveen Jain, and with similar non-results. The editor refuses to make simple edits and changes with sourced affiliations. He appears to have something against the person whose bio is being profiled, and so he allows only the contentious material in, but anything of a neutral or positive aspect, is quickly deleted, such as board seats on the X PRIZE Foundation or of Singularity University. I have spent a lot of time trying to give the benefit of doubt and apply good faith, but his actions or lack there of, seem to indicate otherwise. Please bring this into some sort of resolution and get a reviewer in here who is disinterested, and understands scholarship, and what is credible and not credible. We are also dealing with a living person, and therefore, one needs to be extra careful in how things are phrased and referenced.

There is additional discussion on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Your_experiment Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks like forum shopping by user S&HT. I see no COI on the part of Ronz; this is a content dispute that has spread to several places. I recommend that moderators here encourage S&HT to withdraw this complaint and stick to one of the venues he's already opened, such as this one at WP:EAR, or pursue dispute resolution as already recommended by Ronz. --CliffC (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Y C Deveshwar

An obvious and deliberate attempt is being made to malign an individual by vandalizing his biography page with misleading inferences. User Kabir p with mischievous intent and under cover of anonymity is continuously inserting a section in a biography which has no relevance to the page. It deliberately conceals the current correct position so that Wikipedia readers can be misled. It seems that the said user is being motivated to write this section to besmirch an individual’s reputation through slanderous inferences made purposefully to cause damage to a person of eminence. The page has been vandalized by Kabir p with similar IDs since November 2010, clearly pointing to the deliberate and criminal attempt to cause damage. Wikipedia administrators are requested not to provide access to such users who use different IDs to inflict damage out of personal vendetta or due to motivation received for malicious purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicip (talk • contribs)

This article previously read like an advertisement. Attempts at a truer representation of facts, using well referenced media articles are constantly negated through vandalism and an attempt to go back to the old state of self promotion. Edit history suggests vandalism from a single IP address and another Dynamic IPs.`I suspect a conflict of interest. Kabir p (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I updated the template to link to the correct article. Note: I'm not connected with this article.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a conflict of interest unless it exists with the complaining party. The deleted information was sourced to Forbes magazine, which is a reliable source, but I haven't reinserted it because it was poorly written and I haven't checked the original source. THF (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Allama Iqbal Medical College

This user has described himself at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions as "i am the official representative to write brief description on wikipedia about our college through any means" and has edited the article repeatedly, at times getting various warnings for his edits. Note: he says he's a doctor, not a wikipedian; and English is apparently not his first language. Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Seattle Lighthouse for the Blind

I'm looking for assistance in improving the article. User stated in a message on his talk page that "Lighthouse has tasked me with fixing the grossly incorrect information that was previously on this page, and making sure all the flags are removed." Editor further stated that the article has "our legal name incorrect which is confusing donors who look us up on the internet and are making their end of the year gifts to the wrong lighthouse." [77]

I think the editor is editing the article in good faith—I will explicitly state that I think that no sanctions are warranted against this editor. What I'm looking for is assistance from some of the users familiar with COIs who can guide this user on best practices for editing when he has a COI, as well as just getting a few more neutral editors involved with the article. Because this user has a COI, I thought this was the most appropriate venue. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bambu rolling papers

The pages are constantly getting changed with non-referenced promotional text. Many editors have tried, but IP users and new users continually post non referenced text like "the paper is popular with rastafarians because of it's natural glue" with no references. If one of us dares to remove it, they undo our removal and call us names. The page has been protected before, and they waited for the protection to end, then re-attacked. Nahome (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

An editor named Mrtobacco at one time had this information posted on his user page regarding Lostsociety. I don't know whether actual diffs can be supplied to back up any of this. It does appear that Lostsociety and ArnaudMS are single-purpose accounts devoted to promoting Bambu rolling papers. It would be helpful if some other editor can dig into the past history more and determine what we should believe. We usually try to reason with COI-affected editors and explain our policies to them, in the hope that they will shape up and follow the system. History suggests that such hopes may not be justified for Lostsociety and ArnaudMS. I have notified both editors of this discussion and invited them to participate. Both ArnaudMS and Lostsociety continue to re-add the claim that the Bambu company was founded in 1764 although no reliable source exists to verify that. The latest example is here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I need a bit more help - now they have resorted to posting slander on my personal user page :( Please help me block them from doing this, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nahome&oldid=405198190 It's really uncalled for. Then they went and marked up all of their competitors pages on Wiki (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.164.114.50 ). How can we get these users blocked from this sort of behavior? Nahome (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

List of oldest companies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing this report to combine with the one above. Please add further comments at WP:COIN#Bambu rolling papers. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no substantiation for Bambu in 1764 and all research done by editors shows 1908. The Bambu rolling papers page had to be protected to stop them from putting up promo text, and now this page needs to please be protected as well :( Or - they could provide references for their 1764 date other than themselves and we will gladly allow it to stand. However the official government documents showed 1908 which is kind of solid as a rock I think. Nahome (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

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

dan balsam

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Bennetkelley (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand and respect the decision to keep an encyclopedic tone and remove many of the edits I made to the Controversy section of this article. Unfortunately, as it reads now it is largely inaccurate and reflects only Balsam's emotions or viewpoint and not facts.

Kelley has accused Balsam of abusing the small claims process and the anti-spam laws; however, he has never actually specified how Balsam has done so.NOT TRUE. The edits I made gave an example of a client of mine who I assisted in successfully challenging Balsam's tactics.

It should be noted that Bennet Kelley was Assistant General Counsel of a company that was sued by the United States of America for unlawful spam. NOT TRUE. The company in question waq cited for privacy violations and use of the word free in marketing, there was never any allegation or finding that the company engaged in spam.

Kelley also cybersquatted on Balsam's domain name DanHatesSpam.com by creating DanHateSpam.com, even though he had actual knowledge that Balsam holds federal and California trademarks for his domain name. Kelley admitted to doing so in bad faith, just to "tweak" Balsam. ALSO NOT TRUE. The first amendment protects gripe sites such as these which in this case was set up regarding pending legislation and redirected to a article discussing said legislation. As a result, I did not cybersquat, act in bad faith or even do so with prior knowledge of Balsam's trademarks nor did I ever admit to any of the above. I did admit to enjoying tweaking him in the process. Bennetkelley (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[1]

Hi Bennet, sorry for the slightly slow response. I've had a look at the article and the references cited in the article. I found that a lot of it wasn't supported by the references given and therefore removed it per our policy regarding information about living people or made it match what the sources actually say. I think that the problems that you've pointed out have now been dealt with. The edits by the IP were problematic as they inserted content that was not referenced and which was painting you in a negative light, as well as adding other information about Balsam without a reference to support it. In the future, if you see any information about you that is unsourced, you may remove it. I should let you know that Wikipedia is not the place to continue battles though so it is best if you refrain from editing the article in the future and only add information to the talk page of the article per WP:BESTCOI. I'll keep an eye on the page so should catch any other attempts to reinsert inaccurate information. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Bejan

It appears the user has outed themselves at File:Wikidelta.jpg. The user's edits all seem to plug a theory by this professor and a related website. --Mepolypse (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Lenkiewicz

SPA is repeatedly adding his name to the article Robert Lenkiewicz despite having been repeatedly advised that doing so runs contrary WP:COI and that there is no evidence this addition is noteworthy. I am at 3RR. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Global Warming

The global warming article is on a probation status. Unfortunately, the editors who are authorized to make modifications to the article do not allow skeptical information to be included in the presentation. In fact, the article only presents graphs and data which are supportive of the AGW theory.

I have attempted on numerous occasions to convince the editors with proper authority to include a skeptic within their ranks so that the article can be more properly balanced. I'm not asking them to change their opinions, only to allow a more balanced mix of editors so that the article can be improved.

The editors refuse to acknowledge the reasonable nature of this request, and tie up the discussions with technical obfuscations. Saying that anyone who is skeptical of global warming is guilty of assigning undo weight to pseudoscience and other ad hominem attacks that do not address the fundamental problem of a lack of diversity in the editorial mix.

In the past, I have taken the time to research (to the extent possible), the individual identities of the people involved in this. I understand that it isn't allowed to "out" people here, but it should suffice to say that many if not most derive their income because of the public's belief in global warming. Some are researchers with University or Government funding that relies on the continuation of a belief in AGW. Others are involved more indirectly in liberal political organizations.

I think that given the dramatic weight the issue of Global Warming has, it is important to allow a more diverse level of opinion to permeate into this subject. Mcoers (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, the opposite. There is growing debate about the veracity of the science on this matter. There is increasing skepticism in the scientific community, and the only reason there is the appearance of consensus is because people who financially benefit from government funding are successful in this and other media in squashing out all dissenting information.
Allowing dissenting voices to be a part of the conversation is the democratic process that this website is supposed to espouse. The problem is that in this case, the democratic process is not allowed to operate.Mcoers (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Bzzzt! Wrong answer. There is no "growing debate", only more and more noise from exactly the same group of people. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mcoers, I've actually seen these global warming sympathisers hard at work, trying desperately hard to protect their positions. about eighteen months ago, The ABC aired The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was produced by Martin Durkin. It was a two hour Q&A special where the program aired. Afterwards, Martin Durkin was interviewed by Tony Jones. Martin was unable to finish any of his answers, due to Jone's constant butting in, while like his documentary, Durkins theories were well founded. Whitewater111 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think ARBCOM ruled on this topic already. This is your ticket --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Dundee Ranch: Riots at Costa Rica school for troubled young Americans raises questions about programs (Inside Costa Rica, June 2003)
  2. ^ Desperate steps, dark journey, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
  3. ^ Dundee Ranch owner rips police after his acquittal, A.M. Costa Rica, Vol. 7, No. 39, Feb. 23, 2007
  4. ^ Officials to Investigate 'Tough Love' Facility Here (The Tico Times)
  5. ^ Dundee Ranch owner rips police after his acquittal, A.M. Costa Rica, Vol. 7, No. 39, Feb. 23, 2007
  6. ^ Rioting, escapes put teen facility under scrutiny (Miami Herald-News from Babylon)
  7. ^ Tough love school sent to timeout (Inside Costa Rica, June 2003)
  8. ^ a b Dundee Ranch owner rips police after his acquittal, A.M. Costa Rica, Vol. 7, No. 39, Feb. 23, 2007
  9. ^ U.S. Federal Probe of WWASP Requested, The Tico Times, November 5, 2003)
  10. ^ http://www.diarioextra.com/2007/febrero/22/sucesos06.php Penal Court of Alajuela did not find a single crime:ACQUITTED OWNER OF RANCHO DUNDEE Prizes of journalism in New York and in Llorente de Tibas in Costa Rica are a blunder..Extra Diario Adolfo Ruiz, February 22nd 2007]
  11. ^ [78]
  12. ^ Lealand Baxter Neal, Lichfield Declared Innocent, Tico Times - Daily News
  13. ^ Leland Baxter-Neal, Tough-Love’ Camp Owner Faces Trial, The Tico Times, July 2006.
More