Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 15

Scientology, again

• Scientology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Su-Jada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

A couple of Scientologist editors have engaged in large numbers of edits apparently intended to whitewash the main Scientology article. Their responses to other editors have not been WP:CIVIL both on Talk:Scientology and in edit comments. Two of them have been blocked (see links for details) but this does not seem to have helped much. Is there anything that can be done? SheffieldSteel 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How about taking this to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard and requesting a community ban? I think these people have worn out our patience. I believe past investigations have shown that COFS works for the Scientology organization, so these are nothing but COI edits. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I will try that. Thank you. SheffieldSteel 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For related, information, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Smee 22:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

• The community enforcement discussion is at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:COFS. Smee 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Actaeon Films, Nightwalking, Amelia and Michael, and others

→ See also: A Fitting Tribute Afd + Nightwalking Afd + Amelia and Michael Afd + Make Me a Tory Afd

• Tweetermonkeyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Jimtusmcgregor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 87.80.29.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 193.203.68.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• Daniel Cormack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Actaeon Films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• A Fitting Tribute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Amelia and Michael (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Nightwalking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Make Me a Tory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

In July 2006, Actaeon Films and Daniel Cormack were deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actaeon Films and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Cormack respectively. Daniel Cormack has stayed gone, but now the company is back. The two registered users created all but one of the film articles and recreated Actaeon Films (which will probably be re-deleted again per WP:CSD#G4) and the IP comes behind to embellish the articles. These aren't film masterpieces and there's not much about them to reference, and all have been sent to AFD.

These people may have more film articles that I haven't found, but at least we've found these. - KrakatoaKatie 14:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good work, Katie. I think you've listed all the relevant articles for deletion, and I followed up with {{uw-coi}} warnings for the logged in users. There's nothing more for us to do here. Shalom ^Hello 15:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Development and Underdevelopment

Development and Underdevelopment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Subrata Lahiry (talk · contribs)

The user who created this article is the author of the book that is the subject of the article. The article needs an extensive re-write. This may need to be deleted and started from scratch. Bearian 17:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Quatloo PRODded the article, and I agree with his judgment. Shalom ^Hello 05:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

3G Studios

• 3GStudios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) created:
• 3G Studios (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

and made dubious additions (removed) about their unreleased, unannounced video game to:

• Deep (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The Deep (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--Piet Delport 00:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Piet Delport. You have already reverted the "Deep" vandalism, so that's done. I've listed 3G Studios for WP:AFD, so that should be deleted within the next week. I'll check to make sure the user has been warned. Good work! Shalom ^Hello 03:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vlad Muzhesky

• Vlad Muzhesky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• M01agency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Creator User:M01agency, admits to being Vlad Muzhesky on his userpage. It is just about the only article he's done. Article had a clearly erroneous internal wikilink -- mixing up SFMoMa and MoMA (I've been to both) and it was on Alex's Bot list. POV and false links. Bearian 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, fixed syntax. Bearian 01:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gina Genovese

• Gina Genovese (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• GinaGenovese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• NJCandidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• Article on a local mayor and current candidate for state senate. Appears to have been created by either the candidate herself, or someone in her campaign. Article was deleted several time as a copyvio from the campaign website, before the author stated permission, which she would be able to do assuming she is from the campaign. But in general because things were starting spiral out of control, with several people dropping increasing warnings on her talk page, and she barrelling on creating the article over and over, I blocked her for 15 minutes and during that time left a series of notes on her talk page. The article has now been stubbed, but the short block is well over now, and I will not be able to watch forever. So I was hopeing a few more people could keep an eye on the situation in case it fires up again. TexasAndroid 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on this edit, at least one of the editors may be Wendy McCahill, the candidate's partner. (See the last paragraph of this page). Definite sockpuppet or meatpuppet issue. Videmus Omnia 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

User:208.69.24.156

208.69.24.156 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

The above user has removed critical material from Mel Sembler. I have reverted his edit [1] (his only edit) and placed a {{subst:uw-delete1}} on their talk page. I clicked on "Whois" and the IP's net name is "THESEMBLERCOMPANY". I hope this is the correct place to post this - I'd like to know what to do next. Thanks in advance. Trugster 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Confirmed through RDNS. I'd wait and see what happens. MER-C 07:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely nothing. I think this drive by edit case. MER-C 05:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Edina Lekovic

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edina Lekovic.

• Edina Lekovic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lekociv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Has been editing the aforementioned article, and the username is very very similar to the last name of the article's subject.--Flamgirlant 09:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That account was trying to remove a BLP violation from the article. It has now been removed, the page is protected, and the issue is being discussed on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That account has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of His Excellency. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just noting here that the protection wasn't dependent on that account, and that it remains in place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: User:Flamgirlant is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Kirbytime, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime.Proabivouac 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Etheric boxing

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etheric boxing

• Etheric boxing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Ethericboxing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 82.31.164.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Fairly obvious, article has somewhat spammy tone. DNS lookup is Inconclusive, http://spam.real-kungfu.co.uk/ is hosted in Hampshire, UK, concerned IP is British (no additional info can be coaxed out of WHOIS). MER-C 11:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to use WHOIS, but Ethericboxing and the IP are almost certainly identical based on the duck test. The article is being sent to AFD over spam/COI concerns. Shalom ^Hello 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This quacks and swims and leaves a trail of webbed footprints. I've supported the deletion nomination. Durova^Charge! 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Credit Action

• Credit Action (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Tappyea2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

According to the source of Image:CreditActionLogo.jpg, the author works for the organization. Videmus Omnia 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

unless modified, I think it's close to a Speedy G11 as advertising. Credit counseling bureaus are significant, but sometime controversial, and there ought to be third part sources. DGG 04:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

21 Ventures

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 Ventures

Articles:

• 21 Ventures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - owned by "David Anthony", created by User:Danthony21
• BioNanoMatrix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 21 Ventures listed as investor
• BioPetroClean (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 21 Ventures listed as investor
• Orion Solar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 21 Ventures listed as investor
• Juice Wireless (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 21 Ventures listed as investor
• JuiceCaster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - product of the above
• Also sundry company logos.

Editors:

• Danthony21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (uploaded image with edit summary that it was his or his employee's creation)
• ViceAdmiralColorge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (According to his user page, an employee of Juice Wireless)

Walled advertising garden, seemingly promoting business ventures that the two listed users are involved in. Looks like at least one other article (Voip Logic) has already been speedied. --Calton | Talk 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagged all as {{coi}}. MER-C 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Say Macedonia

• Microsoft Say Macedonia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Say.macedonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Obvious conflict of interest, spammy article. Creating editor and article name are very similar. Screams POV. Nominated by another editor for possible lack of notability. See talk page for more info. I added stubs in case the consensus is to keep it. Bearian 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Fixed typo (small m). Bearian 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Cdavies 45 (talk · contribs)

• Fate (2007 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The Room (2007) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Cdavies 45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Film articles created by the writer/director of the films. Videmus Omnia 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• "The Room" seems unproblematic for this noticeboard - Cdavies made two trivial edits there, although without checkuser it's possible he's made other edits also as IPs. "Fate" is a problem, and I'll send it to AFD. Feel free to AFD "The Room" at your discretion. Shalom ^Hello 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

SilverSpirit

• SilverSpirit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• LorD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Band article created by band member. Videmus Omnia 03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-admitted on user page. Nominated for deletion. MER-C 08:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dharmanidhi Sarasvati

• Dharmanidhi Sarasvati (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Sasisekhara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Ms2i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 66.92.18.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The article creator, Sasisekhara (likely the same as {Sasisekhara.sarasvati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)), has admitted representing the Trika Institute of which Dharmanidhi Sarasvati is founder.[2]. Though this editor isn't active now, other single-topic editors have been defending this article (eg [3], [4]) with assertions of knowledge that smell of inside involvement.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharmanidhi Sarasvati is ongoing. Gordonofcartoon 13:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WhiStle Radio

• WhiStle Radio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• WhiStle Radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Community radio station, appears to be non-notable; page recreated by SPA after originally deleted. THF 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIWS-FM. MER-C 09:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

• National Comprehensive Cancer Network(history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

SPAs

• 63.86.251.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Tvawter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• B1402cp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) reads like a large advert, with considerable SPA's editing. Any input on this would be appreciated.--Hu12 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

this is a truly important mainstream organisation with very impressive sponsorship; The text is however a copyvio of [5] and associated pages. I've stubbified it. One of the images [6] is also problematic.

(I've seen a similar pattern of adding copyvio one para at a time a few days apart from different ips before--I assume such is intended as attempts to fly beneath the radar. ) DGG (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. IP 63.86.251.252 is registered to National Comprehensive Cancer Network, so the edits raises concerns.--Hu12 00:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Iantresman

This user has been editing articles related to Immanuel Velikovsky and catastrophism despite having an abiding coflict of interest as he sells a CD-ROM on the subject. As he stands to benefit from advertising these subjects at Wikipedia (even if he doesn't spam for the actual products) I have placed a COI warning on his talk page. Other Wikipedians may wish to comment as well. See his personal web page for more information and the website where the CD-ROM is offered for sale.--Velikovsky 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Immanuel Velikovsky" and "catastrophism" are articles, not adverts, which are present on Wikipedia regardless of whether I edit them, and I gain nothing from their existence.
• The CD-Rom you mention includes articles on science, history, physics, astronomy, archaeology, mythology and other disciplines; surely that does not imply a conflict of interest with every subject on Wikipedia, otherwise encyclopedia sellers and booksellers have a conflict of interest with the whole of Wikipedia.
• If you look back over my edit history, you will find good quality edits, generally well-supported by verifiable sources. --Iantresman 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment This editor should consider himself warned! Nobody's perfect, folks. Bearian 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but I'm very concerned to see the defiant response to a recent weeklong block from Raul654, who is one of our arbitration committee members and one of the most respected volunteers at Wikipedia. That was this editor's third block in less than a year. In my assessment, conflict of interest does exist because this editor stands to profit from selling materials that relate to the subject of the article. This could create a motivation to edit the article into agreement with the content of the products this editor vends. Iantresman, if further policy violations ensue you cannot expect that this circumstance will weigh in your favor. Tread lightly, please. Your participation would have a much better appearance if you posted edit proposals with line citations to these article talk pages instead of to the articles themselves. Durova^Charge! 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I accept your guidelines on conflict of interest, but to suggest that my "defiant response", previous blocks, or the respect of an administrator, has anything to do with this issue, is irrelevant. --Iantresman 10:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're right about there being no direct relevance. As a sysop who handles a lot of investigations I do notice empirical trends, however, and most of the editors who use an oppositional approach have difficulty adjusting to site standards. Cooperation, collaboration, and feedback are important at Wikipedia. I'm glad you bring your expertise to this project and hope you understand that we get all kinds. Here's hoping things go well. Durova^Charge! 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

However ... I think the basis of this needs a bit more examination. This current complaint comes from an extremely new account, Velikovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), whose operator also appears to have an agenda, and has posted a bogus warning template [7] to Iantresman's page. Gordonofcartoon 15:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The warning is not "bogus" but is entirely appropriate to the circumstances. Raymond Arritt 18:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's bogus in its packaging by using Template:Warning to deliver a personal attack - "as seen from the fact that you hawk a CD-ROM on the subject as a source of income for yourself" - in a way that comes on like it has some kind of formal Wikipedia status. Gordonofcartoon 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian Tresman's CD-ROM is specifically about a pseudoscientific trope known as "catastrophism" that has a specific agenda of increasing the visibility of these ideas. He stands to gain monetarily from editing articles relating to that subject and his "expertise" amounts to little more than being the purveyor of a catastrophism CD. If a medical quack came on Wikipedia editing articles about his particular snake oil, that would be a conflict of interest in the same way. Trying to edit pseudoscientific topics that you support with your businesses (like catastrophism and its related pages) in ways that paint them in favorable light is a definite and direct conflict of interest. --Velikovsky 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In 2003, Cambridge University Press published Prof. Trevor Palmer's book on "Perilous Planet Earth: Catastrophes and Catastrophism Through the Ages" and it doesn't mention pseudoscience once. Do you think the University Press is selling snake oil, or do you think that you have an agenda? --Iantresman 22:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the attempt to divert attention from your COI issues won't work. I suggest you take to heart User:Durova's advice to "tread lightly." And in any case, Palmer's book is a legitimate scientific study that has little to do with the brand of scientifically absurd "catastrophism" at issue here (Velekovskianism and similar bilge). Raymond Arritt 23:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have already responded to the COI above; The book was brought up by another editor above, not me. Your personal assessment of the book in question is not consistent with the book's contents. Palmer includes a chapter "Heretical Catastrophists" which includes a section on "Velikovsky and planetary catastrophism" (pp.116-118), and is not mutually exclusive with the other chapters on catastrophism. At no point does Palmer characterize any catastrophist in the same manner as you or the previous editor.
• Your opinions of "non-bogus templates", of "diverting attention from your COI", your continuation regarding the book on the other, and further warning to "tread lightly", leads me to suggest that you take the advice that a well-known editor gave me here The difference is that I accepted the advice above, whereas you defended the editor in question, who didn't. --Iantresman 13:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What does any of this mean? I don't understand why people at Wikipedia are allowed to get away with this kind of taunting. Ian Tresman publishes a CD-ROM that he charges more than $200 on a website that has as its URL: catastrophism.com. A clear conflict of interest has been established, so why is he lecturing those who point it out? --Mainstream astronomy 13:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you read my reply above, I accepted the advice. My criticism refers to the non-relevant "information" you posted regarding "pseudoscientific trope known as 'catastrophism'" (sic).
• And yes, I do find your taunting in this matter, and your presumption of non good faith, to be quite unpleasant.
• I note from WP:COI that "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when [..] Editing articles". I shall do just that. Or would you prefer a pound of flesh? --Iantresman 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question to Bearian and perhaps Durova
• I note Bearian's warning above, but also note from the WP:COI guidelines that:

• "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when [..] Editing" (my emphasis)
• "The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles."
• "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant"

• I have not used a pseudonym, my interests are readily found, and no-one has criticized any of my edits as demonstrating a conflict of interest (not even the editors above). So what am I "warned" about or against? Editing per se, or just about "exercising great caution" when actually editing... as I do now. --Iantresman 15:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an all part of a familiar pattern of behavior from Iantresman. He's already on arbcomm probation for "aggressive biased editing" per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Any biased editing or edit warring at any of the articles listed here are blockable without further discussion, and should be just be listed here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans Self-promotion is a particular form of biased editing and is something we'll need watch for moving forward. FeloniousMonk 16:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time I've been referred to another location to list this complaint. I feel like I'm filling out forms at the DMV. I'm going to copy this discussion over there then. --Mainstream astronomy 18:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the correct place is WP:AE. I've created a pointer over there to this discussion. Please have evidence, in the form of diffs, for presentation. MER-C 04:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Iantresman (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely by another admin.[8] Vassyana 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am on record for warning the user. Bearian 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

John Cremeans

• John Cremeans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• JCremeans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Most of the edits to John Cremeans are by User:JCremeans, and all of his edits have been to his article. I have put a {{uw-coi}} on his talk page. Seems notable enough that we should edit instead of deleting. Tualha (Talk) 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and have given the article some citation flags and a POV-ectomy. Durova^Charge! 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tualha (Talk) 23:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing. I think I should not have put this here; it didn't require intervention. Just wanted to call it to peoples' attention. I will keep an eye on it and take appropriate action if needed. Thanks again, Tualha (Talk) 08:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fran Gray and Singular Intent

...both created by User:Fgray. (See User talk:Fgray for my query to this user.) It's also unclear as to whether these meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. -- Karada 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Both blanked by the creator, tagged for G7 speedy, and now G7 deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors who are fans of the book seem to be attempting to subvert policy discussion in order to prevent the article discussing an online leak of the book, even though the mention of the leak is reliably sourced and contains no information about the contents or location of the leak. While I am sure that they believe that they are acting in good faith, I am worried that these fans are acting in the interest of the book hype and "protecting" the release date because they are afraid that mention of a leak will somehow spoil the release.

The contention is that since the leak "can't be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt" it is violation of WP:V. I believe that the policy has nothing to do with courtroom standards of "reasonable doubt" but proper attribution. Whether or not the leak even is real is irrelevant - major news sources have reported it, including the LA Times and SkyNews, which constitutes a verifiable source. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently unprotected. However, this doesn't seem like the right place to bring this up. It's already been mentioned at ANI, and doesn't really seem to be a conflict of interest in the normal sense. The Evil Spartan 17:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Parnell Habersham

• Richard Parnell Habersham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Rhabersham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Article created, edited by article subject. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Listed at WP:AFD. YechielMan 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've extensively edited this article for reliable sources and neutral point of view. As of this writing, the Afd has not yet closed. — Athaenara ✉ 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

After Athaenara overhauled the references, the AfD closed with Keep on 5 July, I suggest this item be closed. EdJohnston 16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gwen Shamblin and NPOV's "N"

• Gwen Shamblin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• GwenShamblinRepresentative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The above account is a single-purpose account editing the Gwen Shamblin article. Videmus Omnia 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• This one's a tough nut to crack. I'll give the user a boilerplate warning, but it's good that the article is very well referenced and receives attention from neutral editors. Maybe someone else can look more closely. YechielMan 09:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll close this one. Said editor has not edited since boilerplate. Edits appear to be well sourced, and avoid WP:PEACOCK words, etc., and in fact seem to be helping (gasp!) the encyclopedia. If the editor comes back, and starts to insert NPOV, spam, WP:PEACOCK terms, etc. please feel free to relist. Non admin closure. The Evil Spartan 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bruce Wydner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Weidner Communications Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Language technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Human language technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Eyring Research Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Brown Prophecy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Dennis Fairclough (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Bruce Bastian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dbp653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to be on a crusade to insert this Bruce Wydner (only 200 Google hits) and his company into a pivotal role in the development of machine translation, apparently on the basis of a personal association self-described here: "I have been working with Bruce Wydner for several years and I decided to tell this story through Wikipedia ... Your attempt to furnish an unbiased opinion on this article is in poor taste, and is much uninformed ... please feel free to ask myself or Bruce Wydner any questions, or even better yet give him a phone call, he is very nice and polite and he doesn’t mind talking, if you would like, just tell him that I told you to call him, we are the best of friends".

The same editor has been using the address 207.160.210.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Brucewydner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has also been involved with some of these articles.

I've posted a {{uw-coi}} warning to User talk:Dbp653. Gordonofcartoon 11:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Fairclough has been stubbed by removing unreferenced and self-published info. Videmus Omnia 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Language technology and Brown Prophecy are at AFD. Human language technology I redirected to Language technology, wose content it largely duplicated. Out of interest, I just found these sites - www.worldwideinterlingual.com, fastfluency.org - making similar claims, drawing on the same quotes, and even using the same image - which strongly suggests a promotional connection. Gordonofcartoon 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting problematical: now Bruce Wydner himself has posted a lengthy justification for Wikipedia being coopted into revealing this story - in the US national interest, no less [9]. Brucewydner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has also restarted editing his own article. Help would be appreciated.

I've further just found these news archive items: Man accuses firms of stealing software and 'Bizarre' $10 billion suit dismissed suggesting that this material introduced uncritically by User talk:Dbp653 is highly unreliable. Gordonofcartoon 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved via AFD consensus to delete. Just needs cleanup on Eyring Research Institute and Bruce Bastian. Gordonofcartoon 04:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• European Roma Information Office (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The latest in a series of articles created or extensively edited by SPA User:Valery novoselsky. The previous articles had COI issues and were nominated for deletion because they were about Novoselsky himself or a non-notable organisation he founded. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novoselsky Valery and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma Virtual Network.) Though Novoselsky also has personal involvement with the ERIO, I suspect that this latest article may actually meet WP:N and WP:V (however, it lacks secondary sources supporting notability). I don't have time to follow up on the notability issue myself, though perhaps others could. In the meantime the article could use some extra pairs of eyes to monitor COI issues arising from Novoselsky's editing. Psychonaut 10:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the COI tag as it is completely bollocks; check the history of the article and you will see it has been written entirely by me, which is why it is in reasonable shape :-) However, the SPA has twice emailed me in the last few hours; the emails have been entirely comprised of an exact copy of content from the website. John Vandenberg 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FTR, I didn't add the COI tag, and I also agree that it needn't be there at the present time. This report was filed only because I'm afraid Novoselsky's involvement may eventually turn this into yet another vanity article. Kudos to User:Jayvdb for keeping the article POV-free. —Psychonaut 18:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the COI first, but now that it's rewritten, I won't add it back. Bearian 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let the record also show that the article was not rewritten; there never was a COI. Accidents happen, but lets keep posts on noticeboards factual. John Vandenberg 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. Bearian 17:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Article seems mainly to be a summary of very recent controversial research by originator of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.58.191 (talk • contribs) 9 July, 2007.

Article appears to have no peer-reviewed sources, by a strict definition. See our article on Progress in Physics, one of the cited journals, for a discussion of this point. The reference list of the article cites a Wikipedian's user page, probably a no-no. There may be reasons to take this to AfD, but expect a struggle if so. The Afshar experiment, which the article comments on, was the subject of a previous inconclusive thread on this noticeboard. (See the fifth item in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_3). By comparison the surviving article on Afshar experiment, while controversial, is slightly better-sourced. That article was discussed in this mediation case, which features some of the same personalities as here. That mediation ended with no comment whatsoever on 12 May 2007. Since this COI report was filed by an anonymous contributor, the COI case does not yet seem to have any champion with a regular account who wants to pursue it to a resolution. If people think the case for lack of sources is a strong one, it might be taken to AfD from that angle. The combative tone of the talk pages at Talk:Afshar experiment and Talk:Unruh's interferometer suggests that negotiation with the article creator are not likely to be successful. See also a discussion from January over at the Physics WikiProject. EdJohnston 04:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The need of the article is discussed on the talk page by me, also please ask for opinion User:Art Carlson, who misattributed my research to Unruh. The experiment discussed is of the same importance as Afshar experiment, if however various people want to delete it, I shall not oppose. I have been involved in too many ridiculous discussions here in Wikipedia, where I have generously released high quality images, graphics and pieces of text on advanced topics, even I have creayed a dozen of articles on specialized topics. I will not repeat myself -- the whole discussion is too complicated and can be found at Talk:Afshar experiment possibly in the archives. User:Danko Georgiev MD

Whether or not the author is correct in his dispute with Unruh, a Wikipedia page advancing his side of the story is inappropriate. The author reversed my attempts a while back to erase the most flagrant POV and bring the page toward respectability. His emotional responses made it clear to me this author has no interest in objectivity. I support deletion.PhysPhD 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I support deletion too. I cannot argue with users such as PhysPhD, and others and lose my time. The votes seems to be 2:0 for deletion, please delete the whole entry. Danko Georgiev MD 02:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rei Kimura (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Reikimura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Article is obvious self-promotion by the author. COI warning was left on User Talk page, but this person was active for only one day. Also added herself to Kimura. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rei Kimura. Thanks, Askari Mark. Shalom ^Hello 05:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike Torchia (fitness trainer)

• Mike Torchia (fitness trainer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Operationfitness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Operation Fitness is an enterprise run by the article subject. Based on the promotional tone of the article and the source/licensing information given on the images uploaded by the above user, the author is either Mike Torchia or someone associated with him. Videmus Omnia 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Torchia (fitness trainer). MER-C 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rodney Keith Moore

• 70.81.21.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• JonathanBouthillier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- definitely uses 70.81.21.67^[10]
• RodrigueMoore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is likely the same person from looking at the late May edit history for the List of polyglots article.

These accounts don't seem to get the idea behind conflict of interest or notability, having created both Rodney K Moore and Rodney Keith Moore. Both articles have been deleted, one by speedy deletion, the other by AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney K Moore). Continue to add Moore's name to various lists and categories of polyglots as well as people from Alabama. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Frank R. Wallace

• Frank R. Wallace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - article about a person and his Neo-Tech/Nouveau-Tech philosophy

User:Bi may be involved in WP:COI edits. (Talk Page: External Links.) This users website has been noted to be a competitor on an official Frank R. Wallace (1932-2006) homepage (last paragraph notes the spoof site Pax-Neo-TeX). Although User:Bi editing as a competitor affects the whole article (i.e. nominating it for deletion three times), the editor has also linked to a site he operates. To note, the link was deleted 8 times by 5 editors. Each of those 8 times, it was re-added by User:Bi (operator of linked website).

Besides editor being in a COI, the self-promotion link to his site seems to constitute WP:SPAM ..."Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam...” User:Bi is persistent about keeping his website linked into the article. Given that the user is editing an article related to his organization or it’s competitors, COI guidelines seem to suggest that User:Bi should avoid or exercise great caution in linking to his personal website, editing the article or participating in it’s Afd discussions. This is my first time involved in Wikipedia, is this a proper course of action to seek remedy? I hope this is okay. Thanks. 162.40.164.81 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My reply is on the talk page. 162.40.164.81's statement of this case is biased to the point of being wrong. Bi 05:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As I am a regular on the COI/N page, I investigated, and found that the spam-ridden site that User:Bi attempted to include was inappropriate, objected to by several other editors, and I removed the link. He has since retaliated, and gone around reverting edits I've made in other articles indiscriminately, and launched personal attacks on me on the talk page of Frank R. Wallace. Can an administrator take action against this disruptive SPA? THF 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Such a problem needs to be posted on WP:ANI for investigation and possible action. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Railpage Australia

Railpage Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Dispute over commerciality amongst other issues. Tezza1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - The user appears to have a COI resulting in overwhelmingly negative and argumentative viewpoints, and seems unwilling to reach consensus. Check the Railpage Australia Talk page for my post detailing the possible conflict of interest on Tezza1. 59.167.89.251 06:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Interest in, or enthusiasm for, a subject does not mean it's a COI. Bearian 23:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however upon reading the case for COI I posted on the talk page as well as viewing the behavior of this user - I'm sure that you can agree that this user goes beyond 'interest' or 'enthusiasm', and into the territory of a demonstrated history of vendetta against the subject, which is contrary to the interests of Wikipedia. 59.167.89.251 11:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In which case it would be POV-pushing (if any occurred), not a conflict of interest. MER-C 07:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr Irresistible

• Mr Irresistible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • iwsprowrestling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • 68.197.253.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Unsourced edits to Mr Irresistible (aka Matthew Ray Hendrickson) plus mentions in other related articles. Disclosed identity here.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Irresistible is ongoing. Gordonofcartoon 11:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as a delete. Daniel Case 18:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we close this case? Or is there still a problem with edits to the other articles? Other edits have been undone. It mostly just looks like a vandalism problem. The Evil Spartan 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Informatics college

• Informatics college (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Informatics college (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Blatant COI2, so tagged. Bearian 23:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And no outside sources, AFDable. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Team D1

• Team D1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Exhumed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Team member Exhumed seems to be the same as the user. Bearian 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Non-neutral Torus

• Columbia Non-neutral Torus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Thomas sunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Creator of the article has the same name as the creator of the device. Bearian 18:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Bearian 18:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Checked by several editors. Still needs inline citations on some of the scientific facts. shotwell 09:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim Schembri

• Jim Schembri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Jimschembri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ChocolateBob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Both users' only edits are to the article in question. I have tagged the article and warned the users, but I have not touched the article content. Please cleanup or list for deletion, depending on your evaluation, and thank you. Shalom ^Hello 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He's maybe notable (as much for being a prolific author of children's books as for writing for The Age). But after trimming for OR, unsourced, etc, there's not much left. It's proving very difficult to find anything written about him except on web forums, so it may come to AFD. Gordonofcartoon 14:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD. The Evil Spartan 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Schembri ongoing. I just reverted User:Jimschembri's removal of the tags and restoration of unsourced analysis. Gordonofcartoon 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Amador (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Eddie Amador (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• BlazGallegosEnt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Author claims to be subject's PR agent. -- But|seriously|folks  08:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Page is currently blanked with the copyvio template tag. --Rocksanddirt 19:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:70.255.181.93

• 70.255.181.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This IP address recently has been adding spam about practice software to various articles. I hate to violate WP:AGF, but I think it is a software company salesperson doing this. I reverted one edit, but don't have the tool or tools to do the whole job. Can a sysop check into this? Bearian 22:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I only saw a couple of problematic edits, adding a non-existent category; another four or five edits seemed within the bound of reason. Can you identify where he's adding spam? THF 22:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't see any spam here either. As for the tools, twinkle is good enough to deal with spammers if you have Firefox. MER-C 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Appalachian Voices

• Appalachian Voices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Appvoices (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Text of article copied from About page on organization website. — Athaenara ✉ 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyvio. -- But|seriously|folks  02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

SAC Capital Partners

• SAC_Capital_Partners (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Steven_A._Cohen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 69.74.41.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Ip address that whois's from SAC Capital Partners has edited the article for SAC Capital Partners and [11] the BLP for the person who runs it. Piperdown 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• You can add User:Lamphore to the list of miscreants, but the case relates to edits made around February 1, 2007. Based on the normal wiki process, both articles have changed substantially since then, and there's really nothing to be done from the administrative end, except maybe to slap on "cleanup" tags and to warn the users with subst:uw-coi. YechielMan 06:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I cleanedup the article a bit, although I am not quite sure what to do with the big list of firms the company has invested in. -- Sparkzilla talk! 07:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hmartincalle

• Hmartincalle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Appears to be H. Martin Calle [12] of Calle & Company [13]. In every article he's edited to date he's added material about himself, his company, or what I assume is a relative. I've notified him of WP:COI and removed some of his edits. --Ronz 17:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Short contribution list, possibly factual (although unverified) information. This might be someone who could be persuaded to post cited suggested edits to article talk pages instead of inserting promotional material directly into articles. Durova^Charge! 20:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge creation

Knowledgemachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), account of Bruce LaDuke of hyperadvance.com / instantinnovation.com

recently rewrote Knowledge creation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) in response to a {{prod}}; the new version reads like ad copy from his website. --Piet Delport 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've listed the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge creation. Thanks for your alert report. YechielMan 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Zelma Mullins Pattillo

• Zelma Mullins Pattillo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Pattillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User name and article name share a surname. Subject seems notable. Article is a poorly-written orphan. Bearian 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have initiated a discussion with this user, and also noticed that an IP had also edited this entry today as well as a bio about the husband of Pattillo, Wesley M. "Pat" Pattillo, so I have tagged that bio with a Wikify tag. He is clearly notable and has an official bio as a source, so an 'unreferenced' tag wouldn't be entirely appropriate, but no single fact is referenced, simply the bio as a whole, and his entry reads like a resume. I think it's a matter of lack of understanding what Wikipedia is all about. See comments on User_talk:Pattillo -Jmh123 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Update--Wikify tag was immediately removed from the Wesley Pattillo bio. All tags were removed from Zelma Pattillo's bio. I restored those tags, and no edits have been made since. Some effort is being made in very minor edits on the Wesley Pattillo bio. All edits are now being done by anons. No further responses to my comments. There's a dismissive attitude and a sense of ownership here that bugs, but it's probably not worth making a big deal over. These are basically vanity bios in terms of the way they are written and in some of the information they contain. -Jmh123 17:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A user has nominated both of these articles for AfD. I'm somewhat conflicted, although I voted a weak delete. I hope others will weigh in on this. A sincere and somewhat effective effort has been made to improve the entries, but no change in sourcing has been made. -Jmh123 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Railpage - Withdrawal of COI

My last request (28 July) I believe was a definite WP:COI backed up with hard online documentary evidence. I've since been advised I'm not permitted to disclose it under guidelines. If this is the case I'm very surprised and apologize.

I have requested that record of that information it is permanently deleted here. If you are an Administrator who has a alternative viewpoint with why I was asked to remove this information, please refer to history for the details before it is permanently deleted and discuss with Administrator [14]. Thank you.

Tezza1 22:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFO would be what you want. MER-C 14:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I require expert opinion about privacy and interpretation of the guidelines about after reading WP:RFO, my original complaint was the user in question has identified himself publicly online elsewhere and could be considered as a "public figure" in these online discussion forums. The user has descended into the arena without disclosing his WP:COI, the user has provable direct financial links to one section of the article. The information was found simply by undertaking a quick Google search. I can detail my concerns in detail and provide the information privately to an Administrator(s) who have experience in this area for assessment.Tezza1 22:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck ironing things out. You can e-mail me if you have concerns. Otherwise let's call this a content dispute between two sets of new editors. Durova^Charge! 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientology

User:Bravehartbear made a lot edits to Scientology even though he's a Scientologist, I don't really know the policy (after all, is a Christian allowed to make edits to make edits to Christianity) but if you look at the difference, [15], it's pretty different and I'm technically on a Wikibreak. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know photographers are allowed to edit photography articles; stamp collectors are allowed to edit stamp collecting articles, astronomers are allowed to edit astronomy articles, Christians are allowed to edit Christian articles, fishermen are allowed to edit fishing articles, and even Scientologists are allowed to edit Scientology articles.

Are you suggesting that Scientologists should leave it up to other people (aka critics), who know virtually nothing about Scientology, to make sure that the articles accurately reflect information about Scientology?

This is exactly why I am on wiki break; Simply because a Scientologist edited the article combined with the result being 'pretty different', we conclude that there must be some wrong doing going on (conflict of interest perhaps), so lets come off of wiki break and file an admin report.

I don't know you Jeffrey, so I don't have a clue what your background or edit history is.. so please don't take this personally Jeffrey.Kleykamp, but do you really think that nobody else is watching that article? Is there something specifically wrong with the edits? Is there a violation of article content? Is there a violation of sourcing? Could you be more specific in your complaint? You took the time to come off of wikibreak to report a user. You named the user specifically in a sort-of-maybe accusation of conflict of interest. The least you could do is point out some 'bad edits'.

I had never even heard of Scientology before I got to wikipedia, but it sure attracts more non-specific non-accusations than anything I've ever seen before.

Jeffrey.Kleykamp, technically by your implied definition of COI, anyone from any religion (or Atheist or Agnostic) would have a COI when editing any article about religion. A Christian would have the conflict of interest to make the Scientology article 'bad'. A Jew would have a COI to make a Christian article BAD. etc etc.

(back to wikibreak) Lsi john 20:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read his user page, it seems to be suggesting that Scientologists should edit the Scientology articles to make them more "positive" to Scientologists. Also, he made lots of small edits over 2 days which someone watching the article wouldn't notice, i.e. people watching the article only notice the difference between the current and last versions. And finally, yes, a Scientologist is allowed to edit the Scientology article. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps s/he believes that the articles are weighted anti-Scientology and that making them more positive means bringing them closer to neutral?

"I know that if you are a Scientologist you will be very shocked and very offended by the information in these pages."-Bravehartbear

There is a distinct difference between 'more positive' and unbalanced positive. AGF my friend. AGF. Lsi john 20:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, but it's beyond whether or not I'm not assuming good faith, I posted this here for someone to just look at the edits and see if they are against Wikipedia policies most particularly COI because I'm not going to do that because I'm, again, on a wikibreak. PS: I don't expect other people (that means you, Lsi john) on wikibreaks to do that, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: if you read the article on conflict of interest you'll notice that a conflict of interest exists,

"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as (a wikipedian)..., has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it"

Now whether this made his edits bad is a different matter. 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again you read, and cite, only the parts you want to apply here. Thats called cherry picking, sir. And even what you cited, only indicates that a conflict of interest 'could' exist, not that it does. Everyone who has a strong belief about any subject, under that statement, could have a conflict of interest. Should we ban Boy Scouts from editing Boy Scout articles due to conflict of interest? Should we ban gays from editing any gay articles? I can name at least four VERY anti-Scientologist editors. Should we ban them too for conflict of interest? If not, then your unsupported post about a Scientologist, and conflict of interest, is in incredibly poor taste. Without having any specific grounds to imply that it does apply, you are making bad faith assumptions.

So you have concluded that Bravehartbear has a competing personal interest that makes it difficult for him/her to edit impartially. And you concluded that how? And anti-scientologists have no such personal competing interest? .. bah, hang them all.. burn em at the stake.. evil scientologists can't possibly edit impartially. (these types of closed minded bad faith assumptions and mis-application of policy and guidelines are exactly why I'm on wikibreak. I can't bear to see such nonsense get started, and I'm powerless to inject any sanity) (closing browser to avoid responding again) Lsi john 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I reported this because (1) there is a known conflict of interest and (2) I don't have the time to look if the edits made by the person really were bad which would normally be a reason not to report it (that is the case with boy scouts editing the boy scouts article). So, as you can see I have not looked at the edits, I'm reporting it so that someone else can look and see if the edits are truly worth being reported. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: See Ad hominem, because you're saying that it's not a conflict of interest because I'm not good enough to follow the AGF policy. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Lsi john said "And even what you cited, only indicates that a conflict of interest 'could' exist, not that it does" but that is false, "A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it", that does not mean that the edits were bad, however. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

From Conflict of interest:

A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below - - but it still exists.

I'm seeking "third party evaluation" to the edits made by User:Bravehartbear to Scientology between 02:31, 22 June 2007 and 17:00, 25 June 2007 because I am temporarily not in a position where I can do that. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at a few of the edits, and they seem fine. You should provide specific diffs if you want to start a COI investigation. Additionally, you need evidence of COI. I don't see any evidence of COI here. If you are concerned about edits that might violate WP:NPOV and want a neutral editor to render a third opinion, you can try WP:3O. Bravehartbear might want to look at their own userpage and make sure it doesn't encourage editors to violate WP:NPOV, because Jeffrey.Kleykamp seems to have gotten that impression. Whether or not it's true, impressions are important. Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I got away from my wikibreak and took the time to look through the edits and found out that there aren't any problems, he just moved paragraphs around which made it look like major edits, i.e. two paragraphs that are approximately the same switch places and make it seem like he rewrote the paragraphs to make them look different when all he did is switch their places. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff many of the edits that you are mentioning were done in coperation with others on the talk page. If you see the talk page your will see extended discusions, agrements and compromises made. Some of the edits I made were made by request of other editors. For example there was an extended discusion about the intro and that some info there should be somewhere else in the page. Acting on that discusion I moved that paragraph. Bravehartbear 02:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of the editors here that possible WP:NPOV issues and adherence to any given religious faith aren't sufficient to establish WP:COI issues. That said, I continue to observe troubling aspects in the Scientology discussions at this board and WP:CSN. For example, this edit history demonstrates that the Bravehartbear user page was created six weeks ago by Lsi john with a smiley-face-wink ASCII icon. This creates an appearance of impropriety (per WP:MEAT) when they both come to the same noticeboard a few hours apart to voice similar opinions at the same thread. I repeat my recommendation of mentorship: if these editors are acting in good faith then some coaching would help quell the concerns of impartial observers. Durova^Charge! 05:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And, I'd submit that: a neutral observer would have a seen a smiley face, whereas someone looking for diffs to prove a conspiracy theory, will see a meatpuppet. I have no idea who Bravehartbear is (added: though I have seen them in discussions and I'm sure I have said something to them at some point). I have no idea if it is a male or female. I have no connection whatsoever to Scientology. My off-wiki identity is known to several admins. I didn't even know that Scientology existed before encountering it on wikipedia. And even then, it took me a month or more before I realized it was not the same thing as Christian Science. It was a smile, Durova.. nothing more. Peace.Lsi john 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to be complete.. I researched that impropriety, and it was accompanied by this edit. As I recall now, something attracted my attention to that user's page (It was probably a conversation on Justanother's page) and when I got there, a) there was no user page b) I was fairly new c) I created a simple friendly 'smile' userpage, and d) posted a caution that the editor might want to remove their email address from public view. I would appreciate in the future if you would spend a bit more time with your investigations. Making (or implying) misconduct here, is not a very nice thing to do, given that diffs are then used repeatedly in future situations .. to prove prior repeated misconduct. (even if there was none). Peace.Lsi john 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: I wonder, Durova, if you also noticed the very next 'stalkish' edit on that userpage, and how many times that type of editing has happened to me here? That conduct seems to have stopped, and thus is no longer a problem, I'm only noting it to see how thorough you were, or if it was a focused search. Peace.Lsi john 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's step back for a moment and try to develop a strategy for the Scientology articles. As an example, Search engine optimization used to be the subject of heated debate and lots of reverting between different unsourced versions. As it became a good article, and then a featured article, these problems disappeared. The editors of Scientology should work together to create a thorough, well-sourced article. Instead of this "us versus them" dynamic, all parties should look at the good article and featured article requirements, and try to satisfy them. When everyone works towards a common goal, differences of opinion are less troublesome. Scientology is a contentious subject, so these articles will have to include both positive and negative statements. Our readers must choose for themselves what to believe. Enlightenment cannot be imposed from the outside. Jehochman ^Talk 06:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, nobody is suggesting all members of any religion/organization/etc. be automatically banned from editing articles (including CoS members) just by affiliation. However if an editor begins making changes that go against the rules (removing WP:RS/WP:V sources, adding an unsupportable "positive" pov, etc.) and then continues the same behavior after being warned it's at that point a topic ban should be explored. Anynobody 07:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Paid editing again: http://spam.home.com/

An owner of a company is offering $30-$100 to write a Wikipedia article on it. See [16]. Based on the user profile and this (which I found googling the company name and location), I believe the company involved is home / Home / home / Home - can someone pass the salt, please? Their website is http://spam.home.com/ (remove the spam).

tech-home.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

Original report on enwiki-l. MER-C 09:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Terry Tolkin

Hi, can someone please look at the contributions of User:Terry Tolkin. He/She had been adding content (and adjectives such as "legendery") to a number of indie music articles about an A&R man of the same name. I've reverted a number of the edits, but do not want to go on a spree without a second openion. Thanks Ceoil 19:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alternative rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Big Black (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Butthole Surfers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Dutch East India Trading (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Luna (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Neil Young (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Scratch Acid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Stereolab (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The Afghan Whigs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Touch and Go Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Tribute album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Terry Tolkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Yes, he's promoting himself with (almost?) every edit he makes. --Ronz 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

All reverted by various editors. We're done here. MER-C 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mongol Rally

• Mongol Rally (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Tablecreation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

apparently affiliated with the organizers of the article subject, has developed a habit of removing content that he doesn't like for some reason, constantly reverting other editors' work. --Latebird 10:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(COI acknowledged, blanked due to WP:BLP issues) Guy (Help!) 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

EServer.org

Report

→ See also: Special:Linksearch/*.eserver.org

• EServer.org (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - article about an electronic publishing cooperative
• Geoffrey Sauer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - director of EServer.org
• Geoffsauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Appears to be Geoffrey Sauer - SPA adding eserver.org links and editing the above articles - active December 2004 - January 2007

Similar SPAs:

• 12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - active December 2006
• 129.186.156.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - active December 2006
• 129.186.66.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - active June 2006 - May 2007
• 12.216.41.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - active May 8 & 18 2007

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org and Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive_17#Links to online libraries. --Ronz 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The individual links appear to be customized to the specific article. However the fact there are already 322 links is alarming. I think we should insist that User:Geoffsauer stop adding the links until he gets a consensus that they are appropriate. EdJohnston 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Customized for many specific articles. It's a massive campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a campaign. This is a high quality web resource that naturally attracts a lot of links. It would be classified as link bait. I don't think this is spamming. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, this is a classic COI spam campaign. User:Geoffsauer, some SPA's, and some IP's from Iowa create both the EServer.org and Geoffrey Sauer articles, edit them heavily, and add a bunch of eserver.org external links. It doesn't get much more straightforward than this. (Requestion 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Let's put away the torches and pitchforks. This appears to be an electronic library that makes literature available for free to the public. It's sort of like Project Gutenberg. I checked a few of the articles that contain these links, and I did not see an intentional linking campaign. Is see a large number of independent users citing this database from various articles and discussions. Example: [17] An even better example, added by Administrator User:Doc glasgow: [18] Enforcing COI is very important, but I think we need to be more careful to investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions.

→ (Interjected.)   The links which Ronz supplied in his initial report here, to specific WT:WPSPAM and WT:EL discussion sections, were intended to support that "investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions" process. — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoffsauer needs a friendly warning. I predict he will behave impeccably once he is informed. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 06:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you know! He received a warning on 13 December 2006 [19], and hasn't made a single COI edit since. He did do a few little fixes to clear up image licensing problems, but I don't see any problems with those edits. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 07:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That conclusion might be just a bit premature considering all the SPA's and IP's from Iowa. (Requestion 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

You could be right. Do you think you have enough of a case to ask for a checkuser? I don't see how to pursue this other than to look at each edit on the merits. (adding) I just checked all the edits after the December 13, 2006 warning for the reported SPA accounts: 12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 129.186.156.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - active December 2006 , 129.186.66.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). There were no link drops that I could see. The users did correct a few links, possibly to fix broken links. There were some other gnomish edits. I still don't see anything sinister here. Can anyone provide a diff after Dec 13 to show there's a continuing problem? Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that a checkuser request will be denied because spam and COI violations are not severe enough reasons to bypass the privacy policy. I'll know more in a couple days after all 322 external link additions are tracked down. (Requestion 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

I've tracked down some more socks and the current count is 249 external eserver.org link spams. The complete list is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

I have found a couple more socks. The current count is 278 external eserver.org link spams. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Jehochman mentioned that User:Geoffsauer received a warning on Dec 13 2006 [20]. I'd like to point out that Geoffsauer violated that warning here [21] on Jan 18 2007. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

I started going down the list of 322 links found by this linksearch. As User:Jehochman has correctly observed, some of these links are to individual digitized books in the style of Project Gutenberg. I have no objection to these so long as they are appropriate to the article and are added with local consensus. Other links, such as the one that User:Geoffsauer added to our Technical communication article on in this edit on 28 March 2005, present a directory of links in a style reminiscent of DMOZ. I personally think that Sauer's Eserver link to http://tc.eserver.org should be removed from the Technical communication article, since Wikipedia is not a directory. In fairness, that article probably has more external links than it needs. If anyone has time, I suggest they randomly look at some other items found by the same linksearch and see what they think.

This editor doesn't seem to be a bad guy, but the profusion of DMOZ-style directories raises a warning flag. EdJohnston 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to directories are not prohibited. Links to DMOZ are not prohibited. Links to categories in online libraries are not prohibited. Please see: Wikipedia talk:External links. Too many external links on a wikipedia page is what is discouraged. --Timeshifter 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some rules to COIBot (blacklisted/monitor). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits by this IP are troublesome: 12.216.41.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - active May 8 & 18 2007 Shall we send Geoffrey Sauer a friendly email and ask him to look at this thread and explain? If he is using anonymous IP's in a sneaky way to add links, that's a real problem. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. Also you might find out why he doesn't use his logged-in account when he adds links to Eserver or edits his own article. If he must do this, at least do it openly. EdJohnston 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately he hasn't enabled email. We seem to have a complex situation. Possible linkspamming and sock puppets, but the resource is somewhat worthy and has attracted some valid links. We probably shouldn't delete them all. We probably need to give fresh warnings before blocking because the old one is almost six months old. We also can't be sure that the sockpuppets are abusive. Maybe it's another person at the organization who's on dial up and doesn't have a Wikipedia account. How about we place {{uw-coi}} on all the fresh socks, and ask them to come here to comment? Maybe the user will help us solve this mystery. If not, we can start blocking. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The web page 'eserver.org' lists an email address for Geoff Sauer. EdJohnston 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Message sent. I've asked him to comment here. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Link subsets

Comment. I shrunk down the original set of 322 links to a more modest 14 links to be studied:

1. http://antislavery.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.antislavery.eserver.org
2. http://bad.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.bad.eserver.org
3. http://clogic.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.clogic.eserver.org
4. http://drama.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.drama.eserver.org
5. http://elab.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.elab.eserver.org
6. http://emc.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.emc.eserver.org
7. http://feminism.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.feminism.eserver.org
8. http://govt.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.govt.eserver.org
9. http://history.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.history.eserver.org
10. http://lectures.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.lectures.eserver.org
11. http://mamet.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.mamet.eserver.org
12. http://orange.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.orange.eserver.org
13. http://poetry.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.poetry.eserver.org
14. http://reconstruction.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.reconstruction.eserver.org

These 14 links provide 'web directories with commentary'. So they may run into the rule that Wikipedia is Not a Directory unless they are really notable enough to deserve articles in their own right. Having articles would require reliable third-parties to have commented on their value. (A couple of the above links are not directories, but actual web periodicals, like http://bad.eserver.org, which is an online journal called 'Bad Subjects'.)

I am not sure we should be accepting the above 14 as external links, unless they are notable enough to have their own articles created. Especially we shouldn't keep them if Geoff Sauer is not willing to discuss the situation, because we'd like the Eserver people to acknowledge our policies and agree to cooperate with them. Your comments are welcome. EdJohnston 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The first resource on your list has Google PageRank of 6, and has attracted links from more than 1,000 different web pages, including many official university pages. This isn't run of the mill linkspam. See [22] for a list of who's linking to item #1. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it takes extraordinary effort to get a PR6. It's interesting that you mentioned the antislavery.eserver.org link. Today, I just found User:Jlockard, a university literature professor, who spent the majority of his edits adding or fixing 63 antislavery.eserver.org links. At first I wasn't sure if this was a spamming but the more I looked at the diffs the more I was convinced. Very little value was added to Wikipedia, mainly just a bunch of eserver.org external links. There was even a run-in with a spam fighter back in May 2006 but the spamming continued. This is a tricky situation. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

I read this discussion with interest, though I'm not a skilled Wikipedia user and don't feel qualified to contribute to the policy debate here about external linking. I'll respect your collective judgment about when external links are appropriate, and won't add any more without a clear policy decision that would encourage me to continue. In my judgment I have never added off-topic or poor-quality links to a Wikipedia entry, and would not do so. But I won't post here again, now that I see how my past contributions might be seen as self-serving. To clarify my past intent adding links to entries, as a professor of English with a speciality in technical communication I have edited entries and added links to online resources which I considered appropriate, as I understood it from my research, my reading of Wikipedia guidelines and existing entries. I don't know about an Iowa bias in posts about the EServer, though I do teach as many as 150 students per semester, all of whom use the site, and it may be that my students have posted some EServer-related entries. But I have never meant to injure Wikipedia's neutrality or credibility, and am concerned that anyone might consider my edits to have done so. I'll do my best, however, to answer any questions I can to clarify the reasoning behind any particular edits I have made.Geoffsauer 06:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. It is very helpful. For the future, I suggest you refrain from linking to your resources from articles. Instead, if you want to suggest a link, place a comment on the article talk page and let somebody else make the decision whether to add it to the article. I am not sure what you can do to restrain eager young students from adding these links. Maybe others can advise. Also, we have a project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination that might be very useful to you. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Still working my way down the numbered list of 14 links, from above, benefitting from the Special:linksearch URLs that were added to each one. So far, looking at items 1-4, I see nothing inappropriate. On the whole this is good information. I fixed the citation format a couple of times, and I noticed at least one fluffy and over-linked article, (Praxis intervention), but that's not a problem related to Eserver. EdJohnston 04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many of the edits of the eserver.org external links are good and valuable. Many though were spammed. Many were also to low quality linkfarms. If you want to see the COI aspects it might be easier to go the the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jun#eserver.org page and manually go through all the contribution diffs for all of the socks listed there. The COI picture should become clearer when you focus on the contribution diffs. (Requestion 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia's best purpose really is not as a convenient transfer point to draw readers to external sites, whether eserver.org or any other. Can this be dealt with properly? — Athaenara ✉ 10:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should close this one because the editor has stopped making COI edits, and the links have been scanned. Jehochman ^Talk 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking continues

The Special:Linksearch/*.eserver.org count, which was 322 when it was first reported, is now up to 353 - click "(500)" on the linksearch page to see that. — Athaenara ✉ 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus 31 links in the past couple weeks is not good. I checked all the larger list of sock IP's at the WT:WPSPAM archive and it wasn't any of them. I'm going to scan the articles now to find out who it was and I'll report back here. (Requestion 18:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

This diff by User:RachelBartlett accounts for +12 of the new links and should be cleaned up in my opinion. I found two legit editors that each recently added one eserver.org link, no need to mention them by name. Still searching for the other +17 link sources. (Requestion 23:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

All those RachelBartlett links, or most of them, appear in a single edit. [23] She migght be spamming her own cause, but I don't think this is related to EServer.org. Jehochman ^Talk 12:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. On WP:NOT#DIR criteria I removed 11 gender.eserver.org external links from the Paul Rosenfels article and left one link to eserver.org which seems sufficient. I also added a notability tag. I suspect that Rosenfels is notable so it should be easy for someone to add a proper reference. While eserver.org does have valuable historic documents I don't consider it a WP:RS. I'm still searching for the source of those 17 new eserver.org link additions. (Requestion 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I have removed the blatant spam that was added by the socks on the WTSPAM list. The eserver.org linksearch count is now 256. The {{prod}} tag from the Geoffrey Sauer article was removed by an SPA User:Jefferyev who also added some references. An SPA doing this with such a similar name is suspicious. I hope this doesn't mean that the eserver.org spamming will continue but now in a covert fashion. (Requestion 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

• Jefferyev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) [Added userlinks — Athaenara ✉ 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)]

Count now up to 273. — Athaenara ✉ 01:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Two editors (User:Moorlock and User:Rbellin) are blanket reverting my eserver.org spam deletions. I may request some blocks if this continues. (Requestion 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

As I've explained on User talk:Requestion, no one has "blanket reverted" anything. Rather, two disinterested editors have concluded, after reviewing the linked pages, that some of the deleted links are useful and encyclopedic references and deserve to be reinstated. Rather than engaging in a reasonable discussion about the links' usefulness as references under WP:EL, Requestion has revert-warred, repeatedly threatened blocking, and used spam warning templates. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive264#Overzealous_.22linkspam.22_deletion and User talk:Requestion. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, User:Rbellin and User:Moorlock have been blanket reverting my spam cleanup operation. I've tried reasoning with them but all I get is a lot of attitude. They even filed an ANI report about me. (Requestion 20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

• Moorlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Rbellin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

See also: "Overzealous "linkspam" deletion" section on WP:AN/I. — Athaenara ✉ 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. A spammy link that is occasionally useful is hard to deal with in our system. Although 273 links may seem to be a large number, I think it might be worth creating a file containing all the individual links, allowing space for other editors to leave comments on them, pro or con. Leaving it to local editors on each Talk page to decide whether each link belongs is probably not a win because many of these articles are thinly staffed. If anyone agrees with me I'd start work on the list. There seems no other simple way of clearing up this issue once and for all, short of the spam blacklist, and we don't (yet) want to do that. EdJohnston 21:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading through these comments in order to understand the nature of the problem. It is extraordinary that an online public scholarship project that provides digitized primary source documents and educational resources on slavery has attracted this sort of attention as a putative link-spammer. While User:Requestion expresses doubt that this project qualifies as a reliable source, quite a few university libraries and teaching faculty have no such doubts. We contributed both links and, where appropriate, text to selected articles on historical writers on slavery, many of them little-known. These are educational and research resources related to and contributing to understanding the biographical articles in which they appear. There are no links to any articles on topics other than the history of slavery. User:Requestion appears to make unilateral decisions on the quality of external links and, despite interventions by User:Moorlock and User:Rbellin, insists that he/she will have final authority in the matter. I find that attitude objectionable too. Those links were made in a spirit of idealistic contribution towards educational resources, and it would contradict that same spirit were there to be a revert war. If there is not a quiet and reasoned resolution here, I would prefer not to link Project resources to Wikipedia articles on slavery. Cheers, --Jlockard 00:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Requestion is by no means alone in defending policies and guidelines. To frame the issue as a personal one, as if he and other NPOV editors are not defending them, is disingenous. In re Moorlock, Rbellin and Jlockard's last sentence: a preference "not to link" would be very helpful. — Athaenara ✉ 07:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue, to my understanding, does not concern compliance with policies and guidelines. These links are fully compliant with guidelines and contribute towards Wikipedia readers' understanding of the biographical subject articles and the literature of slavery. The issue focuses on an editor's perceived misapplication of these policies and guidelines in removing links to scholarly resources. At the expense of apparently significant time and energy, User:Moorlock and User:Rbellin have made a series of attempts to engage User:Requestion on the matter, to little avail. Before deciding what to do, it would be useful to hear from User:Requestion. Cheers, --Jlockard 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you were late to the party. It has already been decided what to do and even Geoffrey Sauer has agreed to stop spamming Wikipedia. Why are User:Moorlock and User:Rbellin causing problems with the continued blanket reverts? A little respect would be nice here. (Requestion 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

User:Requestion, unilateralism is poor policy and worse practice. You clearly do not have the consent of a number of users to continue removing links on slavery-related articles, and it would seem wiser to desist and discuss the matter calmly. As for Geoff Sauer, you mistake walking away with contempt for a person's agreement. This is a marvellous way to get users who have an enormous amount to contribute positively to Wikipedia to throw up their hands and leave.--Jlockard 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that Geoff Sauer and Jlockard have contributed positively to Wikipedia are a bunch of eserver.org external links. (Requestion 19:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Correction: Geoff Sauer also created the EServer.org and Geoffrey Sauer articles. COI? (Requestion 20:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

User:Requestion, I do not see much hope for this discussion given the tone of response. We all do what we can in life, and there are many forms of positive contribution. While not representing eserver.org, I can make the observation that much comment here appears to attribute a malignancy to that domain address. Geoff Sauer has contributed magnificently to public-interest webspace since establishing the EServer as a collective in the late '80s, when it was still gopherspace. It is now the largest non-profit online humanities publisher in the world and continues to function with its establishing social idealism. Following-generation projects like Rick Prelinger's Internet Archive have looked to eserver.org as a model. Given the unnumbered thousands of links to Wikisource, one must wonder why there is such obsession with 200-some links to the larger and more diverse collections of eserver.org? Collaboration and cooperation are excellent values for online creativity, but they have been in short supply in this discussion. Still, let's try to make this a fresh opportunity: do you have positive and contributory comment in relation to external links at the William Lloyd Garrison and Theodore Parker articles? Let's try to be nice here. Cheers, --Jlockard 21:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop alleging that I "blanket reverted" you. I reverted your deletion of links once on a handful of pages (six, by my count). Moorlock hasn't edited any page connected to this discussion since June 25th, nor have I, so I'm not sure where you get "continued" from. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You have blanket reverted my spam deletions twice. Moorlock has done it three times now. I'm going to try to clean this mess up yet again. I'll stop alleging your blanket reverting as soon as you stop doing it. It's that simple. (Requestion 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

I just went through my own edit history again to be sure. Six pages, reverted once each. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The following was posted to my talk page. I removed it and forwarded it here.

"COIN and eserver.org"

"Have you read the exchange on User talk:Requestion about Requestion's arbitrary deletion of links to eserver.org? It seemed very strange to me that your last comment at WP:COIN characterized Requestion as "defending Wikipedia policies and guidelines." I understand that frequent COIN participants are likely to know each other better than other Wikipedians, but please don't take up Requestion's defense before you familiarize yourself with previous discussion on this issue. I'm a bit disturbed by the willingness of editors in this COIN discussion to assume the bad faith of outsiders. To me, this looks rather more like a case of several thoughtful, field-expert Wikipedians being shouted down by a mistaken interpretation of the spam policy and a failure to ask the basic question "does this make the encyclopedia better or worse?" And in any case revert-warring and refusing to participate substantively in Talk page discussion is not something to be characterized as "defending policies." -- Rbellin|Talk 15:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)"

I assume no clue. — Athaenara ✉ 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? If you have a reply for me, please say it directly and unambiguously. I don't think I'm clueless, but I do think that both many of Requestion's comments and this one are borderline incivil, and I think this is a poor way of handling reasonable disagreement. At least one of your links ("no") appears to be there as a suggestion that I've spammed Wikipedia, which is certainly false. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that User talk:Rbellin understands the nature of the problem. This eserver.org case has been festering on for more than a month. Many many people at WT:WPSPAM, WT:EL, and WP:COIN have commented on this case. A consensus was reached and it was time to close the case. For some unknown reason Jlockard, Rbellin, and Moorlock think that this all was my "unilateral" decision. I don't particularly appreciate the grief, anger, and blanket reverts I received from them either. It might be time for the WP:TROUT. (Requestion 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Can you please provide a link to the discussion where this consensus to remove all links to eserver.org was arrived at? I've looked through the archived discussions at WT:EL and WP:WPSPAM and I don't see anything remotely approaching a consensus anywhere there. The previous discussion here is perhaps closer to agreement, but I see no sign of a consensus to remove all the links. (I should also say again, since you seem to have missed it on your talk page, that I agree that a good chunk of the eserver links you deleted very much deserved to be deleted as spam. But some were clearly useful references.) -- Rbellin|Talk 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest reading the discussions again but more carefully this time. I also didn't remove all the eserver.org links, I left about 70% of them, and I didn't delete any references. (Requestion 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

The nature of the problem is that people with a major WP:COI are adding large quantities of eserver.org external links to Wikipedia. Jlockard has added 63 eserver.org external links even after being warned by an administrator over one year ago. Jlockard confirmed the COI here. See Special:Contributions/Jlockard and Special:Contributions/129.219.46.76 for external link spamming activity. Almost every single edit is an addition of an eserver.org link. I request that Jlockard honor the spirit of Wikipedia and please stop adding eserver.org external links. I also never said that eserver.org wasn't a source of reliable information. What I said was that eserver.org was not a WP:RS which is very different. (Requestion 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC))

Requestion, you're right that this is a problem, and you're to be commended for dealing with it head-on. Please note at this noticeboard or at AN/I if that account, that IP, or another eserver IP starts mass-adding links again, and it will certainly be dealt with. But I think it would calm things down considerably if you would let go any link addition that has an edit summary clearly indicating why the particular link is needed. Any such addition is within policy. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do have a huge problem when any of those links are blanket reverted. For example 67% of the spam reverts done by User:Rbellin are in articles that Rbellin had never edited before! (history logs [24] [25] [26] [27]). Another Rbellin revert worthy of mention is this re-re-revert from Nov 2006 that was previously deleted by some other spam fighter. I haven't yet looked at User:Moorlock's reverts in detail but with "rvv" edit summaries and a handful of generic undo's in a period of a couple minutes I'm sure I'll find more questionable behavior. (Requestion 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for responding, User:Requestion. While your response invokes Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it does not illustrate how links to digitized primary source materials violate that policy. Your response exhorts; it does not exemplify. To the contrary of your assertion, such links to scholarly materials not only conform to Wikipedia policy, but provide high-quality information based on field expertise. To clarify your confusion on the point of COI: as stated once already, I do not represent eserver.org. I represent the Antislavery Literature Project, which functions in cooperation with the EServer. We are a non-profit for public scholarship in the literature of slavery and a separate entity from eserver.org, although we use their server. To clarify any COI further, the Antislavery site currently receives a contemporary average 5.1 visits/day from Wikipedia, or less than .01 of the site's daily visits. The major interest I can identify here is to avoid wasting my work-time on this matter.

However, let me illustrate to you the destructive effects of your work. Please visit the William Lloyd Garrison article where on 21 June 2007 you deleted an external link to his 1835 Marlboro Chapel address. This material is of direct consequence to any Wikipedia reader interested in Garrison's non-violence and pacifism, mentioned in the article. On 26 June User:Moorlock restored that link and you threatened to have him blocked for this and similar acts of 'revert disobedience' -- a nice neo-Thoreauvian term -- regarding slavery-related links. You did not respond to attempts by User:Moorlock or User:Rbellin to reason gently.

But let's pursue that precise course here. What editorial standards did you apply in seeking to improve the external links on the Garrison article? There are currently 16 external links in the Works Online section. Of these, only two -- from Cornell's May collection and the Antislavery Literature Project -- meet digital scholarly publishing standards [[28]]. This means that the digital texts were created from original texts, or high-quality copies with legal permission, and have been processed according to identified standards of textual scholarship. Another three of the 16 texts are from TeachingAmericanHistory.org, seven are from fair-use.org, one is from a course website, and one is from PBS. While I enjoy PBS very much, it is not a reliable source for historical texts, and fair-use.org is a citation resource, from which we have no clue where the document originated or its authenticity. In the case of the present Garrison document, whose digital link you sought to eliminate, an original resides in a wooden case directly across from me at the moment. It is reasonable to call this digitized document and its originating site a WP:RS.

So, in review, you cut one of two external links that qualify as WP:RS, and let another nine stand untouched that did not (TeachingAmericanHistory.org is from Ashland University, but the origins of its texts are unclear). The standard of link evaluation you employed was quite inconsistent. In short, your editorial choice was -- shall we say -- very dubious, and you would have hurt the quality of the article had not User:Moorlock intervened.

WP:EL specifies three basic questions concerning links: (a)Is it accessible to the reader? (b)Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? (c)Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? In this case, the link to Garrison's Marlboro Chapel address meets all three criteria. One might go through the slavery-related links you have deleted on a case-by-case basis and conduct the same exercise, but once should suffice to get the point across.

User:Requestion, I hope this further explanation will provide you with another perspective and change your opinion. If there is still an obstacle here, then RfC or mediation would be good means of achieving better understanding. Cheers, --Jlockard 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jlockard, your association with the eserver.org antislavery project is a conflict of interest (WP:COI). Your edit history clearly demonstrates that you are a WP:SPA whose single purpose is to add eserver.org external links. These are promotional problems that cannot be argued away. Claiming academic scholarship and quoting a couple random lines from WP:EL is not going to give you a license to spam Wikipedia. I hope you can understand this. (Requestion 19:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

In translation, User:Requestion, what you state is that textual scholars should not supply links to textual scholarship with which they are affiliated because that is COI. That defeats the purpose of providing high-quality text links to accompany Wikipedia articles. It does help to know something about the subject under discusion -- in this case the literature of slavery -- in order to know what digital materials might be suitable. And, no surprise, scholars involved in digital projects are also the sources of such links. Wikipedia has a questionable-to-poor reputation among humanities scholars, for good reasons (and some less cogent ones too). Improving the provision of information is one way to address some of these complaints. It has long been my belief that it is better to work with people to solve a problem rather than against them to create another. Fortunately we appear to be doing that in reference to the Theodore Parker article whose link you removed. It is satisfying to work pleasantly towards mutual understanding, and I invite you to enjoy that same satisfaction. Cheers, --Jlockard 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Content and substance

It is content and substance which make an encyclopedia what it is. Some of the particulars of the policy known as WP:NOT, which developed as a response to many differing perceptions, apply here:

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.
• Wikipedia is not blog, webspace provider or social networking site.
• Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.

This encyclopedia's external links guideline supports that policy:

• "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic."
• "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Refer to the citation guideline for instructions on citing sources."

For those who wish to add external links to articles, and who do not wish to be involved in developing article content and citing references, the best participation is to post them on the article talk pages with clear explanations of how the links support our encyclopedic purpose. — Athaenara ✉ 04:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compromise suggestion, User:Athaenara. As we gradually check through the trail of User:Requestion's deletions and repost links in slavery-related articles, it will be done first on the talk page. Should User:Requestion or any other editor have questions or issues, they are welcome to discuss same. Cheers,--Jlockard 05:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

An example of the above compromise suggestion appears at the Theodore Parker article talk page[[29]].--Jlockard 06:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jlockard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 129.219.46.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Comments:

1. I did not suggest a compromise. I showed (again) how wikipedia policies and guidelines apply here.
2. It's a mistake to persist in framing all this as if it's an issue only with a single user who opposes excessive external linking. Experienced NPOV editors know how to read the contribs. I strongly recommend that you stop trying to cast Requestion as a villain. — Athaenara ✉ 06:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Athaenara, do you have any comments on the use of and rationale for the link described on Talk:Theodore Parker? Thanks, --Jlockard 14:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A link to a page which contains a single paragraph authored by Jlockard and a dozen or more links would not improve the well referenced Parker article. — Athaenara ✉ 23:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted from the Theodore Parker talk page -- The use of unpaginated and unreferenced text resources, too common in Wikipedia article links, severely limits their usefulness. This means that they cannot be cited by users. Seven of the nine links are not citable primary text resources and/or do not meet a standard of verifiability. That is not well-referenced. Due care should be taken in selection of links providing text resources. The external link proposed has one introductory paragraph (by Jlockard) and three (XHTML, PDF, Word) versions of Parker's Slave Power for reader convenience.--Jlockard 00:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it has the text (digitized in three formats: XHTML, PDF, MS Word) of the 1910 edition of Parker's collected writings and speeches, my view of this specific link has changed. As I posted on Talk:Theodore Parker, I have cited it as a reference in the article. NOTE: This decision and act is not evidence in any way, shape or form against Requestion. — Athaenara ✉ 05:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again, User:Athaenara. While this has been an interesting passage, now that there is some sense of mutual understanding and joint reasoning, I think it may be preferable to move review of links to the relevant talk pages. The same parties can work together. Thanks are also due to User:Rbellin for useful and calm contributions. This discussion thread appears to have served its purpose and, if there is mutual agreement, can be closed.--Jlockard 06:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I take the general silence as such mutual agreement. MER-C 10:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Opera COI?

• Othalie Graham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Laura Vlasak Nolen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Operastudio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Divattu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

not sure what to make of these, seems these bios are about fairly accomplished individuals, however if some one can have a look it would be appreciated. //Hu12 05:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The editing conduct is not looking good. So far, we've had unexplained removal of an unreferenced tag, and there are far too many inline external links for places/people that have no Wikipedia articles. Gordonofcartoon 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Very good expansion of the Othalie Graham article by User:Jreferee asserts notability. Gordonofcartoon 16:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Operastudio (talk • contribs • logs) gets the idea and uses Othalie Graham to fix Laura Vlasak Nolen. I guess we'll see. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Operastudio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) hasn't fixed Laura Vlasak Nolen yet. :( -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus there's ongoing vandalism by

68.198.86.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and

Divattu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

removing stub categories and maintenance templates without having fixed the highlighted issues. Gordonofcartoon 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Laura Vlasak Nolen was proposed for deletion as NN. Creator removed tags yet again; I take that as contesting the PROD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Vlasak Nolen now ongoing. Gordonofcartoon 13:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

YDP (talk · contribs)

YDP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user has created a bunch of COI articles; I stumbled across one on AFD. The others might deserve a similar fate. Shalom ^Hello 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem here. The three articles created are:

• Young Digital Planet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Universal Curriculum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 24/7 English (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (currently up for AfD)

--Elonka 21:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Pez1103 and Morgellons

• Pez1103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) User is chronic editor of Morgellons page, and has admitted on talk page and other public forums that she is a volunteer for the advocacy group, the Morgellons Research Foundation, itself a major subject of the article being edited.

• Morgellons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This user's organization is mentioned in the article as one that promotes and solicits money for a "disease" whose existence (and even the name) was first proposed by this same organization, and is strongly disputed by the medical community. The organization specifically acts to promote the contention that the condition is a previously-unknown infectious disease, a position also held by this user, but also a position which no independent health professionals or organizations support.

This user's position as advocate for this organization is a violation of WP:COI, and she has continued POV-editing (inserting specific weasel words describing the condition as a "disease" after they were deleted multiple times) after a COI warning was issued and acknowledged. She has made over 250 edits to the page since July 30th, including numerous violations of WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE), WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, and WP:3RR. All attempts on the talk page to point out these violations, or to discuss potential edits to see if she would approve them, have been denied and refused. She has publicly admitted to phone harrassment of government officials about this topic[30], and writing hundreds of letters with the same purpose[31]. There is every indication that she is applying the same sort of tactics to the article in question; by constantly editing and reverting, she is swamping the article with her edits, and obstructing any attempts to enforce WP:NPOV or alter the text from the version that is based on her personal viewpoints. Disputes with this user date back almost a year, and temporary blocks only have been a temporary solution; requesting a hard block to allow other editors a chance to work on the article without continued disruption from this user. Dyanega 00:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The article on Morgellons appears to me way too long for something that may not be a disease at all. There is a possibility of a nomination at WP:AFD but the various press mentions, even skeptical ones, probably give it too much notability for that. The COI-affected editor, User:Pez1103, is apparently reaching out to many forums on WP such as Arbcom and WP:WQA, with indignation about how her edits are being treated on the article Talk page. There do seem to be a number of neutral editors working on the Talk page, so coming up with a good solution for this article may just be a matter of patience and coordination. Any situation where there is only a single editor who seems to be non-neutral can probably be worked out without resort to fancy disciplinary measures such as conduct RfCs or blocks. It is truly a COI, though. Consider an article RfC, or get a consensus of editors to agree that someone should write a new draft. If there are too many reverts, consider making a report at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston 04:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have a conflict of interest. I believe that Morgellons is an infectious disease. That is why I volunteer for the MRF. I am allowed to have personal beliefs. If you look at my edits over the past week, everything I've added is properly cited from reliable sources. The article was biased towards saying that it was a mental illness. I added information that supports the other position to balance the article. My position is not fringe. It is supported by hundreds of doctors and health officials who contacted the CDC, and the CDC itself who is spending millions of dollars to conduct an investigation. Adding information to the article so that both sides are presented is essential to giving it a NPOV.

If you block me, you need to block everyone who volunteers for the American Cancer Society from editing the Cancer article. You need to block all volunteers period. I have nothing to gain from my association with the MRF. The fact that I write letters in support of my position can't preclude me from editing the article, unless you also preclude Herd (see below) who has an entire website devoted to saying that Morgellons is a mental illness. His website reaches far more people than my letters.

The wiki article has for years been very biased towards saying that it is a mental illness and discrediting the MRF. There is growing evidence that Morgellons is not a mental illness. If you look at the history of the article, anyone who tries to edit the article to add the perspective that it is other than a mental illness is harrassed, attacked, and blocked. These editors keep insisting that the article must be biased towards saying that Morgellons is Delusional Parasitosis (DP)because it is "the majority point of view." That is not the case. They primarily rest their case on 3 letters to the editor which were determined to be inappropriate to be included in the article and articles which cite these letters. If you look at the history of Herd and Dyanega, you will see that both of their edits are heavily biased towards DP. They call the idea that Morgellons is not DP "fringe" despite the fact that the California state health department opined that it is not DP, despite the recent statement from the CDC which calls it a disabling, serious disease with multiple systemic symptoms and a growing public health concern. The article should be neutral and present both sides, with a STRONG emphasis on the fact that no one knows for certain what morgellons is, whether it is infectious or contagious, what causes it, how to treat it.

Dyanega has strong personal beliefs that it is a mental illness. He is an entomologist and for years entomologists, like him, have been dismissing morgellons sufferers, telling them that they are delusional. If it is found not to be the case, his profession will be discredited as a whole and he could find himself personally subject to lawsuits.

Herd of Swine, has devoted the past several years of his life to discrediting the disease and he runs an entire website which is devoted to doing so. www.morgellonswatch.com. If it is found to be an infectious disease, he will be discredited and he may be subject to lawsuits for slander and libel.

If I have a conflict of interest and am blocked from this article, these other two editors also do and should also be blocked. They have continously deleted cited material from reliable sources which does not support there position. They do so without making any comments on the discussion page or reaching any consensus, other than between the two of them.

I believe that this article should be deleted from wiki entirely until the CDC investigation is complete. It has a very long history of edit wars (many that do not involved me -- anyone who believes that Morgellons is not DP is blocked) and its neutrality and now its factual content are questionable, as posted at the top of the article. If it must remain, I agree that it should be very brief and unbiased. I would happily stop editing this article if Herd and Dyanega are also blocked. It's a huge drain on my time and energy to try to keep this article neutral -- that is why I have reached out the past couple of days to try to find unbiased editors to really look at it. Pez1103 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Users Herd of Swine and Dyanega and the Morgellons Article

• Herd of Swine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)*Dyanega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Users are chronic editors of Morgellons page, and are using the article to promote their personal beliefs that the disease is delusional. If the disease is found not to be delusional, they stand to be subject to personal lawsuits and public embarrassment (see below). They have made hundreds of edits to bias the article, claiming that their position that the disease is delusional is the majority view, when the majority view is that no one knows anything for certain about Morgellons disease and opinions are divided. They continuously have deleted cited material from reliable sources which does not support their position, without discussing the changes or reaching any type of consensus, except between the two of them. They replace this material with DP articles and cites. I have repeated asked them to discuss their changes on the discussion page and reach consensus first (with someone other than each other), but they will not. When others don't agree with them, they ignore opposing points of view and make the changes anyway. They harrass users who do not agree with their position and use childish tactics to try to provoke others into violating wiki rules. They make weasel edits and distort facts.

Dyanega has strong personal beliefs that Morgellons is DP. He is an entomologist and for years has received samples from Morgellons sufferers, and he has examined the samples and determined that they are "textile fibers" based on only a visual examination. (Examination by forensic scientists of these morgellons fibers, however, prove that they are not textile at all.) As an entomologist, he has been dimissing the morgellons sufferers who have sought his professional opinion as delusional for years. If it is found that Morgellons is not delusional, particularly if it is found that there is an unknown parasite involved, he will be personally discredited and he could find himself subject to lawsuits.

Herd of Swine, has devoted the past several years of his life to discrediting the disease and he runs an entire website which is devoted to doing so: www.morgellonswatch.com. If it is found to be an infectious disease, he will be discredited and he may be subject to lawsuits for slander and libel.

I believe that both editors should be permanently blocked from this article.Pez1103 12:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course pez's comment was in direct tit for tat response to the report about himself above. I believe herd of swine, dyanega and myself are most of the time following the guidelines and wikipedia policies, whereas Pez and some others editing the article don't even seem aware what the guildelines and policies are. There are some accounts editing on the Morgellons article who have rarely edited any of the other articles. Single purpose accounts for pro-morgellons. The editors who are not as fanatically pro-morguellons as some of the others, may have our own views (that doesn't constitute a COI, to have an opinion) but I think we edit by and large following the policies of wikipedia and in good faith. We also edit on other articles sometimes, so our accounts aren't made just to push a view as would those with a COI or a 'believer' in something. Pez has had blocks for revert warring on this article in the past, I don't think anyone else who's edited recently has. Pez also made legal threats above, this is not allowed on wikipedia.Merkinsmum 12:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did I make a legal threat? I'm not threatening to sue them. I've never sent anyting to an entomogolist and I don't frequent herd's site. I am just mentioning that they could be affected monetarily if their POV is disproved. I was blocked the first day I started using wiki because I didn't understand any of the rules and didn't realize that I was getting messages on my talk page about the changes I was making. I was immediately unblocked. If you look at the changes made by Herd and Dyanega -- they are predominately to make the article biased toward DOP. It's a fact. Calling me "fanatical" is inappropriate. Pez1103 12:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an excerpt from the discussion page made by a completely unbiased observer of what happens on the Morgellons article all the time. There is no cooperation, no collaboration. Anyone who does not support the DP theory is subject to personal attacks and bullying. Note the words "unjustified, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice" :

"Why so much anger and hostility? Six weeks ago, before I happened upon this article, I had never heard of Morgellons. After reviewing the article, its sources, and this discussion--and some active participation in the discussion--I have one major question: What is it about Morgellons, and its support group the MRF, that inspires so much anger and hostility? What is it about an almost unknown medical condition, that reportedly affects an unknown number of unidentified patients, including children and infants, that makes some editors demand that Wikipedia ruthlessly condemn them as fakers and loonies? I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice, without even a hint of justification for it. Mukrkrgsj 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)" That was made on May 6 -- I was not involved with the article at all thenPez1103 12:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's interesting that you bring up User:Mukrkrgsj, since that was a pro-Morgellons editor who also got involved in WP arbitration over NPOV violations. May 6, 2007 was the last day that they made any contributions to WP, and was AFTER the aforementioned arbitration, so they were not an unbiased observer - they had been revert-warring with the other editors for six weeks prior to making that statement above. This is a matter of public record. Your own involvement with the Morgellons article dates back to October of 2006, and you were posting to the Morgellons talk page on May 5 [32], so you WERE involved with the article at that EXACT time, and even contributing to the same threads as Mukrkrgsj. Accordingly, your claim of non-involvement is also directly contradicted by the public record. That's two demonstrably false statements in a row. Dyanega 21:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your statements to under 200 words, as the propensity for editors to read a comment(s) is inversely proportional to its length. Thanks. MER-C 13:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pez says "This is an excerpt from the discussion page made by a completely unbiased observer of what happens on the Morgellons article all the time." just to say I don't think that editor's edited 'Morgellons' any less frequently than I have.

This board isn't the place to talk about editing issues on the article as a whole, just about COI. Editors who mainly use their accounts just on one article, are usually suffering from COI. Anyway, the problem on this article is not necessarily COI, IMHO,it is irreconcilable differences which could go to ArbCom in the rare event any admin thought it was a serious enough article to warrant it.:) (this is me, User:Merkinsmum, sorry, doesn't look like I signed earlier)

I think that their behavior, which has been described as "unjustified, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice" by an unbiased 3rd party warrants Herd of Swine and Dyanega being blocked. If you want to block me too, that is fine. I listed the reasons why they both have a COI. They are disruptive to the article. Who gets to make these decisions regarding blocking? Pez1103 16:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You've questioned whether article is serious enough to warrant attention from ArbCom... The CDC has called the disease an emerging public health concern which is debiliating and has a high rate of morbidity. No one knows what causes it, how to treat it, or how to prevent its spread. It doesn't get more serious than thatPez1103 16:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern is for the quality of the article. The lead, as of this version [33] reflects the situation very well. It does not say "Morgellons is a Delusions", but "The medical literature has frequently equated Morgellons with delusional parasitosis" (with authoritative references). Nearly all sources describe the contested causation as the primary point of interest regarding Morgellons. The CDC is simply investigating why people are reporting these symptoms, Pez is taking their words out of context. I have worked for consensus with other editors. Herd of Swine 20:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The CDC has said it's 'unlikely it's an infectious disease' but they're keeping an open mind and investigating even that 'remote possibility.' Hardly the attitude pez claims for them.

The "authoritative reference" consists of dermatologists who wrote letters to the editor. For some reason people think that this should carry more weight than a statement by the CDC two days ago which called it an emerging public health concern. User:Pez110372.231.188.136 21:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

However, this is a board about COI, not about the content of the article.:) Far from being anti morguellons/pro-scientific fact as Pez claims, often I've seen the article in a state completely POV towards Morguellons being a disease etc. I think there is actually a danger that people reading the article in some of it's incarnations, would start fearing morguellons is a new, extremely dangerous infectious disease effecting thousands of individuals, and get really frightened/misled. Unfortunately there are other editors as devoted to Morguellons as Pez.Merkinsmum 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Other pro-Morguellons editors have never been blocked, so Pez's claim they are being censored/their POV suppressed or the blocks are some sort of conspiracy, is not true.Merkinsmum 20:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If everything is so fair on the Morgellons page, why did an unbaised observer state that he has never seen more "unjustified, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice" targeted at people who didn't believe that Morgellons is DOP?

People should be concerned about the disease. Continued efforts to dismiss it as a mental illness hurt everyone. The CDC has stated that: "Morgellons is an unexplained and debilitating condition that has emerged as a public health concern. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has received an increased number of inquiries from the public, health care providers, public health officials, Congress, and the media regarding this condition. Persons who suffer from this condition report a range of coetaneous symptoms including crawling, biting and stinging sensations; granules, threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; and/or skin lesions (e.g., rashes or sores) and some sufferers also report systemic manifestations such as fatigue, mental confusion, short term memory loss, joint pain, and changes in vision. Moreover, some who suffer from this condition appear to have substantial morbidity and social dysfunction, which can include decreased work productivity or job loss, total disability, familial estrangement, divorce, loss of child custody, home abandonment, and suicidal ideation." The CDC further calls this disease an "emerging public health problem."

This is a COI board and both these editors, despite their declarations that they just want a fair and balanced article, have used weasel words, cherry picking and other tactics to distort the article because they stand to be discredited in their personal/professional lives if it is found that Morgellons is not delusional. They both stand to suffer financially also. That gives them a bias which should make their editing the article a violation of wiki rules. User:Pez110372.231.188.136 21:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pez1103 has COI problems that are influencing her editing such that WP:OWN is also a problem. Use of unreliable sources, edit warring, failure to understand NPOV or WP:WEIGHT, whitewashing, failure to collaborate, etc. are some of the other problems. I suggest that User:Pez1103 seek (or be forced to) adoption, as well as using some time on other articles. This article is an obsession with her that is draining the resources of many other editors. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advocacy, and that is also a major problem here. -- Fyslee/talk 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pezzie, you say that Dyanega and Swine 'both stand to suffer financially also' if Morguellons is found not to be a delusion. I don't think this is so as Dyenega isn't a psychiatrist or anything, so her job won't be effected. Wouldn't she possibly make more money if another bug is found, as she works with bugs? And I don't think anti-Morguellons is Herd-of-Swine's career/main source of income, so I don't think he will be effected. There's no need to be paranoid about other editors you know. Maybe they aren't doing anything on wikipedia for any hope of financial reward.Merkinsmum 22:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrator determination

Regardless of the merits of the WP:COI question, one thing is clear: Pez1103 has made multiple legal threats.[34][35] I've blocked that account indefinitely on that basis and as a preventative measure I've semiprotected the article for two weeks. Durova^Charge! 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Elliance Inc.

• JeffMHoward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Search engine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Search engine optimization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• and many more, see user contributions

This user is adding diagrams without proper copyright, and the diagrams contain information presented as fact without a proper source. This looks like it could be a campaign to promote Elliance Inc. The user's contributions are virtually all problematic. Jehochman ^Hablar 06:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Images? What images? MER-C 09:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They may have been blown away already as copyright violations. The images themselves contained a copyright notice. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking Clarification

I apologize if my intentions weren’t clear. I was simply trying to add value to the community by sharing our knowledge resources. Please note, I paid special attention to ensure every image coincided with the topic. Our intention by creating these graphics is to help those who are new to SEO better understand entry-level concepts.

For verification of our images’ accuracy and authenticity please refer to http://searchengineland.com/lands/search-illustrated.php. Each week our work is featured to help the SEO confused.

If you can please assist me in understand what license to post these images under or what posting frequency you feel is appropriate I hope our graphics will become of value to wikipedia users.

Thanks, - Jeff— JeffMHoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Sure. First, you need to remove the copyright notice from within the image, and I recommend removing the name of the source from the image (though this may not be strictly necessary). That will reduce the chance that somebody would view this as advertising. You should definitely list the source within the summary (preferably with a URL to the image on your own site, see below) when you upload the image. If you are releasing these images GFDL, that's great.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a "How To" guide, but images and diagrams that illustrate the content in an article are welcome. If an image contains text that suggests something beyond what's covered in the article, there would need to be a source to support that information. Why don't we go through these one at a time and we will help you through the process. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, it would be helpful if you could post all these images somewhere on your own site with a notation that you are releasing them GFDL. That would allow others to copy the images into Wikipedia, and it would help us to verify that you are indeed the owner of the images, and that your GFDL license is valid. Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

____ Sounds good, I appreciate your patience in resolving the issue. I will speak with our staff today about this and make sure our ducks are in a row before we post any images. Also I will notify you here once I post a new image and from here out take it one at a time under your lead. - Jeff— JeffMHoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately we are preparing for formal publication of these images and simply cannot remove the copyright from the lower left hand corner. We would still like to post with wikipedia for benefit of the community and would do so one image at a time under your supervision. However, we must retain a copyright otherwise in the end we may have competitors passing off the infographics as their own.

- Jeff— JeffMHoward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

Foster Winans

• article Foster Winans - heavily edited by subject [36]
• User:Rfwinans is editing by name and by declarations that he is the subject of the article.

Piperdown 14:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No edits since April this year. Article now looks reasonable. MER-C 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wellreadone

• Wellreadone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - He added dozens of links on different articles to a law firm's website, and appears to have been doing so for weeks. I removed the links and put a uw-coi notice on his talk page. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.schleimerlaw.com

schleimerlaw.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

No new mainspace links. MER-C 12:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[37][38] He didn't even respond to the message I left on his talk page. Moving to incidents noticeboard. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 18:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen C. Sillett

• Stephen C. Sillett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Stephen C. Sillett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I stumbled across this page while tracking back some vandalism. It looks like there is a lot of vandalism on the page, but it looks like the subject of the article is trying to police the page and is possessive of it. I'd like someone more capable to look at the page and the situation and see if something needs to be done. (The talk pages of some of the article contributors may provide some context, as well.) GargoyleMT 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's well possible that the editor isn't Sillett. It's under investigation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/67.55.159.44. Gordonofcartoon 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Swine

I believe that Herd of Swine has a Conflict of Interest which should preclude him from editing the Morgellons disease article. He runs a website devoted to debunking Morgellons disease. He stands to lose a great deal of credibility if the disease is found to be, as the CDC has stated, “a newly emerging public health condition.” He continually violates wiki rules to promote his POV by using weasel words and cherry picking. He makes changes without consensus from people with opposing view points. He jusifies this by saying his is the majority POV, but this is not completely accurate. He should not be allowed to use Wiki as a soap box to promote his propaganda.

The fact that he maintains “morgellonwatch” is well known by other editors. Here is a quote from the Morgellons article by another editor to Herd “I - and the other editors- know that you have an endless source of information like this from maintaining your debunking website. I see that you posted this same link on your website today.”

I believe that if you review the edits made by Herd, you will see that they are overwhelmingly biased towards saying that the disease is delusional or a mix of existing medical conditions. He consistently uses weasel words and cherry picking to support his position and discredit any statements to the contrary. He does not maintain a NPOV. He is intent on promoting the propaganda from his website.

Despite the fact that the CDC has described Morgellons as an debilitating, emerging public health concern; despite the fact that the CDC has reported that an increasing number of health care providers and public health official have contacted the CDC urging them to investigate this disease; and despite the fact that the CDC has received reports of the disease's serious systemic manifestations, he (and a few other editors) are determined to convince wikipedia readers that the disease is delusional.

The article is biased. It emphasizes any statements that support the idea that the disease is delusional and minimizes (by weasel words, by their placement in the article) or removes any references that support the idea that it is not (without getting consensus from anyone with an opposing point of view). If you read the discussion page, you will see that anyone who tries to make the article more neutral by adding references that support the idea that the disease is not delusional is bullied and ignored and efforts are made to try to have that person banned from editing.

In the words of an unbiased editor who reviewed the article, "I've seldom seen so much bitter, mean-spirited, hostile prejudice [directed at editors who do not believe the disease is delusional], without even a hint of justification for it" see the discussion page). This should not be allowed to continue.

The result is an article which has become downright hurtful to patients with this illness.Pez1103 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pez1103. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Also see Help:Diff to present evidence. It's a bit premature to ask for a topic ban. Can you prove that this is the same person who maintains the morgellonswatch site? Also, you gain credibility by disclosing your own COI when making this type of request. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I volunteer for the Morgellons Research Foundation. I have received no compensation from the MRF; I've never even had my expenses reinbursed. No one at the foundation, not even the executive director or the board members are compensated for their work. There is no facility for the foundation. I am working from home. Pez1103 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on the Talk:Morgellons page a while ago:

I (User:Herd of Swine) run morgellonswatch.com (MW) in that I write posts and comments on it as "Margellons". I am not responsible for the contents of the other comments on the site. I try to write my articles, even on morgellonswatch, from a NPOV. I do NOT promote the view that Morgellons is "just delusion". In particular I point you to my recent post Morgellons is not a Delusion and the older posts Physical and/or Mental and Morgellons is not Delusions of Parasitosis. I do not mention or reference MW in the article because I wish to avoid COI. I do not promote MW via wikipedia. I only link to MW on the talk page when it is a convenient way of quoting restricted articles, such as the American Journal of Psychiatry.

MorgellonsWatch has no agenda other than "debunking", in the neutral sense of the word - meaning pointing out what aspects of Morgellons rest upon weak or non-existent evidence. I have no vested interest in any aspect of Morgellons. I am a retired computer programmer and I run MorgellonsWatch as a hobby out of personal interest. I have no personal or business contacts in the medical, pharmaceutical, entomological or public health worlds, or in any other domain that might raise a conflict of interest. I attempt to always write on Wikipedia using a neutral tone.

I have substantial knowledge of the subject, and I feel I can make valuable contributions to the article. If it is felt I might have some conflict of interest, then I welcome guidance as to how I might avoid this. I was involved in changing the lead from quotes from the CDC and Mayo to an overview of the article, but I did this in cooperation with several other editors. Since COI issue were raised recently, I have avoided making major changes to the article, and have been suggesting changes on the discussion page instead. I have made one major addition to the background section, but first suggested it on the discussion page, quoted three authoritative sources and got feedback from two other editors. I would be happy to continue editing in this style if it is agreed that an accusation of COI should preclude me from being bold in my edits. Herd of Swine 18:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters, stop linking to MW, even on the talk page. If an article is restricted, that is reality; just cite page, volume, etc. as you would for any other article not publicly available online. Not all cites must be to material available online. Citing to MW instead adds to the perception that you have a COI and/or POV-pushing problem here. --Orange Mike 18:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I was not citing MW, there just happened to be excepts on there that were relevent to the discussion. It's a talk page - why would I force people to hunt something down, when there's a link I can give them? I see nothing wrong with the MRF editors providing links to the MRF web site in the talk page. Herd of Swine 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pez1103 himself has much more of a COI, as he is a volunteer for the Morgellons Research Foundation, the organisation for believers in this disease and an organisation with a stated aim of disseminating their beliefs about it's existence.Merkinsmum 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've upgraded the semiprotection on the article to full protection. Pez, thank you for requesting entry to WP:ADOPT. Everyone, try WP:DR please. Durova^Charge! 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TedFrank

• Ted is employed by the American Enterprise Institute. He has sold a piece for publication in one of AEI's magazines, The American (magazine). Ted felt that Box Office MoJo, oft-cited for its box-office rankings in various categories, was incorrect because it listed Sicko (film) as the fourth-highest grossing documentary (a number that has been cited by other notable commentators in the media), when (Ted felt) that is clearly incorrect because MoJo discounts IMAX films and movies like Jackass Number Two. Ted found a few fringe movie critics (no mainstream citations to highly-regarded film critics like Roger Ebert or Gene Shalitt, or to any film theorists), and one conservative political commentator (himself making a point about Moore) to call Jackass a documentary. He subsequently wrote a new "highest grossing documentary" list, sold it to AEI's magazine, and has now strenuously argued for its use on WikiProject Films; Sicko; The Dream is Alive; Jackass Number Two. I am guessing March of the Penguins and the other films will needs to be re-categorized, using Ted's list. The list itself is completely written as a Michael Moore hit piece, with the sole purpose (as one can see from the Talk:Sicko page, which gave Ted the idea to write the piece) of knocking Moore's film down in the rankings.
• Ted has edited American Enterprise Institute's article, as well people associated with his employer, removing sourced material, etc.
• Ted created the article The American (magazine), which published his piece, not realizing this article has been created in February 2007 as The American magazine, that had a "questionable notability" tag on it since its creation. I had trouble researching the magazine and found its notability questionable (it was founded in 2006 by AEI, published six times a year, and most of the citations are solely about its launch) and others did as well (as can be seen by the AfD I brought. Ted took this personally, thinking I brought it because he voted to delete Artificial controversy, although I didn't even realize he had done so. He was hostile on the AfD, refused to supply any information, and refused to WP:AGF. Once some modicum (tenuous it may be) of notability was established, I said I would not have a problem closing the AfD. In fact, I improved the article myself.
• Ted has previously been the subject of a WP:COI noticeboard incident related directly to this issue.

--David Shankbone 04:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a frivolous report. WP:COI/N is for reporting COI problems, not the trivial existence of disclosed and acknowledged WP:COI and the compliance with it. The report rises to the level of sanctionable WP:STALK given Shankbone's previous frivolous AFD on The American (magazine), and the fact that he dishonestly raises another frivolous COI report despite the fact that there was sunanimous agreement that I did not violate WP:COI on competition law; note also the violation of WP:CANVASS and the warning for violating WP:CIVIL. I'd like an administrator ask Shankbone to stay away from me and my edits. I've been a productive member of Wikipedia, with over 6000 edits, and Shankbone is trying to hound me off of the site because he disagrees with my politics. As I have noted previously, I have even taken the step of having two administrators who have agreed to shadow my edits to ensure that I do not violate WP:COI. My employer has nothing to do with Wikipedia, which is only a hobby (and a cure for writers' block) for me. They don't pay me enough to be up at midnight editing. THF 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Shankbone can't be bothered to follow WP:COI/N procedures in his harassment, here is the appropriate link:

• TedFrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Compare my edits with his over the last couple of days:

• DavidShankBone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- THF 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Response I am a highly-regarded editor and you will not find one other editor on this site who will say I have ever wiki-stalked or harassed anyone else. I am a consistent vandal fighter and pretty much every edit I make is substantive. This report on its face raises serious issues that Ted has simply cast away and not even addressed. Ted appears to think that the simple disclosure that he has COI issues means, well, he no longer has COI issues. I have not Wikistalked Ted almost every page (Al Franken, Jackass Number Two, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial controversy, et. al) edits I have made pre-date edits Ted has made, some by months, until I realized he was agenda-pushing with WP:COI problems. My contributions, reputation and edits stand on their own and can be seen in my edit summaries and my User page. --David Shankbone 04:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I am only using this board to raise Ted's on-going COI problems; he wants to raise every issue he can against me to distract from the issue. I would be happy to address each and every one, but not here to keep the focus on the purpose of the Board. --David Shankbone 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Mr. Shankbone has issued a frivolous WP:COI/N report to complain that I have complied with WP:COI because I disclosed a COI, and discussed edits on a talk page; in the process, he has affirmatively misrepresented facts. This is a page for reporting violations of WP:COI, and he hasn't identified a single violation. (My edits to the AEI page were all either discussed on the talk page along with the COI disclosure, or were trivial removal of vandalism.) This is a misuse of this page, disruptive editing and harassment, and I'd like administrator intervention. THF 05:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Ted has an agenda against Michael Moore and his films. Just look at his edits. That is not so uncommon. What is so uncommon is to write a phony article and list (IMAX totals are never included in movie grosses) and claim to 'sell' it to the company you work for anyway, (which he didn't admit first) then have it published, then try and quote on Wiki in your war against Michael Moore. Bmedley Sutler 05:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the article "phony"? It's a real article and was really published. The American has no obligation to publish anything I write (they've turned down story ideas from me before), and I'll show to any administrator who asks the check I'll get for selling the piece when it's issued to me later this month. And, again, this a page for violations of COI; WP:COI requires me to discuss the article on the talk page, and that's all I've done. (And, off topic, Box Office Mojo tracks IMAX documentaries.) THF 05:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to ask yourself why IMAX movies aren't included? Because they don't audit their numbers. As was pointed out to you already, they include busloads of school children who don't pay as having paid. You apparently missed asking yourself the why and just jumped to the should. Additionally, you sold a piece to a magazine your employer publishes. You are now trying to get that piece in as many articles you can, with cites linking to it. It is not a notable list, it has problems in its accuracy, and nobody else uses it or references it, nor will they ever. The vast majority of mainstream film critics don't define documentary the way Ted does, nor include the movies you include. And in the end, you have a financial incentive, and you are pushing for this hard. This is the second time you are being brought to this board for agenda and COI problems. Why don't you just stay away from articles having to do with your employer, the magazines it publishes, and trying to insert the material it puts out (and that you write yourself)? And why can't you see these are major COI problems? --David Shankbone 05:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is the talk page edit Shankbone objects to. Note how it complies with both the letter and spirit of COI: I suggest a proposed edit, disclose my COI, and discuss; I do not make the edit. So, again, where's the violation? It can't be that I edited The American (magazine); all of my edits there complied with NPOV and were non-controversial. It can't be that I reverted vandalism on the AEI article. It certainly doesn't violate COI when I refute a personal attack on a talk page. And it can't be that I helped improve the competition law article, where administrators agreed unanimously I did not violate COI. So, again, why is Shankbone being permitted to harass and personally attack me like this? THF 05:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Your list is phony and made to attack Michael Moore which is your agenda on so many articles. BOMOJO says:"Unfortunately, IMAX box office only recently started being tracked in a serious way, leaving many popular titles without a gross to report." These old IMAX documentaries that played at museums for years surely had more free school children counted in their 'grosses' than paying customers. That is why they are never included in real lists targeted to the enterntainment professionals. Please stop your anti Michael Moore agenda here on Wikipedia, Ted. Save it for your employers publications where you can use your phony list and even get paid for it. Respectable publications like Wikipedia want no part of such propaganda. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 06:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User is not attempting to make an end-run around policy. He posted his article on the talk page as demanded by WP:COI. The community will accept or decline it there on the merits. This appears to be a simple content dispute. However, I think truly third-party comment (i.e. not mine) would be helpful. Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is the third time the pattern I described above for the Competition law page is being repeated, by these two apparent partners: Ted and Luke. They both fit the definition of trolls in my view; since I posted the message above on this COI page, you can see that nobody has done any work to the Competition law page to make it a properly readable article. The only intention of these people seems to me to come in, trash others' work, stick up a load of notices about neutrality etc and then move to another place on Wikipedia where more accusations of hippie tree hugging can be thrown about. This kind of practice represents a kind of organised and politically motivated attack on the flow of information. It is worse than common vandalism. The epilogue to the story on the Competition law page since the users' edits (which mainly involved cutting referenced material), which I've just checked for the first time in a month, is that the most recent comment, lo and behold, is "this looks like it has been written by Cheney". Wikidea 11:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here incidentally is the link for the complaint I made above on the page. Wikidea 11:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidea's personal attack on Luke speaks for itself. This is again an inappropriate use of COI/N to make personal attacks over content disputes. THF 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

CommentTed has a political agenda, not a COI issue. I agree with Cool Hand Luke that this is a content issue. The methodology apparently is not commonly accepted, so it should not be in the Moore article on that basis, but not because he wrote the article.Sposer 13:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

CommentTed has a history of partisan edits on political and economic issues during working hours at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative economic and political think-tank. He was recently paid by his employer for a partisan article on Sicko, after having attempted controversial edits on the Sicko article that multiple established editors perceive as tendentious, disruptive and POV-pushing. He then tried to promote his article by suggesting on the talk page that it be cited, and he is debating those that disagree with its inclusion. It's fair to conclude that he is receiving monetary benefits to promote the interests of the AEI on Wikipedia and that therefore this is a COI issue. Ripe 16:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not paid by my employer. I was paid by a different entity, The American, a publication that exercises independent editorial judgment; if I don't write for them, they don't pay me, but I have no obligation to write for them; I prefer writing for the more widely-read Wall Street Journal, but this piece wouldn't have been a good fit for them. My employer would prefer it if I didn't waste time writing about movie statistics, which is why I wrote the article on a Sunday. (Is it okay that I'm posting on my day off while I have maintenance workers at my condo? I'm glad you're familiar with the terms of my employment so that you know when my working hours are.) Again, I receive no pay for Wikipedia edits: they're purely a waste of my time that cost me money because I could be writing paid pieces instead of defending myself against unfair personal attacks. (Why are administrators countenancing this campaign to drive a productive editor off of Wikipedia entirely?)

Moving from the baseless specific allegations to the false general allegations, can we have a single diff for a "partisan edit" in mainspace that wasn't compliance with Wikipedia policies or guidelines? All we have here is a content dispute: Ripe has steadily objected to any fixes to the NPOV problems at the Sicko article, and has lost every time I escalated dispute resolution to an RFC. Compare the article now to where it was a month ago when I started noting the policy violations in the article, and it's plainly much improved from the old version that violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Ripe calls it a COI issue that I discussed on a talk page the possible inclusion of an article I wrote this week--except that is precisely what WP:COI compliance says I should do. I will assume good faith if Ripe apologizes, but I very much resent these inappropriate and baseless personal attacks, and wish an administrator would take some action. THF 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition I have just noticed Ted is recently accused User:DavidShankBone of violating WP:STALK, here. This is rich, considering following the complaint I made, he has been following edits I made on the History of economic thought page and the Criminal law page. I find this very sinister, and am quite happy to find there's a policy against it, ironically, which he's using against others. This is a case I suspect, as with all his charming accusations of non-neutrality, of "takes one to know one." Good users don't usually have time for petty agendas, and are content to let it blow over. But I hope that the destructive behaviour can be dealt with here once and for all. Wikidea 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Every editor and administrator to look at content disputes between me and Wikidea has agreed with me. I noted over two dozen separate factual errors and violations of POV on the talk page, and Wikidea is the only non-anonymous editor who disagreed. Wikidea attacked every single editor who attempted to edit the competition law page. To the extent there is a disruptive editor, it's not me. I'm sorry that Wikidea is offended that I think pages he wrote and worked hard on need to be rewritten for style, grammar, factual accuracy, NPOV, and globalization (and, in the case of History of economic thought, needs to be deleted as redundant with History of economics), but he needs to accept that he does not WP:OWN the pages, and, again, this is an inappropriate use of COI/N to engage in a personal vendetta. THF 16:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the issues raised in this thread sound like ordinary editor disputes rather than COI issues. The only potential COI involved here is the mention by User:THF (Ted) of an article that he wrote. If, as THF states, he has not cited this article in any article but has simply mentioned it on talkpages as a resource that other editors might or might not choose to employ, I believe his edits are consistent with policy. As I had to do in a prior thread involving this user, I also feel compelled to strongly warn all editors against making personal attacks, even against those who have different ideological backgrounds or make edits they disagree with. Newyorkbrad 17:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The latest revelation Other editors may be interested in this edit of User:TedFrank on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard - Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Nutshell_Take_Two - where he appears to be changing the rules on Conflict of interests! Wow, that's pretty bold editting don't you think! In light of that, I'm not sure that Newyorkbrad's quite right! It's not just edits that people disagree with, it seems to be more or a messianic campaign than anything else. Or, as I said before, being a troll. And quite frankly, I'm not interested in any more of his silly replies, like the one above. Wikidea 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Brad or other administrators, please look at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Nutshell_Take_Two, and see if I did anything inappropriate by conforming inconsistent text with this subsection of WP:COI. This edit was so sneaky and underhanded that I explained it in detail on the talk page. THF 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The user Ripe has made a very good point above as well. It's working hours at the American Enterprise Institute when he's adding all this stuff. Hmmmmmm - I complained on the basis that it's a COI in any case - but if it's also working hours then his position looks pretty corrupted doesn't it? Wikidea 19:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I request the administrators delete the personal attack from Ripe and from Wikidea and this response. I've taken today off because I have a work crew over at my house, and I needed to be there, and I'll be working this weekend to make up the lost time. It's none of Wikidea's business what my working hours are. THF 19:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to pursue COI issues. Are you denying that you have made edits while on the clock at AEI? Doesn't sound like it. Working from home today or making off-hours edits are not evidence that your working hours edits are not COI. Working hours become Wikipedia's business when controversial edits are made that represent an employer's interests, hence the policy. Ripe 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fellow, not an hourly employee, and I'm in charge of my own project, so I'm technically never "on the clock," except perhaps when I'm scheduled to be in front of a tv camera or at a meeting, and except that my employer will be mad if I haven't actually produced any real-life publications. Would you like an affidavit from me that my employer doesn't pay me to edit Wikipedia?

Yes. Wikidea 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, given that THF/TedFrank has over 5000 edits at over 2000 distinct pages, that seems a remarkable stretch of WP:AGF. Please, both of you, calm down and get back to basic facts. SamBC(talk) 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(Why would my employer care about the thousands of edits I do for vandal control?) Would you like my single-spaced quarterly report listing the projects I'm worked on over the last four months and will work on for my employer over the next two years where the word Wikipedia doesn't appear once? Editing Wikipedia is an economically irrational hobby that costs me money: it's time I could spend trying to find additional $450/hour outside consulting gigs, writing free-lance stuff, or playing poker. Ripe has been warned multiple times about baseless personal attacks, and the repeated accusations after denials despite a lack of evidence violates WP:AGF at a minimum. Does WP:NPA mean anything? Two administrators have already rejected Ripe's COI allegations, and he's still attacking me under the false guise of "investigating COI", and now he's WP:STALKing me and reverting edits I make indiscriminately. THF 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, can everyone please just calm down and stop the mudslinging, which seems to be coming from both directions (or should that be all directions?) as it really doesn't help anyone try to get an objective impression of what's going on. SamBC(talk) 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Does anyone still see a real live COI issue here? The most frequent postings on this noticeboard are for new or little-trafficked articles where a COI-affected editor has created an article and refuses dialog, sometimes reverting the changes by regular editors, or removing tags from the article. The Ted Frank case DOES NOT seem to fit that pattern, since the articles involved here are not shrinking violets and get lots of attention. I also didn't see anything about Ted removing tags. I suggest dispute resolution for those who are still displeased with Ted's work. I don't see how counting the attendance at IMAX movies is relevant to a COI discussion and I wish people would take that item elsewhere. It makes this debate seem unfocused and frivolous, which can't be good for the credibility of either side.

Meanwhile, in discussions elsewhere, I notice that The American (magazine), an article created by Ted, has been nominated for deletion and readers of this noticeboard are welcome to give their opinions there. I would prefer that Ted not go about revising the WP:COI policy while this discussion is running, though. If you are concerned about that issue, add your comments at WT:COI. Selfishly, I am tired of constantly seeing this very long thread on this noticeboard, and I'm tired of reading it, so I wish it would come to a point. Closing it would be one way of dealing with the situation. If you have other ideas, please comment. EdJohnston 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. It seems THF could be more sensitive to appearances (editing articles related to his employer, editing policy pages when he's the subject of a case, and so on). But that's not an actionable COI. Let's all move along. Raymond Arritt 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF has still not denied that he has made edits while at the office/"on the clock" (whether hourly or salaried). Can we agree that if his promotion of conservative political and economic interests were made at work, whether they were explicitly instructed or he has the discretion to support his employer's interests in the manner of his choosing, that such edits would be COI? I'd like to see a caution that partisan political edits should not be done during working hours at a partisan political job. That would resolve this for me. Ripe 03:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, above he stated that he doesn't have fixed hours and isn't paid for his work on wikipedia. In that case, I can't see how "in the office" or "on the clock" would apply. SamBC(talk) 04:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He just said "I'm glad you're familiar with the terms of my employment so that you know when my working hours are." which is just an implication not a denial. It's fair to assume that since he's salaried there are hours set aside in his day for work, and since he said he was editing from home yesterday, it's safe to assume that he usually travels to an office. Whatever hours he's in the offices of AEI are his working hours. Secondly, the denial of being "paid for his work on wikipedia" may be construed as just denying that it's part of his formal job description or that he receives extra compensation above & beyond his salary. But that leaves open the possibility that he's receiving a base salary and permission to promote AEI interests in the manner of his choosing. I propose that in the future THF should not make edits that could be construed to be of a controversial political or economic nature, or as otherwise representing the interests of AEI or American Magazine, from the offices of AEI, using AEI resources, or during hours which AEI is otherwise compensating THF for his time (e.g. if he "works from home" some day). If he's already not doing that, then he shouldn't have any problem complying. Ripe 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing some of his comments, though I can't be bothered to find and quote them. I know he offered an affidavit, but one might assume that to be tongue-in-cheek. Further, permission isn't an issue, encouragement would be. All of that aside, there's a strong consensus here that there's no further CoI case to answer. If you sincerely believe that there's a case still to answer, I can only suggest that you take it to RfC or similar, though I doubt you'll get any further with that than you have here. I think we can consider this case closed. SamBC(talk) 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a good reason to the contrary offered in the next 24 hours, I'm inclined to close and archive this thread, after deleting some of the more vitriolic personal attacks contained in it. Wikiidea, in particular, please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before posting further about this matter. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 02:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I have read the additional comments and am still not persuaded there is a true COI issue here. Editors should be sensitive to appearances but I think that THF has disclosed the relevant facts and by limiting his comments to talkpages has accommodated that need. Also, please note that it is no part of Wikipedia's or anyone else here's role to worry about whether someone is editing from home or from work, as long as our policies are not violated. Newyorkbrad 14:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"If... you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes)...then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased)." I'd rather AGF on interpreting what "working hours" means, but since there was some question over what that meant for a salaried position, I proposed physical location as a means of determining when one is at work. If you want to propose an alternate standard to apply to determine when salaried positions are receiving monetary benefits, please do so, but we can't leave a gaping hole in the COI policy for salaried people. If making a significant number of controversial partisan edits to political and economic topics while being physically located at one's office at a partisan think tank from which one is deriving salary doesn't violate the "receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations," what does? Ripe 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note Since there is a lack of consensus about the COI issue, I see no point in continuing to debate it; however, I think Ted/THF would be well-advised to tread lightly with his universally-acknowledged agenda-pushing, and to refrain from editing articles that contend with his employer, its minions, and their organs of propaganda, and to similarly refrain from heavily pushing his own (unnotable) work into multiple pages and then arguing policy demands its inclusion. There will be quite a few people watching your edits, Ted. You hurt a lot of good faith assumption this last week, and a pattern of your behavior is taking form. --David Shankbone 15:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have followed this matter pretty closely on the Sicko talk page, but have not yet commented on this page. My strong impression is that Ted Frank has made a strong effort to comply with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and that his activities all represent good faith efforts. I have seen no place where he crosses a line of what is acceptable, although his activities seem very close to the limits of what is acceptable. As long as he continues to be upfront about what he is doing and his motives, I believe his contribution to our collective project is a positive one. He seems open to reasonable arguments; he has also endured a massive pile of unreasonable ones. His disclosure of his real identity, which most editors do not do, is a significant and positive thing - and he goes beyond that, to discuss terms of his employment. Wikidea's objection to Ted Frank's edit to COI is, in my view, spurious; the edit Ted Frank made brings the phrasing of the policy into closer alignment with what I've understood it to be all along: namely, that COI restricts the way an editor can edit an article directly, but that given proper disclosure, discussing something on the talk page is fair game. -Pete 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Di Virgilio

• Juno Mother Earth Asset Management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Roland A. Jansen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Jdivirgilio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • 66.9.131.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • 207.191.11.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• junomotherearth.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

It appears that User:Jdivirgilio is Joseph Di Virgilio. The IP 66.9.131.70 could be either of the two founders, but most likely it is Roland A. Jansen. This account along with the ip's are SPA's, and have no other edits out side this topic. Joseph Di Virgilio is managing partner and Co-Founder along with Roland A. Jansen of Juno Mother Earth Asset Management. I have tagged the userpages and the articles. These may require deletion. --Hu12 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juno Mother Earth Asset Management. The founders seem plausibly notable.

As for the IPs, COI is Likely for 66.9.131.70 and Unrelated for 207.191.11.10. MER-C 10:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged Juno Mother Earth Asset Management for speedy because it qualifies under CSD11. It would need a substantial rewrite to become anything more than spam. Joseph Di Virgilio is tagged AfD, but I think it also qualifies for speedy under CSD 11. Roland A. Jansen has written a book that is on sale at Amazon and has an ISBN number. He is possibly notable so that one has been left alone. Perhaps some metion of Juno could be added to that article. We don't need a bio of every Wall Street executive. Unless they have substantial, independent news coverage, it's hard to write an article that could ever be more than a stub. Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

69.125.233.94 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) blanked this discussion. COI is Possible for this IP: same densely populated geographical area (66.9.131.70 seems to be about 1 km from the company office, hance the difference). MER-C 13:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Frater FiatLux

• Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

User is a member of the latter order. He's been asked to suggest changes on the talk pages but refuses. He has been reverting to months old versions authored by himself, reverting many intermediate changes and improvements. An example of his COI, he keeps moving his own order to the top of alphabetically ordered lists. He also attempts to bias legal information in favor of his order. Another thing he is doing is asserting "worldwide" scope of his order without any third party supporting references. He has a history of edit warring over these things, showing up every few months to revert to his chosen version. IPSOS (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

After this report was filed, a long and productive discussion has begun on the main article's talk page. Shalom ^Hello 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What is rally going on here is that Wikipedia is being manipulated by user, IPSOS, and dragged into a 15 year legal conflict betw een esoteric orders. (see Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. below on this page). IPOS, vandalized the page of the other party for two months before getting their page cancelled. IPSOS has admitted acquaintance with the president of HOGD,Inc. Any time that any editor has appeared favorable of the other party, he has subverted Wikipedia 3RR ruless, by falsely accusing all opposition of sock puppetry and reverting ad infinitum. He even accused me of being a puppet which I am not. He managed to silence all opposition, including getting User Fiat Lux banned without any justification, just in time to hold kangaroo court in a deletions discussion of the other party's page. That Wikipedia is allwoing itself to be used as an advertising forum for HOGD, Inc. is shameful and allowing HOGD, Inc., of which user IPSOS is a clear agent, to misreprsent a 15 year old legal conflict and to deprive one party of its legal rights.--Rondus 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest Concerning David Gow (Mr Grant)

David Gow is the Seattle contact for Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit (CPRT)[39] Mr. Gow also maintains several websites, blogs that promote Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and moderates a Seattle PRT web forum. All this activity alone constitutes a conflict of interest for his editing of Personal Rapid Transit. I have asked if David Gow (Mr Grant) if he has received payment for promoting Personal Rapid Transit and if so, who has paid him... He will not say whether he is paid or not[40]. David Gow has made many edits on the Personal Rapid Transit page. I request that David Gow be advised not to edit Personal Rapid Transit unless he reveals whether he has been paid for his extensive public relations work to promote Personal Rapid Transit on the web and in the media.....Avidor 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no basis whatsoever for this charge. Listed below is every single edit by Mr Grant on the PRT pages over the last year:

• added a wikilink
• removed a redundant wikilink
• copy edit
• removed "proponents" because no objections to proponents were listed in that section
• updated the status of a PRT system under construction
• provided reference for this last update
• typo
• removed link to deleted article
• added fact tags

Note that the last edit was actually demanding sources for pro-PRT material - in other words, this so-called promoter is requesting references for a claim that supports his position.

I should also note that Avidor has previously tried to implicate Mr Grant in a COI complaint - the finding in that case was that the only editor raising COI concerns was Avidor himself.

This complaint is completely groundless, and may be a violation of WP:POINT. ATren 22:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ATren, are you the editor responsible for posting this on 2/2/06?: "So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that f*cking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is."....Avidor 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Grant may have a conflict of interest, but it goes to far to build a complaint around the innocuous and widely spaced edits here. If he wants to avoid all potential for future misunderstanding he can confine himself to the article talk page. I will not, however, issue a warning since this is all helpful and straightforward contribution. He did do more on the page before this year, but that's ancient history in wikitime. Recommend to ATren a formal withdrawal of the insult. Since it was made a full year and a half ago I won't issue a warning there either. Please open an article content WP:RFC to settle any topical disputes on the page. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already expressed my regret at that statement, several times. I'll repeat here: it was a regrettable edit made in anger during my first month on the project, and I've not repeated anything remotely like it since. But he keeps bringing it up whenever there is a dispute with me. I don't know what else I can do. As for Mr. Grant's edits from before this year, the only edits that might be remotely considered POV pushing were back in 2005, and were made in response to Avidor's own POV pushing. And there can be no doubt of Avidor's extreme point of view (I can post hundreds more if there's any question). I'd also like to stress that Mr. Grant's last two edits on PRT and PRT talk have been clear examples of "editing for the enemy", so given that there is more PRT skepticism than promotion in his edits from the last year, the COI accusations are particularly puzzling. Perhaps Avidor can enumerate the edits that caused him to make this charge? Because I can't find any. ATren 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this, but I really don't have the time or inclination to debate an anonymous user (ATren) who apparently has nothing else to do but argue[41] and attack people[42] It is Mr Grant (Mr Grant) , not I or Atren who should answer whether he is paid to promote PRT on Wikipedia....Avidor 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're still not responding to the central issue here: regardless of whether he's paid or not, he's not doing any promoting here! There's not a single edit from the last 1.5 years that remotely resembles promotion. So what exactly is your point? ATren 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion ATE and since you and Mr Grant cooperate on and off Wikipedia [43], you are in no position to judge...Avidor 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you just show us the edits that caused you to make this complaint? ATren 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: moved to bottom of page, where it belongs. MER-C 13:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This thread asks for a determination of possible WP:COI violation and I've made one. No new evidence relevant to that has emerged since then. Suggest both sides bury the hatchet and move on. Otherwise, Dispute resolution is thataway. (And as a disclaimer I'll say that I offered to mentor ATren a while ago. Should've mentioned that on my first post - don't think it affects my finding either way though). Durova^Charge! 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add something. Avidor posted this on JzG's page, including the following quote: "Please bring some reality to that PRT article before the next MN special session when Rep. Mark Olson and others will likely use PRT to attack funding for the Central Corridor LRT and Northstar." This seems to be a plea to change the article for the express purpose of influencing political activities, which would seem to be a very definite COI. This is especially relevant given Avidor's previous admonishment for COI concerns on Olson's page, and his well documented political blogging in Minnesota ([44], [45], [46], [47], and more). I submit that the only COI concern here is Avidor himself, and that perhaps he's the one who should refrain from any activity on the PRT pages - including talk pages, where he frequently posts generic anti-PRT material without referencing any specific problem with the article itself. ATren 16:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I welcome a thorough investigation of everyone's motives in editing personal rapid transit. PRT has virtually no acceptance among transportation professionals. Most of the "facts" in that article are dubious to say the least...it's largely written by PRT promoters opposed to rail transit ....Avidor 17:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

<<<=== deindent

Actually, every single statement in Avidor's above comment is false:

• "virtually no acceptance" - PRT has received unqualified endorsement from the European Union after a comprehensive multi-city, multi-year study involving hundreds of transportation professionals[48].
• "Most of the 'facts' in that article are dubious to say the least" - The facts in the article are all sourced in academic sources, mostly conference and journal articles, but also the several texts that have resulted from extensive US government-sponsored study in the 1970s. Just look at the references section for the sources.
• "it's largely written by PRT promoters opposed to rail transit" - absolutely false. Most of the substantive edits have been made by non PRT people, and indeed the article was thoroughly scrubbed by JzG last year - for those who don't know, JzG was Avidor's biggest champion here.

The truth is, Avidor stirs up this debate every few months - roughly corresponding to the times when the Minnesota legislature is in session, and each time he makes the same plea to "fix the article" but gives no specifics (because the articles are fine). In the process, he'll forum shop looking for someone to support his views, all the while posting linkspam to anti-PRT articles on various talk pages. It's happened at least 3 times since I've been here. I should also note that PRT's main "competitor" in the transit space is light rail, and Ken Avidor is a staunch light rail advocate, including active involvement in the "Light Rail Now" astroturfing website. If you doubt any of what I've said here, I can dig up links to previous instances of this behavior, including previous pleas to change the article for political ends.

Can someone please take a serious look at this individual's history here? If you do, you will find almost nothing constructive, and a long history of disruption to support his cause. ATren 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever...Avidor 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say Thanks to Durova and Atren for their balanced, objective and (above all) FACT-based approach to Avidor's charge against me of "possible" COI. You both spent a lot of time on what was clearly a (poorly designed) fishing expedition, and while I never doubted what the eventual outcome would be, I am nonetheless appreciative of the finding. --Mr Grant 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So, who pays you to do all that PR for PRT?Avidor 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If I am paid, rest assured it would be by people who could afford more than forty dollars. And since it has been determined that my edits do not have a COI result, how is it relevant to improving the PRT article?--Mr Grant 02:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Having made quite a study of the COI guidelines recently (feel free to check my contribs), I can say that, of the listed edits by Mr Grant, only one could possibly have been a COI violation simply because the others were non-controversial edits, explicitly allowed without any declaration under the guideline. The one remaining edit might've warranted a COI declaration and following of the recommended procedure (if there is any COI), but it seems to have been overall noncontroversial as well. Given the lack of COI-relevant impact of the edits, there is no reason to consider potential COI, and no reason not to assume good faith on the part of Mr Grant. SamBC(talk) 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We have many real COI problems on this board, but this isn't one of them. I suggest closing this case. If the parties have outstanding issue with each other, dispute resolution is thataway. Happy editing! - Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

* Jon A Greenspon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon A Greenspon

- article about a presidential candidate - written by himself, with a clearly spammy username: Greenspon2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The Evil Spartan 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we userfy (move) the article to his user page? Bearian 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that, no. Userfing doesn't fix the problem, it only creates another one. I don't particularly see this guy contributing constructively to the encyclopedia. MER-C 08:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If this article had any sources, and if his candidacy could be confirmed, one could argue that his name may belong in the New American Independent Party article. Otherwise I don't see the justification for keeping it. Mere candidacy is usually not grounds for notability of politicians. The article on the party has no sources either. Are we sure that the party exists? (There is a web site claiming to be the party site). EdJohnston 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jon_A_Greenspon. Sancho 20:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rossi

• Richard Rossi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Jacksbernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This article has been on WP:BLPN a few times. Those issues are now marked closed. It has been recently brought to my attention that one of the disputants is probably the same Jack Bernstein who is associated with the film company who issued this press release, making this editor an interested party in the article. I thought I should notify this board. - Crockspot 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The failure to adhere to COI guidelines is of less concern than the WP:NLT threats from the editor: [49]. I did a substantial scrubbing of the article over the weekend, though it could use more. I'd appreciate someone spot-checking NPOV and BLP. Bernstein had a COI, and has been violating NPOV, but he did have a point of some of the poorly-sourced scurrilous stuff that was getting put into his clients' articles. THF 12:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor blocked, so that part is resolved. Someone should go through and ensure NPOV in the articles Bernstein worked on. There was a tendency of puffery that exaggerated the significance and claims of sources. THF 17:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Baoli notes

The page Baoli notes appears to be corporate vanity, all edits with content having been made by User:Baolim. This user removed tags indicating that content appeared to be plagarized and all other tags put on the page, although they have now also removed most content. Eran of Arcadia 14:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)