Microsoft in Tunisia

MitchGWilliams has declared himself a "representative of Microsoft for their social media presence in the MENA region". The article started life as Microsoft Tunisia Scandal, and he filed an AfD saying "Microsoft have requested that this be removed." When that was closed as speedy keep, no valid deletion reason, he filed a second AfD three days later. I closed that also as speedy keep, told him that was not the way to go, pointed him to WP:PSCOI and explained to him on his talk page that he should use the article talk page to set out his problems with it and propose changes. Meanwhile Mark Arsten (talk), the closing admin from the first AfD, has moved the article to a more neutral title and cleaned it up and de-POV-ed it considerably, and DGG (talk) has also offered to help; but some more eyes on the article as and when Mr Williams returns would be useful. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

fwiw, under the previous title, had I seen it, I would have immediately deleted it as G10, attack page, and I am surprised nobody did so at the AfD. At the present title, it needs some context: why it was regarded as a scandal, in the first place, rather than the routine way corporations organize contracts with previous egregious copyright violators. and secondarily, any published response from MS. I remember some of it, but I'm not going to fix it from memory. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A few pages

I just finished explaining to a PR professional on the phone that their company wasn't notable, that we have to use secondary sources and that it was promotional to create excessive awards sections that includes trivial awards. They explained that they were attempting to follow the examples established by other companies and that the following articles were the ones they were drawing from as example pages:

Some of these have stuff like citing the company website to say their products are recommended by customer XYZ. While I may not have a COI technically, I figured it would be better to post here and see if anyone is interested in doing some cleanup. CorporateM (Talk) 17:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Carlos Roberto Martins or is it Carlos Wizard Martins?

Can someone take a look at the recent edits by Murilovisck (talk · contribs) who, by his own admission, apparently works for Mr. Martins. Of particular curiosity is that he changed the subject's middle name from Roberto to Wizard. Presumably this is a reference to Mr. Martins' founding of "Wizard Language Schools", though I have no idea if that is an official name change or just a commercial flourish. Dragons flight (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Matrix, The Beguiled, Not Wanted on the Voyage, Milgram experiment, Tess of the d'Urbervilles and others

Under the guise of trying to add references, the user Haritada has been spamming the reference sections of The Matrix and some other articles with links containing articles/assertions written by Vladimir Tumanov. I have no idea who the user is, but according to the links provided, you can see the obvious trend and conflict of interest. Multiple attempts of this on The Matrix article include: [1] [2] [3] and [4]. More attempts on other articles include: [5] [6] and [7], among others. In fact, any of his consecutive contributions on a single article, when viewed together, always promote a link to articles/works written by "Tumanov, Vladimir", and some even link to Springerlink.com in an attempt to sell the contents of the article, such as [8]. The link selling the article in the previous diff is provided here [9] for easy access.

The user has been warned about Conflict of Interest more than once by other users, including me. The attempts to persuade the user can be found here: [10], along with reasons I stated in the reason box when I made this edit: [11].

So far, the attempts to discourage the user from spamming the link has been unsuccessful, as the user ignore all reasons and warnings and does not participate in any discussions. Instead, the user uses long period of absence and tries to re-insert the links to the articles written by "Tumanov, Vladimir". This is the forth time I've removed his link from The Matrix article. Please determine if he has conflict of interest with Wikipedia and help me take appropriate actions. Thank you. Anthonydraco (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that having or not having an explicit COI is really the issue here - either way, this repeated spamming of articles with links to ICSA and/or Tumanov material is inappropriate. If the user is refusing to engage in any discussion of the matter, a block is probably going to be the only way to deal with him/her. I'd give them one more chance to respond, then take it to WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

E-Tools

I am concerned about a possible COI problem with this edit due to the name of the website and the person's username. Their only edits so far have been to make this addition to this article. 50.151.230.203 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The contribution has been adjusted to remove any COI material such as website link or email. It attempts to update the eTools article to show that there is an ongoing effort to support the tool through the user community with the changes being available as open source under the GPL.Paul2924 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous, I have complied with all the contribution requirements and another contributor keeps undoing my changes. I am the original source for the information, so can confirm that it is accurate. Can a moderator please intervene in this issue as it appears their will not be a solution amongst the involved parties.Paul2924 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Your word is not good enough, per WP:RS we need a reliable, third party, source. And please read WP:COI.--ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the opportunity to actually discuss these issues, rather than your unilateral rollback of the changes. After reviewing the policy you cited, there are two keys to permitting the originator from being a reliable source per WP:RS. First, the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. Secondly, Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. I am a 20+ year software engineer who has taken up the mantle to continue public domain based enhancement and bug fixes to this product. My work is published both in the retail market and I hold numerous patents on software technology designs. That would qualify me as an expert in the relevant field of software enhancement and support. Thanks for your concerns, but I believe that this should help us reach a consensus on this issue.
But at the moment you have not cited a single source, primary or otherwise. You are just saying it's true because you know it is and you are an expert. Not good enough. And even if it ever is sourced, it is still promotional in tone.-ukexpat (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Gwen Acorah

This editor has been making repeated edits of the article Derek Acorah without discussion on the talk page. This seems to be the only activity of this editor. The username of this editor implies some connection to the subject of the article. Another editor has placed a COI notice on the talk page of this editor and the behavior has continued. MrBill3 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I left out the appropriate diffs and details. The editor in question is User:Gwen Acoracah. The first edit of the Derek Acorah article by this editor occurred 7 July 2013 here. A COI notice was placed on the editors talk page here by User:C.Fred later that same day. Gwen Acorah re-edited the Derek Acorah article again on 8 July 2013 here with no discussion on the talk page. This included removing material that had been discussed on the talk page. Discussion on article talk page started here and on Gwen Acorah's user talk page here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the Derek Acorah page to include facts regarding his career which were previously missing. I have also abridged the negative comments regarding Mr. Acorah's career as I feel that most emphasis in this section is placed one one particular incident over which there is current vagueness, Yvette Fielding having recently claimed in "Haunted" Digital Magazine that Ciaran O'Keeffe was not the person responsible for putting the "experiment" in place. I have not edited out the reference nor have I removed one of the two links to the media (both of which lead to the same article)which cover the subject. I feel that Mr. Acorah deserves a balanced view of his achievements as opposed to his criticisms. Previously this was not the case. Were there to be a conflict of interest, I would have deleted all reference to any negative comment regarding Mr. Acorah's working life. Gwen Acorah (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In this edit User:Gwen Acorah removed quoted material and the source (an autobiographical book by Fielding). The quote removed seems to contradictory in relation to the above statement. The removal of referenced material and reference without discussion on the talk page by a username that seems created only for editing this article raises questions. The assertion that a COI is disproven by not having "deleted all reference to any negative comment" is does not hold water. Of note the user has not acknowledged a relationship with the subject of the article or denied it, that is the subject of this discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ronald_Myers

User [JuneteenthDOC] has been representing Ron Myers (i think in person) because they have used wikipedia to make official responses from Ron Myers against perceived attacks on the orgref. Other sites affected by the WP:COI are here. I am not experienced with this stuff and it is very complicated to know where to go for this issue. but the personal attacks on editors is just too much with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Inayity (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

He should have been hauled off to WP:ANI based on this: You come across as a insensitive babbling white racist. High standards of aesthetic and contant are in the eye of the beholder. As an African, you may not understand what a black grass roots movement in America is all about.. And who named this person the Official In Charge of a holiday?? Very disruptive, never mind the COI. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
User:JuneteenthDOC represents himself to be Ronald Myers, and based on his edits and comments I can't see any reason to doubt that he is. Which means that under WP policy he should not edit the article about himself. (I suspect a COI would also be found with the article's primary author User:DMatrixGrannE, whose only edits were to create the article in cooperation with User:JuneteenthDOC and link Juneteenth to it.)
I would welcome Mr. Myers' contributions to Juneteenth, a subject he is clearly interested in (nothing at all wrong with that), and thus he should have access to a wealth of information from independent sources, which he could cite (which would be great). However, to the extent that he seems intent on emphasizing himself and his organizations' activities in the article, and using his/organizations' sites as sources rather than demonstrating the notability of those activities by citing independent sources, that is just as clearly problematic. The disruptive and uncivil comments he has made to other editors are an excellent example of why COI policies are needed: he doesn't seem to differentiate between the application of established WP policies which happen to conflict with his goals, and attacks on him and the movement he so very closely identifies with. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I also welcome User:JuneteenthDOC's contributions to the article, and I ask no more or less of him than we do of any other editor with a conflict of interest: keep all writing from a neutral point of view and back everything up with reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I've just advised User:DMatrixGrannE – who has now acknowledged that she is a political associate of his – about COI. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Natiional Juneteenth Leader Responds to the comment "And who named this person the Official In Charge of a holiday??"

In 1994, at a historic meeting of Juneteenth leaders from across America, at Christian Unity Baptist Church, in New Orleans, Louisiana, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. was choosen the Chairman of the movement to gain greater national recognition of Juneteenth in America.[1]

For over 15 years, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. has served as the Chairman, President and C.E.O. of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF)[2] and the National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC).[3]

In a unanimous resolution passed by the U.S. Senate in 2013, Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D., the Founder & Chairman of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation (NJOF) and the former Chairman of the Board of the National Association of Juneteenth Lineage (NAJL), is acknowledged for historic leadership and continued advocacy for Juneteenth Independence Day.[4] "Whereas national observance of Juneteenth Independence Day continues under the steadfast leadership of the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation;".[5]

The Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D., is the established spokesperson and historic African American grass roots leader of the "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America (recognized by the U.S. Congress, selected by Juneteenth leaders from across America, former Chairman of the Board of the NAJL, fFounder, Chairman and President, CEO of the NJOF, also Founder and Chiarman of the National Juneteenth Christian Leadership Council (NJCLC)[6], National Association of Juneteenth Jazz Presenters (NAJJP)[7] and the National Juneteenth Holiday Campaign[8])

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, and to illustrate the kind of problem we're having here: Senate Resolution 175 (which he cites above) does not actually mention Ronald Myers. Instead it refers more generally to an organization he is in charge of. (I've already corrected the article where he stated that SR175 identified him by name.) I don't believe that he conflated things like this with intent to misrepresent the facts – like most organization founders who still lead them, he quite likely he sees himself and the organization as essentially the same thing, and sincerely feels that the honor of the resolution is his – but it is a classic example of the problems of COI editing. He's too close to the subject to edit objectively, and evidently far too invested in it to participate in development of the article without attacking other editors. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply to COI Message Board Discussion Notification for Ronald Myers (JuneteenthDOC)

What's up with you Inayity? Thank you for notifying me about the COI message Board.

I just need to know what I need to do to make sure that our "Modern Juneteenth Movement" information on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page is accurate and reflects the truth about our hard fought grass roots advocacy work to finally have "Juneteenth Independence Day" recognized by the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States, under the policies of Wikipedia for posting information.

As Frederick Douglass stated in his greatest speech, "What to the American Slave is Your '4th of July'?", "The 4th of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn."

I except the fact that I am considered a COI, especially on the Ronald Myers Wikipedia page. A review of the history of the Ronald Myers page clearly shows I did not start the page. After reviewing it, following my review of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Wikipedia page, I added content that was more accurate.

I understand my additional content was considered a COI, as well as the additional content placed on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page.

Now, what needs to be done to improve the postings under Wikipedia standards.

BTW, thank you for not accussing me of being on an ego trip, having unprofessional web pages, taking down content on the Wikipedia Juneteenth page and Ronald Myers page without warning, etc. Wikipedia editor insults just add to injury and a bold response from yours truly.

Let's just focus on what needs to be done to make sure our African American history is posting accurately and correct on Wikipedia.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Bold text=== Response by National Juneteenth leader to false claim of "he created the article to help advance the subject's activities" and having a COI ===

When an African American grass roots activist leader, seriously concerned about the historic accuracy of a movement of significance to black people, commemorating our legacy of going from the belly of slave ships, to enslavement and freedom on the "19th of June", Juneteenth Independence Day, is accussed of adding contact to the Juneteenth Wikipedsia page to "advance the subject's activities", is not only an insult, but an afront to the integrity of the leadership of "Modern Juneteenth Movement" in America.

My concern right now is to do all that I can to make sure our story, the "Modern Juneteenth Movement", an African American grass roots advocacy movement, like the Civil Rights Movement and the modern day Reparations Movement, is accurately posted on the Juneteenth Wikipedia page according to Wikipedsia policies and standards.

At this point in time, I want nothing more or nothing less. I forgive any Wikipedia editor for their insults and attribute them to the cultuiral bias of America's dominant culture, which is not African American.

BTW, is there a group of African American Wikipedia editors I can communicate with? I'm sure it would be very helpful in getting more black folks interested in Wikipedia.

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D. JuneteenthDOC (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You want your movement and your very important part in it documented for the present day and for posterity. That's great. But you're going it about it backwards. Because forcefully adding your account of it to Wikipedia won't accomplish that. For one thing (as you've seen) anyone can delete it from Wikipedia. Decent-hearted strangers will probably put it back (you're welcome), but it can still be deleted. That's the nature of Wikipedia.
But what can't be deleted are these "secondary sources" you keep hearing people here talk about. Stop wasting your time picking fights on Wikipedia and get your story told elsewhere, by other people. The African American media. The mainstream media. Latino media. LGBT media. Foreign media. Books. Songs. Poems. Video games. Use your imagination. No asshole on Wikipedia can delete those sources. And as a result, other people on Wikipedia (the non-assholes) will – as a matter of course – see and hear that information and add it to Wikipedia. That's the direction information flows: not starting in Wikipedia and going outwards, but starting in the rest of the world and making its way here (where it happens to be easier to find and will get reflected back out again).
And the best part is that you won't have to lift a finger – or fight with Wikipedians over their silly rules – to make that last part happen. Martin Luther King didn't need to write an article about him or about the Civil Rights Movement; Wikipedia did it. Jesse Jackson didn't need to; Wikipedia did. Make it so that articles about Ronald Myers and Juneteenth will get written the same way. I'm not saying that's easy. But it's the only way it'll work. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll suggest 2 things you can do to help us make Juneteenth and the bio article more accurate: 1) limit your contributions to short comments on the article talk pages; and 2) write up exactly what you'd like to see in the articles, post them on your own website with the CC-BY-SA license (perhaps saying "This page licensed CC-BY-SA"). That way we'll be able to know exactly what you want, and be able to judge independently whether it should be included.
As far as "BTW, is there a group of African American Wikipedia editors I can communicate with? I'm sure it would be very helpful in getting more black folks interested in Wikipedia." I'd hate to put any editor or group of editors on the spot as "Wikipedia's official African-American editor representative", but you might contact User:TonyTheTiger who is a great editor (but be careful - he doesn't put up with much nonsense ;-) ).
It would be great if you could help recruit African-American editors. This will take some time because Wikipedia rules can be difficult to work with, and I do think it takes a special type of person to do this. And yes, there are more than a few aholes out there, like with any other group. If I were you, I'd aim to get 20-30 editors from your community trained and ready to work on African History Month next year. It might even be possible to get minimal funding for an edit-a-thon to train folks (can you supply a room with wifi and computers?) Then contact similar groups around the country, ask Tony or myself for help as needed (I'm in Philly). And do make sure they read WP:COI ! Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I am not sure what exact thing I am being volunteered for. Is it advice on COI editing, article improving, and editathon?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said, he doesn't put up with much nonsense. I'll suggest that Juneteenth can figure out COI more or less on his own at this point. An edit-a-thon would be the ultimate great result of a clumsy getting-to-know-you, but might be reaching too far. If Juneteenth wants advice on article improvement (which might be a good first step toward an edit-a-thon), I'll leave that up to him to contact you. Just making introductions! Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Now, I am really confused. Juneteenth is a historic subject. You are talking about a User:Juneteenth, it seems, unless you are being overly casual about the editor involved in the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you mean User:JuneteenthDOC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I would seriously appreciate some assistence with the User:JuneteenthDOC who, after all of this convo, still is inserting Primary sources from his personal website as a RS and edit warring on juneteenth. Many Thanks--Inayity (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
What perivate sources are you talking about? I already sent you the U.S, Congressional Record from the floor statement of Congresswoman Barbara Rose Collins from 1996. Since when is the U.S. Congressional Record a primary source? Do you have a problem with the name Ronald Myers? Do I need to send you another copy of the U.S. Congressional Record from 1996? Wht don't you just go on www.house.gov and check Thomas for yourself.
I'll just reference it again because you continue to take down information on the Juneteenth page that is not self publishing.
Collapsing pasted text
Congressional Record article 2 of 8 
       Printer Friendly Display - 4,058 bytes.[Help]


JUNETEENTH (House of Representatives - September 17, 1996)


[Page: H10435] GPO's PDF The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.

Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will recognize the significance of the oldest black celebration in American history, June 19--known affectionately as `Juneteenth .' This bill would recognize Juneteenth as the day of celebrating the end of slavery in the United States and as the true day of independence for African-Americans in this country.

Juneteenth is the traditional celebration of the day on which the last slaves in America were freed. Although slavery was officially abolished in 1863, news of freedom did not spread to all slaves for another 2 1/2 years--June 19, 1865. On that day, U.S. General Gordon Granger, along with a regiment of Union Army soldiers, rode into Galveston, TX, and announced that the State's 200,000 slaves were free. Vowing to never forget the date, the former slaves coined a nickname for their cause of celebration--a blend of the words `June' and `nineteenth.'

June 19, 1865, has been traditionally associated with the end of slavery in the Southwest. However, because of the importance of the holiday, it did not take long for Juneteenth celebrations to spread beyond the States in the Southwest and into other parts of the country. Today, due in large part to the hard work and dedication of individuals, like Lula Briggs Galloway and Dr. Ronald Meyer of the National Association of Juneteenth lineage, who have fought hard to revive and preserve the Juneteenth celebration, the holiday is celebrated by several million blacks and whites in more than 130 cities across the United States and Canada. In Texas and Oklahoma, Juneteenth is an official State holiday.

As we prepare to revitalize the observance of Juneteenth as the true day of independence for African-Americans, it is important that we acknowledge the historical as well as political significance of the celebration. We must acknowledge, for example, that while the slaves of Texas had cause to celebrate the news of their freedom on June 19, 1865, the truth is that at the time of General Granger's historical pronouncement, the slaves were already legally free. This is because the Emancipation Proclamation had become effective nearly 2 1/2 years earlier--on January 1, 1863.

From a political standpoint, therefore, Juneteenth is significant because it exemplifies how harsh and cruel the consequences can be when a breakdown in communication occurs between the Government and the American people. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dehumanizing and degrading conditions of slavery were unnecessarily prolonged for hundreds of thousands of black men, women, and children, because our American Government failed to communicate the truth.

As Juneteenth celebrations continue to spread, so does a greater appreciation of African-American history. We must revive and preserve Juneteenth not only as the end of a painful chapter in American history--but also as a reminder of the importance of preserving the lines of communication between the powerful and powerless in our society.

Juneteenth allows us to look back on the past with an increased awareness and heightened respect for the strength of the African-American men, women, and children, who endured unspeakable cruelties in bondage. Out of respect to our ancestors, upon whose blood, sweat, and tears, this great Nation was built, the bill I introduce today acknowledges that African-Americans in this country are not truly free, until the last of us are free.

The bill I introduce today, Mr. Speaker, recognizes June 19, 1865, as a day of celebrating the end of slavery in America and as the true day of independence for African-Americans in this country.

I ask all of my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.


THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help 

               Contents Display
Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Rev. Ronald V. Myers, Sr., M.D.JuneteenthDOC (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Edyang

This editor appears to be on a bit of a COI spree. He is editing the MySammy article, for which he appears to be the media contact [12]. He also appears to work as a PR for Daniel Chavez Moran, the founder of Grupo Vidanta and Grand luxxe. See [13] as well as this edit summary [14] Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that all WP guidelines have been followed, for example the editor did not disclose his COIs per WP:COI. As for WP:OUTING, the editor is writing under his own name, so he outed himself. And the previous sentence of the guidelines state "However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums." The point is that nothing has been redacted or oversighted. If he wants to un-out himself, he should request a name change. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The fact that I used my own name shows I had nothing to hide. I will re-review COI guidelines and refrain from editing or creating articles that seem to be in conflict. Thank you for your feedback on this matter.Edyang (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Visionvideo2013

s.p.a. doing nothing but adding links to Christian History magazine; that's all they do. Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There's also a user name problem here. They've added at least one link [15] to Visionvideo.com. Christian History magazine is published by the Christian History Institute. Both Vision Video and the Christian History Institute are clearly part of the same operation. Look at the bottom of their home pages. They both have the same address. In fact, here the Christian History Institute describes Vision Video as "our sister company". Voceditenore (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
User has been blocked. --Drm310 (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Satyajitk

User name is very similar to Satya Kharkar, film maker of Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Coin Toss. Editor has had singular focus since registering in promoting items associated with Satya Kharkar (including spamming a public service film by Satya, and getting the non-notable Coin Toss film spammed on other articles) leads me to think that the editor is either the film maker or very closely related to the film maker. AfC has taken care of the current issue of the AfC submission (by petitioning and getting the submission fully page protected), but the singular focus is clearly only here to promote their works. This report was previously at WP:UAA but was declined there for not representing other people. Hasteur (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Burger King (et. al.)

NO ACTION
Unfounded.

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

Resolved
 – This is a long established user, if there were any concerns for this noticeboard they would of been handled long ago. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

User is a manager of a Burger King franchise who repeatedly deletes negative information about the business.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.106.81 (talk • contribs)

Do you have diffs of the edits in question? Do you also have proof that the user is the manager of a Burger King? From what I see, this user is a Wikipedia veteran in good standing and I haven't seen any recent concerns about his activity. --Drm310 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Presenting proof of someone's place of employment is considered WP:Outing, which is against behavioural policy on this wiki. Jerem43 has been the victim of an ongoing campaign of harassment by this and several other IPs and named accounts. This complaint should be closed as spurious in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Please close this, I am so sick of this person. This person is now stalking me in the real world it seems, I may have to speak to the Foundation to see what my options are. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers

After this revert [16] of an obvoius COI edit, User:RitchieBros created User:Ozvickijc and continued editing. Don't think this warrants a SPI case. Mlpearc (powwow) 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that User:Ritchie Bros was asked to create a new account per our username policy, a SPI would be entirely inappropriate. If you think that User:Ozvickijc is editing inappropriately, I'd suggest posting on their talk page, pointing out WP:COI policy, asking if it applies to them, and taking it from there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Missed the time lapse from the block and account creation. Thanks, Mlpearc (powwow) 20:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

“Axial engine” article

Axial engine #Present day is nothing but a bundle of three different COI subsection, at least 2.1 and 2.3 certainly are not supported by independent sources. I’m not willing to intervene further; maybe somebody else? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Alex Zhavoronkov

I am the person in the article and I asked a professional writer to prepare the page for me in Wiki format drawing information from various sources. Unfortunately, the editor posted it. One of the books I published most recently is [us.macmillan.com/theagelessgeneration/ Ageless Generation]. On Amazon Ageless Generation - #1 in Biotechnology Category; another book is by a much smaller publisher was illustrated prose Dating A.I. and a recent popular article at HuffPo 13 reasons. In today's world this may not provide adequate notability; therefore, I would like to take the liberty to ask you to take a look at the article and delete or edit it with a neutral view or determine whether the COI tag is necessary. Biogerontology (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is a poorly sourced vanity article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you please delete it then? 32.146.255.6 (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Logical Cowboy, you might want to double-check the 3rd and 11th source. They meet WP:GNG.--v/r - TP 03:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comments. I was not commenting on the subject's notability or whether the article would pass WP:GNG. If you think that only 2/11 of the sources meet WP:GNG, then we probably agree more than we disagree. I did not listen to number 11, but if that is an interview, that may not be the best WP:GNG source in terms of independence ::from the subject. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Interviews are acceptable when the interviewer discusses facts about the subject or the subject discusses non-controversial facts about themselves.--v/r - TP 13:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
For full disclosure, I have a WP:COI with this subject as well.--v/r - TP 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, if you wait until the end of the month, there will be several other notable independent sources. Printed press takes time and the publisher released the free books to independent reviewers two weeks after publication due to the Independence Day in the US. It was featured in The World in Brief report by Chatham House. I am deeply sorry about the issue with the editor posting the article. The project description was to compile the article in the appropriate format (I did not know how to do that). The main reason for this article is to support the book. There are several other books and publications with different spellings of the name and reviews. But I agree that there is little notability here and the article can be swiftly deleted. Biogerontology (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That "professional writer" appears to have merely copied and pasted from a bio [17] marked copyright John Hopkins University. Given the other doubts about the article expressed above I've not attempted a rewrite but have tagged the article for deletion. I hope that's appropriate. NebY (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Princess Ghida

— Preceding unsigned comment added by149.200.228.113 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2013

Not really sure if there was or is a COI issue here but another user has cleaned up the article. OlYeller21Talktome 18:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Roland De Wolk ‎

The user started the article 3 years ago, with content that seemed like self-advertising. Now the named individual is in the news for something he did, the user started to whitewash all negative content added to the page and tried to have the page deleted entirely. DHN (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit was blocked for making legal threats. The article has had lots of attention from neutral editors since then. This issue seems to be dealt with at this point. OlYeller21Talktome 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Voice of Russia

Yesterday, an editor with an IP address corresponding to the Voice of Russia (the Russian state radio station) essentially rewrote the article on that organization. (Diff: [18]) I reverted the change and left a COI notice on the IP editor's talk page. Today, a new editor has made the same changes User:Голос России (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [19]. The username means "Voice of Russia" and, in an edit summary (in Russian), the user says "Hello, this is the official account radio "Voice of Russia", we want to change the information on this page" (per Google translate). I have reverted again and asked the user to discuss the changes they are interested in making on the talk page. GabrielF (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Inner Sanctum (band)

Being edited by User:Innersanctum.management to add COI and puffery. 86.159.24.180 (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert Sears

Yeah, earlier this year I created an article for Robert Sears (physician), and it seems he has discovered it, creating an account (User:DrBobSears) especially for the purpose of editing his own article, which he apparently doesn't know you aren't supposed to do. I would have come here sooner, since the edits were made months ago, but I didn't know this page existed until recently. Jinkinson (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Outside of his edits being marked as minor when they were not, it looks like he hasn't violated any policies or guidelines. One of his edits tones down the rhetoric that was previously added by him which I think show an understanding that this isn't a place to slander/promote. His claims are backed up with sources as well but the claim was about something he did on his own blog and is therefore self-citing. I haven't taken the time to determine if the statements he added would constitute undue weight.
I left a COI template on his talk page. I've watchlisted the article and I'll keep an eye out for any issues but at this point, the edits were mild and pretty stale at this point. OlYeller21Talktome 22:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it ever okay to out?

I know it's never okay to openly out someone, but I recently discovered an editor adding questionable book references to a series of articles on my watchlist. This user has only made 35 edits in total, and every single one of them is adding a reference to this or one of two other books by the same author.

All three books are self-published through AuthorHouse or CreateSpace.

Thinking this very suspicious, I decided to Google the author's name, along with the particular editor's username. I found out immediately that the two are one and the same person, since the author has used the same username on other sites.

I have e-mailed the user about this and requested that he remove the questionable references (none of them have any place on Wikipedia to begin with, COI or not), and indicated that I do not intend to start an edit war or to out him, but to bring the specifics of the case to the Wikipedia community would almost immediately out the user, based on the fact that his contributions make his identity perfectly obvious. The user has yet to respond to me, either by e-mail or by undoing the edits.

I now know beyond all doubt that the author registered a Wikipedia account in order to advertise his own books. But by dealing with the issue directly (removing the advertising) I would be effectively outing the user, especially now that I have posted here. However, the edits definitely need to be undone because they are obviously in poor taste. The user has already effectively outed himself, of course, by mentioning his own real-world identity in every single edit he made, but then am I at fault for even trying to draw the attention of the community??

Can I just e-mail some other user and have them undo the edits in my stead, so as not to link the troublesome editor with this post? Or, better yet, ask such a user to e-mail me?

Kind regards,
Jubei the samurai (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Worm here. We don't have a policy saying that people can't edit Wikipedia with a COI. We do have a policy saying that we don't out editors. I wish we had a policy against COI editing, but at the moment avoiding outing is more important that handling a COI, and we shouldn't out someone, even if we know they have one. That said, there are plenty of ways of fixing things without outing, like what was done here. - Bilby (talk)
For the record, the problem has been solved by two or three Wikipedians who will not be named. I don't know if they saw this thread, but they seem to have noticed the problematic edits shortly after I did. The problem editor also emailed me, somewhat egotistically claiming that the articles were already quoting his book -- before his book was published. Jubei the samurai (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not an unusual case, see WP:BOOKSPAM. I have encountered a case myself, made more complicated by the fact that the author (in the case I found) actually contributed a few new articles to Wikipedia, but added his book to about a dozen more, where he contributed nothing else. I chose not to delete his book in deference of the content he actually contributed. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I may be splitting hairs here but you couldn't have deleted the article if you wanted to. Maybe you meant you could have asked someone else to delete it by nominating it for deletion? I usually wouldn't say anything but I don't like the idea of someone making the assumption that they're the judge and executioner if they haven't been given that privileged. OlYeller21Talktome 14:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Eh? I said I "chose not to delete his book", meaning delete it from the ref list in the dozen articles where he added it without adding other content. It would have made little sense to delete it from those few articles where it was added together with the article's text, although I have to say that book is not the only reference available for those topics either. I think most authors get some implicit level of advertisement from being cited on Wikipedia, and this seems a relatively fair quid pro quo for someone who contributed some articles here too. Someone not using his real name (talk)

Multiple articles involving artists represented by DC Moore Gallery

A purpose appears to be promotional on behalf of artists represented by DC Moore. Many of the articles are laden with the usual C.V. listings of shows, and include Moore's website as a reference. JNW (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing warned them regarding the username violation and they've been warned regarding their COI. They were even warned about advertorial edits back in February. They stopped editing on August 2nd but that shouldn't be too surprising if it's an employee who doesn't work on the weekends. No activity so far, today.
I added other articles they created that weren't already listed here. Before I dig any deeper, I need to do review a situation I promised someone else I'd look at today. This could definitely use some eyes on it, though. OlYeller21Talktome 18:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

COI: Government of Serbia

Hi – I'm notifying people here that I work for Bell Pottinger (see my talk user page for more info) and have proposed minor edits to a number of articles on behalf of my client, the Government of Serbia. Those articles are: Accession of Serbia to the European Union, Government of Serbia, National Assembly (Serbia) and Ivica Dačić. See the talk pages for details and feel free to chip in on any/all of these suggestions. Many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume these requests were dealt with. I can't find any the requests anywhere (in CAT:EDITREQ or on the talk pages of the listed articles). Unless I've missed them somewhere, I consider this a resolved issue.
Thanks, Vivj2012, for going through the hoops to avoid any COI issues. OlYeller21Talktome 19:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi OlYeller21, thanks for replying – the requests are on the talk pages. My proposed edits to the Accession and the Dačić article have been agreed, and I'm discussing edits to the National Assembly article (under Women in the current Parliament). I haven't had a response to my request on the Government of Serbia talk page (Cabinet reshuffle), but I notice you've posted under it regarding the list of agencies and made the edit accordingly (completely agree by the way). I'm proposing an update on the composition of the cabinet, which is starting to change since it was formed last year. What's your view on my suggestion? Many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I was looking for the ((editrequest)) templates which was rather narrow-sighted of me. I'll check out the requests in the next day or two. OlYeller21Talktome 18:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Vivj2012 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Penn State Nittany Lions Football

Resolved
 – Directed user to another noticeboard. OlYeller21Talktome 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to change/edit the Penn State Nittany Lions Football page in regards to the all-time team versus team records in their rivalry games getting the records up to date and accurate with the number of games won/lost when considering the child sex abuse scandal and the wins taken away from that. But someone keeps deleting my edits and is trying to have me blocked from Wikipedia editing for some reason. They keep putting back outdated information when the information I have entered is correct and up to date. My main antagonist is Trlovejoy.

Unless you have any evidence or even suspicion that Trlovejoy has a close connection to Penn State football, this is a matter that doesn't really belong here. It would be better suited for WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 18:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have made similar mistakes in the past. It is not always easy to select the right board if you don't know the ropes, but please don't let this discourage you. Just copy and paste the source of your complaint here into the correct board. Please also remember to sign your posts with four tildas (~~~~) so that we know who you are. (The wiki will replace the trailing four tildas with your signature and a timestamp.) Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 01:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Monocle

Edited by :-

Stale
 – User seem to be a fan as opposed to connected party. If NPOV editing occurs, please consult WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcomed with COI template, and seems to ignore clear connection between user name and articles edited. sats 00:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

and continues to edit as if no messages have been sent, it is getting frustrating see how slow this page is here, and how the editor continues as if writing

about the company is no big deal despite having the COI tag on the page. sats 09:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Sometimes templates are ignored because they assume you're a robot. I've also been told of a study that showed how often people ignore talk page messages if they're quickly hit with templates. Not sure if that's the case here but it may be why they're ignoring messages. OlYeller21Talktome 18:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like they finally acknowledged the issue, claim not to be affiliated (just a fan), and are going to create a new account to avoid confusion. The edits look fine but show that they either just aren't adding references that they're pulling info from or have an intimate knowledge of the organization.
Keep an eye on things, if you will please. If you see anything that look problematic (NPOV editing, ownership issues, etc.), please report back here. OlYeller21Talktome 18:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Voice intro project

Resolved
 – Not a specific COI. See talk page for more discussion on the project. OlYeller21Talktome 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This obviously won't apply in contentious cases, but when you are corresponding, on- or off- wiki, with article subjects who make good-faith edits, please consider asking them to contribute a short audio recoding of their spoken voice, as described at Wikipedia:Voice intro project (currently a holding page, linking to the project page on Commons). The template ((Voice Intro Project invitation)) is also available for your convenience. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw this template appear on an editor's talk page that I had edited. That's a really interesting project. I'll try to keep it in mind, not only because it will be beneficial to that project but because I think showing a new COI editor that while COI editing may cause problems, Wikipedia still values them and their contributions.
Thanks for the heads up. OlYeller21Talktome 18:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a terrific idea! Andrew327 19:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WYRD-FM

Resolved
 – User changed username to comply with WP:USERNAME and is cooperating with other users. OlYeller21Talktome 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User edited the article in question, apparently in good faith, to update the radio station's broadcast schedule. However, the article states that the radio station is owned by a company called Entercom Communications. Tckma (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit doesn't seem to violate any policies or guidelines, as far as I can tell. The username is most likely going to be considered a WP:USERNAME violation, though. Any admins watching or should I take it to WP:UAA? I added the article to my watchlist and another user has warned them about COI editing. OlYeller21Talktome 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Editor has changed username to avoid violating policy and appears to be cooperating. Good faith wins. Andrew327 19:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

SmartScore

Resolved
 – There doesn't appear to be a close connection or NPOV editing. Enough eyes are on the situation at this point. OlYeller21Talktome 21:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor has accused me of having a non-disclosed COI here and I mentioned that the right place for determining whether an editor has a COI is this board. The editor has not responded to my arguments about his adding content not directly supported by the source and has suggested that the article be reverted to his version on the basis of their COI accusations. He also continues to refer to my prior account name, even though they are aware I changed usernames to avoid personally identifiable information. Not sure where to go from there, but based on the tone, I figured it would escalate here quickly anyway. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I had no intention of escalating anything. At SmartScore, though we did not entirely agree on all points, I noticed no editing by CorporateM that appeared anything but impartial. I've little more to say on this than I've already said at Talk:SmartScore. The user's previous username is an overt redirect to the present one. The previous username overtly declared here: "I am a paid editor of this nature, but one that has taken the time to understand the rules, get involved and vowed to not touch articles directly, but collaborate with neutral editors". On the face of it, that appears to me to suggest that WP:NOPAY is relevant here, and the editor should not be directly editing articles on commercial products or services. But that's not my call. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
"I noticed no editing by CorporateM that appeared anything but impartial." Then it seems like there is no issue here. As there is no need to determine whether an editor has a COI, if their edits are neutral, nor is there any need to revert such edits even if a COI was confirmed. Because maybe 30-50% of my edits are done in a PR capacity does not forbid me from editing other articles, nor does it volunteer me for any restrictions or COI speculations beyond what any other editor would receive, where a COI is not disclosed. CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
OK; please remember that you, not I, brought this here. It is my opinion, based on my reading of WP:NOPAY, and without any particular knowledge or expertise in this area, that if you work as a paid editor some of the time, then it would be politic to refrain from editing articles on commercial products or services at all times. To do otherwise puts a very considerable strain on your own honesty (which may of course be quite up to the task) and on the good faith of other editors. I repeat that I saw nothing at SmartScore that seemed to me anything but impartial; but perhaps that just means that you are very good indeed at your job? It would be helpful if some other editors here would see fit to comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both for replies. That's good enough for me. I reiterate that I didn't bring this here in the first place, but can understand that CorporateM might want some sort of endorsement from others of his good faith, which he has now had. Now, any comment on Louise Blouin Media below? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

user 24.95.76.248 - general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund

24.95.76.248 claims to be Gary Cox [20][21][22], a lawyer and general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (http://farmtoconsumer.org), an organization that promotes raw milk and fringe theories about it.

His edits to date have been what you'd expect of a new editor that's a lawyer that defends promoters of fringe theories: violations of WP:V, WP:OR/SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. He likes to juxtapose information in a misleading way to promote the pov of the organizations he represents. He has a WP:BATTLE mentality, and has ignored comments to him about NPOV and COI beyond claiming he is unbiased. He doesn't have many edits yet, so the problems are obvious and blatant from my perspective. I can provide diffs if needed.

I always like to think that new editors can learn how to contribute in a positive manner, but he's off to a very bad start. A short block is probably warranted. How much trouble would it be to give him a (short?) ban from all relevant articles while still allowing him to contribute to the talk pages? --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

He's made 27 edits in 2 days which are confined to just 3 pages. I don't know if we can topic ban an IP but this editor definitely has a POV and a COI. If he doesn't stop of his own accord then we will have to do something. Dusty|💬|You can help! 01:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oy. I told myself I'd stay away from situations like this for a while so that I don't burn myself out again.
Ronz has made some good progress on the article and the IP claiming to be Gary Cox hasn't edited since the 7th which may be due to running into some resistance. If he continues to advocate for his organization, please report back here. OlYeller21Talktome 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Angelique

Disregard
 – This report doesn't seem to apply to this noticeboard and supplies insufficient information to take any action at all. OlYeller21Talktome 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 68.173.190.124 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC) In 2008 I purchased 50 % of a partnership (we shared same lawyer) 3 month later we inter a franchise agreement using same lawyer 2010 I used same layer to do a closing of another business 2010 also uses same lawyer for breaking a business partnership agreement using same lawyer In 2012 I had a fake lease under my name and the franchiser another sight by the same lawyer Know it been almost two years that I been with a different lawyer because the franchisor want to close my business down Back in 2008 my layer ( the one I thought it was my layer had me sign a consented staining I didn't want counsel) I just have a associated degree if I had known he wasn't my layer I was able to afford one At the time and won't be getting sue about to lose my bread and butter .

I apologize but it's very difficult to understand what you want. You haven't linked any article or user that may have a conflict of interest and I can't deduce any information based on your edit history (only edited this page).
We'll need more information if anyone here can help you but please keep in mind that this noticeboard is for reporting issues where an editor with a close connection to a subject is editing the article about that subject in a way that is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. OlYeller21Talktome 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ginsters

There has been repeated editing of the article by User:Stevefearn, as well as similar edits in the recent past by users such as User:Hartopj, User:KateCorradi and User:GinstersCornwall. A person called Steve Fearn identifies themselves on LinkedIn here as "Brand Engagement Manager at Ginsters", responsible for "Management and generation of digital strategies to drive online traffic to both company website and social media platforms; Developing and managing specific digital marketing campaigns; Tracking conversion rates and monitoring brand engagement levels across platforms; Overseeing the social media strategy promoting continuity across wider comms/CRM strategy; Managing online brand campaigns to raise brand awareness; Responsibility for planning and budgetary control of all digital marketing activity; Evaluating customer research, market conditions and competitor data; Review new technologies and keep the company at the forefront of developments in digital marketing..." User:Stevefearn has been warned for apparent COI, with no response. Any advice? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that there's a COI and it looks like you've done everything right so far. I find that leaving a personal message (an obviously not-template) is a good way to get the person's attention to start a discussion. After that, whether or not the person is willing to follow policies and guidelines usually becomes very clear.
I'd leave a message and see what they say. They'll probably be looking to talk to someone after they see that a lot of their additions were reverted.
Feel free to report back here if you need any help talking to them or protecting the article from problematic editing. OlYeller21Talktome 22:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

No Gun Ri and the AP's Charles Hanley

AP writer Charles Hanley's behavior at the No Gun Ri Massacre article needs to be addressed. Hanley's work on this subject has been the subject to fair degree of criticism (for reasons I need not mention here) by other writers and historians. Hanley is currently is editing the article under username Cjhanley (a fact he freely admits) and refuses to have material introduced into the article regardless if it meets sourcing requirements WP:V, WP:RS if it does not conform to the reporting he did on the subject. It seems he has a particular animus towards Westpoint historian LtCol Robert Bateman whose book and writings on this subject Hanley wont entertain inclusion of. WeldNeck (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This posting is highly inappropriate and without merit. It also was done without notification to the subject, as required by the page's rules. "WeldNeck" suddenly appeared out of nowhere on 8 August (who or what prompted it?) to make 16 changes in an article on a sensitive subject on which he seems to know little, beyond various red herrings promulgated by apologists for the U.S. military's mass killing of South Korean refugees at No Gun Ri in July 1950. In the midst of our trying to address his questions and clarify his misconceptions on Talk, as we requested, he instead went ahead with damaging changes to the article -- for example, deleting an accurate early North Korean report on the massacre, because, well..... it's communist. To suggest that the professional journalists who have done probably the most extensive research on the subject should not be contributing to the article is ludicrous. Wikipedia relies on the most authoritative contributors drawing on the widest array of sources. Until 2012, the article was a poorly sourced, incomprehensible mess, having been taken over by chauvinist advocates of minimizing a war crime. It shouldn't be allowed to fall into that pit again. Charles J. Hanley 11:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
For my own sanity, I'm not going to dive into this situation without learning more. Anyone else is obviously free to do whatever they wish.
WeldNeck, you say that "Hanley's work on this subject has been the subject to fair degree of criticism (for reasons I need not mention here)". You're not really doing us a favor by not not mentioning those reasons here. I don't mean to sound rude but do you expect people here to just take your word for it or spend their volunteered time to figure out what you already believe?
I think there's little to no chance that anyone here is going to dive into this situation when it's obvious that there's some back story that's being intentionally omitted.
If an editor involved in this article has a close connection to the subject, please provide diffs that prove or even suggest that. If someone is advocating or promoting a point of view, please provide diffs that suggest that.
I understand that either of you may feel a certain way about the other editor but please don't expect people here to do hours of work to learn what you already know. Providing no diffs to support any claims made here isn't a good way to convince others to participate and help out. OlYeller21Talktome 22:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me apologize to Cjhanley for not informing him of this notice, I was unaware of the necessity. Some criticisms of Hanley and the AP can be found here: [23], [24]. Westpoint Historian LtCol Robert Bateman is one of Hanley's more vocal critics and Hanley has so far refused to allow any of his material in the article on the grounds that describing his work as "gross unreliability". The heart of the COI here is Hanley's exclusion of another WP:RS whose work meets [WP:V]] criteria based on what appears to be a professional feud between the two of them that has turned personal. For what its worth, I think Hanly is sincere with his beliefs about LtCol Bateman but that alone isnt a good enough of a reason to allow Hanley to exclude him.
And the implication that I am here because someone or something sent me here is without merit. WeldNeck (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
How can there be a "conflict" in pressing to adhere to standards of accuracy and truthfulness in an important WP article? You might as well include the "findings" of David Irving or Iran's Ahmadinejad in the main Holocaust article. Bateman is of use only to No Gun Ri deniers, his gross unreliability having been amply demonstrated in material that WeldNeck has thus far resisted reading and viewing. And Bateman's personal vendetta, as a 7th Cavalry booster, against the journalists who first confirmed the 7th Cavalry's mass killing of refugees doesn't belong in the article, which should deal simply with the facts of No Gun Ri. Now, let's return this discussion to the Talk page, where it belongs.Charles J. Hanley 14:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
Besides being the first to violate Godwin's law your characterization of LtCol Bateman's work is your personal characterization and is not shared by additional reliable sources. Considering the professional and personal friction between the two of you, I think this COI speaks for itself. WeldNeck (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Late last year, Hanley wrote a nine-page letter to Stackpole Books, the Pennsylvania publisher bringing out Bateman's book this month, saying it would be a "grave mistake" to publish Bateman's "diatribes and defamations." A copy of the letter, filled with personal attacks against the author, was made available to The Chronicle. The letter is the kind of dark threat that gives free speech experts the chills -- "an effort at prior restraint," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists -- not to mention the fact that in this case, there is a certain reversal of roles. "It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person," said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. "The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable."

WeldNeck (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Christy Lee Rogers

I would like to bring to the attention of the community User:Setomorp, who personal information removed by Andrew327. This user created an article on behalf of Christy Lee Rogers, a church member. When I started the AfD for this article and stated that there was a potential conflict of interest on the part of Setomorp and that it is possible the article is a vanity article, I was shot down by others who ignored the fact that there are barely any secondary or tertiary sources that meet our standards of reliability and verifiability. Anyone who bothered to do a search would discover that the few articles appearing in magazines such as Vanity Fair and Bazaar did not contain any verifiable data, indeed containing at most a blurb as virtually all the articles are image-heavy with little to no informative text, and a couple of interviews which also do not provide any verifiable details or data regarding the subject. The rest are all literally blogs. Considering the standard set by WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, as I have stated on the article's talk, the article will remain at best a stub, and at worst, will eventually become an out-and-out advertorial. The fact that Setomorp, who undoubtedly is an employee of the aforementioned Scientologist-run PR firm in the UK, there is a definite conflict of interest on the part of this user who should, out of respect for community policies, refrain from further involvement in that article as well as refraining from starting any new articles for Scientologists.

While I consider the article to be a rather pointless exercise, since there is no verifiable date of birth for the artist, no verifiable place of birth, no verifiable record of education or employment or how they produce the photography, etc and taking into account the fact that every single source, whether in print or on the Web, uses statements, claims, and assertions directly from the subject herself, as there are not even any external sources, I really have no opinion as it seems AfD's lately are a hell of a lot more lenient and inclusionary compared to the more stringent standards upheld in years past. But it is disturbing that yet another PR firm connected to Scientology is shamelessly taking advantage of Wikipedia for promotional ends. The edits of User:Setomorp do not show any attempt at upholding guidelines and policy, but rather promoting advertorial-style copy. A similar situation apparently had occurred on the page of Grant Cardone, who for quite some time had a Wikipedia article that was nothing more than pure advertorial promotion. As with the articles of a number of low level Scientologist notables, Cardone's article cannot be improved very much since there are very few reliable, verifiable secondary and tertiary sources -- most of the article is forced to use Cardone himself as the paramount source.

Taking into consideration the conflicts and melodrama that surrounded Scientology's official involvement in editing Wikipedia, I urge the community to not take these issues lightly and if possible, for the community to take a stronger line against the editing of articles by paid PR writers. Thank you, Laval (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

!sdrawkcab promoteS:resU gnidaer yrT Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ha, I don't know how I missed that. Good catch. Andrew327 01:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

Resolved
 – Closed per the reviewer's suggestion on his talk page to keep an eye on any new activity on the article. WilliamH (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The behaviour and a technical aspect of 141.0.153.217 (it has not been CheckUsered) effectively confirms that the subject has been cleansing his own entry. Among other things, this edit - with a totally disingenuous edit summary - removed mention from the lead that the company the subject operates was issued with a court order to enforce the repayment of debts, and removed mention of him having lost his previous employer, The Telegraph, a significant amount of money. That was after it was editorialised in this edit by a German IP address, which also inserted promotional-y testimonials in the lead section and also uses exactly the same elaborate/prosaic style of edit summary.

I actually created this article, but I feel that a conflict of interest - I write for the The Telegraph - prevents me from intervening in the way that is necessary: obviously the editing of one's own Wikipedia article is allowed, but edits like these and the spreading of scrutiny to make them is not, and on that basis, the reference to him losing The Telegraph a lot of money should be restored. WilliamH (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've done a little digging and there is a clear scrutiny-evading element to this: based on deleted contributions to the Milo Andreas Wagner article, the following accounts almost certainly belong to the subject: Milohanrahan (talk · contribs), Milo Andreas Wagner (talk · contribs), Milo Yiannopoulos (talk · contribs). WilliamH (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Is a SPI being initiated? That seems like it would be the most productive step at this point. OlYeller21Talktome 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Milohanrahan. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Filed and archived. WilliamH (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I should have looked to see when those people had lasted editing. Still, it will be good to have that SPI archived in case someone else pops up.
At this point, we just need to check the articles for POV/advert related issues. OlYeller21Talktome 01:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sophie Clayton and International Rice Research Institute

Although this user has declared a Conflict of Interest, she has consistently ignored the advice of other editors on her talk page to stop directly editing articles with which she has such a conflict of interest. She continues to edit the page of her employer as well as those related to her work there. This is in direct violation of the Conflict of Interest policy. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 07:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

this edit (which I have reverted) is something of a gem, changing the otherwise NPOV text of a Nobel Prize winner's article to refer to her own organization. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
User:UseTheCommandLine May I request some help with this edit please that you reverted. The original edit I did and as stated in my comment was because the information as presented may give the impression it was only Borlaug involved in developing semi-dwarf rice, which does not accurately reflect the very significant role others played. It is captured a bit better on the Green_Revolution page under history. This non-IRRI source seems to capture it well too I think and another source written by someone around at the time is the IRRI-published book An adventure in applied science - see page 53 for mention of who was responsible. Will add same to talk page. Sophie Clayton (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. Please see the WP:THREAD guideline.
  2. This discussion belongs on the talk page of the article in question. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification User:UseTheCommandLine. Yikes - sorry - I thought it was OK to edit other pages and link to my organization's site where the information was unique and stated in an unbiased way - and provided I had declared my conflict of interest. I can see that was not good enough and I apologize, I should have been more careful. I have now more carefully read the Conflict of interest - advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest and will henceforth make suggestions on talk for others to consider and not directly make edits on pages that have anything to do with my organization or our interests across rice science. I added photos directly yesterday - is that OK to International Rice Research Institute? I couldn't quickly find a reference about that. But I can remove if they are inappropriate. Sophie Clayton (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Most recently, another editor asked you on 12 Nov 2012 to stop adding references to your employer (see WP:SELFCITE) but you continued to do so for many, many edits. In fact, from what I gather, the majority of your edits where a reference was inserted were references to your employer.
Other editors have on multiple occasions politely asked you to refrain from this behavior, and I did not see it stopping as a result. I was confrontational for that reason.
From WP:PSCOI:

Paid advocates: If you have an ethical responsibility to edit Wikipedia to advance your client or employer's interests, then you stand in a clear conflict of interest and should not edit articles directly, even with disclosure. You may be professionally obligated to advance goals that conflict with neutrality and Wikipedia's mission. This includes lawyers, public relations representatives, corporate communicators, marketers, and others in similar positions. This kind of engagement is very controversial and often results in community and broader media backlash if discovered.

Please ensure that this situation does not arise in the future. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
As for photos, i think as long as the rightsholder is willing to have them released under the CC-BY-SA license we use here on WP (like the rest of your content as work-for-hire), that this is not a problem. Whether it gets used in the article or not is a different matter, and dependent on the editors of those pages, i think. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
OK so I'll leave the photos as uploaded but remove them from page. Sophie Clayton (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Got it now I think! Thanks for helping me understand. Sophie Clayton (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I am a minor contributor to the article, and I have looked at many of the contributions in question. I am one of the editors (two of us prior to the current discussion, one in 2010 and one in 2012) who have posted COI comments on her talk page. For the most part, I don't have any objection at all to Sophie Clayton's edits. IMHO, she's doing good work, doing it openly and without bias, and just happens to work for IRRI.
The COI Behavioral Guideline says "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I don't see much incompatibility between Clayton's edits and Wikipedia's aims. IRRI is a very important but little-known organization in a remote part of the world (from the U.S. and other English-speaking countries). It is worthy of being covered in some depth, but there are probably few editors who are qualified to do so. Having an IRRI person make non-controversial factual edits while clearly declaring her position doesn't seem to me to be much of a negative.
When I look at the COI material on cultural-sector professionals, I see Sophie as a subject specialist (while acknowledging her role as a promoter). She seems to be pretty NPOV in her edits, too. When I look at wp:PILLARS, I think that Wikipedia does not have firm rules has a lot of pertinence to this case. Lou Sander (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It's fine that you see it that way. I don't. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about that? It would help my thinking if somebody would point out some of the inappropriate or conflicted edits that she has made. It would probably be helpful to other editors, too. Lou Sander (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Added a bit later... Sorry for being a bit critical above. I've checked out the Borlaug article that you referred to way up above, and I see your point. At the same time, I observe that Clayton seems to be learning about COI, and seems to be very willing to do whatever is right, given her position with IRRI and Wikipedia's many guiding principles. I am hopeful, and encouraged, that she will accept properly-motivated guidance from other editors. Lou Sander (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@Lou - this is not Cultural-sector related at all -WP:COIU- is very clear, and unfortunately it is very clear that Sophie has breached this with her edits on issues related to her work. I don't doubt her motives or sincerity. Roxy the dog (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I looked HERE and saw "subject specialist", and considered that IRRI is a cultural institution of sorts, though not a museum, etc. (Food is as much a part of "culture" as is art, though I won't argue with anybody about it.) Yes, while Sophie is employed by IRRI, nobody else who is editing the article seems to have anything substantive to contribute to it. Many can see Sophie's COI, and many seem to acknowledge her motives and sincerity, but none seem to be able to replace her as an editor of the article. Maybe it would be good if she would post proposed edits on the talk page, and let other editors move them to the article if they approve. Lou Sander (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@Lou Sander - I think you're missing the point of Wikipedia:Advice_for_the_cultural_sector. If Sophie was contributing to articles by adding information about "rice agriculture" because he/she is an expert on the subject, then that would be fine and wouldn't represent a conflict of interest. Sophie wasn't contributing information about "rice agriculture" as a "rice agriculture" expert. She was contributing information about IRRI as an employee of IRRI. There's a substantial and obvious difference between those two things. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@NickCT I agree that there is such a difference. I haven't looked very deeply into all the edits to which people have objected, but if she's been putting IRRI mentions into non-IRRI articles, I agree that she ought to stop doing so directly. Having observed her behavior on the various talk pages, I would expect that as her understanding of COI improves, she will comply with all reasonable requests, cautions, etc. She seems to be a highly professional person in a highly respectable scientific organization, and to behave as such people would be expected to.
BTW, I keep getting notifications on my watchlist page that you have mentioned me somewhere. This is new to me, and useful. How do you make that happen? I'm guessing that it is by using @Lou Sander, but I don't know for sure. Once I know how it is done, I'll try to develop the habit of using it myself. Lou Sander (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@Lou Sander - re "This is new to me, and useful. How do you make that happen? I'm guessing that it is by using @Lou Sander, but I don't know for sure. Once I know how it is done, I'll try to develop the habit of using it myself." - Yeah. It's useful isn't it! You're right in your assumption. You just have to put "[[User:X|X]]" somewhere and "X" will get the message. This a relatively new feature. I think it's quite useful.
re "putting IRRI mentions into non-IRRI articles" - Ok. Well, looks like we're closer to seeing eye-to-eye. But, as you know, I'd take a dim view on her working on the IRRI article itself. But perhaps that's a discussion for another page.
re "She seems to be a highly professional person in a highly respectable scientific organization" Yes. Agree. She seems to have been fairly cooperative over the WP:COI warnings. NickCT (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)

This appears to be the author in question. Ealexander3 has made additional edits without responding to my query. Ealexander3 has also edited Eben Alexander, the great-grandfather of Eben Alexander (author).

Various red flags: no contributions to any other pages, addition of unsourced information, "Dr. Alexander's extraordinary experience..." [25], and regarding the writer who criticized Alexander's book in Esquire, "...Luke Dittrich and Esquire had committed journalistic malpractice through their blatant disregard for pursuing and conveying facts about Proof of Heaven and Dr. Eben Alexander." [26] Vzaak (talk)

I reverted a 2nd edit by this editor, partially because it was copyvio from [27] although I gather if we honor Jesus we can use it. We need a response from this editor as if it is not actually Eben Alexander we should perhaps block the account and ask them to get a new username. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Since this notice was posted a whole paragraph in the criticism section was removed in addition to the usual reverts. Vzaak (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Because of the re-addition of copyvio material after a warning and concerns over possible impersonation, I've blocked this account with a notice that explains clearly why he was blocked and how to get unblocked or get a new username. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Vikas Mishra (academic)

Posting same issue as was at UAA. This user has a single-use account and refuses (semi-)friendly attempts to resolve issues and has received a myriad of warnings with no nothing backing it up. Further, I view some of the comments on my talk page as veiled personal attacks, such as the question on my editing abilities and the claim that I was "leveling accusations" without checking my facts. I have been thorough in this investigation. For this reason, this is the final noticeboard that I am posting at to avoid the appearance of harassment. Jackson Peebles (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian Children's Chorus and School Gergana


The IP 74.66.235.121 is repeatedly deleting the entire content of my edits even though I am citing independent sources. There is no explanation why my edits are being deleted and my calls for discussion on the talk page are not answered. This organization has a problematic history and the fact is that it has been left by the majority of its member families last September including the founder families following a prolonged conflict during which falsified documents surfaced as well as numerous disregards of the non for profit law and IRS guidelines for non for profit 501c3 organizations. I believe that this IP is closely connected to the current leadership which is trying to "delete" the problems from the organization history using Wikipedia for their own interests. There are false and self promoting statements in the article as well: Neli Hadjiyska is not an educator (she's been selling airplane tickets for a tourist agency for the last 15+ years) and was not the founder of the school. These facts are well known by the Bulgarian community in New York. All I am trying to do is add information to the article so neutrality is achieved. I believe this IP should be asked to disclose his/her interest in the organization. I also believe he/she is operating form two different IPs. The second one is 71.249.192.199 The same editor 74.66.235.121 created also the Bulgarian version of the article and is also trying to protect his/her version of the article in the same aggressive way deleting any edits that are not in sync with the false story they are creating. Please look into this matter as soon as possible. Thank you. Star Gazer 13 (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Star Gazer 13

Allison Crowe

On Commons, User:Rimbaud22ca has identified himself as Adrian du Plessis, manager of Allison Crowe. he also states that he is User:Adrian22 here, an editor who has been heavily involved with editing Allison Crowe. Perhaps someone can de-puff the article and remove some of the many unnecessary images? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for any and all input. I've been active here lately to clear up confusion regarding photographs I have taken, and/or those I am fully authorized to use, and, I have more to learn as to the appropriate tags and what-have-you are required to make such files properly noted and released. With respect to chronological, biographical details and such content, I have now been made aware of the COI policies and have more to read, but, clearly, I shall be mindful to not edit content so as to avoid any concerns about COI - real or perceived. cheers, Adrian22 (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:DR SIMON KUON YUOT

Userpage text appears self-promotional. Tckma (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Tekhsnabexport

New editor with COI (Coi declared here) started to edit Tekhsnabexport and probably needs some assistance. I see the current edits somehow problematic. Beagel (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetically Modified Food Controversies

I have been relentlessly accused of having a COI with respect to the suite of agricultural biotechnology articles, and I am sick of it. I wish to confidentially reveal my identity and professional work, and have COIN rule on whether I have a COI. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The best way to keep your identity and professional work confidential is not to reveal it. If you don't have a COI you don't have a COI. I would suggest not pro-actively revealing your identity to any editor, even those you feel you may trust. I would advise being wary of any editor/admin that steps forward to help with this request, either privately or publicly, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the editor has requested a COI assessment then I see no reason why he can't reveal his personal information in private to a non-involved COI familiar admin. That admin could then decide whether or not there is COI and whether it has enough merit to inform the community. I will provide diffs that I feel should be looked at if anyone wishes to save the effort of going through histories. I think the ANI discussion entitled Canoe1967 has enough listed to start. If you don't trust any admin that volunteers then Jimbo could be trusted I would think. He is busy for a few days with a child on the way but he may have time for input.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Note - User:Canoe1967 is one of those I mention who I feel has been harassing me over COI, and is subject of an ANI for that behavior,here. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I also think you should feel no obligation to reveal your identity to anyone. If it would really make you feel better, I'm willing to be the one to be wary of, as IRWolfie puts it. If you send me the information, I will judge it, report my judgement, delete the email, and promptly forget who you are (forgetting things is one of my few talents). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Someguy1221 is an oversighter, which means that he has passed a very high level of scrutiny as someone who can be trusted with confidential information. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tryptofish. I will email Someguy1221. Someguy thanks for your kind offer! Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Nobody thinks you have a COI, Canoe. The issue in the ANI is that you keep accusing others, including me, of having one. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have not accused others since I discovered that others read the COI policy differently than me. I didn't know that most think it only applies to paid editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know that most people read it that way. The key issue is NOT what you think COI is, it is how you behave when you think one exists. Harassing users on Talk pages, to their faces or behind their backs, is the wrong way. Bringing the issue to COIN, with notification to the editor in question, is the right way. If you understand this, then you should say so at the ANI where it is relevant. Not here. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
How was I harassing whom and where did I go behind their back? I did bring it up at ANI. Depending on a COI decision then apologies may be due there. That issue depends on this one. Has anyone asked for COI policy clarification here yet? --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe, why are following Jytdog here. In what possible way does this concern you, and why are you trying to side track it with irrelevant material about your life? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I stated at ANI that if someone wished to discuss it at COIN then I would as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a public noticeboard with input welcome from every editor. There is no need to question Canoe1967's presence here. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm questioning why he has decided to side track a discussion that doesn't involve him. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I stated at ANI that if someone wished to discuss it at COIN then I would as well. My infamous group of COI edits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just dropping here a quick note to say that I have been in contact with Jytdog, and I am confident that he does not have a conflict of interest with respect to GMOs, or GMO food controversies, or other such things. I will likely provide a more detailed statement soon. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Someguy1221! In my opinion, that completely puts to rest any question about Jytdog editing with an undisclosed COI (not that there was really any question before, either). Any further statements about Jytdog's supposed COI without new and substantial evidence really should be regarded as violations of WP:NPA, particularly if made on article talk pages. We should be able to move on from that now. And this noticeboard is not the correct place to discuss whether or not WP:COI is unclear or whatever. Improvements to WP:COI should be discussed at WT:COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia defines a conflict of interest in the following manner: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The guideline goes on to describe in more detail various types of conflicts of interest.

In a nutshell, Jytdog (talk · contribs) does not have a conflict of interest. To my knowledge, based on both Jytdog's email to me, and information I found elsewhere, he does not have any financial motive to promote the safety of genetically modified organisms.

While it is true that some researchers within Jytdog's university system receive public and private funding for GMO research and dissemination, and the university system may profit from the resulting technology, the campus where Jytdog works does not perform agricultural research or hold agricultural patents. Jytdog's day to day work has nothing to do with agricultural biotechnology, and he receives no financial benefit from public acceptance of GMOs.

I don't know if some editors feel that university students and employees may have a conflict of interest regarding technologies that may profit the university, but I do not. Your typical university has hundreds or thousands of scientists conducting research on a myriad of subjects. For a sufficiently large university, such a viewpoint would declare that every student and employee has a conflict of interest in nearly every technological subject, even though most obtain no financial or otherwise personal benefit from the research.

I sincerely believe, based on the information provided to me, that Jytdog is not motivated by personal gain or anything else that may be defined by Wikipedia as a conflict of interest. The same general theme here also goes for a13ean (talk · contribs), who also emailed me with his personal information.

For full disclosure, for about a year I held a job as a technician with a group that developed genetically modified organisms. I have not held that job now for years. I gain no financial benefit from their continued work, and I have no desire to return to that group when I graduate. I am currently a graduate student at a University where research into GMOs is conducted, but my own work does not touch the subject, no one in my lab studies GMOs, and I gain no personal benefit from the work conducted by those scientists who do. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy. May I ask if you are a regular at COIN or did someone ask for your assistance?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am a regular lurker at COIN, and have had it on my watch list for ~5 years. I looked back through my edits, and find that this is the 10th thread I have contributed to on COIN. No one asked me to come here - I saw a comment in this thread on my watchlist and decided to volunteer. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Understood. I was just curious after seeing your cv. I do have faith in your integrity. Should we consider this matter as closed without COI then?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless anyone has any objections, I think so. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to do this, Someguy. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Move to mark as resolved. I have read through this, and it seems as though a mutual agreement has been made. If I may throw in my two cents (even though I'm moving to close this), one is innocent until proven guilty on Wikipedia, as we assume good faith (bla, bla, bla, I know you all know this, but still). It's totally inappropriate to have to prove yourself unless their is substantial evidence to the contrary. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Gh26 / Jill Purce / Rupert Sheldrake

Gh26 has a personal/mentoring relationship with Jill Purce and created the article Jill Purce. Gh26 has also been involved with editing the article of Purce's husband Rupert Sheldrake, who according to Purce "thinks that mantras and rituals work through morphic resonance"[28], "morphic resonance" being a redirect for Rupert Sheldrake.

If the COI is already enough then going into Gh26's problems at Rupert Sheldrake would be overkill. Otherwise here are a couple examples:

Vzaak (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, Gh26 (talk · contribs) seems to be an WP:SPA as regards Sheldrake and his missus. Whatever good he has to say is counteracted by the incessant complaining at talk:Rupert Sheldrake. A topic ban may be appropriate. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Quoting from the top of the page: "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content." I would say that I comply with the COI guideline because the majority of my engagement on Rupert Sheldrake's WP article (to which Vzaak and Barney the barney barney are referring) has been in discussion about proposed edit changes on the talk pages, and only a small part of my engagement has been involved in editing, which I believed at the time to be uncontroversial and in the interest of NPOV, i.e. adding some references to represent the marginal view but still allowing the mainstream view to remain there. Vzaak and Barney the barney barney have also been accused by others for not reaching consensus before making controversial edits, in the same way that I have been accused by them. I would argue that this COI allegation is being used against me as a trump card because disputes on the talk page of Rupert Sheldrake's page have not been resolved.

The general test for WP:SPA is "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." I would argue that because I have been careful to allow the mainstream view to remain in place but have been making a case for the marginal view to be represented makes the case that I am, as much as one can reasonably be, neutral. I also felt that I would be of better service as an editor focusing on topics that I know about rather than spreading myself thin over topics that I know less about.Gh26 (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Re trump card, the reason I brought this COI to attention is quite the opposite. You've been consistently throwing out the 2s of non-trump cards, thinking you won the round, without any understanding of the rules. You don't seem at all interested in WP:LISTENing and you consistently refuse to read or understand the policies. This is provably the case in the above example I gave. The most charitable assessment of this behavior is that you're too close to the subject. Vzaak (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Gh26, putting to one side about writing on talk pages, do you accept that you have a conflict of interest with regards to these topics, and that it was inappropriate for you to create and edit articles where you have a conflict of interest? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Some of the above accusation are ridiculous IMHO - e.g. Vzaak accuses Gh26 of 'assuming WP:CONSENSUS after 2 hours and 24 minutes of WP:SILENCE' when Vzaak has him/herself made non-consensus changes to the article in question, sometimes without any delay at all, as I have repeatedly pointed out on the talk page. So does Vzaak volunteer to be banned too? And 'unwillingness to WP:LISTEN' is of course an accusation which can be made against anyone who disagrees with you. "I've just so totally proved you wrong, and you keep on arguing with me, so you're obviously not listening". Similarly Barney barney accusing Gh26 of 'incessant complaining' - i.e. of not agreeing with Barney barney & Vzaak. Ben Finn (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Bfinn, this is not the place to argue against WP:FRINGE and other policies. If you sincerely think my changes were not in line with WP policy then open an incident against me. It would only highlight your own ongoing misunderstanding of the policies. In any case, none of this is relevant here (you're just saying tu quoque).
As to the second point, the problem is obvious from the small snippet of conversation I gave. I explain that we're not here to argue about the evidence (WP:VNT), Gh26 responds with a personal attack calling me a hypocrite for not arguing about the evidence. I explain the JSE is not indexed and point to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Gh26 (having not read the policy) thinks I'm just expressing my opinion. And that was just a sample. Regular people don't behave like that except in cases like a COI. Vzaak (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the COI is pretty open and shut. It is quite clear that Bfinn (talk · contribs) and Penraeth (talk · contribs) are fans of Sheldrake's writings, with little interest in writing an encylcopedia, and seem incapable of understanding WP:FRINGE and why it needs to be applied to the article on Rupert Sheldrake. Given that lack of understanding, I'm not surprised that Bfinn also fails to appreciate WP:COI for similar selective reasons. It's what the community wants to do with it that's important, I suggest a topic ban but don't think it's going to be long before new users with a sole interest in that article and a mysterious understanding of how Wikipedia works appears at talk:Rupert Sheldrake regurgitating tired old arguments and wasting everyone's time. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Vzaak, my arguing for the evidence for the marginal view to be represented alongside the mainstream view is not in contradiction to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, for the reasons stated in this quote from the talk page: "if the sources that you cite (Skeptical Inquirer and JSPR) also contain contributions by Sheldrake then the WP:UNDUE claim cannot be used, because the policy states: 'Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.' Therefore, if Wiseman's and Sheldrake's viewpoints are given equal space in JSPR, which you class as a reliable source for Wiseman, then they should be given equal space on WP as stipulated by this policy quote. This conclusion and rationale is also supported by the wording of the WP:FRINGE policy when it says: '...and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner'. If a reliable publication is representing both Sheldrake's and Wiseman's viewpoints in full, then it is showing the relationship between these viewpoints 'in a serious and substantial manner', as per the WP:FRINGE quote."
As argued previously, if the JSE is not acceptable because it is not indexed (even though it is peer-reviewed), then nor is the Skeptical Inquirer, which is neither indexed nor peer-reviewed, and yet the SI is included in the article but the JSE isn't.Gh26 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you understand the reason for this COI incident? You didn't disclose your relationship with Purce. You said you had researched her work, but you didn't mention that you had a close personal/mentoring relationship with her. The Sheldrake links are there to demonstrate that the COI has not had benign effects. Your purpose here clearly appears to be to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Vzaak (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Lest Gh26 thinks this is a trump card, I will note that Gh26 never answered or acknowledged my refutation of his argument (continuing the pattern of not WP:LISTENing). And just to go the extra mile I've responded again here. Vzaak (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The JSE is unacceptable because it prints pseudoscientific nonsense, wile the Skeptical Inquirer doesn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Gh26 (talk · contribs), this is the conflict of interest noticeboard - this may seem obvious but it's for discussing conflicts of interest. You've already proven yourself more than capapble of discussing the Rupert Sheldrake article at talk:Rupert Sheldrake. That is not really important here. If you want to contribute here, can you acknowledge your conflict of interest and explain how you still think you can constructively contribute to the article in an unbiased manner? Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said above quoting the COI guideline, I argue that I do not have a conflict of interest, because I have only tried to make a page more neutral, rather than less neutral. If I was getting constantly engaged in edit wars to banish the mainstream view and promote the marginal, so that the marginal view becomes all that people see then I would have a conflict of interest. However, I have not done this. I have engaged in discussion on the talk page, rather than getting involved in edit wars, and my concern has been to make the page more neutral. Therefore I do not feel I have any conflict of interest to declare. You think I am biased and I think you are biased; this is an unresolved dispute, not a case of COI. By getting rid of me, you remove an opponent who is able to argue against your edits. Wanting to eliminating opponents when they argue against your large numbers of edits on the talk page, but when they make a minimal number of edits in comparison with you raises suspicion.Gh26 (talk) 08: 28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Gh26 (talk · contribs) You have a conflict of interest if you have a close connection to the individual discussed in the article concerned. You have not addressed this point. Meanwhile, yet again you are continuing to show your inability to comprehend and implement Wikipedia policies, in particular but not limited to WP:FRINGE and WP:CONSENSUS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The first bullet point directly contradicts your assertion re edit warring and discussion. Your response as a whole is like a final "Q.E.D.". Not getting it, not reading or understanding the policies, not listening, apparently not WP:COMPETENT regarding the basics of how science works, not realizing the arguments proffered are directly contradicted by WP policies, not apologizing for or acknowledging personal attacks resulting from lack of understanding, and a hint of persecution mentality. The COI is among the most charitable explanations for this behavior. Vzaak (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Barney the barney barney: do not make personal attacks on me or other people. Ben Finn (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Vzaak: please would you also stop making personal attacks on people? Your accusations and tone are offensive. Thanks. Ben Finn (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Entirely spurious claims of personal attacks aren't a trump card either. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You accused me and Penraeth above of bad faith ('little interest in writing an encylcopedia' [sic] among other things). And Vzaak just accused Gh26 of 'a hint of persecution mentality'. These are personal attacks. I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about it. Ben Finn (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Bfinn, you are very selective in your outrage. Why not say something about the two personal attacks Gh26 made in the second bullet point above? Or the most recent "wanting to eliminate opponents" that "raises suspicion"? I am obliged to respond to such accusations; indeed my response was quite measured considering the charges. However I am happy to remove Gh26's personal attacks here along with my response, as well as recent needless responses by others. Vzaak (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I responded to a personal attack which I saw had been made on me, and to one I then happened to see at the very end of the section when I added my response. I do not have the time or inclination to read all the ins and outs on this page or indeed on the Rupert Sheldrake talk page, nor am I a policeman for either. However, note I did not go and unilaterally edit other people's text, and I suggest you don't do so either.
I'd also say (without accusing anyone in particular) it looks like the tone on both pages has become increasingly patronising and uncivil, with a persistent air of 'I am obviously right, anyone who disagrees must be biased/incompetent'. Can we stop this, please? Ben Finn (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your point on COI, "researched" is correct. My music PhD thesis is a psychological/anthropological study of chant and led me to discover and research the work of Purce online, followed by research interviews. It was purely a matter of coincidence that this led me to the work of Sheldrake, as his ideas on social behaviour were relevant to my research on group psychology. There is no link between their work and most people don't even know they are together. Your sample, where Purce quotes Sheldrake, was merely because someone specifically asked her about him in an interview, if there was any connection between their work - her brief response must have been the best she could find by way of an answer, as her work has nothing to do with his.Gh26 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You left out the close personal/mentoring relationship (again), which is the reason for the COI. To what extent do you know Rupert Sheldrake personally as well? Vzaak (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I doubt very much any serious academic researcher would be interested in Sheldrake's "work". To do so would naturally lead one to bark up the wrong tree. I also doubt that any serious academic researched would be as unfamiliar with the scientific process as Gh26 (talk · contribs) seems to be. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I was describing the relationship as it is. As I also explained, it is the same as with Sheldrake.Gh26 (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you now denying the close personal/mentoring relationship with Purce? Vzaak (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I cannot be clearer when I say I was describing the relationship as it is. Simply repeating your question does not help. Like BFinn I have neither time nor inclination to continue this, and I have no interest in attempting to edit Sheldrake's page any more as I now have to finish my PhD.Gh26 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid all I see is obfuscation. Are you now denying the close personal/mentoring relationship with Purce? Yes or no? Vzaak (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will privately send details to an administrator that directly show the personal/mentoring relationship, the reason for this COI notice. There are many issues on display here, but to summarize the main ones are Gh26's:

Vzaak (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no COI while creating Purce article, research into Purce's work led to research interviews as described, then to Purce article.

No dissembling - just repeatedly describing the situation as it is.

No COI edits".

All policies read and understood.

No attacks just defending.

As described above, a) research into Purce on the voice, led to b) Purce mentioning Sheldrake's work on psychology of groups which led to c) interest in and then research into Sheldrakes work which led to d) comments on talk page and very few edits to Sheldrake's article.

Gh26 (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the Monty Python line, "That's not an argument, that's just contradiction." Each of your one-liner responses here is directly rebutted by the evidence and by common sense. E.g. if you're not dissembling then why have you repeatedly dodged the simple question: Are you now denying the close personal/mentoring relationship with Purce? As I said, I will privately forward details to an administrator which directly show that the COI relationship is not as Gh26 attempts to paint it. Vzaak (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.nationaljuneteenth.com/Juneteenth_Movement.html
  2. ^ http://nationaljuneteenth.com/Board_of_Directors.html
  3. ^ http://www.njclc.com
  4. ^ http://www.juneteenth.us/sr175.html
  5. ^ http://www.juneteenth.us/sr175.html
  6. ^ http://www.njclc.com
  7. ^ http://www.juneteenthjazz.com
  8. ^ http://www.juneteenth.us
More