Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.
Archive 20


Contents

Yunkyung Ashleigh Cho

Resolved. Articles deleted. MER-C 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor has created an autobiography page, and a promotional page for her company. Editor hasn't responded to comments on her talk page, and has been removing COI tags from the articles in question. As the editor continues to remove COI templates without addressing the concerns on her (and the articles') talk pages, I left a template removal / blanking warning notice. Bfigura (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This may now be a moot point, as the pages have been A7 speedied. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cayra

Resolved.
I had previously warned Julia sova with a uw-coi. Discussions on my talk page led to her report above: WP:COIN#Editing_.22List_of_Mind_Mapping_Software.22. I'm also concerned that there may be a language problem here causing confusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ronz should give some thought to nominating this article for deletion. Notability has not been shown from reliable sources. There is a real COI here, but not yet any troublesome violation of the COI guideline by the affected editors. All I noticed was a bit too much indignation at the noticeboards and on Talk pages (e.g. [2]) over what seem to be to be clear Wikipedia policies. If the article creators had cooperated fully, Ronz wouldn't need to come here to get support, the editors involved would have understood the policy issues themselves. It shouldn't be hard to understand our reliable source policy, which excludes the web sites these editors were using to reference Cayra. The site http://killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll, not a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm neither the creator nor main contibutor to Cayra, copyrighting the logo was a mistake (simply haven't found other suitable options that will not grant access to the logo editing).
I don't see where advertisement can be read in Cayra article, I tried to make it as neutral as possible. What concerns reliable sources, what's wrong with mind-mapping.org or mindmap-software.com? I have read WP:RS and it says WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, am I wrong?
Also please compare Cayra article with FreeMind article. Are there any differences? Any reliable sources there? The reason why I'm pointing to FreeMind article is that it was the one that inspired me to create an article about Cayra, as these two mind mapping applications seem to have a lot in common: both are free and practice no advertising.
Please show me what's the weak link in my judgement and how can I improve the article, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabriski (talk • contribs) 2 November 2007
Since Zabriski doesn't have a coi, this comes down to WP:N and WP:RS issues that are best addressed on the article talk page. I think this is resolved here. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, there was some misunderstanding but I wouldn't say it was because of "language problem" - when EdJohnston explained everything to me, I understood it quite well. As you see, I'm not editing Cayra's article, so this issue can be now removed from WI:COI Noticeboard. Julia sova (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Julia sova.

As I pointed out above, I think this can be closed. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

R Family Vacations

Resolved. No COI here. IP has a history of attacking the editor this thread regards. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Inital discovery: This article is fraught with error. The sources for references 1,2,3 and 10 do not support the text. Reference 4 is an outdated link. Reference 11 doesn't work. The source for reference 6 lists Dan as a friend of Rosie, not a biz partner as written in the text. The source for reference 7 lists the capacity of the ship to be 2,600; they had 1,600 passengers the first year, and 2,200 after -- text says capacity is 2,200 and is over 70% full with 1,600. The text under reference 8 says simply O'Donnell was quoted when it was actually Kelli quoted in the source; the text preceding the quote gives no indication it was Kelli.

COI concerns: why did the single author of this article use the term "Reservations" instead of "Homepage" or any other term to describe the first reference? Readers clicking on the word "Reservations" are taken to the company website page, and an attracting jumping link to make a reservation. Did the author want to provide a convenient link to the website so the reader could make a purchase, i.e., buy tickets? Does the author have a business or financial interest in this company? Why else would he highlight "Reservations" in the first reference, a reference to a source that doesn't support the text, i.e., that the company is headquartered in Nyack? There are possible COI issues here that need to be investigated.71.127.226.19 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It may well be inaccurate, but I don't see any reason to think a COI is involved: the editor, Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has a track record of edits on varied LGBT topics. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously having a track record of edits is no guarantee of accuracy in those edits. Perhaps his other contributions ought to be scrutinized for accuracy, the incidence of LGBT topics notwithstanding.71.127.226.19 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this should be closed as a bad faith nomination. It's fairly odd that a new anon editor, clearly with knowledge of Wikiprojects and the WP:COI procedure, should show up solely to attempt to discredit one article and its creator. It has just been spotted at WikiProject LGBT studies [3] that 71.127.226.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has a similar IP address to someone who has been harassing User:Benjiboi. If accuracy really is a concern to 71.127.226.19, there's nothing preventing him/her helping improve the article(s), as others are doing at this instant - but this is a COI forum, not one for discussing accuracy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and as I wrote on the LGBT project page [4], the greater concern was suspicion of conflict of interest in the creation of the article and the way the article's first reference was structured to make it easy for the reader to make reservations with the company. The factual inaccuracies, etc., were secondary to the COI concerns, but were presented to give a complete picture of the author's "work." 71.127.226.19 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Obvious bad faith nomination from an anon IP who has been stalking Benjiboi for over a month now. Please see Talk:Hot House Entertainment#2007 David Awards to see how he was following Benjiboi there. That is only one example. This has been happening to Benjiboi across many articles and has been taken to ANI twice. I can provide more diffs if required. Jeffpw (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote on the LGBT page: I have raised legitimate concerns over suspicion of conflict of interest, and many errors in this article. You are all masking errors and possible impropriety in your defense of the author of the article. How do any of you know for certain that the author has no financial or business interests in the company R Family Vacations? You do not know that for certain.

The stalking suspicion is absolute nonsense and simply a smokescreen to mask the errors of another LGBT editor and his possible impropriety. It's troubling that WP editors are conducting themselves in this manner. 71.127.226.19 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you improving the article. An anon account created entirely to diss one article and its editor is more troubling. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, sir, it is more troubling when an editor raises legitimate concerns over perceived impropriety and he is accused of stalking, and the very discussion in which he enumerates his concerns is deleted from the LGBT project page. What have the people at LGBT to fear? Have you seen how they scrambled to correct the factual errors in R Family Vacations, and to remove any material whereby the author could be suspected of COI? If those were not legitimate concerns, if there was no impropriety, then why did they hasten to change the article? No, the group at LGBT and how they've conducted themselves in this matter is what's troubling, not my reporting of it.71.127.226.19 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
And, despite the extensive changes made in the article, there should still be an investigation to determine the extent of the author's conflict of interest in creating the article. 71.127.226.19 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You show up from nowhere, with no previous record of constructive edits, to start complaining loudly (in the wrong places) about perceived errors that you take no steps to fix yourself, and assert that an established editor edits in defiance of a conflict of interest, on evidence that it would be charitable to call tenuous. And after the errors you complain about have been fixed, you consider that to be evidence of wrongdoing and demand an "investigation" of your own flimsy accusations? Obviously you're not interested in improving your encyclopedia; you just want to see somebody punished for, um, it's not really clear what they did to anger you so. However. Vendettas such as yours are not appreciated here. Please go away. You can think of it as boycotting us, if that makes you feel better. –Henning Makholm 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sir, your reasoning of the facts of this matter is spurious at best, perhaps abetted by indignation. There were not perceived errors, there were errors. What was perceived was a possible incident of COI, and for that reason, the concern over COI along with the errors were brought here and to the LGBT project page; it has already been stated quite clearly that the article talkpage was bypassed for that reason. The removal of errors is not evidence of wrongdoing. The removal of material that suggests the incidence of conflict of interest -- and the rapidity with which that material was removed -- indicates the presence of impropriety at the very least. The removal of the discussion thread at LGBT is also telling, of impropriety. I would hope that well-intentioned and genuine good faith editors here will undertake an appropriate inquiry to determine the extent of the author's conflict of interest in creating the article.71.127.226.19 (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The "errors" that the stalker saw were not really errors at all. Benjiboi had the right website, but used the wrong page He used the mainpage instead of the appropriate when filling in his reference. That is a mistake many make when entering multiple references, and was corrected. The only conflict of interest I see is this stalker bringing articles of Benjiboi up for review. Jeffpw (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the Reservations page does actually provide citation for the physical location for the company, so no sinister motive there. To claim ref 2 doesn't support the citation for the slogan is simply untrue: it's there, top right of the home page. And so on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Errors are errors, and there were, and remain, errors in this article, and further suggestion of possible COI.

Prior to others' corrections, the author listed Dan as a friend, the source says he's a biz partner -- that is an error. The author wrote that O'Donnell was interviewed. From the text the reader gathers he meant Rosie, but the source says Kelli was interviewed -- that is an error. The author confused the capacity of the ship with the number of passengers in the second year and produced an incorrect percentage based on that confusion -- those are errors. The author listed a webpage to source the info he included on an address; that info was not found at that webpage. Whether others make a similar error does not alter the fact that -- that is an error. Not only are these errors, but they "really are" errors.

These errors were detected as part of the discovery made in reading this article and are secondary to the suggestion of COI found.

If, as has been noted, the reservations page does list the address (and it does) and that that indicates the absence of a sinister motive (author's COI?), then why, why did somebody else scramble to change the reference? If it was OK to begin with, why change it? Indeed, another source was found to verify the address, and the new reference does not facilitate making reservations (purchase tickets). Therein lies the suggestion of COI: that the author deliberately listed the reservations page as a source for the company address, despite the fact that other sources are available to corroborate this info; he titled the reference "Reservations" and linked the term to the reservations page of the company, providing a convenient link to the company webpage where the reader could make a purchase (buy tickets), in effect, saying "here's where you go to make reservations with R Family Vacations."

I have additional discovery which I will present as time allows. I presume this thread will remain active for a day or two more? --72.68.125.254 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Mangojuice's talk page and archived ANI discussions for more documentation of this anon IP's stalking behavior. This is on ANI again, by the way. Jeffpw (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently on ANI here, and I've tagged 72.68.125.254 as a probable sock. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In a desperate attempt to quash discussion and bury this matter, some editors have taken to spouting suspicions and accusations. They are operating under a misguided sense of loyalty to their colleague/friend, the author of this article -- and in their zeal to protect him, they overlook even the possibility that their friend could make errors and have a conflict of interest in creating and editing this article, despite the starkness of the evidence presented.

Additional discovery: Let's take a look at the article and the work of the author and the section entitled "Faith-based homophobia in the Caribbean." Faith-based homophobia -- does that heading accurately describe what follows in the section, the protest in 2004 and the threat of a protest in 2007? The protest was anti-gay, but one anti-gay protest in Nassau does not comprise the whole of homophobia in the region, just as what occurs in Nassau does not comprise the whole of what occurs in the Caribbean, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that Nassau, Bahamas, is nearby Bermuda -- Nassau is hardly close at hand to Bermuda, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that the cruise itself "was being targeted" by the interfaith group, when, in fact, the cruise dropped Bermuda from the itinerary before United's statement of intent had been published. It was the threat of protest that caused R Fam to drop Bermuda, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that protesters in the 2004 protest numbered "a hundred," when in fact, the source cited says "about 100," which is a guesstimate and can mean less than one hundred, not necessarily one hundred, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that the protesters in the 2004 protest were "Christian," when in fact, there is not one single instance in the source article where the protesters are described as Christian. The protesters might have been from Christian denominations, but there is no evidence that they were Christian in any or every sense of the word Christian, so they cannot be accurately described as such, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise.

The author of this article has produced this work with multiple errors and distortions, slant and bias; he has an agenda. He had made a convenient link for readers to go to the company homepage and make reservations, i.e., make a purchase, until such link was removed by his colleagues upon disclosure. That link had enhanced the business of the company. Based on the evidence presented in previous posts and the foregoing, the author of this article has a clear conflict of interest in the creation of and the editing of this article.

I would hope that this matter be attended by genuine good faith editors including those outside of the LGBT project community.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Begone and take your own agenda with you. We don't need people who have an axe to grind against a specific subsection of humanity here. Can we close this as a bad-faith thread? (And before you say I'm a member of WP:LGBT, the only projects I am affiliated with are WP:D&D (member) and WP:PCP (lurker and unofficial member). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have raised legitimate concerns over conflict of interest. One need only look at the evidence presented. Reporting incidences of conflict of interest is not having an agenda. The author of this article has a clear conflict of interest in creating the article and in the ways he has edited it.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Then explain to me why you're targeting an article Benjiboi has edited, as you did with Hot House Entertainment and Sister Roma? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The suspicions and accusations to which you allude, posted here and elsewhere are, as I've said previously, intended to quash this discussion and are a smokescreen meant to mask the real issue here: that the author of this article has a conflict of interest both in creating the article and the way he's edited it.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You have a beef with User:Benjiboi, which you're trying to avoid discussing here and which makes you incapable of accusing him of wrongdoing. Could we get someone to close this thread, please? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I had read the article and found it to contain multiple errors. Upon further examination I found evidence of conflict of interest and I reported it here and at LGBT. I would rather that the matter be attended by others who can reason from the evidence presented, and not simply from emotion or speculation.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence - you need to provide it rather than letting the people here hunt it down. Further, your IP originates from Paterson, New Jersey - the same place all the other IPs who have harassed Benjiboi come from. Just ask the RDNS link in your Contribs page. Stop harassing Benjiboi - we can contact Verizon. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The evidence for the incidence of conflict of interest by the author of this article has been clearly and exhaustively annotated in the postings above. -- unsigned edit by 71.127.232.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - attribution added by Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And said evidence has been clearly and exhaustively dismissed. Care to introduce new evidence, or are you going to keep arguing a point you've lost? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As several have said, please provide evidence of a COI. In this case, a COI would be if the user is affiliated with the company. Being a customer, fan, or advocate of the company doesn't qualify as a COI, nor do factual errors (percieved or otherwise). A diff showing the editor in question saying something to indicate a company affiliation, or some other outside proof is needed here. ArakunemTalk 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I would not stoop to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but if WP:COI worked on such a level of non-evidence expected by our anon, we might as well consider this edit by the last-mentioned sock as COI, since adding a discography and site link for Will Boulware makes it easier to find and buy his albums. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Copied from the COI page:

"Editors who may have (or be perceived as having) a close connection with a subject are recommended to disclose this, and should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven." It was observed that the author added "Christian" to describe the protesters when that term was not in the reference cited. (This is addressed in greater detail above.) That sounds agenda-driven: an anti-Christian agenda.

Also, "COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups." It was observed that the author added a link (in the reference list) to the reservations page of the company and titled that link "Reservations." (This, too, is addressed in greater detail above.) That sounds like promoting the interests (biz) of the company.

The comparison in the above post to another article where discography is listed doesn't hold: it lists the albums, but it doesn't guide the reader to an order form (like the reservations page in this article) where they can buy.

No, there is COI here: the author foists his anti-Christian agenda on the reader through his edits, and he promotes the interests of the company by providing a clearly identified and convenient link to the company webpage where reservations (a purchase) can be made.--72.76.104.91 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Diff, please, or scram. We're running out of patience with you. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Go to the article (it's highlighted at the beginning of this thread) and click history tab, that will bring up a page showing the history of edits.--72.76.104.91 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Onus is on the complainant to provide diffs, not for the investigators to hunt it down. Diff, please. Stop deflecting the issue. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Author inserted "Christian" to describe protesters in starting article: [5], source cited with no mention of "Christian" protesters: [6], constituting anti-Christian agenda. Author titles reference "Reservations" (note title=Reservations): [7], representing change from previous title, to direct reader to reservations page where they can make reservations, thereby promoting the interests of the company. Author does have conflict of interest in the creating and editing of this article.--72.76.104.91 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The article states, and I quote, "A summer cruise for gay and lesbian families organized by Rosie O'Donnell has cut Bermuda from its planned itinerary because of possible protests by church groups in the British island territory." "Church groups" generally means Christian groups and clergy in the media, which is only bolstered by this ref, which you ignored. The "Reservations" part is a poor choice of words, I'll grant, since the page you complain about is the company's main page. There is no COI issue here. Closing thread. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wow. Well I'm hardly perfect and certainly make mistakes but this is special indeed. I'm happy to make any corrections or recheck references but let's put it on the talk page of the article please and assume good faith. For the record I have no interest in the financial success of R Family Vacations, Hot House Entertainment or pretty much any of the hundreds of articles I've edited in whole or part. I do make mistakes and I do try to correct them. I'm sensitive to mischaracterizing sources and statements and I'm happy to correct those as well, especially if civilly pointed out. As been pointed out I've had a few attackers (or at least one incredibly chameleon-like one) so have chosen to avoid situations that are more stressful but will happily dig through any constructive comments that will improve articles. I've read through this once and care not to relive it but if anyone, anyone, sees something in the article that hasn't been addressed please feel free to message the article talk page. Even though I've found several pointed barbs at me a bit bruising the end result has almost universally been that articles have greatly improved with the Sister Roma article being a decent example of this. Thanks to all who've helped sort through this and here's to better articles for all! Benjiboi 03:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wow, indeed. Where to begin?

There are significant problems both with the determination of the admin here and the way by which he arrived at it. The admin has quoted "the article" -- he doesn't say which, but he quotes it to say: "...protests by church groups.." That they were church groups is not contentious here; describing the protesters as Christian protesters is contentious. Though all Christian houses of worship can be described as churches, not all churches are necessarily Christian. And it cannnot be extrapolated from either source used that all of the churches present at the protest were Christian. Similarly, it cannot be extrapolated from either source used that all the protesters were Christian -- it can only be said, reading the sources, that the protesters were from church groups. It is quite different to describe the protesters as Christian protesters than to say they are church group protesters. Neither source cited says the protesters were Christian; that interpolation is the product of the author's anti-Christian agenda. The admin finds that that use of the term "Reservations" and linking that term to the reservations page is unfortunate, when in effect, it is deliberate and designed to attract the reader to the reservations page.

The admin has made his determination referencing material in the article that was not raised in the COI concerns: he talks about the church groups being Christian groups, when it was the description of the protesters as Christian that is contentious. The admin assigns no weight to the author's choice to direct the reader to the reservations page (where they could make a purchase). The admin has ignored the very issues that form the basis of this COI notice.

It is my understanding that at WP we report the facts, not the author's interpolation or interpretation of facts as fact.

I am unable to give this matter any more attention at this time. Even this statement is incomplete but had to be made to respond to this ridiculous finding. Immediately following Chanukah I will seek additional intervention, including an inquiry into the capability of this admin and the veracity of his adminship.

This matter is far from resolved and it certainly is not over.--72.76.13.102 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are once again ignoring a source that confirms Christian groups *are* involved, which I did bring up above. Scram before I contact WP:ABUSE to contact Verizon. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Michel Thomas bio

Raul654 suggested posting this here. Members of Michel Thomas' legal team have been deleting sourced material and NPOV edits by user Liquidfinale concerning well-publicized controversies about Thomas. These users (Facts@mt.org, NV Researcher and various aliases) were directly involved in an unsuccessful libel lawsuit against the L.A. Times over its coverage of Thomas. The case against the paper was rejected by four judges and by the mainstream news media (WashingtonPost.com and Newsday have republished many of the Times' findings). These users have ignored warnings about biased edits and original research. e.g., when Facts@MT.org was warned about bias (UserTalk:Facts@MT.org), he created a new username by lowercasing the "MT" and resumed editing. Now that the semi-protection template on Thomas' bio has been removed, anonymous users have added harmful edits. Rivenburg (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked much at the Michel Thomas article, but your own edit history shows an almost exclusive attention to it. Do you have any special interest in that article that you ought to declare here? –Henning Makholm 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was the Times reporter who wrote the aforementioned L.A. Times story. My interest is in ensuring fair representation of longstanding media debate over Thomas' war accounts, particularly where Thomas claimed credit for acts that the New York Times and other reliable sources credited to other people.--Rivenburg (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

After more reading: Okay. What we have here seems to be a long content dispute between User:Facts@mt.org and User:Rivenburg, both single-purpose accounts or very nearly so, and both with apparent conflicts of interest.
  • Facts@mt.org has identified himself as a "friend of Michel Thomas" and "the lead researcher for Mr. Thomas's legal team", both of which suggest that he has a CoI that he should be careful about. I have seen veiled suggestions that Facts@mt.org may be a shared account. If there is concrete evidence that this is true, it sould be brought to an admin's attention; Wikipedia does not allow such. However, Rivenburg's statement that Facts@MT.org has "ignored warnings about biased edits" etc, is exaggerated. User:Facts@MT.org (with upper-case MT) has a total six (6) logged edits, all from almost 2 years ago. These did prompt somebody to leave a povwarning on his talk page, but Facts did not immediately create a new account; the first logged Facts@mt.org contribution is from three weeks later. AGF would attribute the username change to forgetting the password to the three-days-old account, or deciding that the capital MT looked stupid, or whatever. User talk:Facts@mt.org has never had any POV or bias warnings; just a SineBot tilde warning.
  • Rivenburg identifies himself as the journalist who wrote an article over which that Mr. Thomas sued his employer for libel. Facts@mt.org seems to accuse him of being on some personally-motivated campaign to cast doubt on Mr. Thomas' war glory. That may or may not be so, but the lawsuit certainly constitutes a conflict of interest. Some time ago, Rivenburg was indef-blocked by an uninvolved admin for being a SPA engaged in what "appears to be a vendetta against a now-deceased individual". The block was (informally, afacit) lifted by the ArbCom, on the condition that he refrain from editing the Michel Thomas article. He has indeed kept away from the article, but continues to argue on the talk page, regularly starting new sections with long screeds that sound slightly whiny and sometimes border on wikilawyering. Many of them start out rather bitey and get toned down to something more defendable in subsequent retconning edits. (This has also happened in this COI/N report).
  • User:NV Researcher: another SPA, has edited nothing but Michel Thomas. May or may not have CoI, though the SPAness is worrying and edit summaries such as "Revert to NPOV version ..." always sound omnious.
  • User:Liquidfinale appears to be struggling honestly to keep the article reasonable NPOV and explore the possibility of a consensus version. Kudos to him!
  • Anonymous editors: I have reviewed all recent anon edits to Michel Thomas; they seem to show no consistent POV bias.
I think it would be in the encyclopedia's best interest if both Facts and Rivenburg kept away from the article. And Rivenburg also ought to keep away from its talk page. He shows signs of being able to contribute constructively on other articles, but, dude, the obsessive behavior you display on Talk:Michel Thomas can't be healthy. I'm not quite sure that Facts is actually disruptive in articlespace, but he does seem to have enough of a CoI that he should limit himself to suggestions on the talk page. –Henning Makholm 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hi, I know this isn't the place to resolve a content dispute, but it may help to explain a little before I comment on the potential conflicts of interest here. My immediate impulse when seeing the recent edits which pretty much eliminated 1/3 of the material was to revert to a version of the article which had seemed reasonably stable for the first time in years, a version carefully-constructed to balance the various points of view on the matter. However, COI, SOCK or otherwise, the editor who performed the cuts may have inadvertently done the article a big favour; as I say, my preferred method had been to seek some kind of middle ground which both Rivenburg and Facts@MT.org had admitted to "not being completely happy with" but had seemed to more or less accept. I hadn't even considered removing the detail altogether and merely inserting a link to both users' pro- and anti-Thomas pages in the External links section. And so, looking on it with new eyes, I resolved to keep away from the article for a week or so to see how it sat with everyone. To be completely honest, it seems to have worked out OK, and I would endorse this new version if it ended the matter once and for all. However, whether it is accepted by the community or a previous version preferred, there's still a conflict of interest to deal with here, and it is my suggestion that both Rivenburg and Facts@MT.org keep away, or are kept away, from the article and its talk page (where this war has been waged even more vociferously) for good. Their respective conflicts of interest (Rivenburg as the journalist whose article led to Thomas' defamation lawsuit, and Facts@MT.org as Thomas' friend and former private investigator) mean the article will never be stable while they continue to participate. If they wish to continue this dispute until their dying days, there are plenty of other places on the web to do so (and indeed, where they have already). Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Stustu12

Stustu12 added his program's website (http://www.qdap.pitt.edu), the website of a tool created by the program (http://cat.ucsur.pitt.edu), and the website of a workshop he's running (http://codeshop.wikispaces.com/) to these articles. I removed the links and gave him a uw-coi warning, as well as referring him to WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. User:Piotrus has complicated the issue by restoring all the links, saying they're useful. Piotrus has since gone back and reevaluated his edits. However, his involvement has confused the situation by not differentiating between how the links were first added (against EL, SPAM, NOT#LINK, and COI) versus how links should be added per EL and WP:CON. I think it would be useful at this point for another editor to look at the situation. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hardly spamming, I think maybe a helpful note on his talk page would be better than shouting at him! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I (a graduate student in social sciences) and another professor of social sciences ([8]) have remarked, those links were mostly useful. I have pruned them a little (what Ronz calls "reevaluation") - StuStu12 is a rather inexperienced editor and can be forgiven for going a little overboard (he added 3 links to 4 pages, where on average only 2 of those links were relevant to the pages they were added). What should not be tolerated, however, is accusing a new Wikipedian - a scholar, one who has chosen to reveal his real life persona on his userpage - of spamming and even harassment. Per WP:AGF, WP:BITE and WP:NPA, I would strongly caution Ronz to be more civil in the future. We need scholars like Stustu12 on this project and biting them for getting involved is rather unhelpful. PS. A clear illustration of what is NOT spam: adding a National Science Foundation wiki on coding to the article on "Coding (social sciences)". Sigh.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example of biting newcomers. New users are unlikely to know what is and what is not acceptable, and I agree with Piotrus that driving a scholar (who probably has access to tons of useful books and other scholarly sources) is incredibly detrimental. The links seem to be appopriate as well. Suggest Ronz re-reads the policies and guidelines about spam before biting any more new users. Thanks. Redrocketboy 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see it as clear spamming, as defined in WP:SPAM, against a coi, and have asked for discussion on the spamming concerns here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Need_additional_opinions_for_spam.2Fcoi_case.

I'm sorry that you all find a uw-coi notice to be inappropriate [9]. I'll continue to do the same, so you should take your complaints to the template talk page. I held off from even giving a spam warning, but it would be nice to have a combined coi/spam template to use instead. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, we have now 4 users (not counting Stu) who disagree with your handling of the case. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance and apologize to Stu for overreacting (i.e. accusing him of spamming and harassing)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Make that 5 users. I'm not sure that the links qualify as relevant according to my own understanding of WP:EL, but calling them "spam" is quite over the top, and I don't think I really see what the conflict of interest would be. Also, the "harassment" edit summary Piotrus refers to is a clear sign of needing to cool down considerably. –Henning Makholm 01:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a WP:VOTE. I've explained exactly why I consider them spam, and have taken the issue to the appropriate forum for discussions of spam. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No you haven't. You have repeatedly asserted that you consider them spam, but you have not provided any rationale for this. –Henning Makholm 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've provided the diffs on the spam report. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the same of you, that you apologize to Stu for taking a simple situation and escalating it to this. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm a newcomer to en-wiki, but I'm an administrator at pl-wiki, so I do have at least a little more experience than a newbie. As it happens, I'm also the mentioned "social sciences professor", but I don't want any more credit for that than any other user - as we're all equal here. I do confirm that in my personal view these links are useful and relevant. In my own perception it is an overstatement, by far, to perceive it as "spam". I do realize there are certain policies for adding the same link simultaneously to several articles. I thank Ronz for being vigilant and for watching out for potential rules violation. However, I believe that in a situation where we are now, it is sensible to leave the link in the articles they were placed in (although they may not have been put there with the proper recognition of procedures). I suggest both parties to cool down - after all, apart from rules we need to rely on common sense. We all want Wikipedia to be a better encyclopedia. If it will be so with the links, let's get over the issue of "spam". If it won't, even conforming to the rules should not make us keep them. I suggest let's keep the links, acknowledge we all have good will, and keep doing the good work elsewhere - there are better ways to enhance Wiki than in this conflict resolution :) Pundit|utter 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pundit, the links need to be evaluated according to their individual merits, & the eds. on the various pages can deal with it. I don't think a situation this minor called for using the spam noticeboard--this very page shows we have serious major problems to cope with & diverting effort to things like this is not perhaps the best use of resources. (personally I see it as normal enthusiasm--I think the link on Qualitative Research was not really appropriate, but there was a very similar one from another Institute which may have given the impression it was OK to have another,and I don't consider it a breach of our standards even with an experienced editor. (I removed them both). DGG (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. On a sadder note, the user Stustu12 has declared he leaves the project permanently. Pundit|utter 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I was afraid of this. We need experts like him; this is exactly why WP:BITE and similar policies were created.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Heliodisplay

Look at this.. LOL --ffroth 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is:

However, edits from these accounts need viewing in the context of a succession of anon edits adding unsourced hostile descriptions of the product, as well as getting the company name wrong. On balance, the version by the above editors appears more accurate and neutral than the other. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneybomb.

Assistance is requested at Moneybomb, an article about a neologism which is primarily associated with the campaign of the American presidential candidate Ron Paul. The primary editor is John J. Bulten (talk · contribs), a two-month-old account who primarily edits Ron Paul-related articles, and who has openly admitted that he is an active supporter (donor and volunteer) of the candidate.[10] Bulten has been repeatedly inserting large amounts of information into the article which are sourced to Ron Paul promotion websites. I and a couple other editors have been attempting to remove the unreliable information, but Bulten keeps re-adding it, and his rhetoric has been increasing about other editors being "malevolent" and "disruptive" and "causing a danger to Wikimedia."[11] I would appreciate the assistance of some other editors, to help ensure that the article stays in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and that it be limited strictly to neutral information from reliable sources. --Elonka 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I added Bulten's {{userlinks}} and {{lat}} links for some of the talk pages so npov editors may more quickly view the general trend of this coi spa's participation (he also edits the articles). Both the rhetoric and the length of his posts are remarkable—this reaction to a neutral third opinion, for example, and this ... hard to describe post. — Athaenara ✉ 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In disputes, I know no other way than to be thorough and upfront. So please pardon my length, and please don't assume this is a simple case of removing straightforwardly biased edits. First and aside, A's "hard to describe" post is merely my encouragement of an IP which appears to be one of the moneybomb originators, Eric Nordstrom, and my impartial overview of my rationale for third parties. Why would Nordstrom emerge from outside WP to take special note of Elonka's edits? I don't speak for him, but I hope that question will spur you to investigation.
Elonka has grossly misrepresented the case. Most egregiously, she attempts to poison the well and prejudge the case by assuming the edits were "unreliable information", when that is the very point in dispute. And she has refused at least four requests to explain her self-derived reasoning behind that judgment in any detail (11/27 03:25, 04:19, and 15:17 at Talk:Moneybomb, and 11/27 22:25 at my talk). The closest she's come is to give a list of sites that she has prejudged unreliable, or to single out one source incorrectly as a Paul campaign site, or to claim "multiple editors" removed the info I added, which is patently false and undemonstrable. These do not answer the severity of her reversion. On the other hand, after her second revert, I provided detailed reliability proofs in edit summary for every edit, and she continued not to respond. The burden of proof may well be on the inserter, but at some point that burden is met and shifts to the deleter. After she made these four refusals, I have felt justified in keeping my response to her more minimal.
Next, her weasel words "large amounts ... sourced to Ron Paul promotion websites" are, as usually, generic and failing to explain. There were primarily three edit-and-delete cycles. First I made a good-faith attempt on 11/10 to balance the stubby article using RS as I've learned it, which Elonka discovered and massively deleted on 11/16. Recognizing the concern, I restored the most reliable parts in my second attempt, and asked for clarification on what her standards were for reliability; she just performed a nearly identical massive deletion. Very angered by her lack of explanation beyond her unsourced pronouncement that such-and-such sites are unreliable (against other evidence), I then took the disputed text wholly to comments sections (leaving the article appearance unchanged), and then, one by one, restored items with a specific RS rationale each time. She performed her third deletion without any point-by-point rebuttal of my proofs, deleting even the disputed text bracketed into comments, which would otherwise have been an excellent way to build consensus. All three times, she left the article disjointed, as she herself admitted (I would say severely disjointed), which she has not repaired until today (after reporting the alleged COI). In short, the extent of Elonka's three reversions of my content is much greater than her explanation for it; she has failed to work toward consensus in accounting for my concerns.
Further, I have not used those words quoted about "other editors", but only about Elonka. And I did not say she was those things, I said she was getting close. I said "even if well-intentioned ... not distinguishable from" malevolent; "dance the border of disruptive editing"; "I see ... danger to Wikimedia" (she created "causing a" out of whole cloth; so much for reliability). BTW, I am still assembling evidence for that danger charge. Her "rhetoric has been increasing" too; she referred me to "Tendentious editing" (subset of disruptive) on my talk 11/27, long before I said I see her dancing the border of disruptive; she also suggested "bad faith stalling" and "padd[ing] in preparation for another fundraising effort" at her talk 11/27. (Of course, the fact that many reliable sources like the Palm Beach Post have mentioned the scheduled 12/16 fundraiser is lost on her; she excised that moneybomb completely from the article.) Her rhetorical charges are not really any different from mine, but she is clearly the initiator here.
I don't mind being considered an SPA because I choose for the nonce to stick to one subject until I'm comfortable managing more of them. (In fact, Elonka and I might have been friends much more easily if I had chosen to build on my ACA membership and continue my own work on Kryptos.) And I have mentioned my support of Paul and linked WP:COI from my user page when I first became aware of the need (albeit as a WP:EGG). I am all for more careful review of my edits due to the fact that everyone has POV. However, this is now a full-blown edit war, a Defcon 2 as I set it, and I expect to have to do a bunch more typing today about it just to answer misconceptions. This missive alone seems the shortest I can make it just to provide proper context for her misrepresentations.
Finally, I am all for assistance toward compliance, reliability, and neutrality on this article; but those aims might well be better served at another particular article Elonka has edited, which I will not name here because some of the Wikipedians will be sharp enough to know which it is. John J. Bulten 15:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the kicker: Elonka actually has a demonstrable conflict of interest here, because she has been reported by the news media as having "defaced and rendered the wikipedia ... incomplete"-- [12] that description can apply to nobody else. (To be sure, she claims that news source is unreliable, but Google News disagrees with her, so which should be the WP standard?) I submit that if her relationship to moneybombs has itself been noted by news media, she should be watched for COI as much as I. John J. Bulten 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion on Google News does not prove reliability, merely that a source has nominally news-style format: for instance, it includes sources such as PR Newswire that are simply corporate press releases. Gordonofcartoon 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Ron Paul is a contributor to freemarketnews.com, I would hardly call it a nonbiased source of information about anything involving him. Burzmali 20:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I have already accounted for those last two observations, which are more pertinent to Talk:Moneybomb#Sources. This section is about whether I and Elonka can avoid bias from potential conflicts of interest in editing Moneybomb. John J. Bulten 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's just cut to the chase. A quick Google on "John J. Bulten" "Ron Paul" confirms considerable involvement of a John J. Bulten and promotional activities for Ron Paul. Short conclusion is that this is about as much of a conflict of interest as it gets, and you should not be editing article on this topic.
Furthermore, the general polemical nature of your posts is well in breach of WP:SOAP, the attacks on User:Elonka come under WP:NPA, and these verbose essays in relation to attempts to discuss edits are one very recognisable flavour of disruptive and tendentious editing. Gordonofcartoon 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In good faith, if you wish me to understand your charges, please quote which clause of which policy corresponds to which edit of mine. I see WP:COI saying, "If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias"-- of course, assuming I am as involved as the policy states. If there is a more appropriate way of airing the concerns above, I'm all ears. John J. Bulten 12:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
John J. Bulten, giving the focus of your contributions to this project, I'm just going to go ahead and ask: What is your connection to Ron Paul and his election campaign? WjBscribe 13:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
if you wish me to understand your charges, please quote which clause of which policy corresponds to which edit of mine.
WP:SOUP. It would help if you drop all your apparent assumptions that Wikipedia works like a body of law. Obfuscatory questioning, and picking at the rules from various angles to get some result, may work in a court of law - but this kind of legalistic approach is viewed as actively disruptive here. See WP:BURO, WP:LAWYER. Gordonofcartoon 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Already answered. No formal connection beyond donor and volunteer. I have a formal connection with Meetup like 70,000 other Ronpaulicans. Don't know anything else to disclose. What type of answer do you want? What would prove intent to edit my interest unbiasedly, other than my record (not distortions of it)? John J. Bulten 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the lead, I have no "close personal or business connections". I don't consider being one of myriads of donors as any worse than being one of myriads of Wikipedians and editing Wikipedians, or editing the city I live in. And I apologize for not seeing the 200-word limit. John J. Bulten 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Proposed amendment to prevent overdeletion: the aforementioned user's recent attempt to change WP:V (in a way coincidentally favourable to inclusion of the badly-sourced material deleted from Moneybomb). Gordonofcartoon 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulten is also disputing consensus at Talk:Ron Paul#Lead is too promotional, insisting that any changes be first proposed at talk, and leveling charges of sockpuppetry. Additional opinions are requested, to help confirm consensus. --Elonka 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See also User talk:John J. Bulten‎#User COI. — Athaenara ✉ 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And you notice, I am explaining my reasons and policy reliance in most every place, and I am getting very little explanation back that explicitly relies on policy; mostly generic referalls to what other editors think policy is. I guess since this is WP:COIN, I'd better start assembling evidence of my own unbiased editing, which curiously no one has asked for. Oh, and Elonka, you haven't noticed how many confirmed sockpuppets have been after that article? John J. Bulten 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You have been told: legalistic bullshitting about details of policy doesn't work here. A significant number of editors view your edits as biased or contentious. That is all that matters. Gordonofcartoon 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Bulten for 24 hours to give npov editors (and noticeboards) a break from the user's persistent violations of disruptive editing (definition) and WP:POINT guidelines. — Athaenara ✉ 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In good faith, I perceive such little backup and so much misstatement in this section that I no longer wish to rebut each point directly. I only wish to list some of my many edits demonstrably against my own interests (good-faith attempt at addressing moneybomb concerns, deletion of Constitution candidates, restoring Cox and Hunter, insertion of many new candidates, John Cox, Donnie Kennedy, 13 straw polls not won by Paul, downplaying moneybomb events and removing bias from Ron Paul, removing nonsummary statement from summary in Ron Paul), and to ask whether it is typical to be blocked only four edits after being warned, without specific demonstrations that those edits contributed to alleged disruption or that there is reason for assuming bad faith. John J. Bulten 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(followup) The Moneybomb article was deleted, and then undeleted, and (IMHO) is becoming more and more unstable. I'd appreciate more eyes on the problem to ensure that the article only uses information from reliable sources. --Elonka 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LA Times Daily Mirror blog

Lmharnisch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - In exploring links & additions, I came across a number of links added by this user. A problem may exist as it appears that this user is the author of the LA Times Daily Mirror blog. It seems appropriate to broach the possibility here and to inquire as whether this is appropriate. If this is the author, then he is being paid to write this column, and is self-promoting by adding these links. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Will someone look into this? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Goatse.cx

Goatse.cx (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I have no experience in this area and have no desire to cause drama, so I would appreciate if someone who's dealt with this sort of thing before could take a look at this for me. IP user 24.67.207.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made a series of edits to the Goatse.cx article tonight which do have a slight whiff of COI about them - the IP address is based in Canada but the edits seem to read (to me, at least) as though they were made on behalf of the Christmas Island Internet Administration in order to insert POV regarding the 2004 closure of the website and the subsequent sale of the domain. Anything to be concerned about? Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article seems about equally satisfactory before and after this series of edits. It was slightly POV and a bit critical of the Christmas Island people before the edits. Do you have a change to recommend? EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. I was a little unsure as to whether those edits were 'above board' and benefited the article or not and thought I'd better mention it. I just wanted another pair of eyes on it, as I didn't really know how to deal with the situation. Thanks for looking. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jevon Sims

Will likely be gone soon, but see Jevon Sims AfD discussion page. Either WP:NOT or WP:COI wouldn't be enough to go on, but that plus the "coincidence" mentioned in the discussion page are enough for me for probable cause. Psinualways forgetsto sign 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Juan Cole

(moved from WP:Notability discussion)

Juan Cole is a famous commentator on the Middle East. Before he became famous, he was a leading figure in the (tiny) field of Baha'i Studies, in which his research continues to be extremely influential. (I would say that he is one of the five or six most important recent writers. Certainly no one in the field could avoid his work.) The current article on Cole includes both aspects in considerable detail. For example, some of his articles (and one book) on the Baha'i religion are summarized.

Now, it so happens that Cole was a member of this religion until the mid-1990's, after which he quit the organized form of it. Most of these articles were published then, and are intensely critical of the religion's administration. (Members, by contrast, are not allowed to publish without the permission of these authorities.) One Baha'i Wikipedian is attempting to delete descriptions of these--despite their importance to Baha'i Studies, and to Cole--by saying that they are not notable. (It may or may not be relevant that various Baha'is, including this guy, have been systematically erasing material embarrassing to them from Wikipedia.)

So, what say ye? And what can be done about a dedicated group with an intense interest in making ideologically-motivated edits to obscure topics? Assumptions of "good faith" hardly seem applicable... --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.60 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A more logical place for you to air this concern is the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. To present your issue there, you will need to create an account. (At present, WP:COIN is semi-protected so that anonymous editors cannot make comments there). EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So moved. Dawud (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to any recent edit of the Juan Cole article that removed criticism of the Baha'i religion? I am amazed at the current length of this article (66,000 bytes) and the possibly excessive amount of detail. However if there were any bad-faith removals they should be investigated. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dawud: generally, it doesn't wash to argue conflict of interest on grounds of membership of a large group, even if there's some known partiality. WP:COI tends not to come into play unless the connection is closer than that. But I agree with EdJohnston; an article longer than those on many major politicians seems overkill for a commentator. Do we need his thoughts on every damn country in the Middle East? It looks like some flavour of coatrack to me. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Human trafficking in Angeles City

Anti-stuttering devices, Stuttering

Anti-stuttering devices was created by Tdkehoe, who wrote here "I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices". He has since removed {{uw-coi}} and spam notices from his talk page. For summaries of COI and other concerns with his edits, please see Talk:Anti-stuttering devices, Talk:Stuttering and the FAR for Stuttering. Finally, it is possible that Stutterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and some IPs are sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Tdkehoe. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious and growing concern, which led to Stuttering being defeatured. Please refer to the Stuttering FAR, the Stuttering talk page, and the anti-stuttering devices talk page. Slp1 (talk · contribs) and I have spent days just trying to restore these articles to a reliable level. Slp (a speech and language pathologist) suggests that some sections of anti-stuttering devices need to be reduced to one paragraph.[13] Another concern is that Tdkehoe did not participate in the FAR, but once he resumed editing of Stuttering, after a several month absence, several other new editors and IPs began backing up his reverts to the older, problematic versions. As noted on the FAR, Tdkehoe has started numerous similar articles on Wikibooks, which are now linked at alt.support.stuttering and on their FAQ. It seems as if Wiki is systematically being used to promote anti-stuttering products. (According to Slp1, some of which is easily verifiable via Google, Tdkehoe is likely the inventor of several anti-stuttering devices, including the SmallTalk and School DAF and he owns Casa Futura Technologies which makes and distributes them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's any particular reason why this issue generates not a single response at COIN; this came to COIN once before, and was archived without a single response, leaving a few editors to deal with this for another two months.[14] Is there something I'm missing? If no admins respond here, perhaps AN/I is the next stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are most of your problems coming from a user, or from IP's? - Jehochman Talk 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
One user, with a conflict of interest. The IPs and the new account appeared briefly, recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, so not logical order!) I actually don't have much to add to the descriptions listed above. And I must apologize that some of the links below may not be the most informative I could provide. I have extremely limited and very sloooow internet access!
On the plus side, User:Tdkehoe has since June been upfront about his business interests on his userpage,[15] has sought advice on various occasions [16] [17], [18] and I honestly think hasn't understood some WP policies and guidelines.[19] [20] On the other hand, he hasn't readily followed through with recommendations made to him,review/Anti-stuttering devices/archive1, [21], or chose to interpret them to allow what he would like to include.[22]
I find the editing here and on wikibooks disconcerting, in part because of the criticisms the manufacturers of another anti-stuttering device have received (in a peer reviewed journal no less) for grandiose claims of treatment effects on shows such as Oprah, without the scientific data etc to back them up. I feel that a similar approach at diffusion is being used here. Slp1 (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it means, but Tdkehoe hasn't edited Wikipedia since this edit one week ago. This may or may not be because, on the following day, he was notified of this noticeboard discussion and reminded of the possible consequences of COI editing. — Athaenara ✉ 16:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the same thing that happened last time 'round; hopefully, more people will watchlist now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added Stuttering to my watchlist and will keep a closer eye on both articles Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It just seemed odd to have a new editor who reverted edits so expertly on just one article. On an unrelated note, has anyone notified WikiBooks of the COI issues with Tdkehoe? I do not have an account there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said clearly that I think it is another Tdkehoe. I don't have a Wikibooks account, either; perhaps Slp1 can warn that project? — Athaenara ✉ 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I too find it interesting that Tdkehoe hasn't edited recently, and also wonder whether it isn't a good example of the effectiveness of polite interventions by several different editors in solving issues of this sort. On another topic, I don't have a WikiBooks account either, and have no idea how it works, but will commit to figuring it out and commenting as appropriate in the next few days.Slp1 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No Wikibooks account here either, but I'm wondering if we're obliged to keep the Wikibook links in the articles or if the usual WP:EL criteria apply there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It is only linked from Stuttering - I see it is a "featured book" on WikiBooks(!). Given the COI concerns, I am fine with delinking the WikiBook from the article for now. Should a note be left on the Stuttering talk page? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I delinked it. We should remember to add a note to the talk page once this COIN goes to archives. Honestly. I'm going to be more careful from now on with sister links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC) {{Wikibooks|Stuttering}}
Google anti-stuttering devices, casafuturatech first, wikibooks second, wikipedia fourth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting about the Google search! I have posted something over at Wikibooks, [23] and will follow up with whatever transpires over there. BTW, having read the comments in this news article, I am even wondering about the appropriateness of using 'anti-stuttering device' as an article name. Slp1 14:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I support changing the biased title and incorporating some of this info into the article. Is there a less-biased term used in the research studies, or should we change it to "Electronic stuttering devices"? I also notified an admin and beaurocrat on WikiBooks, but I'm unclear what the standards are there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I would also be in favor of a better title, but do not have the expertise to suggest what that title should be - the newspaper article mentioned "electronic fluency devices" (IIRC). There has been a reply at WikiBooks, by the way (they are much more laid back about COI). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I support a move to "electronic fluency devices" unless Slp1 has a better term. Interesting about WikiBooks; with all of my work at FAC and FAR, it had never before occurred to me that we need to evaluate inclusion of those links with the same critical eye we evaluate other external links wrt WP:RS and WP:V. I'll be raising this issue more aggressively henceforth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The title looks a bit of a challenge... Guitar (2005) calls them 'assistive devices' , the British Stammering Association calls them 'electronic aids' (neither specific enough in my opinion), Lincoln et al. (2006) and Ward (2006) calls them 'Altered auditory feedback devices', Kalinowski and Saltuklaroglu (2006) call them 'altered feedback devices'. Electronic fluency devices/aids are also used, but this would probably include some other types of devices, which actually might not be a bad thing. So I would plump for electronic fluency devices and have done with it.--Slp1 19:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and changed it since consensus seemed acheived.Slp1 14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone advise now how to handle Category:Anti-stuttering devices? It needs to be moved to Category:Electronic fluency devices. I don't know how cats are dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking further, that category has only two other articles, and they both had merge tags to Electronic fluency devices and need to be merged. Can the category be deleted without an XfD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I've found that many of your suggestions improve the quality of the article.--TDKehoe 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the COI edits continue. I hope we don't have to request a block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The latest COI accusation is about a study I summarized which was published in 1996 using EMG biofeedback. The EMG equipment used in the study was never commercialized. My company doesn't make EMG equipment. No companies sell EMG equipment for treating stuttering. The study was done by university researchers. I wasn't one of the them. I've never even met them. I don't see how there's a COI here.--TDKehoe (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, nobody said the addition of that information was a conflict of interest edit. Just that it wasn't an accurate representation of the study.[24], (with expanded reasoning here [25]) Other edits in yesterday's series were promoting of your products, however, as also noted on the talkpage.Slp1 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I blocked Tdkehoe for 72 hours. — Athaenara ✉ 09:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Simson Garfinkel, Sandstorm Enterprises, Sophal Ear

User:Simsong admits on his userpage that he is Simson Garfinkel. He has edited or created:

*Sophal Ear - Research associate at the NPS
Additionally, he has removed tags place by other editors questioning the material he has added. Thank you. Mbisanz (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The SG bio poses no problems--there seem no controversial claims in its present state, & he's probably notable. The only questioned part is an anecdote--which, considering his career field, may be relevant. The S Ear bio has possible notability, but more diffuse. The company article does not seem to say enough for notability at this point,based on the information included. I've commented a little further on the pages Ear & Sandstrom talk pagesDGG (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually not contesting the notability of any of the articles. Merely I'm contesting a user editing his own article, an article on a company he founded, and an article on a person who seems to be a close colleague. Mbisanz (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Criminologist1963 and Conflict of Interest

Resolved. The article listed below has been replaced by a redirect. This issue can be reopened if COI editing resumes

I think we've got a clear case of conflict of interest at Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, and I'd appreciate some administrative attention/advice.

A few months ago at Satanic Ritual Abuse, an editor called Criminologist1963 posted a large amount of material, much of which was rambling, speculative and unsourced. The material was taken from a similar article at the Netherlands Wikipedia that had been translated and pasted into the English SRA article. Some of the material was factually incorrect, but the editor repeated blocked any changes to the material.

Much of the material was sourced to a Dutch PhD candidate called Tjalling Beetstra, who runs a website where he offers his commercial services as an "expert" on SRA. Criminologist1963 cited Beetstra as an authoritative source no less then three times, then mentions Beetstra as an expert in the article itself, and provides a link to Beetstra's commercial website.

A number of similarities emerged between Criminologist1963 and Tjalling Beetstra (they are both Dutch, they both study "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from a skeptical POV, they both claim to be criminologists, and they were both born in 1963) such that it was reasonable to believe that Crim1963 and Beetstra were the same person.

After reviewing his material, editors deleted it, since (a) the material breached a number of Wikipedia guidelines related to sourcing and NPOV, and (b) it seemed that Beetstra was using Wikipedia to promote himself, and to promote a commercial service.

When his COI was uncovered, Criminologist1963 promptly created the article Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, which reproduced the deleted material from the SRA article. It seems that Crim1963 has a financial interest in maintaining this material on Wikipedia, and he is willing to conceal his identity, and ignore the concerns of other WP editors, in order to do so.

I think this is a clear-cut case of self-promotion and conflict of interest. What do administrators think? --Biaothanatoi 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This probably *is* self-promotion. Since your report, the article Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands has been cut down to a redirect to the main article, Satanic ritual abuse. The latter has only one reference to the work of Tjalling Beetstra, and it appears to be a book chapter (a reliable source). Evidently the main article is undergoing an intense struggle about which sources should be used (in which you are one of the participants), and this COI seems to be no longer playing much of a role. I suggest that this COI report be marked as Resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Morals and Dogma

Morals and Dogma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Presumed author of a new edition providing commentary on the original book keeps adding a paragraph about the edition. // uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.morals-and-dogma.com/authors.html for list of authors -- I am assuming that James L. "JJ" Miller IV is User:Jjmiller768.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie Dean and zorbing

Yesterday I noticed the Zorbing article contained NPOV material, advertising material, and this content had been added by User:Lizzie dean who appears to be the Franchise Manager of Zorb Limited, the company who started Zorbing. I made some changes which were immediately changed back to the advertising material by Lizzie Dean. It appears other users have had this problem also with Craig Horrocks, CEO of Zorb Limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Talkington (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Filed on behalf of Amy Talkington on 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC) because she is not autoconfirmed yet

DSL Forum

I've reverted to the version previous to his additions.--Hu12 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FactSet Research Systems &‎ User:Ktsummer

Resolved. Company appears notable, but article needs rewriting. Tagged as {{advertisement}}. No COI edits since 5 December. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone have a look a FactSet Research Systems and Ktsummer's recent edits. This looks to me like pure PR. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The company appears notable. I added {{advertisement}}. Article contains usable facts, though it's one-sided, and it could be fixed by rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion conflict of interest

Resolved. The IP editor cited here for COI has been blocked once and will probably be monitored further if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This user admits to being Jed Rothwell, the librarian for the cite LENR-CANR.org, a pro-cold fusion site that makes its money promoting cold fusion. This user, in particular, has been insisting on including references that he himself has had a hand in creating (for example a translation of a book by a Japanese cold fusion advocate). In particular, I'm concerned that some of the references he insists on including at cold fusion are published by vanity presses and he is using Wikipedia to make money on the translations he himself provided. I believe that this conflict of interest is so pronounced that he probably should avoid editing the article completely: or at least his attempts to include links to books are seen by me to be very close to using Wikipedia as a soapbox or even a source of advertisement. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: The situation seems to be getting worse. Jed is taking things way too personally. His threats are coming increasingly incendiary and I'm afraid that he won't take advice from those of us with whom he's already gotten upset. Will an uninvolved admin please counsel him? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I cannot believe it, but things have gotten even worse. I'm requesting a community ban here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate at WP:ANI has been archived, but no ban was implemented. User:Hu12 blocked the IP for 24 hours on 6 December with the comment Continued disruptive editing despite warnings. Since then the IP has not resumed editing. EdJohnston (talk)
The archived location of the Dec. 6th ANI thread is here. This case continues to be discussed at Talk:Cold fusion and at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Cold fusion, though Arbcom does not seem inclined to accept the case. It *does* appear that this IP editor, 64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs), has a Conflict of Interest, but he has been blocked once and will probably be monitored further if problems continue. I'm marking this issue as Resolved to help clear out the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos discussion on WP:AN

Resolved. A clear COI issue that is being vigorously debated in a long thread at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I started to list these here but then I realized there have already been a variety of related discussions about spam, coi, copyright, and link quality in different places, so I started a more centralized discussion of all aspects at:

I'm leaving this entry here to point WP:COI/N regulars to the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion. You guys are our experts at finessing useful content out of spam as well as managing the editors that bring us that stuff. I think you'll enjoy this one. --A. B. (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's sensible for you to bring the matter up at WP:AN where it will get more general attention from administrators. What action are you requesting be taken? Or are you going to take the action yourself, and just need general consent? I perceive that most people agree this is complete spam. EdJohnston (talk)
Had a quick glance. Agreed. This concerns a humungous number of links to an unreliable source: a personal website carrying personally-edited entries from Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, which has long since been outed for unreliability (i.e. having fictitious entries). The links should go, as spam, and any material sourced from Appleton's be viewed as suspect. I suggest A. B. should take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, where they could set it up as a cleanup subproject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
(the unanimous feeling at this point seems to be that the links at any rate must be removed, & the articles re-examined). DGG (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The Conflict of Interest here seems obvious and serious. Since there are so many links involved this will most likely be handled like a spam issue. How to do this while protecting any genuine references is still being vigorously debated in a five-day-long thread over at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. Editors who normally follow discussions on this noticeboard are invited to give their views at WP:AN. I am marking this resolved so as not to multiply the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritz Newspaper

Could we have extra input on this? User:Franceslynn is being mentored and has understood the COI issues with editing the previously-discussed Frances Lynn, but as she's an ex-staffer of Ritz Newspaper, I think there's a strong COI here too. I'm not comfortable with information being added direct by someone with a COI and cited out to a defunct publication where it's extremely difficult for other editors to check the accuracy of the citation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Stephen Lavers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is now also editing the article (a Stephen Lavers also being on the previous staff). While I hope it's in good faith, I'm not sure ex major staffers of a publication editing its article makes for good dynamics. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Atlas terriers

Author is User:Autumnbriar - Lauren Wolfe of AutumnBriar Farms is the originator of the Atlas Terrier name, and the Atlas terrier "breed". --jdege (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

After a quick read of the article and its tags, I've prodded this for speedy deletion as spam. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I contested speedy on this as it does not, to my eyes, read as an advertisement. However, I would support a prod if the tagged issues (refs, coi, etc.) are not addressed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've sent the associated Mini Parsons article to AFD for failure to verify. IrishJack looks COI too, as one of the breeders is also Autumnbriar Farms. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Miniparsons deleted at AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Asymptote Architecture

Accounts

The above account and IP are basically creating advertisements for the above firm...this extends to image pages, as well (see Image:Alessi Flagship Store.jpg for an example.) Videmus Omnia Talk 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible self promotion/ spam account

Resolved. Dtemkin4 has been indef blocked by Sandahl. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


I wanted to bring this account to the attention of a sysop. He or she has created Amalgam Entertainment, LLC, and Amalgam entertainment, both of which have been tagged and deleted (the first article twice in fact) as G11 CSD. When the second iteration (Amalgam entertainment) was posted, the edit summary this user gave was (sic) "No promoting any product or service." This in paticular makes me think this might be a conflict of interest/ single purpose advertising account. Thanks, Mr Senseless (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added Amalgam Digital to the above list after checking the contributions of this editor. It might be a WP:PROD candidate, but it seems to link to other articles in which regular editors do participate. So it's not open and shut. There is some COI editing but not all the results are bad. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have prodded Amalgam Digital for deletion, and warned all alleged sockpuppets. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Bearian (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Marking this COI report resolved, since User:Dtemkin4 has been indefinitely blocked. Anyone who wants to look further into the notability of Amalgam Digital is welcome to do so, but the article survived a PROD and is favorably viewed by some. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Business Research

Resolved. Article deleted, sites blacklisted due to continued persistant spamming --Hu12 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide Business Research
 See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Dec 1#Worldwide Business Research (WBR)
 --Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated Hu12's link to the archived spam report. The articles on Worldwide Business Research and TradeTech were deleted at AfD. I undid the resolution of this item because 208.49.200.24 (talk · contribs) is continuing to spam links to www.wbr.co.uk, the web site of Worldwide Business Research, as of 21 December. This editor has never interacted on any Talk page, and about 50% of his edits are the addition of spam links. He has been blocked twice for spamming, the last time on 7 December. Ideas welcome. Hu12 has been following his activities. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
BL'd the link, this should no longer be a problem. thanks EdJohnston. --Hu12 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

IAC/InterActiveCorp & User:IACWik

Resolved. COI editing has stopped. Article has been tagged and should be fixable. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty blatant, even without the evidence of the extremely stilted, biased text that's been added. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Posted on my talkpage at the date above; moved here at 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v)
Having examined the article, the whole thing reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like a peacock's tail. There are no cited sources (just site/company names in parentheses w/year), and the whole thing smells of "Company Spin". I will note, however, that IACWiki appears to be inactive (I have not checked the block log). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like a poorly-written article about a notable company, one that clearly deserves coverage. Since COI editing is no longer taking place, I suggest this might be closed as a COI report. Anyone with a bit of free time is invited to fix the article. Curiously, IACWik stopped editing completely after receiving the original {{uw-coi}} notice. Since then a few improvements have happened (a bunch of spam links were removed) but the terrible prose remains. Stubbifying might be an option, while we are waiting for somebody who is inspired to write a better article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Errol Louis

Resolved. Please re-open this if further negotiations fail, per Talk:Errol Louis. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no expertise in this field of Wikipedia policy and am not about to start wading in with my clumsy boots on and wielding my mop.

I noticed this ([27]) and it seems that User:ErrolLouis who has on more than one occasion removed a photograph from the Errol Louis biog, claims to be, erm, Errol Louis.

See Special:Contributions/ErrolLouis.

I will notify both users in the conflict of this thread. --Dweller (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not really a conflict. Or a big conflict. Louis doesn't like my photo of him, which is fine. He uploaded a photo of himself, but it was a tiny one that is ten years old in black and white. In an effort to prod him into uploading a better, more recent photo I posted a message about it on his talk page and restored my photo he dislikes. He took it down, and I haven't reverted. He sent me a message on my Talk page that I can re-photograph him, but I have too much going on this month that I said it would have to be after the holidays. That's all. --David Shankbone 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I put up an edit protected request at Talk:Errol_Louis#new_image. At least that way it can be unprotected for now. Lawrence Cohen 06:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be merely the subject who gets to decide on the picture. There needs to be a Talk page consensus. (I sympathize with the subject's dislike of the new one that was proposed). I gather from Talk:Errol Louis that an effort will be made in January to take a new picture that will be acceptable to all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

World Championship Motorsports

Resolved. Copyvio, tagged. MER-C 12:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be because a non-trivial portion (as in several paragraphs) of the article is plagiarized from http://www.blatawcm.com/HISTORY.asp , which makes this a possible copyright infringement. MER-C 02:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Self declaration

Resolved.

I have just added a public domain image from one of my websites to Stroller history. I would rather someone checked they were happy with the COI aspect. The image is important because there is a wide claim on the internet (including by a museum in Winsconsin) that the stroller was invented in 1848 whereas the image clearly shows one in use in 1847. I removed this claim from the article. There is therefore also an OR aspect which I would like some form of absolution on. --BozMo talk 09:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd remove the URL from the image caption but otherwise it's OK. I wish I could say the same thing about the article, though. MER-C 13:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, have done thanks. Yep the article is rubbish to the point where I mulled AfDing it. --BozMo talk 14:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Max Boot

Resolved. The Controversy section has been removed from the article, and Tobogganoggin seems to be OK with the revised article. Since there is no surviving item of contention, we don't have to figure out if this was a COI or BLP issue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is appropriate here or if it should be brought to the attention of folks over at WP:BLP, and it's really just something old that never was properly addressed. Let's see if I can make sense out of it all:

  1. During the course of litigation against tobacco companies (esp. Phillip Morris), documents were uncovered detailing the tobacco companies' attempts to manipulate scientific data in their favor. One such document, from the mid 1990s, attracted attention and spawned suggestions that while at the WSJ Max Boot had breached journalistic ethics by collaborating with a tobacco lobbyist in the course of authoring editorials discussing regulatory policy (in other words, creating a conflict of interest).
  2. This paragraph was added to Boot's Wikipedia article, essentially repeating the accusations. (Note: the paragraph has been heavily edited and is in a much different form today, although its content is essentially the same.) See the included citations for background.
  3. A Wikipedia edit war ensues, with the information repeatedly being removed and replaced by various editors. Full disclosure: I attempted to at least improve the controversial paragraph with copy edits and citations, and twice restored the paragraph when it was deleted with no prior discussion.
  4. In January 2007, an anonymous letter is published by blogger Eric Alterman on his blog, hosted by Media Matters for America. The letter alleges that the information above was scrubbed or whitewashed from Wikipedia by one or more editors operating from the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank that employs Boot. Thus, Boot or someone operating on his behalf is implicated in COI edits to Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, there isn't any evidence presented that these edits were actually made by an IP owned by CFR, but I'm IP illiterate, so what do I know. The allegations are discussed by bloggers Matthew Yglesias [28], Brad DeLong [29], and Steve Gilliard [30], among others.
  5. Talk page discussion led me to mark the paragraph as containing original synthesis, but I wonder if adding a discussion of Alterman et. al.'s accusations would establish that this is not, in fact, an original argument made for the first time on Wikipedia.
  6. Perhaps the whole thing is giving undue weight to a controversy about a 13 year-old editorial, but the accusations of whitewashing or scrubbing seem especially important. I'm basically just curious about the attribution status of blogs, and completely unsure about discussing the article in the article itself. I realize doing so may be nauseatingly meta for many readers, but any help or advice would certainly be appreciated.

- Tobogganoggin talk 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even when BLP is involved, stuff that is factual, well-referenced, and very briefly stated usually will pass review. Looking at Max_Boot#Controversy, that section seems extremely short, and nobody seems to be arguing it is incorrect. Does even this very brief statement cause you concern? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Not particularly, I'm just hoping to achieve a bit more article stability by appeasing critics of the passage. I'd like to mention the CFR conflict-of-interest edits ("whitewashing") of Wikipedia as well, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Does such information belong in the article at all? If so, should I simply cite the accusations of popular bloggers who, while openly biased, appear to be correct? Perhaps I should instead also cite the edit history of Boot's Wikipedia article together with a reverse DNS lookup to make things a bit more factual, or would doing that be considered OR? - Tobogganoggin talk 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I finally woke up to see there is a long discussion of the propriety of this very passage over at Talk:Max Boot#Explaining a significant deletion. My conclusion is that the passage should be omitted. Essentially Boot, as a Wall Street Journal reporter, was faxing a draft of an editorial to a person who helped write the report being discussed, so that he could identify factual errors. The actual changes are enumerated in Brad DeLong's blog [31], and don't seem particularly alarming (unless you consider all WSJ editorials alarming). Also, any charges about Milloy being funded by tobacco firms certainly don't rub off on Max Boot, and don't seem pertinent to his article. Regarding the use of blogs, I don't see the need to repeat charges made only in blogs, and not picked up by any reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think that the charges do have some merit, as Boot seems to have inaccurately described a "private consulting firm" (really a public relations firm employed by Phillip Morris) as a "non-profit organization" at Milloy's suggestion. Boot may have been remiss in adhering to journalism ethics and standards by failing to have any fact-checking or research performed on this point, which he accepted, without disclosure, at face value by an interested party. However, since the group's funding source had yet to be uncovered by the litigation proceedings, we don't know if Boot actually knew this characterization was inaccurate or not, although it is genuinely possible that he did. Nevertheless, since the charge isn't made by a RS, I agree that it deserves to be omitted. - Tobogganoggin talk 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jjhmccarty

I believe this user is editing articles (rivet, Wrought iron, RMS Titanic), and creating articles (Tim Foecke) to promote her soon to be published book. The fact that she created an article on her co-author seems to present a clear conflict of interest. Pjbflynn (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And the Platelet edits [32] concerning the work of OJT McCarty, who a little Googling finds to be her husband. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This does seem to violate the prohibition on Self-Cites. Additionally, as the book has not been released yet, it is un-verifiable as a source. The references to the book should be removed, at the very least until such time as it is released and independently evaluated. If the material cited does add value to the articles in question, then the cites should reference the sources used by the author in the book, and not the book itself. If those sources are OR, well then.... ArakunemTalk 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim Foecke is a recognized expert on rivet failure, and McCarty wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on the subject. Having an article on Tim Foecke is justified, in my opinion, and the Foecke & McCarty material is worth keeping in some form. I removed a sentence about the number of rivets in the Titanic from the Rivet article, which seemed out of place. The forthcoming 2008 book is probably not allowed due to WP:CRYSTAL, but there are some other reports by one or both authors that may be worth citing instead. I'll try to sort this out eventually if someone else doesn't address it first. What's needed is a bit of rewriting but not much undoing, I think. I'll let others decide if the Platelet edit is OK. I left a {{uw-coi}} warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, but how do you feel about the fact that all edits (excepting one wikify) on the Tim Foecke article were made by his co-author McCarty, indeed that she created it? Pjbflynn (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
COI editing is against the rules, but the best plan is a discussion. You could invite her to participate here, but she hasn't edited since 12 November. This thread may well close without her participation. If you have the patience, you could use Google to check for an email address through one of her institutions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nic Nolan

I tagged the newish article on Nic Nolan after realising that the main contributor was probably his wife. It is reasonably well referenced (primarily printed magazines, harder to verify) and written in fairly neutral language. I shall leave it to the experts to decide when/if the tag can be removed. dramatic (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Changes were made to CRSQA article to reflect a more unbiased perspective with additions to the external links as well as further information on criticism.

At approximately 12:00 AM, 21 December 2007 these changes were undone by user 99.133.177.249. Subsequent request for deletion of related article Glenn Hagele was responded to by user Ghagele approximately 14 minutes later.

Users Ghagele, 99.133.177.249 and 68.123.109.90 have all exchanged edits for both/either the CRSQA article and the Glenn Hagele article. In addition, 68.123.109.90 has edited the LASIK article in order to add reference to the CRSQA article further supporting a conflict of interest. Also important to note is that all three users (Ghagele, 99.133.177.249 and 68.123.109.90) have for the large majority only participated in edits relating to the CRSQA and all such edits have been in the pursuit of promotion and the removal of criticism.

It is strongly suggested that this is an act of vandalism promoting self and it is recommended that both IP addresses and user Ghagele be prohibited from editing both aforementioned articles. Further it is recommended that the CRSQA article be re-ammended to the recent additions.

All claims of vandalism and abuse are unfounded as I am not involved in refractive surgery in any way and am participating in cleansing this information for the end user's access to unbiased information.

Please note that currently, the article has been reverted to it's biased form by user 99.133.177.249. I am not undoing this until an administrator comments on the issue. --SirDecius (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn

User:PiersCorbyn (who is currently using his user page for commercial advertising) is editing Piers Corbyn, indeed reverting large changes to it, e.g. [33]. For example, he removes from best known for his claims of an ability to predict the weather up to one year in advance which rather changes the sense.

While I'm here... he has also added a lot of non-controversial biographical stuff that is unverifiable. What should be done about that? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:PiersCorbyn's userpage looks spam much, maybe CSD#G6 or MFD.--Sandahl 05:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The subject of the article has been reverting well-intentioned edits that attempt to enforce policy. One of his edit summaries was: 'removing lies about me'. Looks like admin action may be needed if persuasion doesn't work. I see that WMC already notified Corbyn of this discussion. I invited User:SEWilco to join in here as well, since he is one of the regular editors who has worked on the article, though his last edit is puzzling. Gutting the article to remove all unsourced claims is one option that has been recommended by this noticeboard in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand use of {{fact}} to mark specific items? -- SEWilco (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, if there are indeed "lies," as Corbyn says, they should be immediately removed, whether by him or some other editor. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It could be a BLP issue. But its unclear what part Corbyn believes to be lies, since so far he won't talk. We still need to address the unverifiable bits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Neophytou, NTW-20 Anti Materiel Rifle, Neopup PAW-20

  • Neopup PAW-20 - User:T.Neo has contributed large amounts of information to this article, actually re-naming and changing parts with comments such as [34] & [35]
  • NTW-20 Anti Materiel Rifle according to this bio created by him here Tony Neophytou, he is the designer of this weapon and has renamed it here [36]
  • Tony Neophytou - was created by User:T.Neo, which seems to point to a likely autobio

While our policy doesn't prohibit people with COI's from editing articles, this user does not appear to have consulted the community before making these changes. Further, using reasons such as "Want a source? well, I KNOW THE DESIGNER!" are clearly against citations policy as it verges on Original Research. Mbisanz (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re the renaming [37]: this is a bit of a problematical point of truth vs verifiability. Though I can't find verification for this specific weapon, "materiel" is almost certainly correct; anti-materiel rifles are for use against materiel. Unfortunately the hypercorrection to "material" is rife in online discussions. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Festival, Jeff Rosenbaum, et al

It is reasonably certain that Rosencomet (talk · contribs) is Jeff Rosenbaum (see Arbcom finding here), the Executive Director of the Association for Consciousness Exploration, LLC (ACE). Despite an Arbcom caution (here), he has extensively edited these articles (please see the histories of the articles.) I interpret these extensive revisions as "aggressive" editing as well as an autobio violation on the Jeff Rosenbaum article. Additionally, his editing and lack of posting of a COI notice on his user page mean that many more articles besides these four are affected. See this version of his userpage for a sizable (but possibly incomplete) listing. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying he sells the items personally. (As an aside, I found the [www.cafepress.com/starwood.8503799 Rosencomet Classic Thong] offered on Starwood's Cafe Press store to be very attractive. And comfortable too.) As to why this hasn't been brought here before: This noticeboard didn't exist when I first brought the Arbcom case against Rosencomet in Dec. 2006 and I was burned out in the aftermath of the relatively toothless "caution" of Rosencomet by Arbcom in March, 2007. These issues have been discussed with Rosencomet extensively over the last 16 months. Read his talk page for a sampling of efforts. Links to other discussions and RfCs can be supplied here if desired. Questions? Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in one piece. Further discussion to WP:AE#Rosencomet and Starwood related articles, thanks. MER-C 12:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope. That discussion has been closed. [38] We'll have to handle it here and/or on WP:AN - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
If the Arbcom decision in March, 2007 is considered the final word on Rosencomet's COI actions, sure, by all means keep discussion there. However, since User:Thatcher131 who clerked that arbitration has said in that discussion that the Arbcom decision is basically unenforceable [39] due to it being a "caution" rather than a specific and well-delineated course of action. That seems (to me) to shut down that path and discussion. This is why I brought it here. I believe the COI case is clearly strong enough to stand on its own. Still, why don't I copy the info I put above over to that discussion and see how that's recieved. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
All statements coming from ArbCom right now, with those who handled this case ending their terms and not working on cases now, and the new members not yet installed, indicate this is something the community has to handle. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

After being warned about his COI issues many times in the past (during the RfCs, Mediations and Arbitration), and three times in the past few days[40] [41] [42] about his COI on the articles for people he hires for the Starwood festival (and whose tapes he then sells on the rosencomet.com website), Rosencomet has today gone back to work on his COI articles, adding yet more mentions of Starwood and himself (as well as reverting other editors removal of Starwood mentions): [43] [44] [45]. I think he has been warned sufficiently and has still crossed the line. But since he's screaming about me on his talk page, I'd prefer another admin handle the block. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support permablock for COI problems, etc. Rklawton (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support permablock for persistent, long-term COI spamming and apparent inability to grasp the fundamentals of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR despite numerous explanations by multiple editors over 16 months. Pigman☿ 03:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. The more I look at this, the less I see much of anything he's worked on that is not mired in COI issues and contentious behaviour. ArbCom cautioned him, and he's ignored it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My solution

It has been suggested to me in other places that User:Rosencomet be treated just like any other editor and his COI edits the same way. To wit: apply the same policies and guidelines to him as well as his editorial contributions that are applicable to all editors on Wikipedia. While this may seem like an obvious working solution, given the long history of this problem and the host of sockpuppets exacerbating the situation early on, it was not my first thought. I'm sensitive to accusations of harassment given my past history of conflict and arbitration with Rosencomet but that very sensitivity has kept me from making edits to some of these articles for many months. If he or anyone else wants to take issue with appropriateness of any of my edits in articles loosely related to this matter, I'd be more than happy to explain and justify the edits in whatever forum: talk pages, noticeboard, RfC, etc. I'm putting this note here because I want it to be clear and public exactly what I'm doing. I forsee most of this work will entail correcting WP:V and undue weight problems I see in many of these articles. If anyone wants to monitor my actions or give me feedback, again, I'd welcome it. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Consider opening up a separate COI complaint that names the articles. List the editors you believe to be COI-affected using {{userlinks|Name}}, and use {{la|Article name}} for each article you want to draw to our attention. For each article, indicate what specific problems you think need fixing. Notify each named editor and invite them to join the discussion here. If you believe it's a large problem, start with one article that you think has the worst issues. Editors from this noticeboard may try to fix the article. Censuring of COI-affected editors usually doesn't happen unless they try to obstruct the improvements. You already gave us some data above, but a more focussed complaint might be easier to get started on. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. The main problem is/was my own reluctance to take direct action because of my past conflicts on WP with Rosencomet. At this point, I think my record on WP can speak for me, my judgment, and my ability to edit fairly. I don't intend to open a separate COI complaint on particular articles unless Rosencomet makes that necessary. As I said, I'll just edit them with the normal WP criteria in mind. If he disputes my basis for changes, then I'll probably consider starting either an RfC or a COI on the issue and/or particular articles. I believe this is an effective local solution with the option of wider community involvement if necessary. To tell the truth, gathering together a list of the affected articles would probably take more time than just doing the editing myself. And, of course, if Rosencomet has a legitimate concern with what I'm doing, he has the same options that I do: AN, AN/I, RfC, etc. With a 16 month history on WP, he isn't a new editor. Pigman☿ 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation

  • Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- User keeps on revising in the way you would think DTCC's PR dept would revise. Focus is a lawsuit (actually a number of lawsuits) against DTCC that the WSJ has writeen an article on. User keeps on reverting saying DTCC is "involved" in the lawsuit, rather that sued in the lawsuit, and a number of other similar revisions. This is the WSJ article -- [46]--69.203.81.71 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
If this involves Naked short selling, as it appears to, that raises a red flag. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church

Resolved. The nominator is satisfied with Steve Dufour's response and will not insist on him recusing from these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User Steve Dufour has been consistently watering down articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church, an organization of which he is a member (see his user page and this website[47] (look for Dufour)). Articles include Jeffrey T. Kuhner, which he is pushing for deletion and from which he has repeatedly removed relevant information to make it appear less notable, as well as Insight (magazine), which he has been monitoring and watering down. His m.o. seems to be to slowly remove information in an effort to prevent the appearance of controversy, or reduce notability, in an effort ultimately delete sections or articles. It is more difficult with a larger article like Insight, but much easier for a stub like Kuhner's. The possible COI may be in the fact that Insight is owned by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church[48], and Kuhner is editor in chief of Insight. Dufour seems to have an interest in these articles because of his affiliation with the church. He has also consistently removed mentions of the Unification Church and Moon when it appears in the Insight and Kuhner articles. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to any "watering down" which conceals the existence of a controversy. I glance at my user page shows that my main focus at Wikipedia is identifying controversies - not concealing them. Insight is owned by the same holding corporation which owns the Washington Times, so the two are clearly affiliated. And Rev. Moon is the founder (but not literally the owner) of the Times. He has pumped well over a billion dollars of church funds into it,
I'd like to see the linkage between Insight and the Unification Church clarified. (Oh, and in case anyone has forgotten, Jimbo and Lee Crocker and Maveric knew I was a follower of Sun Myung Moon six years ago when I was helping out with the database, the mailing list, and was made a sysop. The only POV I push is that we should HIGHLIGHT the existence of controversy! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a genuine COI problem with User:Steve Dufour on Unification Church-related topics. I've run into this with him and another editor, both UC members, at articles of other UC members, notably Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) in the past. I've not edited any of the articles mentioned here so I'm uninvolved enough to have a word with Steve but if he ignores my advice I'm leaving it for another admin to take any additional steps to avoid any concerns over my past run ins with him. It would be even better if Ed, being friend and fellow UC member, were to get Steve to step back and find something else to edit. Want to help Ed? FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to be fair in my edits and have never tried to restrict the right of anyone else to edit here. If I am to be kicked off WP for editing articles about my church then I think the same standard should apply to political parties and other organizations. Hmmm....that might be a good idea. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW Jonathan Wells's article is unreadably badly written. I have tried to help with that but have never removed any information about his church membership. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding Steve. As I've said in my email to you I've found you to be a a reasonable chap in our previous run-ins and we've somehow managed to work things out, so I'm sure you'll be reasonable now. I'm signing off for the night but will check back tomorrow. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(Wrote this at the same time as FeloniousMonk) That's why people recuse themselves--because although they may sincerely "try to be fair," they can't. I would probably agree, too--if someone expresses an affiliation to an organization that they're supposed to objectively portray, they should recuse themselves. Unfortunately, you have disclosed that you are a religious follower of the owner of Insight magazine, which is controversial, and thus, I think that you should recuse yourself from editing these related articles. I would not ask that you be kicked off wikipedia. I think that your intentions are good; in this case, though, I believe that you have a COI.Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It is generally accepted that Christians can edit the article Christianity and that they do not have a COI per se, but I admit that User:Athene cunicularian has a point. A committed adherent may not have a COI, but may have such a strong POV that they are unable to be fair even if they sincerely try, indistinguishable in effect of having a COI. Andries (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
What matters isn't the presence of a conflict, it's how that conflict is handleed. When people come to Wikipedia to act as editors it's expected that they will put the welfare of this project ahead of other interests. Nobody is neutral on everytihng, but people who participate in Wikipedia must make neutral edits. Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, atheists, or Unificationists can all edit articles on those topics so long as they do so neutrally. If they can't they can still participate by commenting on talk pages. If there is concrete evidence of an editor making non-neutral edits regularly then that may be a cause for concern. However I don't see that here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. I will try to be more aware of these issues. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that it would be okay to close this. Steve has not recused himself, which would be preferable, but it seems like he has stepped away from his persistent efforts to portray these articles in accordance with his vision. I will keep an eye on these issues and post a new complaint again, if necessary. Thanks to everyone for your input and assistance.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cuban contemporary artists

ArleArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has single-handedly populated Category:Cuban contemporary artists with unsourced, poorly written articles, all of which contain a single EL to www.cubancontemporaryart.com/modules/news/ ... that site requires registration to use, and nothing on the linked webpage mentions the article's subject by name ... even assuming good faith, there is the strong appearance that this editor is pushing an agenda that may not be in the best interests of Wikipedia, and they seem oblivious to the WP:BIO notability guidelines, as well as ignoring Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) ... just look at a few random articles in this category ... most of them begin with a section heading that says, The Artist, and then the subject's name is wikilinked in italics ... —72.75.72.63  (talk · contribs) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In my use of AWB I've noticed a staggering number of minor bios with this source, presumably by this individual. Can someone with access to this site verify its not a copyvio? Where should mass contributions from a single source like this be discussed? Mbisanz (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

spam.cubancontemporaryart.com

Pages

See 147 pages on en.wiki and 98 pages on es.wiki.

Accounts

Pfft. Anything that requires registration is likely spam (this is). The pages seem to be generated from a template, which makes them even more suspect. I'm not wasting Christmas on this guy. I'll call the admins in. MER-C 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with AWB or a bot that can help us out? This link is on 158 pages... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I asked Betacommand, and he used AWB to get rid of the links. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the linkspam has been removed, but now there are over 150 articles of questionable WP:BIO notability, written in a very unencyclopedic tone, in broken English, and none of them have any reliable source citations for verifiability ... maybe a bot can put {{Prod}} or {{Db-bio}} tags on them? —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Consider manually putting WP:PRODs on the first ten articles and list their names here. It's not like the encyclopedia is over-stuffed with information on Cuban painters. I Googled for the names of a couple of these painters and I think some of these articles could be saved. As a first cut, maybe we could prod all the articles where nothing useful about the subject can be found on Google. Anything that was kept under this policy would need to have the style fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Shareaza

This user keeps on editing the Shareaza article by deleting the sourceforge address and claims shareaza.com is the real one. However, shareaza.com has been stolen by a scamming site. The real GPL project has been moved too Shareaza.sourceforge.com . It seems like the person is hired by that scamming company to edit that wikipedia channel, whoever changes it. Still, I change it back, for free, to the SF address. Wikipedia users should be directed to the real site, and not being confronted with scammers.

The correct address is shareaza.sourceforge.net . This guy is being a real pain in the arse! he has also deleted other links such as links to the forum and www.shareazasecurity.be - the site that hosts blocklists for the program, the sourceforge project page, and links to beta/nightly releases. Please lock in the following external links:
http://shareaza.sourceforge.org/ - The Official Site
http://wwww.shareazasecurity.be/forums - The Official Forums
http://sourceforge.net/projects/shareaza/ - Shareaza Project Page
http://www.shareazasecurity.be/ - Security Filters for Shareaza
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?wiki - Shareaza Wiki
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId=1447 - Shareaza on Wine
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?release - Shareaza Latest Release
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?beta - Shareaza Latest Beta
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?alpha - Shareaza Nightly Builds
http://g2.trillinux.org/ - Gnutella2 specs
Cyko 01 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

69.204.242.206 (talk · contribs) warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Da Costa's syndrome

Article on historical medical syndrome. User identified as Max Banfield is using the article to promote against consensus his minority and poorly-sourced Posture Theory about the syndrome. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jointhefamily.net and Jointhefamily

Marloth2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Created the above 2 pages which were speedy deleted (A7). However in this edit he claims to be Morten Andersen, and if you look at http://www.jointhefamily.net/web/profile/aboutjtf you will see the Jointhefamily website is developed, managed and owned by Lars Andersen, Morten Andersen and WebmindIT in equal parts. Just something to look out for in case the articles are ever re-created. Jackaranga (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103/Patrick Haseldine

User



Articles

This editor has been highly disruptive, and was warned in Jan 2007 about using Wiki for promotional purposes. Please ban these aliases ASAP so other editors can get started with fixing all the POV created under them. Socrates2008 (Talk) 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address, but I'm hesitant to do more without more evidence. Please request a check-user for sockpuppetry. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The diff is pretty good evidence of sockpuppetry. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate some input from an editor here as there's now an edit war starting over this on the Patrick Haseldine talk page. I will not be making an further edits or taking any other actions until an Admin intervenes. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, these allegations are unproven right now and especially given the article was started by an anon IP. And I dont believe sockpuppetry will prove the COI allegations either as one finds plenty of sockjs apart from COI matters. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    PJHaseldine = Phase4, as per the response to a warning in January on the PJHaseldine talk page using the wrong alias (corrected 5 mins later). Once this piece of information had been established, a very interesting and intricate web starts to unfold that illustrates how POV the Haseldine-related articles are. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Socrates, I would say please edit the article in an NPOV way if you feel this is not what is happening right now, I do feel that this is the best approach, I am certainly not editing in favour of Haseldine. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    I believe I was doing that by flagging the Patrick Haseldine page, where the majority of content has been added by his aliases, as an autobiography when you started an edit war with me over that. So have you changed you mind then? Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would really appreciate the input of an Administrator here please. The evidence that user:Phase4=user:PJHaseldine is pretty damning. What else needs to be proven before action is taken to stop the continuing POV edits by Mr Haseldine under the Phase4 alias? Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bearian is an admin as I am and I can only suggest you take his advice Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.--Sandahl 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I've put a checkuser in as suggested, however Bearian banned only his IP and none of his accounts for some reason, making the ban completely ineffective against the primary POV account reported here, namely Phase4.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

user:PJHaseldine is still making edits about himself on the Patrick Haseldine page. Please can an Administrator intervene and stop this nonsense.

Thank you Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

An effective ban is now in place - thank you kindly to all concerned. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

PJHaseldine's first edit following the expiration of his ban above has been yet another CIO edit to his own biography. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I left a message for User:PJHaseldine telling him about this discussion, and also notified User:Squeakbox, who left a comment above. If the story in this report is a complete one then it may be time for longer blocks, since PJH is ignoring our rule to be extremely cautious in editing information about yourself. (There are some reverts and heated exchanges between PJH and Socrates2008 but they don't justify breaking the COI rules). The checkuser report shows use of multiple accounts to avoid a block by User:Bearian on one of the IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The edit of itself didn't look too bad and wasn't the kind of massive revert of edits made to his article after he was blocked that would warrant further blocki9ng, Haseldine at least appears to try to be constructive and COI is not of itself a reason to block, and especially the given the BLP issues, that would be exacerbated by a longer block. Socrates and Haseldine appear to have issues with each other and I would like to see them bioth try to resolve these issues, through dispute resolution if appropriate. In the meantime I would like to see bioth editors agree nott op make edits without seeking talk page resolution first and that locking the page could be a l;ast resort. I will certainly keep an eye ont he page and both users re the page. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for these helpful comments. I have issues with both South African editors Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn. It is clear that neither of the two wants any mention of apartheid South Africa in relation to the Lockerbie bombing. That's why they continue to try to block my edits. I'm happy to have an objective discussion of the issues: are they?PJHaseldine (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not up to this noticeboard to examine who is right, between you and those other editors. People bring COI complaints here. If you are willing to abide by the COI rules then the complaint can be closed. It appears to me that SqueakBox is willing to help in negotiating some of the underlying issues with you and your colleagues. That calls for a Talk page discussion, where you offer the sources and the arguments, and others who are not COI-affected go ahead and change any information that concerns your real-world activities. You should not be making those article changes yourself regardless of who is correct. If you will agree to avoid editing those articles directly, then our work here is done. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ed, thanks for your input. You are spot on in stating that the complaint can be closed if he abides by the COI rules. However I believe the root issue here is denial of COI, as per the discussion on the talk page ("There is no conflict of interest here"). i.e. He does not believe the COI rules apply to him, even regarding his own biography. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
My "denial of COI" relates specifically to the UK Indymedia article "South Africa blamed for Lockerbie" http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387992.html that I edited yesterday into the Patrick Haseldine#Third e-petition section. Socrates2008 immediately reverted the edit because he abhors the idea that apartheid South Africa could have been behind the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, on Pan Am Flight 103 (see Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103#Concerted attack on this article (and others linked to it)).
As suggested by EdJohnston, I agree that Socrates' COI complaint about me should be resolved through discussion on Talk:Patrick Haseldine, to where this comment is being copied.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Klaus Ebner

Bart Hendrikx

MetaphorEnt

Resolved. Three editors were indef blocked for puppetry and some articles nominated for deletion. The COI edits have stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)



LMA2007 seems to be connected Metaphor Entertainment/ Breakdown express. All the contributor’s edits have been in relation to actors, most of who have been metioned on Metaphor Entertainment’s Myspace.com Blog (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=102544542). Cassandra Braden‘s resume and Erika Ringor’s resume list Metaphor Entertainment as their management. These comments made by the LMA2007 indicate that they are representing Erika Ringor: [50] [51]

LMA2007 was blocked from editing for a month for photo copyright violations, the similarly named SJR2008 edited during that time and reuploaded two of the images that LMA2007 had previously uploaded.

HollywoodFan1 was created a day after SJR2008. They edited the same group of articles and created the Mimi Fuenzalida article. Mimi’s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment.

The IP Address 64.30.201.109 also edited the same set of articles. A number of other IP addresses also only edited these articles, but none of them made a significant number of edits.

MetaphorEnt, which is probably short for Metaphor Entertainment, created the Elle Travis article.

Pr.Girl created the Lindsay MacFarland article, Lindsay ‘s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment. Linzmac78 is likely Lindsay MacFarland. BlueAzure (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Please Clarify - Above Gordonofcartoon quotes "generally, it doesn't wash to argue conflict of interest on grounds of membership of a large group, even if there's some known partiality. WP:COI tends not to come into play unless the connection is closer than that." I would like to make the same argument for the articles I have contributed to. I do not know any of the people in the articles I edited. I took an interest in this group of talent through one Actress that I am a fan of her work. From there and myspace I have followed the people she's working with. Being an avid blogger, I though it would be interesting to slowly get involved with Wikipedia. From my understanding everyone's contributions are welcome as long as they are impartial. If that is not the case, please explain. (HollywoodFan1 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
Beyond the evidence I previously provided, I noticed a number other items that give the appearance of a conflict of interest. First, you uploaded and indicated that you are the copyright holder for [52] and [53]. At the very least they indicate that you have met multiple actors managed by Metaphor Entertainment on two occasions. Second, you created the Mimi Fuenzalida article, it includes fairly detailed information that I could not find online. I’m curious as to where you found the information? Third, your edits have occurred on the same day and within the same hour as edits by 64.30.201.109. 64.30.201.109 has been editing this set of articles starting back in November of 2006 and has continued since you joined wikipedia. Finally, when I searched your username on google, most the results were from imdb.com. Most of the imdb.com pages were for the actors listed above. A hollywoodfan1-1 had posted on the message boards of these pages. The only other posters appeared to be the above listed actors and their Metaphor Entertainment manager Sharon Weintraub. If you are not directly involved with Metaphor Entertainment, you have a relationship that I believe is at least close to a conflict of interest.
I have also added two more accounts to the list above:
In addition to the username, MetaphorPR’s only editing was to one the articles in question.
Zip100 created the article for Marta McGonagle and only edited that article, Marta’s management is list as Metaphor Entertainment. BlueAzure (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not MetaphorPR, nor am I Zip100. My relationship with Metaphor has been through myspace. Isn't is a blessing that multiple users have contributed to a group of articles. Shouldn't that suggest that there is diversified interest. Isn't that what WP is founded on? Do you have issues with the articles content or is there something I contributed that you object to? I've only written one article, and most of my edits have been minor. I openly admitted to meeting one of the actresses once at a premiere. That photo was indeed placed on this site. I contacted you directly for a solution and didn't hear back. What else do you suggest? Please clarify what your solution is.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
BlueAzure, please review WP:DBN and return with some constructive suggestions. I am truly open to that. HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not say you were MetaphorPR or Zip100. In my previous message I was simply indicating that I was adding those accounts to the list above and providing my reason for doing so. I don’t know why you say that you “didn't hear back”, as I responded here and replied to your message on my talk page. If you have a conflict of interest, as I believe you do, you need to follow Conflict of interest guidelines. I am unable to provide further assistance in doing that, as I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation. Hopefully, someone else that is can assist you. BlueAzure (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In my research, I found you did not follow the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Please review WP:COI and if you have concrete suggestions for change in accordance with the examples on that page, I'm sure the editors will comply as long as you follow the required "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline".HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Under WP:AGF, editors get to ask only one question: "Please review the conflict of interest policy; do you have a conflict of interest on this article?" If the answer is "No," that should be the end of the inquiry. I found no issues in accordance with Conflict of interest guidelines in the article I have written.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In my research, I have found that all of the articles in question abide by WP:NPOV. Placing COIs on well written articles because the subjects have common threads without verifiable evidence of COI isn't in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm reverting the closure of this issue by HollywoodFan1, who is one of the editors named in the above complaint. Let's have opinions from others whether this case has been adequately addressed. In particular, it would be good to have the views of BlueAzure who made the initial report. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Looking over several of the articles in question, NPOV seems to be adhered to quite well by the named editors. I didn't see any things like "This talent is represented by Metaphor Entertainment" or any Peacock Words of similar purpose. The articles seem factual and very neutral in tone. While BlueAzure was correct to bring a suspected COI issue here for evaluation, WP:COI does not necessarily prohibit editing by someone with a potential conflict, so long as those articles remain neutral and factual. Therefore I feel this can be closed with no particular action required beyond just the usual keeping an eye on things, which we all do anyway. ArakunemTalk 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
At a quick glance, I think some of the articles created above may not meet the notability criteria for entertainers, found at WP:BIO:
Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
  • With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
A notable actor should usually have appeared in notable films. We should have WP articles on the films. As I went through the Elle Travis article, I found the article was linked to many unrelated topics with coinciding names. For example, our articles on Never Give Up, Broken, First Watch and The Tipping Point are not about any films (with those names) in which Elle Travis appeared. Those films she did appear in seem in the cases I studied not to have WP articles. It may turn out that this and other articles should be sent to AfD. Since there are so many articles listed here, it would be good to have others help to review them for notability per WP:BIO. EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you User:EdJohnson for noticing the unrelated links. I have corrected my article on Elle Travis and will hear any other changes you want to suggest. Should you have any question to Elle Travis as a viable talent, you can find many links to her work and celebrity on imdb.com, google.com, gettyimages.com & wireimage.com. User:BlueAzure has pointed out, we do openly represent several of the talent listed, yet we did not write all of the articles. The few articles we have contributed to have, by our belief, adhered to both the WP:BIO and the WP:NPOV. Having written one article and made minor changes to two articles only, in good faith we request that the topic of this complaint be changed. The topic as our company name could prove to be defamatory and being that there are no articles written about our company on Wiki, nor are we are mentioned in any article to our knowledge, it was unnecessary and suspect on the part of User:BlueAzure to name this complaint after the company name.Metaphor Ent (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed the title of this complaint to MetaphorEnt since it seems equally good to me. Nonetheless, I suggest that you strike through or remove your above comment about libel, because otherwise you risk being blocked due to our policy of Wikipedia:No legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thank you.Metaphor Ent (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I came across Lindsay MacFarland’s article a few months ago, and noticed the same connection between her, Metaphor Entertainment, and the other actor’s listed. I was going to bring this up for WP:COI discussion myself, but in doing some research, I found that it was unnecessary. Metaphor, itself, is never mentioned in any of the articles, and they are all clearly written in a neutral tone and without bias. The notability of actors is my forte in both my work in the PR field, as well as my work as a Wikipedian. In researching each of these actors listed, I have found that they all clearly meet the guidelines for WP:BIO, have high ratings on IMDB Pro, and also have outside sources crediting their notability.TGreenburgPR (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
To set the record straight we do not represent Joshua Feinman. Unless you can find another link beyond management representation that validates WP:COI, I would recommend that User:BlueAzure remove him from their list.Metaphor Ent (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The Joshua Feinman article was created by LMA2007 and was edited by the same set of accounts as the other articles. According to the Elle Travis article, Elle Travis is dating Joshua Feinman. This is enough for me to continue to include it in the filing. BlueAzure (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Some articles proposed for deletion. Under WP:PROD I have nominated three of the above articles for deletion: Marta McGonagle, Elle Travis and Mimi Fuenzalida. If anyone believes they should be kept, please try to find evidence that any of these actresses has received credit for a major role in a notable film. You should be able to provide a URL showing screen credit. See Wikipedia:Generally notable people for the criteria for entertainers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Marta McGonagle

These are only a few of almost 8,000 sites with Marta McGonagle listed.

Elle Travis

"Palisadian Post" (USA) 24 July 2003, pg. 11 (Front Cover of the Lifestyle Section), by: Laurel Busby, "In Loving Memory"

"L.A. Times" (USA) 11 April 2002, pg. F. 39, by: Daryl H. Miller, "Fun and Games in a First Family; The well-dressed Kennedys play to win in a biting musical satire on the life of 'Jack.'"

"The Play Review" (USA) February 2002, pg. 10-11, by: Jose Ruiz, "Camelot? That's Jack!"

"Digital Post Production" (USA) 27 March 2001, pg. 1, by: DMN Newswire, "Look! Effects Creates 3D Intergalactic Journey for Indie Feature First Watch"

"Cannes Market News" (France) 18 May 2002, Vol. 3, pg. 1, by: Chantal Julien, "Cannes In Pictures Day Three"

"KTLA Morning News" .... Herself (1 episode, 2007) ... aka KTLA Morning Show (USA)

   - Episode dated 13 November 2007 (2007)  TV episode .... Herself

"Starz the Hollywood Reporter" .... Herself (1 episode, 2007)

   - Dan in Real Life (2007)  TV episode .... Herself

"The Oprah Winfrey Show" .... Herself (1 episode, 2003) ... aka Oprah (USA: short title)

   - Episode dated 17 July 2003 (2003)  TV episode .... Herself

"National Public Radio" ....Herself (10-05-1999) (interviewed about Broken, Stella Adler & growing up in Hollywood)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaphorEnt (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

These are only a few of over 300,000 sites with Elle Travis listed

Mimi Fuenzalida

I thought this was a forum for COI. How did it turn into a forum for deletion? Will an editor who knows more about tagging references please help with these three articles? I have provided links but don't know how to properly place them.Metaphor Ent (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to the editor who helped with the tags on the Elle Travis article. Can someone please volunteer to help with the Marta McGonagle article and the Mimi Fuenzalida article User:EdJohnston, did you contact the creators of these articles to give them a chance to make the changes you are requesting? I have to say it's such a relief to find people who are willing to help rather than WP:Bite. Thank you again. Metaphor Ent (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
A friendly editor helped to clean up my article on Mimi Fuenzalida. Another editor contacted me and gave me some tips on how to make references. All of this help has been great. Thanks to User:MetaphorEnt for requesting the much needed help and giving us links to start. I could try to help with the Marta McGonagle article if it's not a conflict. This whole thing has made my head spin and I'm not sure what I'm allowed to do or not do anymore. Does anyone have any suggestions?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Anything more to do here? Thanks to all who helped to improve the articles. I am not happy with the creation of these articles by COI-affected editors, but unless someone wants to follow up on any more of the articles listed above, we may have to close this thread. It would be good to get comments from anyone else who often monitors this noticeboard as to whether the problem is fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
EdJohnston, I would like to thank you for taking a look at this. If the articles can be reviewed for notability and sent to AFD if they don’t appear to be notable, that would resolve the situation for me. I would like to thank the editors who helped to improve the three articles you proded. After reviewing the articles, I still feel they do not meet notability per WP:BIO. Elle Travis’s only film that wikipedia have article for she is listed as playing “screaming hottie”, in the TV shows wikipedia has articles for she is listed as having been a voice. Mimi Fuenzalida only role that wikipedia has a listing for is the TV show 10-8: Officers on Duty, according to IMDB she appeared in an uncredited role in one episode. In Marta McGonagle’s case, the The Spot that she appeared in is different than the one that has a wikipedia article. I would nominate these for deletions, but I am concerned if that is appropriate. One of the involved editors has claimed that I have violated WP:FIVE, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. I am not sure what actions I am and am not allowed to take in relation to this situtation. I have speedied Dennis W. Hall as it is a recreation of Dennis Wayne Hall which was deleted per a AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueAzure (talk • contribs) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I made a new sub-section for ease of editing. Responding now to BlueAzure who opened this complaint, I see no problem taking those three articles to AfD, if you wish to nominate them. If you do so, it should be OK to announce that fact here and anyone following this debate can decide if they want to participate. If any editor from this debate chooses to comment in an AfD, please mention whether you have an affiliation with any of the firms named in this report. If you are COI-affected, you can leave a comment without formally voting Keep or Delete and your argument will still be listened to. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

EdJohnston, when I file the AFD’s should I mention that the article in question is part of this case? I have a filed two suspected sock puppetry cases involving accounts included in this case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LMA2007 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/64.30.201.109. BlueAzure (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you can mention it in the AfD. In answer to your other point, we expect no sockpuppets will join in the AfDs. Participate under your real account. If anyone in this discussion is concerned they might have run afoul of WP:SOCK, explaining that now will help to avoid any criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated three of the articles for deletion:
I am going to continue to review the rest of the articles. After reviewing LMA2007’s talk page and the images uploaded by these accounts, I think we need to get someone familiar with Wikipedia photo licensing polices to review the images. LMA2007 uploaded headshot photos Image:Cassandra.jpg and Image:Erika_Ringor.jpg claiming to be the copyright holder. From the info on the talk page it appears that the actor would be the copyright holder, not the publicist. These images could be kept on the Wikipedia if the licensing was properly handled. Of more concern is Image:LindsayMacFarlandRC.jpg, it was uploaded by Linzmac78 who claimed to be the copyright holder. The metadata on the image lists the copyright holder as “2007 Jean-Paul Aussenard” and I found the photo on [wireimage.com]. BlueAzure (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
HollywoodFan1 has filed a Request for arbitration against me at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BlueAzure. Until that is resolved, I will not take any action regarding these articles. Per Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/LMA2007, LMA2007 and SJR2008 have been indef blocked for Long term copyvio issues and socking. I think it would be good to get a check user done on all of the accounts to make sure there are not any other issues. BlueAzure (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am proposing that this CoI inquiry be closed. The issue was basically settled on December 19th, at which time the original issue of conflict of interest had begun to wind down. Other editors, including myself, jumped in and worked on articles under question and it appeared that the original persons involved, save one (HollywoodFan1), had backed out of editing those articles. None of the other issues which have been raised in the meanwhile, following the response just prior to the section break on December 20, are issues related to this board. Whether it is the intention or not, it certainly appears on the surface to be a matter of throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the debate, including sock puppet charges, notability questions, AfDs, and copyright questions. They may, or may not, be legitimate issues, but they are not issues pertinent to the specific question of CoI, or keeping this inquiry open on this board. If, in fact, HollywoodFan1 is not related to Metaphor Entertainment, then I could certainly understand why one would feel under attack, whether that is the intention or not. Since the sock puppet issue regarding that editor was determined to be unfounded, we still must assume good faith on her/his part. Meanwhile, the CoI issue certainly appears to be essentially closed. Just my opinion on this issue as it stands tonight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LMA2007. BlueAzure (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser confirmed that MetaphorEnt and HollywoodFan1 are the same editor. A suspected sock pupperty case has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MetaphorEnt to attempt to have the accounts blocked. I have discovered that the President and CEO of Metaphor Entertainment is Elle Travis. This probably explains why the article about her boyfriend Joshua Feinman was created and edited by the above accounts. I have started to deal with the image licensing issue. BlueAzure (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
HollywoodFan1 has now been blocked indefinitely and MetaphorEnt has been blocked for 1 week. The request for arbitration has now been resolved, so I have gone back to working on the articles. I have nominated four articles for deletion:
I have renominated the Mimi Fuenzalida at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Fuenzalida (second nomination).
The Joshua Feinman article was a copy vio. Another editor has assisted in creating a non-infringing version and the article has been moved to Josh Feinman. Lindsay MacFarland and Erika Ringor appear to be notable. As one of the articles was written by a COI editor and the other was written by a probable COI editor, how should the unsourced material in the articles be handled. Should citation tags be added and the material left in the article, should the material be removed if citations are not added in a set amount of time, or should the material be removed?
I would like to get a second opinion on how to handle the Elle Travis article. She does not seem to be notable, but the article in its current form would make her seem notable, as the article is to the say the least misleading (example below). On the other hand, I’m not sure if it’s worth the effort to try to clean it up.
The second paragraph of the introduction is full of issues:
Travis made her biggest breakthrough when she directed and starred in her award winning film Broken premiered as one of the opening films at the Telluride Film Festival.[1] .
Biggest breakthrough seems POV and it is not in the reference. Calling it a film seems to be misleading. According to [IMDB] the film is 29 minutes. Making it a short film or a featurette (as it referred to in the reference). The reference does not mention it being an opening film.
garnering her recognition as an auteur internationally
The is no reference for this statement.
Her next two big breaks came simultaneously when she was offered to direct and act in the sci-fi action film, First Watch
Big break again seems to be POV. According to [IMDB], the lead production company for the film was Metaphor Entertainment. As she is the head of the company, it does not seem to be a big break to offer your self a postion. The [IMDB] page for the movie seems to indicate the movie is not notable.
and when a scene from her Lifetime project Never Give Up aired on the The Oprah Winfrey Show.[2] Oprah said Travis was "compelling" as the actress portraying the true-life story of a woman who was kidnapped then fought to successfully escape her oppressors.[3]
Her wikipedia page, [IMDB] page, and her [resume] do not list anything called Never Give Up. As best I can tell it was actually an episode of the Lifetime show ["What Should You Do?"]. Oprah is simply quoted as saying "compelling", it seems possible that this was taken out of context. BlueAzure (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that this issue won't be resolved until all of these articles are deleted. However, I want to re-iterate my opinion that what is being discussed on this section now is not a CoI problem, but problems with individual articles and has no place on this board. Having said that, The discussions above about POV and citations are issues for individual talk pages on the articles in question, and any action on them should be in accord with already established procedures. It's entirely proper to tag individual items needing references and give them the time to be established just as one would any other article. There is no time limit on adding references needed, and indeed, I see them on articles that are months old. I agree with an editor who made entry on one of the AfD pages who said that because there was a CoI issue, it doesn't mean an article should be deleted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since User:BlueAzure is still filing WP:RFCU requests, I think this complaint should stay open until all the results are in. In answer to BlueAzure's query on how to approach the Elle Travis article, some options that occur to me are: (a) just edit to remove the promotional language, or (b) shorten the article so it contains only information that can be derived from what you consider the reliable sources. A problem with many of these articles is that IMDB.com is not a reliable source, and the reference lists only contain that kind of info. I searched Metacritic for the 2000 film Broken that Travis appeared in, since that would be a way of finding newspaper reviews, but the movie is not in Metacritic. Yahoo Movies might have box office grosses for some of these movies or shorts, which might tell how important they were (or at least how successful). EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the Elle travis article. From the history, the deletion tag was removed unilaterally by TGreenburgPR without real discussion. This user was formerly accused of being another MetaphorENT sockpuppet; although this was resolved as no I am still worried that a huge amount of his activity appears to be editing and voting in favor of Metaphor actors in COI/deletion debates. But even absent sockpuppet/COI debates, there seem to be valid questions not resolved by some creative editing to create apparent notability. Was there a debate on the deletion proposal here that I missed? If not, I propose we re-open one and solve this properly. But at least keep this COI open for the timebeing. - Lciaccio (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The introduction of the Elle Travis article was a possible copy vio, as it was inserted by an IP and not one of the confirmed Metaphor Entertainment accounts I have removed it. I have now nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elle_Travis. There is still some minor work to be done, but nothing that requires this case to remain open. I think the case can now be closed. BlueAzure (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ReluctantPhilosopher is dominating the articleSonia Gandhi

Resolved. No evidence of a COI given. MER-C 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User User:ReluctantPhilosopher is removing a huge chunk of information from page Sonia Gandhi in "Critism" section especially, by giving different reasons every time. He is also taking decisions on its own whether the content in notable. Earlier he did not even bother to discuss it before deleting. Reasons he is giving. e.g "removed unstructured, very poorly written portion"

    "political commentry"
    "Please don't reinsert it again and again as its not notable"

Everytime there is a new execuse for deleting. We have various times requested him to structure it or write it nicely. But he simply removes it. I am afraid he is doing it because he does not like those facts. When I tried to raise it in wikialerts against his uncilivity, he again started saying the same thing after interference of senior editors including admins. He also started to call me sockpuppet just because I have added only to 2 pages. After lot of discussion he said he will stay cool for few days, but in 2-3 days he has now put it in discussion that he has intentions to remove it. I would request the senior editors to help me out in handling this issue. I am really scared of this uncilility. Inder315 (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and you need to follow dispute resolution. The best thing you can do if you can't discuss this out with him is to file a request for comment, remember that there is no deadline, and wait for interested users to show up and comment. Please note that these noticeboards are not to be used for forum shopping; so unless you have any evidence this user is editing with a conflict of interest (aside from that he's removing critisisms), this report is really unfounded. Please understand that I'm not trying to criticize you, and I know how frustrating editing Wikipedia can be, but "asking the other parent" is not the way to handle disputes here. (I guess you could consider dispute resolution to be "asking your peers.") Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this (essentially frivolous) complaint of COI mirrors an (arguably also frivolous) complaint at the WQA, in which it was discovered that this user is sockpuppeteering in these content disputes, as well as forumshopping around his complaints. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No evidence of COI + forum shopping + sockpuppet abuse = end of discussion. Why does this remind me of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RodentofDeath? MER-C 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Gkleinman edits

See also: WP:AN#Issue with user Blowdart and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XCritic.

User Gkleinman has been adding numerous links to his own web site, XCritic (see also XCritic current subject of AFD). Relevancy of links added is disputable (eg the first ref in AVN Adult Entertainment Expo does not appear to support the claim that it's the largest show in any factual way) in a lot of cases, and spammish in more. Rather than get into a revert war (and he's already claiming WP:Bite), could someone else take a look and give an opinion? --Blowdart | talk 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

comment I feel the issue between Blowdart and I is an editor to editor issue. I've called for a WP:TRUCE but he's skoffed at it. In terms of the citation he's disputing, here's a direct quote from that artilce "The event that draws me there is the Adult Entertainment Exposition (AEE); clearly the biggest collection of porn stars, production companies, and those involved in the industry you will find in North America (and arguably as good as any show elsewhere, including Berlin)." This is from a writer who is considered to be one of the experts in the field Notablility as expert confirmed by Investor's Business Daily Report User_talk:Blowdart#XCritic.Gkleinman (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That does not excuse your use of Wikipedia as a means for self-promotion. Notability is irrelevant here, there is bound to be an equivalent citation. Instead, the question is whether you are spamming your own site. Some link info follows. MER-C 11:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Which i am not. Gkleinman (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been going through and trying to remove the self-promotional linking and referencing that violate wp:soap by those accounts in several articles. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the process you're nuking legit citations. Please stop Gkleinman (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
At this exact moment I see five links to xcritic.com showing up in the above linksearch. This number appears to be tolerable, but I hope it doesn't grow. Gkleinman's suggestion that legitimate citations could have been removed seems unlikely since xcritic.com is surely not a reliable source for any factual claims. Any links to xcritic that remain must be there as a link that readers may find interesting rather than a source of factual data to verify articles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

comment We are a WP:RS but to avoid further WP:COI I'll make sure proposed additions are placed in the discussion area of articles and let other users decide on their notability and if they are applicable. Gkleinman (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe your site is a reliable source, you can always ask at WP:RSN. They will probably ask you about your editorial standards, your fact-checking policy, your site terms of service, and so forth. Being a reliable source means that negative statements about living people can be relied upon at one of these sites. That is a heavy burden, and it's not easy to establish that you come up to that standard. Defamation and libel issues at Wikipedia can turn on this, so it is taken very seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your info, I'll look into it. Also I'm hoping this COI can be considered resolved. Gkleinman (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait and see if anyone else wants to comment. Your adding links to xcritic.com was the latest issue. Your most recent addition of a link took place earlier today. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've stopped and am now only suggesting them for inclusion on the talk pages see Talk:Vivid_Entertainment. Also I apologize for any misplaced citations. It was not my intent to create any issues and I'm definitely learning how best to interface with WP. Thanks. Gkleinman (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
So what? You're hoping that someone else will spam for you? The talk pages are probably worse, as it's pretty bad form to delete another persons talk entry. So any link you put there, relevant or not is going to stay. --Blowdart | talk 12:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Review of My COI

Resolved. Since no-one has any complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could an outside user please review my COI declaration here User:Mbisanz/COI another user has questioned them twice [54], [55], and while I'm willing to defend my declaration, I'd like an unbiased view of them and if I need to add more context. MBisanz talk 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Overkill. I'd do away with User:Mbisanz/COI. These conflicts seem like small potatoes. The time to announce a COI is when you start editing in a situation where it makes a difference. Unless you're someone who is highly visible on the web, like User:Jehochman. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed: it's all too generic to worry about. WP:COI is for more specific situations such as, say, the CEO of Acme Widgets Inc editing the Acme Widgets article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Association of Asia Pacific Airlines

Resolved. Editor has been blocked for username, and seems not to have restarted. There is no obvious problem with the article he created. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious: the creator's name matches the article's title very closely. The User's name is a self-referenced acronym (AAPAirlines). Bearian (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt your right that its prob a conflict of interest, but is the user being biased or POV-pushing in their edits? I took a quick glance and while their not being critical of AAPA, they also don't seem to be saying its the best, or infallible, or special. MBisanz talk 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
User blocked indefinitely, and justifiably so. It's not the style of editing, the problem is that they are editing in the first place. MER-C 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Could we incorporate his comments in the WP:COI policy, as its written now, anyone can edit anything, including their own article, so long as their objective about it. I disagree with the idea I can be objective about myself, but until you cited Brad, never knew it was a Foundation rule. MBisanz talk 13:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Aapairlines was only blocked for inappropriate username. He is free to start a new account and resume editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It was teh right block from the username aspect, Iw as commenting on the strength of Brad's statement and the rather weak, wishy-washy, COI statement we have. In my ideal world, no user could edit any article on a blood relative or on something they directly control, but its not that world. MBisanz talk 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that policy does not prohibit edits from people with COI, and Brad did not say it should do so. COI is a cause for us to look at the edits carefully; many good articles have been started by someone with COI, and then improved by editors with an neutral approach to the subject. DGG (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
... but only if the primary intention of the editor is to improve the encyclopedia. MER-C 07:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Farid Dms Debah

I suspect that Marie75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is or is acting on behalf of Farid Dms Debah in order to create and maintain articles about the subject and film projects which may be considered non-notable. User has not contributed since 2006, and it seems that most all of the contributions involve this subject. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Odessa Numismatics Museum

It appears that this user is associated with this so-called "museum" and is currently adding links throughout Wiki to the museum's website. He is voraciously editing the museum's article which I had to clean up substantially. --Strothra (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a total of 67 links to this museum in the English Wikipedia, most of them in mainspace. This seems like way too many. If editors find that this web site is useful, it might be linked at most from a few articles that are specific to history or archaeology, in places where other museums with online info would normally be linked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It even extends to multiple links in the same article, e.g. Olbia, Ukraine. DGG (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is a consensus that all but one or two of the articles shouldn't have the link, I can probably use AWB to pull them all out pretty easily. Which would the one or two useful ones be? MBisanz Talk 06:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the links are useful for any articles other than the museum article. Note that the individual has resumed editing without contributing to this discussion even though he was asked to comment here. --Strothra (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
We should accept User:Mbisanz's offer to remove all the external links to http://museum.com.ua from main space, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, he's still adding the links without discussing anything here. --Strothra (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed from all but main article and Peter Loboda‎ as he's the founder and Odessa its home city. MBisanz talk 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks so much. --Strothra (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't see any remaining issue here, unless someone is so moved that they want to nominate the article for deletion. (It's a *museum* for heavens's sake, how bad can it be?). There is some fiddly stuff about the Cleanup tag on the article, which was taken off by User:Bogdan, and put back by a guy who was there to review the GA application for this article! This is interesting stuff, but not a COI issue, since Bogdan seems to be an all-purpose editor with interest in Ukrainian issues, and he doesn't appear to have a COI. Suggest we close this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that Mbisanz's cleanup of the articles in question had answered this issue and that it has been resolved as a result. --Strothra (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Too bad 91.90.15.34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) is continuing to add promotional links. (Last one was January 6). We should keep this report open for now. I left a message for this editor asking him to talk. Since there was no response the first time around, and the spamming continues, we seem to be running out of options. Click on 'contribs' for this editor and note 50 edits since 30 December, about half of which are link addition or adding See alsos to his museum article, including one at Christmas card. If he doesn't respond to the latest message, we may need to consider a short block to get his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
True, but I'm keeping an eye on it. I gave him a final warning for linkspam and so he should be blocked the next time he does it. --Strothra (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello all, and thank you for the notice. Now, regarding the tags...It seems to me that they were put up by a GA reviewer, who was merely irritated at continuous nomination of a clear non-GA article. But in all fairness, it isn't that bad, especially when you consider that it was largely written by someone with no prior edits on Wikipedia. With that aside, I don't see the huge problem in most of these additions. Granted, the Christmas card one might have been a little too much, still, it's a museum, how harmful could it be? I certainly wouldn't support taking these grievances out on the article, with de-facing templates. With regards to the issue, he's been warned, and I've welcomed him. Lets see if he continues to add links inappropriately.
(p.s. No, everyone in Ukraine doesn't know each other by IP) Bogdan що? 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding this. The museum exhibits the exact topic at hand; in what way could this possibly be considered spam? Bogdan що? 02:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support restoring that link, since the numismatics of the Bosporan Kingdom are already mentioned, and the link gives pictures of coins from the exact era under discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lum the Mad

Resolved. There have been no complaints about Elonka's work on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a proactive announcement to head off any COI concerns. The article Lum the Mad went up (again) for AfD recently. I felt it was worth keeping, and suggested changes to it, but no one else seemed interested in making those changes, so I went ahead and did an article overhaul. However, there is definitely a potential for COI, since Lum is a critic of online games, and I am an executive in the online game industry.

I did my best to handle the rewrite according to Wikipedia policies, and keep things as neutral as possible. I also posted about my potential COI at the article talkpage, and in the AfD. And just to make sure that I've got all bases covered, I'm posting here too. I'd appreciate if someone who is completely neutral on the subject could take a look. If you think any changes are needed, please feel free to tweak. FYI, Elonka 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing alarming here. Whoever steps forward to save a potentially-useful article from deletion should get some leeway, and I see no evidence that the leeway has been abused. The COI does not seem close enough to be of great concern. As an aside, the article, though improved by Elonka's work, might be more effective if it were shorter. (It takes a while to get to the point, and you are aware the guy is famous in the industry without quite understanding the reason). EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

John Vincent Atanasoff

appears to be an ethnic booster who exclusively edits articles dealing with his home country, and whose edits are invariably made with the intention of glorifying the country. In the case of this article, about a computer inventor, the editor has consistently edited the article to mention the biographical subject's ethnicity in the lead, contrary to MoS guidlines (which state that ethnicity should generally not be mentioned unless it is relevant to the subject's notability--such is not the case here). The edit is being made solely to "brand" or "claim" the subject. Discussion on the article talk page and the user's talk page, which for the most part have been patient, have been unproductive. Going by the editor's talk page, he appears to have a long history of unsourced or guideline-opposed edits and unreasonable behavior. Robert K S (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Monshuai is indeed very pro-Bulgaria, and regularly attacks me aggressively in discussions, accusing me of vandalism whenever I edit in a way he disagrees with. I ran into him when I noticed the Bulgaria article had a claim its ancient civilization rivaled that of Egypt or China, and was home to the world's oldest writing system, and I asked for sources. He regularly interprets statements and actions with no such intent (such as my asking for sources) as disparaging of his home country Bulgaria. He has in the past also threatened to expose my supposed anti-Bulgaria bias to newspapers, the Bulgarian academy of science, and the European Union. Since our original discussion on the importance of sources he now uses sources to support his positions. This is a improvement, but he's still as aggressive as before. He's extremely wearying. I really wish he used his undoubted intelligence and skills with language in more constructive and peaceful ways. Instead, today he has stated (on Talk:Thracians that he likes to embarrass me. Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone that is interested in the history of my edits can see that I use academic sources for my edits. I edit Bulgaria related articles, because my knowledge of Bulgaria, its history and its people is abundant and based on anthropological, historical and socio-politically related academic articles, books and respective university research studies. Unfortunately I have encountered people such Robert K S who consider any positive academic informational sources related to Bulgaria to be a form of boosterism, since in his/their view Bulgaria is a small backward country that is accordingly rather insignificant and therefore unworthy of positive assessments. Furthermore, now that we are having this discussion I would like to point out that Robert K S has shown a very west-centric and indeed biased behaviour regarding the identity of John Atanasoff. In fact, Robert K S has been accused by numerous Bulgarians that he is prejudiced and indeed anti-Bulgarian. This is not an issue of MoS, but rather one of NPV... When editors provide numerous arguments/sources to show that Atanasoff's ethnicity and self proclaimed national identity must be included in the first paragraph, while others like Robert K S disagree, then this discussion simply becomes a matter of subjective interpretations as to what constitutes a true relevance to a subject's notability. That is why I have said numerous times that in such cases, both perspectives must be included. I (and others), unlike Robert K S, am/are willing to accommodate his view, because I/we respect NPV to the fullest degree. Unfortunately he has proven time and again that he considers his view to be indisputably correct, while those on the opposing side of the spectrum are simply inadmissible. He is thereby unwilling to take a neutral stand wherein the interpretation of MoS regarding Atanasoff is discussed from both perspectives and thus presented as such. Many people have shown that Atanasoff's Bulgarian ethnicity and self-identity actually strengthens the MoS guideline and indeed function within its accepted editorial boundaries, while Robert K S simply ignores this in every possible way and only regards his edits as ones that are worthy of Wikipedia's policies. Again I say, this is the reality of his subjective mind, since many arguments have proven that Atanasoff's notability is indeed directly linked to his self-identity as a member of the Bulgarian diaspora. There is now a large community of people on Wikipedia who believe Robert K S to be a bigot that vandalizes and disrespects the identity of a notable Bulgarian-American. I am very happy that we are having this discussion, as I will now do everything in my power to showcase the prejudiced and anti-Bulgarian behaviour of the said person, who has portrayed a level of maximal infantilism that is worthy of psychological analysis. I have been patient all this while, hoping that NPV will be respected, yet unfortunately Robert K S has brought this on himself in a most endearing fashion. I will also contact the various people who have been negatively affected by his behaviour and we shall take matters from here. Certainly Robert K S is invited to do the same as this must be resolved in an objective manner where both sides present evidence that function to prove their respective arguments. I am all for neutrality and fairness, so let the "trial" begin... :)--Monshuai (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've had a very hard time getting a third opinion involved in this case. The accusations of anti-Bulgarianism are malarky and a red herring. Atanasoff's ethnicity isn't relevant to his notability (reasons are detailed at length here on his talk page). Per MoS, the subject's ethnicity doesn't belong in the article lead. I've offered to assist User:Monshuai several times in writing an article section that relates to the recognition Atanasoff achieved in Bulgaria circa 1970. User hasn't taken me up on my offer, but has edit-warred in his boosterism crusade. Won't somebody else please take a look at this? Robert K S (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If boosterism is Robert's way of defining my reactions to his bigotry, then he has a strange way of perceiving reality. If he had truly wanted to write about Atanasoff's recognition in Bulgaria, he could have done so long ago. (Why haven't you done so Robert K S?) I imagine the reason is he feels that if I participate in this activity I will refrain from continuing to campaign for NPV. (Is NPV something you detest Robert K S?) I do not want to participate in any activity involving a biased person who clearly shows disregard for differing perspectives. And yes, I invite all to join the discussion in the John Atanasoff page. Please also see Robert K S's comments on why personas such as Nancy Pelosi deserve to have their ethnicity mentioned in the intro to their respective articles while an American of Bulgarian ancestry does not. I truly do hope that more people will read his comments and come to scrutinize his views on why these and other people should have their ethnicities mentioned, while any such mention of ethnicity regarding Atanasoff would be construed as inappropriate. Please examine this to the fullest! See also the evidence presented regarding Atanasoff's socio-cultural and scientific links to Bulgaria and thus judge for yourselves whether or not they are stronger than those of Nancy Pelosi with regard to Italy... The point being is that much evidence was presented to show that Atanasoff had a much stronger connection to Bulgaria than she and others, yet regardless Robert continued to vandalize the Atanasoff article and abstained from removing the Italian-American portion of the Pelosi article... This clearly demonstrates a strong bias that constitutes hypocrisy. It is unbelievable that such inconsistencies and editorial biases can exist between various Wikipedia articles that are defended by someone such as Robert K S who in turn claims to adhere to MoS.--Monshuai (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Atanasoff's links to Bulgaria deserve to be fleshed out in his article, but they are not the reason for his notability. Ethnic boosterism reverses the formula by claiming that it is because a person was of a certain genetic heritage that they were notable for such-and-such accomplishments. Robert K S (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how they are less notable than those reasons you gave for Nancy Pelosi's Italian-American protion in the intro to her article! Let's just bring your comments from the discussion page on Atanasoff to this section and let people judge for themselves.--Monshuai (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
To summarize my explanation on the Atanasoff talk page: Atanasoff is notable for his role in the creation of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer and as a witness in the landmark court case Honeywell v. Sperry Rand. His notability for these things doesn't rely on his having had a Bulgarian father. Atanasoff wasn't the first Bulgarian anything for which he wasn't also the first person. Robert K S (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Atanasoff's Bulgarian ethnicity is not the key to his notability, or the reason why he did great work. (If so we'd expect to see proof of that fact in the text of the article). The MOS's advice about avoiding prominent placement of a subject's ethnicity should be followed, and ethnic boosterism should be avoided. Since Atanasoff was born in the Ottoman Empire, I invite the inspired promoters of Bulgaria to prove that the Turkish influence was not the key to his success. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed the article as well. I agree that Atanasoff's Bulgarian ethnic background is not the key to his notability. For what it's worth: perhaps my evaluation should not carry too much weight, due to my earlier run-ins with Monshuai in other disputes. Martijn Faassen (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I can find no reference that calls him a Bulgarian-American nor any evidence that his Bulgarian background from his fathers side had any influence so i don't think his ethnicity is notable enough to be included in the lead (and if it was what's to say we shouldn't call him a Caucasian-American instead of Bulgarian-American). THe only other way for this to be included if it was statement of nationality and i don't think having Honorary citizenship of a city in Bulgaria is enough to say he's a Bulgarian national. harlock_jds (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately YOU, a plural reference to the gentle and not so gentlemen involved in this discussion, missed the point I was making. In the Nancy Pelosi article it states, "With her election as Speaker, she is the first woman, the first Californian, and the first Italian-American to hold the Speakership." Indeed, the key words are, "[...]first Italian-American[...]" None of you criticized this, nor have you criticized such statements in other articles either. Yet according to your above arguments regarding Atanasoff, one can conclude that Pelosi's Italian background is also not the key to her notability. The fact that she is Italian was not "[...] the reason why [she] did/does great work". That quote and interpretation of MoS comes directly from EdJohnston. Or as Robert K S states, where is the evidence that because of "genetic heritage [...] they [she] were [was] notable for such-and-such accomplishments". Unfortunately his original statement examines Atanasoff's notability only, as he has firmly stated that it does not apply to Pelosi. As you can see I placed the words "[she]" and "[was]" in a direct quote from him in order to showcase his subjectivity by highlighting the fact that he should have applied his opinion and intepretation of rules to the Pelosi article as well, which he instead vehemently defended as an model article that adheres to MoS. That's where his bias is obvious and his anti-Bulgarianism apparent. From his support of the Pelosi article, one can only deduce that he feels Pelosi's genetic heritage is both the agent/catalyst and more importantly the undeniable reason for her achievements and notability. Said another way, he (and the rest of you involved in this herein discussion who support his bias) is/are saying that in fact her Italian heritage is the reason she became a notable human being. Your bias will be neutralized, and others who are indeed neutral will clearly see and at present do agree that the Atanasoff article should and WILL be treated the same way that the articles of other notable personas are treated. I will not allow you or anyone else to demonstrate hypocrisy and variable rules that are applied subjectively 'here and there'... The rules will be the same for each and every article! There are two options at this moment of time: (A) Either those other 'people' articles will be re-edited under the objective lens of a consistent editorial microscope, or (B) the Atanasoff article will have the Bulgarian-American portion included. Pelosi being the first Italian-American speaker is no more pronounced a truth than Atanasoff being the first Bulgarian-American scientist of prominence. He is also the first Bulgarian-American inventor who gained international notability and the first Bulgarian-American to receive the "United States National Medal of Technology, the highest U.S. honour conferred for achievements related to technological progress." Due to his achievements he is also many other Bulgarian-American firsts!--Monshuai (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to the points above that are relevant to the Atanasoff article on the Atanasoff talk. Relevant to the concern of this noticeboard, I ask Monshuai to ask himself why it is that he thinks Atanasoff's ancestry must be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Is it because doing so adds measurably to the value of the article by building the article's progression of presentation starting with the most notable general facts and progressing to details of secondary notability? Or is it because—as everything written above would indicate—Monshuai feels it is important to "claim" Atanasoff as a Bulgarian "native son" by "branding" him Bulgarian within the first sentence of the lead? Robert K S (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please reply to my above paragraph here on this noticeboard, because I brought up many new points that you have not answered before! I ask that you do not attempt to beat around the bush! After all, you are the one that opened this discussion, so I expect you to be a little more diligent and thus stop trying to divert attention in order to try and gain support for your biased actions. This is about objectivity and thus precisely regarding the issue of having the same rules applied across the board to all articles in Wikipedia. This is not just about the John Atanasoff article! I discussed your biases in the above paragraph and I used evidence and deductive reasoning to prove my points. Indeed, you previously argued that Nancy Pelosi's Italian heritage can be mentioned because she is the first Italian-American to be a Speaker of the House. Likewise John Atanasoff is the first Bulgarian-American to receive the "United States National Medal of Technology, the highest U.S. honour conferred for achievements related to technological progress." Still, you claim that he is not Bulgarian-American first anything. Did you not say that? Just look a few paragraphs above if you feel the need to refresh your memory. And while we're on the memory refreshing 'sub-topic' let me aide you in your grey-matter development endeavour. I've reposted the paragraph I wrote above since it seems you did not take the time to read it, remember it and reply to it accordingly. User:Monshuai|Monshuai]] (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't cross-post, and I try not to repeat myself. Robert K S (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately YOU, a plural reference to the gentle and not so gentlemen involved in this discussion, missed the point I was making. In the Nancy Pelosi article it states, "With her election as Speaker, she is the first woman, the first Californian, and the first Italian-American to hold the Speakership." Indeed, the key words are, "[...]first Italian-American[...]" None of you criticized this, nor have you criticized such statements in other articles either. Yet according to your above arguments regarding Atanasoff, one can conclude that Pelosi's Italian background is also not the key to her notability. The fact that she is Italian was not "[...] the reason why [she] did/does great work". That quote and interpretation of MoS comes directly from EdJohnston. Or as Robert K S states, where is the evidence that because of "genetic heritage [...] they [she] were [was] notable for such-and-such accomplishments". Unfortunately his original statement examines Atanasoff's notability only, as he has firmly stated that it does not apply to Pelosi. As you can see I placed the words "[she]" and "[was]" in a direct quote from him in order to showcase his subjectivity by highlighting the fact that he should have applied his opinion and intepretation of rules to the Pelosi article as well, which he instead vehemently defended as an model article that adheres to MoS. That's where his bias is obvious and his anti-Bulgarianism apparent. From his support of the Pelosi article, one can only deduce that he feels Pelosi's genetic heritage is both the agent/catalyst and more importantly the undeniable reason for her achievements and notability. Said another way, he (and the rest of you involved in this herein discussion who support his bias) is/are saying that in fact her Italian heritage is the reason she became a notable human being. Your bias will be neutralized, and others who are indeed neutral will clearly see and at present do agree that the Atanasoff article should and WILL be treated the same way that the articles of other notable personas are treated. I will not allow you or anyone else to demonstrate hypocrisy and variable rules that are applied subjectively 'here and there'... The rules will be the same for each and every article! There are two options at this moment of time: (A) Either those other 'people' articles will be re-edited under the objective lens of a consistent editorial microscope, or (B) the Atanasoff article will have the Bulgarian-American portion included. Pelosi being the first Italian-American speaker is no more pronounced a truth than Atanasoff being the first Bulgarian-American scientist of prominence. He is also the first Bulgarian-American inventor who gained international notability and the first Bulgarian-American to receive the "United States National Medal of Technology, the highest U.S. honour conferred for achievements related to technological progress." Due to his achievements he is also many other Bulgarian-American firsts!--Monshuai (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mordechai Gafni

Appears that the subject of the article is replacing his bio with a version of his own. Lobojo (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Dutch Shell

User

Articles

See also

I think someone (probably not me, as I used to work for Shell) needs to keep an eye on the edits of John Donovan to Royal Dutch Shell and related articles. This user owns http://royaldutchshellplc.com which is a Shell attack site (fair enough) but has restarted added links to it despite occasional reminders not to and also tends to add an undue weight of links to news articles which mention his website, and perhaps an undue amount of "gossipy" content. Shell is a massive economic entity (turnover is about the size of Belgium's GDP) so quality in the articles matter. Any volunteers?--BozMo talk 17:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that editors who frequently visit COIN may add Royal Dutch Shell to their watch lists. Although BozMo is a former employee of the company and should not edit the article, he is welcome to add his comments to the article's Talk page whenever he sees problems there. I notice that John Donovan has been active this morning adding material to the article. Regular participants in anti-Shell protests, such as Donovan, should also obey the COI rules and confine themselves to the Talk page. Donovan appears to be the co-owner, with Alfred Donovan, of http://shellnews.net, a site which hosts commentary about the company and seems to have a strong POV. Legal cases against Shell are mentioned in which both Donovans were parties. Due to the history of litigation, and the increased weight of the libel issue in British courts, we should be sure that what we put in the article is referenced to reliable sources. Self-published activist web sites should never be used as verification for facts. Comments on this issue are welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
We also have an article on one of Donovan's websites, Royaldutchshellplc.com. User:Johnadonovan has been the creator and main editor of this article. It survived an AfD debate on 4 February 2007. One of the commenters said that it needed a rewrite and more sources. I added more articles to the header above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added two sections today to the Royal Dutch Shell article. The first relates to the race to become the next CEO of Shell. This seemed to me to be a subject of likely interest to people visiting the Wikipedia article about Shell. There is no reference to royaldutchshellplc.com or to me. There are no article links to royaldutchshellplc.com. The other insertion is at the foot of the Whistleblower section. There are no links to articles authored by me. They are all to articles authored entirely by reputable publishers such as the Financial Times. If there is a subscription charge involved or if the publisher only keeps the article on display for a short period, I republish the article on royaldutchshellplc.com and make it available free of charge. Otherwise, as is the case with The Guardian, The Mail, Daily Express and The Independent, I insert links direct to their websites. With regard to royaldutchshellplc.com and other websites owned by me and my father, it is an entirely non-commercial operation. There are no charges for anything, no donations are solicited or accepted. We do not even have any advertising. We are not in litigation with Shell nor do we have a close relationship with Dr Huong, the former Shell employee being sued by Shell in relation to information published on royaldutchshellplc.com. We have never met him. The last court action we had with Shell was a decade ago. In 2005 Shell issued proceedings against my father in respect of three domain names including royaldutchshellplc.com. Shell lost the case on a unanimous verdict. We have operated Shell related websites for over a decade. All have been entirely non-commercial. We have never offered or sold any domain names. I am a long term Shell shareholder. I do not accept the description of being an attack site. We entirely support Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles which includes the core principles of honesty, integrity and transparency. When we take issue with Shell on our website from time to time, it is in relation to matters where we have ample evidence to confirm an allegation that Shell management is in breach of its own ethical code. I make no such allegations within Wikipedia articles and always provide information sourced from reputable independent publishers such as The Wall Street Journal and always supply verification links. I have been upfront from the outset on Wikipedia about my background and have never used a pseudonym. To summarise my input to Wikipedia has always been properly sourced and impartial. If anyone can provide evidence to the contrary, I trust that this will be done before imposing restrictions on me which are not based on my conduct on Wikipedia. That would unfair. I hope this information is of assistance. I will answer any questions anyone wishes to raise. Johnadonovan (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be hard to review your websites and get the idea that the legal antagonism between you and the Shell company is over and done with, and that now you are good friends with them. WP:COI provides If you are involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants, you would find it very hard to demonstrate that what you wrote about a party or a law firm associated with the case, or a related area of law, was entirely objective. I believe that the ongoing struggle in all the different forums, legal or not, is evidence that you have a Conflict of Interest under Wikipedia's policies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
We certainly do not always agree, but our relationship with Shell is not as fraught as some might expect. Shell has on occasion asked us not to publish an article because of sensitivities and we have respected the request. When supplied with confidential Shell internal documents, we always check with Shell to establish authenticity before publication. Shell has a standing invitation to supply for unedited rebuttal comments on any articles authored by us and has taken up this offer from time to time, most recently only days ago. In pre-Christmas email correspondence with Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, we exchanged Christmas/New Greetings. As we have publicly stated, Mr Brandjes has always treated us fairly and decently and I believe we have always reciprocated in kind. Shell has acknowledged in writing our right to use our website to criticise the company. I have not however used Wikipedia for that purpose. If anyone would be willing to check the history of my contributions on the Wikipedia article about Royal Dutch Shell, you will be able to confirm that I was the originating author of entirely positive sections about Shell e.g. Shell LiveWIRE and The Shell Foundation. Johnadonovan (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If anyone does check the discussion page for the article they will see that I volunteered to originate an article about Shell covering all positive aspects of the company. My offer was not taken up. Johnadonovan (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
John, I do not wish to imply you are being unfair. I also have a lot of respect for you and your view (although I think WP:UNDUE is an issue). However there is a policy issue, and an issue about Wikipedia's neutrality. As far as I can see you should not edit Royaldutchshellplc.com as it is an article about your own website, the rules on that are clear. That article has virtually been entirely written by you, and you keep editing it. You should only add content to the talk page. Also adding links in any article to your own website is not allowed. Adding internal links to the wikipedia article on your website is also not allowed. However, I think that the description of your website in the Wikipedia article on it makes a good basis for concluding that as owner of the website you are "involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area" in that the website engages in anti-Shell Advocacy. It deliberately publishes/republishes material critical of Shell management etc (which is advocacy). This raises a good question on which someone neutral and credible needs to decide; there is a subjective call. Someone neutral needs to turn around look at the edits and and either rule "stop" editing the relevant pages (you can still appeal) or say "no issue". I am not the right person to do that, I'd like some people who deal with COI all the time to give an opinion. Hence the note here. --BozMo talk 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There is another article which should be added to the article list: Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns. I have unsuccessfully spent time every day for the last few days trying to find the rules/guidelines which led BozMo to make his various statements about Wikipedia rules. Unless it is deemed that editors should unquestionably accept information given by an administrator, it would be helpful if a link to each rule mentioned could be inserted in such statements. Since administrators are more familiar with the rules and no doubt know exactly where each rule mentioned can be found within the maze of information about Wikipedia policy, guidelines and rules, it really would be extremely helpful to be directed to the relevant rules. This is of course provided that it would not be too much of an extra burden to administrators. This is not meant as a criticism but as a constructive suggestion.Johnadonovan (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have not yet managed to find the quoted rules but the search has brought information to my attention. A lot of what I have seen appears to be contradictory. I suspect the American comedian Jackie Mason could use it as a source of potential material along the lines... there are rules, many rules, but not rules which necessarily have to be obeyed. As a rule don't use this as a defense of breaching the rules as it will be frowned upon. The comments made by BozMo seem contradictory to the information at the head of this article: “An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.” I disclosed my name and background relating to Shell from the outset and believe my editing has accordingly properly received extra scrutiny from BozMo and others. BozMo has made a number of deletions, a very small number compared with the volume of my contributions. I have always accepted his verdict without question until he deleted information about Shell IT job cuts. I politely disagreed with his comment that the subject had nothing to do with whistleblowing. However I did not post further information on the subject until after he seemed to accept my argument and offered the option of inserting a tightened up version. In the meantime, as I predicted to him, there was more press coverage. The story of the leak to Royaldutchshellplc.com about the job cuts dominated international news articles about Shell over the Christmas New Year period and the information I added reflected that development. I have known about the background of BozMo for some time. I received a tip-off by email after, at the prompting of a then Wikipedia editor, BozMo put in motion the AfD proceedings. However, I have never had a problem with his oversight of my contributions and have none now. I believe his background and experience is helpful. I will not comment further on my genuine admiration of his integrity and his good works because last time I did so I received a blunt response. My proposal is that I continue to add non controversial information supported by reputable verifiable sources. I will place any controversial information on the appropriate talk page for consideration. In both cases BozMo and others will be able to edit or remove information or inappropriate links as they deem appropriate. Johnadonovan (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Whenever I have spare time I am continuing to read through Wikipedia information about the issues raised and the logic behind the rules. I have not yet found information covering all of the issues. I will make no further contribution to Wikipedia until I have done so. Johnadonovan (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have now tracked down and read relevant rules, guidelines and the information in the introductory paragraphs on this page relating to editing issues being discussed. With regard to the RDSplc.com article, I will only add content to the talk page for consideration by others for transfer to the article. With regard to other Shell related Wikipedia articles, I propose to add new non controversial content directly to Wikipedia articles supported by information from a reputable source, with verification links provided. Content will be written in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines as I normally strive to do. I will place on the discussion page any potential controversial material, so that it can be considered by others for transfer to the relevant main article. In the case of all Shell related articles, including RDSplc.com, I will only include content verification links to reputable independent publications, not to any website associated with me. I intend to proceed on this basis unless instructed otherwise. Johnadonovan (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)