Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 22

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.

Contents

Dan Benton

User:Ideasintoaction

The coi case isn't completely clear, but I thought it best to start here to see what others think. "Ideas Into Action" is the name of a consulting company (ideas2action.net) that offers "specialist organisational development support focussing on developing lean organisations through lean accounting and lean leaders." The company has a business relationship with BMA Inc. (maskell.com), as part of BMA Europe Ltd (bmaeurope.com).
User Ideasintoaction has been adding large amounts of unsourced material to Lean accounting that has included linkspam to maskell.com. This material appears to be copied directly from another source, because it included references to figures which an ip then removed [1] [2]. Ideasintoaction has since made some attempts to source the material, but other editors have been reverting these as original research and/or copyright violations. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddworld

For some time now, an editor switching between two IPs, 217.150.112.45 and 82.5.133.228, has been edit warring with other editors to include a couple of fansites in the "External links" section of Oddworld. During a lengthy discuss taking place on the talk page, the editor stated that he/she is the owner of one of the sites they have been adding in. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Buzz!

  • Buzz! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Hi, I'm employed by a company called Sleepydog and we work on the Buzz! franchise of video games. I would like our company to be credited appropriately on this page and in accordance with your guidelines but would like your advice on how to do this. Sleepydog came up with the original concept for the buzz games (see buzz is the business name page.html), and since then we have wrote all the questions and supplied all the images, audio and video clips for the games (see Buzz Relentless Q and A.asp). Sleepydog is also credited in all the instruction manuals which are shipped with the games. I’ve discussed this with another Wiki editor, who has highlighted the potential COI issue, and recommended I seek your advice on how best to implement these changes. Many thanks. Neal 2004 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a mention in this diff. Thanks for taking this route to raise the issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for your help, it's much appreciated. Would you be able to replicate this amend on the pages for: Buzz! The Big Quiz, Buzz! The Sports Quiz, Buzz! The Mega Quiz and Buzz! The Hollywood Quiz? These are all games which we have written the questions for and provided all the pictures, audio and video clips. We are credited for this work in the instruction manuals which are shipped with the game, so I would like us to have a mention of some kind on these pages if possible. Thanks again. Neal 2004 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

California Women's Law Center

an important and notable organisation, but the article is incredibly self-promotional; first step would be to check for copyvio.I tagged it. DGG (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of it comes verbatim from here and simialr pages on the CWLC website. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I left a note for the contributor, CWLC, about this discussion. The organization appears worthwhile and probably notable, but if we can't get the creator to step in and fix it, reducing the article to a stub might be the best plan. As a first step, can we get a rewrite of the opening sentence? It now reads:
The California Women’s Law Center (CWLC) is a non-profit organization that advocates for justice for women and girls.
How about:
The California Women’s Law Center (CWLC) is a non-profit organization, based in Los Angeles, engaged in advocacy for the legal rights of women and girls. Areas of interest include employment law, reproductive rights, equal access for students to athletic facilities, domestic violence and gender discrimination. Founded in 1989, the organization has 11 employees.
Those words could be a minimal stub, and anyone who has time could expand it. It seems to be non-trivial to find references. Nothing about them in a newspaper showed up in the first two pages of search results. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with the second version to stubbify per copyvio and pov concerns. MBisanz talk 03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jossi and Prem Rawat

Resolved.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I see no purpose in prolonging this discussion at this stage. What mainly seems to have happened here is that The Register and a few other editors have discovered OMG Jossi is a follower of Prem, which he disclosed 3-1/2 years ago. After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools. The Conflict of Interest guidelines do not prohibit COI editing; they advise against it because editing with a COI can sometimes lead to disruptive behavior, edit-warring, failure to follow consensus, and so forth. If you think the article is a "whitewash", then fix it. If, during the process of fixing it, you get into disputes with Jossi that can not be solved by dispute resolution (RFC or mediation), then it would be time to consider article or topical bans. However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites. As far as discussion of policy is concerned, and whether appearance of a conflict is actionable in the absence of actual disruptive editing, that policy discussion should be held at WT:COI. Thatcher 11:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
*Further note, if you will read the archives at this page, you will see that this board mainly issues warnings and recruits editors interested in fixing articles. This board is merely a first step is the dispute resolution process and does not substitute for article content RFC, mediation, or user-conduct RFC. Fix the articles, consistent with editorial policies, and bring currently active disputes to mediation or RFC. Thatcher 12:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


An article [3] in The Register had just presented strong evidence that Jossi has serious COI issues with Prem Rawat articles. I've formally requested [4] on his talk page that he stay away from Rawat-related articles and away from issues, such as policy changes, that appear to be intended to assist in pushing POV in or protecting Rawat articles. The article also mentions that User:Momento and User:Rumiton may have COI issues with Rawat as well, but doesn't present as clear evidence of it so I'll leave that for further discussion and observation for now. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You can read my comment in my user page about this, as well as my request for advice placed at the Village Pump on January 15. I intend to continue editing Wikipedia, and at the same time submit myself to the community's review on these issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Also note that I made some comments challenging The Register as a source for the Criticism of Wikipedia article, a few days before I was contacted by that journalist. See: diff and diff. Not sure if the attack piece was a retaliatory action on their part, or not. When I asked the journalist about this, he did not respond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, the article presents evidence from people using their real names in stating that you worked personally for Rawat, even "sitting at his desk". That's as strong a COI as I think as it can get without actually being Rawat himself. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I have acted transparently about my affiliation and I have adopted a behavior to disclose COI and contribute via talk page discussions, offering sources and insight for others to consider, and ensure that statements are accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The existence of a conflict of interest is not reason to pre-emtively and completely prohibit an editor from editing an article or topic. Do you have any actual diffs or discussion threads to back your claim that Jossi is pushing a POV? Because I just went and searched all of Jossi's edits to Prem Rawat in the last half a year and didn't see anything to suggest that. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As one of the people named in the article, I feel I should comment. The Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat is a whitewash of the Prem Rawat described in all independent press articles. My website has a collection of those articles at the press room [5], and if Jossi was as neutral as he claims the article would reflect the views expressed in those articles. Instead, Jossi, and his associates (Momento and Rumiton) reject the entire 4th estate as 'tabloid'. Unfortunately, even if Jossi is prevented from editing Rawat related articles, other Rawat cult members would take his place. If editors here care about the integrity of Wikipedia they must address this gaping flaw in the Wikipedia project. --John Brauns (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There have been problems in other areas of Wikipedia in which "tag teams" of editors combine their efforts to push a particular POV or squash criticism in all the articles related to a specific subject and which appears to be the case here. If these editors refuse to correct their behavior, and Jossi has already stated on his talk page in response to this that he'll edit wherever and however he wants to, then further, formal action may be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is an issue that has been examined over and over again. Jossi is periodically reported for a conflict of interest, leading to his actions being repeatedly put under scrutiny. I think if this were an actual issue of concern, something would have come of it by now. I'm also a bit concerned about the source of this round of scrutiny. The Register is hardly unbiased or entirely accurate when it comes to reporting on Wikipedia. Similarly, when it pertains to matters dealing with Prem Rawat, John Brauns and Mike Finch are no more reliable than Ed Decker in matters dealing with the Latter-Day Saints. Certainly, if it is felt necessary, Jossi's contributions should be reviewed yet again. However, I would recommend treading carefully before seizing onto the claims of such clearly antagonistic sources. Vassyana (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So I'm new enough here to not know that Jossi created the COIN, but after reading the Register article, I'd say there are enough exaggerations and questionable interpretations to make me not trust this specific article. If anyone insists, I will go through and identity these, but quite frankly, I'd want to see some specific diffs of Jossi inserting or deleting material to which COI would apply before I'd consider a full out investigation. MBisanz talk 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anybody wants to take claims uncritically, especially from a source with such a flair for the dramatic. On the other hand, given that Wikipedia's value to the public is based in large part on a perception that we are trustworthy, I think it's worth taking the time to carefully look into the questions raised and put together a page detailing the facts as we see it.
However, I'm certainly concerned that Jossi has made over 1000 edits to the Prem Rawat page alone, more than any other editor. Given his admitted conflict of interest, that can't help but look suspicious to an outsider. Combine that with Jossi's Jossi's early dedication to these topics, and I think a reasonable outside observer could be concerned. William Pietri (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Perusing the article and article talk page and history shows some of the well-known tactics used to push POV: frequent archiving of the discussion threads, tag-team reverts, delaying tactics in discussions on the merits of sources, attacking the supposed motivations of the authors of the sources, etc. To be fair, if Jossi hadn't somewhat declared his COI (and the Register article gives evidence that he may have misrepresented his COI) on the subject, he would only be guilty (arguably, of course) of POV pushing. But, POV pushing plus evidence of COI equals serious COI, as in serious enough that action has to be taken to protect the article from it. Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Before anyone starts believing "The Lord of the Universe owns Wiki", here is a incomplete list of people who edit Prem Rawat related material who regularly contribute to the anti-Rawat forum- User:Wowest,User:John Brauns, User:Andries,User:Sylviecyn and User:Nik Wright2. And let's not forget the anon editors like User:24.98.132.123, User:137.222.107.32 and User:84.9.48.220 who burst on to the scene in the last week to edit without discussion. Prem Rawat articles have often been a battle ground of opinion but thanks to editors like Jossi, Vassyana and others, it has been transformed from a bloated, editing warring, quote fight into one of the most meticulously researched articles in Wiki. The PR article is almost entirely composed of the indisputable facts of Rawat's life as gleaned from independent sociologists and religious scholars. It has very little opinion pro or con as to the efficacy of Rawat's teachings and that's as it should be, Wiki is here to present the facts. If you want opinion read The Register. Momento (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Momento, attributed scholarly opinions about Rawat and his teachings do have a place in wikipedia. You have repeatedly and systematically removed many scholarly sourced critical statements. Andries (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, diffs of any bad behavior? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks


I get the feeling this is more about appearances (Caesar's wife and all that) rather than any evidence of concrete wrongdoing - so far anyway. There's no real doubt that Jossi has a significant COI here, but that's not the same as saying that he's edited abusively. To quote an unnamed Wikipedian cited in the article, "So long as you divulge a conflict and you edit appropriately in light of that conflict, then it's OK to continue editing." If people want to make the case that Jossi has edited inappropriately, there needs to be hard evidence of that. Otherwise this matter relies more on suspicions and innuendo than anything concrete. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Does that include re-writing COI policy so you yourself are not in violation of COI? - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The main culprit is revert warrior Momento. I think all people who were heavily involved in this conflict have sometimes edited inappropriately in the past (incl. me and Jossi). Diffs are easy to give. Andries (talk)
Actually, if you look at anything ever called a "cult," "large group awareness training," "Landmark Education (and anything remotely related)" any and all things remotely called a "cult," or anything possibly related to it, you'll find Jossi's trail. We're talking films, television programs (episodes of 'The Simpsons' for chrissakes) that reference cults. You admins have let this guy pretty much do whatever, including rewriting the COI policy to allow for his actions. It's the admin clique and backscratching that goes on here that got everyone caught with their pants down. All some of us had to do was sit, sift through the edits, sit back...and watch. It was assumed other admins would come to his defense to try to quickly remedy the situation, just not sure exactly how long it will last (and given this is Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if it was hidden in the basement like a deformed sibling). There's no real definitive action on editors who have jeopardized Wikipedia (or rewritten it to suit their POV) as long as they're admins who will back you up in a jam, scratch your back when you happen to need it, vote for you, and keep silent on issues such as the topic of that Register article and damning things related to it. I'm willing to bet a large sum of money there is only a symbolic wrist-slapping followed by sweeping the whole issue under the rug. Any takers? Seriously. Every edit Jossi made is in question now. And I'm ducking the bullets now because I've already been given veiled threats by an admin for even discussing any of this. --Pax Arcane 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What admin threatened for discussing this? That is highly inappropriate. Lawrence § t/e 14:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
AuburnPilot on my talk page. Threatening to block me. I have had no interaction with this guy previously. ≈ jossi ≈ has had a pattern of harrassing behavior on any critical edits concerning anything New Age/New Religious Movement/Cult/Large Group Awareness Training/Landmark Education (and probably EST/Werner Erhard)...as he acts as "the police" on these subjects and acts on behalf of anyone who who is sympathetic to these orgs and stopping any and all criticism through some of the loopholes he's helped write (appropriate sources) or just trying to help others erase criticism of their controversial orgs, from day ONE since I began bumbling about editing on Wikipedia.--Pax Arcane 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) That would be me. Of course, I didn't make veiled threats to block Pax Arcane for discussing this, but for incivility and personal attacks after seeing this and this. See here where I'm accused of "veiled threats". - auburnpilot talk 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thoughts:

  1. The Reg is not always a neutral source for such things. It's a useful "heads up" to look at an area, but a source that makes exaggerations of the kind The Reg often produces, and prefers misrepresentative "hype" to reality checking, is not (for me) a reliable source for interpretation, and its claims of facts often need double checking for good faith, fairness, balance/selectivity, and validity before any conclusions are drawn. Jossi may be respected as an admin, but the mind boggles to see him described as "ruling clique" or "inner circle" as The Reg wants to present it; no more than any other of 1000 admins and an additional 4 - 6 RFA'ed every week. He gets overturned or disagreed as easily as any other admin on project page discussions, in my experience (I haven't edited on articles he's edited on so can't comment there). A number of previous Register articles on Wikipedia have problematically sought to "find some drama element" in an issue, creating, distorting, or enhancing it to do so, if needed.
  2. Cases on Wikipedia are based on evidence from diffs. I've prepared many of these myself in disputes or for misconduct; they can take time to do well, but to make a case that's what is needed. Not just impressions with no cites provided. The nearest we have to these above are a couple of statements above saying that the history shows "some of the well-known tactics used to push POV", and that in any cult related article one will "find Jossi's trail". It is not unreasonable that an editor with an interest in such things may edit on these topics. The issue for COI/N is more, whether the editing was partial and agenda driven. For that we need to see evidence and discussion of evidence.
  3. I would therefore support those above who say that we need diffs from (say) the last year, showing manipulation of prem or cult related articles.
  4. Note well the common problem with unpopular topics: they often have strong detractors (many more detractors than supporters) and these detractors often are non neutral also. Accordingly a user who is genuinely seeking neutrality must at times rather often add "pro" material more than "anti", and at other times add "anti" as well as "pro", or refactor wordings... this can sometimes cause problems of interpreting intent. Which is why COI can be such a problem.

If anyone wishes to put together a Wikipedia case that Jossi has misedited, in any recent time interval (communally we don't tend to dredge up distant issues from years ago that seem long dead) -- say in the last 6-12 months -- then that'd be more to the point. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I have no idea whether or not Jossi has edited inappropriately, and take no position on this subject. However, I think that the Prem Rawat article needs significant work to be compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:V. In its current state, it relies very heavily on a single hagiography (Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat) and not nearly enough on mainstream media and scholarly sources. It concerns me that Rawat (a.k.a Maharaji)'s repeated early claims of being "God" or "Lord of the Universe" or something similar are not included in the introduction. Whether or not he's embarrassed by such claims now, they were an important part of his public persona in the 1970s. *** Crotalus *** 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
A review may be no bad thing. And although I haven't read the article on Prem, no bio should rely overly on one source or viewpoint (especially if painted by the subject or connected parties) without making it very clear this weakness, and seeking to rectify it via other reliable sources. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) You are welcome to read the article which is based on 72 citations, mostly from scholarly sources, with only but a few sourced to the Cagan book, and these mainly for things like the name of members of his family and other non-disputed facts. I have always welcomed reputable sources, and created holding page for all these at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As my name has been invoked as an "editor" of the Prem Rawat article I would like to put on record that virtually nothing in the current article meets with my understanding of what is Encyclopaedic or unbiased. Every balanced, constructive and intelligent attempt at creating an honest article has, in my view, been resisted by pro Rawat editors. The scale of deceit can be easily established by reference to http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/falsity.htm and http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org/wp_rebuttal/sources.htm It is not necessary to go down the route of ploughing through the minutae of diffs to see what is wrong - it's simply a matter of recognising that there are numerous viable sources which are excluded from the current article(s).

That said I do not believe that the Rawat related articles provide the greatest area of concern. What ought to be a fundamental worry to Wikipedia is that Jossi has had a significant influence not only on BLP policy but incredibly on Wikipedia's very own Conflict of Interest policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136159823

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135156880

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135157157

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=109821402

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=104271006

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=101182863

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99553349

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=88586627

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=87213909

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86449604

An administrator who is conflicted over a BLP and associated articles, is CONFLICTED over BLP policy and Conflict of Interest policy.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, and www.prem-rawat-critique.org is obviously a neutral, non-biased site that meets reliable source guidelines? All I see here is a group of anti-Prem editors accusing a pro-Prem editor of "whitewashing" or whatever. Well guess what will happen if we decide to ban all editors with a demonstrated conflict of interest from the article. Evidence speaks louder than agitated hand wringing and finger pointing. Go get some actual evidence. Thatcher 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not the first time that someone has named Jossi in a COI complaint regarding the Prem Rawat articles. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 12, "Jossi (talk · contribs) Conflict of interest on Prem Rawat related articles." Marked as Resolved by Marskell on 30 May 2007 due to lack of specific evidence of wrongdoing. Google for 'Prem Rawat wikipedia' and you'll find plenty of evidence that the Rawat articles have been a vortex of disagreement over the years. In Jossi's RfA back in October 2005 there was a support voter and and an oppose voter who mentioned his work on Prem Rawat. Through his contributions at WP:BLP/N Jossi has been helpful in a number of contested areas and I'd be surprised if his judgment is as bad as some have portrayed above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm an editor who is not given to flights of drama and who had, at this time yesterday, no particular opinions on Prem Rawat (although I'd heard of him, obviously), and I am actually stunned at how blatant a whitewash the article is right now. I haven't looked into the history enough to know whether this is due to a COI by Jossi (in recent history, it seems to be mostly non-Jossi editors who are the problem), but the article needs substantial work. I'm not even saying that where there's smoke, there's fire - just that where there's smoke, NPOV requires you to report smoke. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say that Jossi has not been the one involved in the whitewashing. From what I can piece together In jan 07, it was decided to merge Criticism of Prem Rawat into the main article since it was a POV fork. Yet, currently there is no criticism section due to several whitewashing reversions by Momento (talk · contribs). These attempts at removing the criticism, rather than trying to reach a consensus version, started shortly after the merge was completed in Jan 07. The reversions from Momento has been occurring since then, as in this example from June 2007. In Sept 07 there was a removal of NPOV tags from a user wondering why there was no criticism and two recent reverts from feb 3, 08 and feb 6, 08.
I see no evidence that Jossi participated in this type of editing but he must have been aware it was occurring since he was a constant presence on the page along with Rumiton (talk · contribs). Judging from the page history since the POV fork was merged into the article all three users (Jossi, Momento and Rumiton) have worked closely to create the current version of the article. David D. (Talk) 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Good thing Wikipedia isn't a governmental agency [6] or an organisation existing in the real world [7]. In the real world, even the appearance of COI is problematic at best. Here we try to find reasons why something couldn't possibly rise to the level of COI. "But so-and-so edited neutrally", is a common defence and yet a spurious one. Alleged neutrality (in this case the neutrality is certainly in question) is one of the most hotly contested concepts on WP. It's interesting that the Prem Rawat article has not one word of criticism -- I suppose he must be the Perfect Being, or perhaps criticism is kept out. Whatever the case, we know that Jossi has had a hand in the presentation of the Prem Rawat article, which, given that he is employed by Prem Rawat is a definite COI. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't propose that someone sanction or warn Jossi nor am I going to spend hours looking at every edit to see if they really were neutral -- I see no need to. The situation is very simple: Jossi should not edit Prem Rawat-related articles. That's true whether he's neutral in his editing or not. I'm not going to wikilawyer over current or past versions of our Conflict of Interest Guideline -- we all know in our hearts that Jossi editing this article is very inappropriate, whatever fine print might be squeezed into the conversation to allow it. It's just incompatible with our culture. Not only that, but it's especially important that admins set a good example.

I think a promise from Jossi not to edit this or related articles going into the future should be sufficient. There's no need to flog him or cast aspersions on him.

Jossi, can you agree with this? --A. B. (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You would have to acknowledge the other types of articles I mentioned above. Otherwise, this is going to pop up yet again. I don't see him agreeing to either scenario. I see it being played out as he advises people on talk pages or offsite on editing that article, and in essence, he'll still be editing it. You take the cult-related topics away from him, he'll have no reason to be here anymore, no paying day job. --Pax Arcane 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If Jossi truly was a neutral editor in the Rawat and associated articles, then the articles wouldn't have as much of a skewed POV as they have now because Jossi would have helped fix that. He's been editing Wikipedia for almost three years now (or is it longer) and should know by now how to edit a neutral article. Since it appears that he's either unable or unwilling to edit the Rawat articles neutrally, I again state a formal request that he stay away from all Rawat-related articles. Cla68 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the last 250 edits to the article, jossi has made 6 by my count, and these are the diffs"

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

Is someone really suggesting that he is introducing POV to the article? If so, then they need to provide such diffs. A COI only applies if the person is a POV editor. Where is the evidence? The very closest I see see above is that he's made a lot of edits to the article. What you need to show now is that they, or a significant number of them, were POV edits. This, unless I'm mistaken, has not been done. If it has, please point me to the analysis. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And one other thing: any expert has a COI. Do we really want, as -A. B. said above, to restrict expert editing? There is a reason that the rules are written as they are: we need the experts, as long as they edit neutrally. Here is what the ArbCom had to say on it [13]. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Note well the common problem with unpopular topics: they often have strong detractors (many more detractors than supporters) and these detractors often are non neutral also. Accordingly a user who is genuinely seeking neutrality must at times rather often add "pro" material more than "anti", and at other times add "anti" as well as "pro", or refactor wordings... this can sometimes cause problems of interpreting intent. Which is why COI can be such a problem. This, from a previous contributor, sums up a key issue. There are enough editors in Wikipedia whose only interest in articles on New Religious Movements is to add derogatory, often poorly sourced information. Truly neutral and knowledgeable editors taking a committed interest in these articles are few and far between. Leaving these articles to the detractors, who have their own POV issues, will not result in neutral articles either. Note that no one would seriously want to suggest
  • that muslims should be prohibited from editing the article on Islam,
  • that the article on Hillary Rodham Clinton should only be edited by Republicans and/or supporters of Barack Obama,
  • that women who have aborted should be barred from editing the article on abortion, or
  • that gay editors should stay away from the article on homosexuality.
Even if followers of Prem Rawat should prove to have been somewhat too successful in eliminating criticism from the Prem Rawat article, this is preferable to what would result if none of his followers were allowed to edit the article. Such problems as there may be present can be solved with community involvement. There are important principles at stake here; let's not chuck the baby out with the bath water. -- 172.189.198.112 (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's where he removed a criticism section concerning an organization that his been called a cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=103890457 I'll keep adding to this as he's the "whitewash" admin for editors on that page. --Pax Arcane 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Here's where he removed a criticism section concerning an organization that his been called a cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=103890457 I'll keep adding to this as he's the "whitewash" admin for editors on that page. --Pax Arcane 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, all he did was move the critisism to a different section, not remove it. He also would have been right to remove it if he had, as the section was completely unreferenced. All your link shows is his own self-restraint. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's where he removed a criticism section concerning an organization that has been called a cult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=prev&oldid=103890457

I'll keep adding to this as he's the "whitewash" admin for editors on that page. --Pax Arcane 23:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Since all jossi did was move the section to a new heading, you are doing a good job of creating evidence that this is merely an attack, without any basis in fact. And you're being disruptive and not listening to other editors. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break

The article does appear to be a bit positive at present, with a lack of criticism. Jossi linked to the collected scholars page, but there is no reason to not use additional sourcing from maintstream international media. For example, it's a fact that Rawat billed himself in deity-like terms, was called "Lord of the Universe", or still is, and his followers lined up to kiss his feet. Why is there no mention of this? A ten-second Google news trip turns up media coverage of this. Considerably more sourcing by searching for "Maharaji" instead of his current non de plume. Why isn't there critical or "negative" coverage of him, when it seems to exist? Articles are never limited to just "scholarly" sources. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems unusual to me that a COI is filed because of something outside of the Wikipedia community, especially given the obvious bias of the article, and the request of the editor in question for assistance in dealing with the ever sensationalist press.
"The Register had just presented strong evidence that Jossi has serious COI issues with Prem Rawat articles."
The Register has presented...? If there are concerns with an article, there are procedures in place so that the editors of the article can deal with the problems, like discussion as an obvious example. If those editors cannot deal with the problems, then there is another procedure, and then another. Filing a COI because of the press is a slippery slope. Where does that stop? Do Wikipedia editors really want to be tossed around like so many leaves in the wind. That's what we are looking at if the press starts to influence the business of this encyclopedia.(olive (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
In a word, yes. I grant completely that the Register is sensationalizing things, and it could all be bunk. But anybody should be able to call our attention to a potential problem. And if they have an audience of a half-million people, that's all the more reason for us to look into their concerns. We are only as effective as we are trusted. William Pietri (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
ec::Like wow, maybe no one noticed the connexion until it was pointed out. Like, did you know about Abu Ghraib and waterbording before it was pointed out? When I saw Jossi's "disclaimer" the other day I wasn't happy about it, but I was too lazy to check it out. There's a reason that a Pullet Surprise is awarded for investigative reporting. •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
ec::Yes, the press does "influence this encyclopedia" otherwise we wouldn't require sources. The fact is, the Register piece has brought to light mis-doings on Wikipedia. Should we just ignore it? Seriously? I think not. There's no denieing a "good ole boy club" exists on Wikipedia between some Admins. I would urge everyone to take this matter seriously and to do what is right, whatever that may be. However, ignoring it or slaps on the wrist is not doing "what is right". - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The press is alleging misdoings. If its all bunk we are putting a well respected admin. and editor through a lot to find out that it was all bunk. We have ways of dealing in the community with problem articles . If there is a problem deal with it. If the editor in question indicates at that point that he is not capable of NPOV editing, then go to the next level.(olive (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

No, there have been no mis-doings. I'll state it like that. Now, it is your job, as the prosecution, to present evidence of POV editing. If you don't, then this is all merely noise- and attack noise at that. If jossi has not edited in a POV manner, he can consider it a non-issue, a tempest in a coin pot. Give some evidence. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Better. Innocent until proven guilty.(olive (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Register article is bad editorial

Disclaimer: I skimmed through the above, but read The Register article in its entirety.[14] I wanted to comment on the editorial. I have to say, it's a pretty bad editorial. First off, it's titled "Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'", which is your first red flag. It's extremely sensational. It assumes that Wikipedia is ruled by someone, that this someone is the "Lord of the Universe", and then goes on to suggest that this Lord of the Universe is actually Prem Rawat, and that Jossi is his proxy. What a load of garbage. Not even Jimbo himself runs this place, and to suggest that Jossi is somehow all powerful ruler in charge of Wikipedia is complete BS. It's all innuendo. What's more is that this innuendo conflates one topic, the topic of Prem Rawat, as representative of all of Wikipedia. It's meant to demonstrate that Wikipedia is a cult, ran by an obscure cult, when we all know that Wikipedia is a huge community representing all manner of interests and can't be pinned on one topic, or one editor. To suggest that one editor rules it all is complete horseshit. I normally enjoy reading The Register for IT trivia, but this load of garbage is worse than supermarket tabloids. It is purely written to cater to people's fear of cults and should not be considered reliable at all. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Nixonites raised the same crit of the Washington Post. Nixon resigned. The WP still exists. •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Am I supposed to be a metaphorical Nixonite here? There's a huge reliability difference between the Washington Post and The Register, and this editorial tries to demonstrate that 1) Wikipedia is ran by a cult 2) The cult is The Prem Rawat Foundation and that 3) All of Wikipedia's checks and balances rely on this very noticeboard (It makes the claim that the COI Noticeboard is the central hub of WP's policing). I mean, come on, in the second paragraph of the editorial it says:

But there's a catch. One of the site’s leading administrators bears an extreme conflict of interest, but you can’t expose him from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. He created the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.

Obviously that's BS, because here we are. It's an editorial meant to cater to the fear of cults, and undermine the reliability of Wikipedia, but presented with a gross misrepresentation of how Wikipedia actually works. The checks and balances Wikipedia afford are not dependent on this noticeboard, and no one is immune from this noticeboard. If the writer at The Register even bothered, he could have even posted his gripes about Jossi here. It's pure sensational rubbish. --Nealparr (talk to me) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is ran by a cult" run, run, the word is run. "but you can’t expose him from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard" huh?
As for the rest, it's very difficult to have a discussion when the points are poorly presented. Knee-jerk defence is as bad as knee-jerk condemnation. I prefer to look at the facts. •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You're seriously suggesting that the Register editorial should be taken as reliable because of my grammar? The second part about the COI noticeboard is a direct quote. So I'm a metaphorical Nixonite with bad grammar, great, the editorial is still rubbish. --Nealparr (talk to me) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, and when you've done that, present the evidence of jossi behaving badly here, so we can all look and decide if he has made POV edits. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If anyone doubts that the editorial was written just as a sensational piece, catering to people's fear of cults, and meant to discredit Wikipedia as "controlled" by cult religious freaks, just read the comments posted about the editorial.[15] It's exactly the message readers got out of it as well: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia controlled by cults. That was the author's intent, and that's what readers got out of it. Unfortunately it's a poor assessment of Wikipedia's checks and balances. Jossi doesn't control this COI board, for example, as the article claims. The readers there don't know the difference and assumes he does. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And at Digg it's been reframed [16] as:

One of Wikipedia's top 3 editors is a longtime student of Prem Rawat, the India-born spiritual leader who is largely considered to be a cult leader. This leads to an extreme conflict of interest because he maintains and edits the guru's page. But you can ’t report a Conflict of Interest because he's the head of that council too.

LOL. Of course that was the author's intent, to discredit Wikipedia and make it look like it's being run by a cult. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On conflicts of interest

Above there are some notions about conflicts of interest above that I'd like to address, as I think they are not just mistaken, but dangerously so.

  • First, it is suggested if Jossi's edits are all good ones, then there is no conflict of interest. That's incorrect. As an admin and editor on Wikipedia, Jossi has an interest in Wikipedia doing well. As "a proud student of Maharaji, which I have known for more than 20 years," he has an interest in his teacher being seen in a positive light. These interests will unavoidably conflict, even if he manages the conflict well.
  • Second, someone expressed the notion that forbidding conflicted edits would mean ruling out expert contributions. That's not so; people with conflicts of interest are invited to contribute through discussion. Further, participants are not the only experts, and are rarely the best ones. For example, if a member of the Clinton administration were to start rewriting Bill Clinton's page, I'd be horrified, no matter how much expertise they might have.
  • Third, there's an implication that no bad edits mean there's no problem. That's dangerously wrong. Even if the article were perfectly balanced (and some suggest otherwise), we still have an issue of appearance. Consider another analogy. People in the US are widely suspicious that Haliburton has been helped unduly by its former CEO, Vice President Cheney. Even though no improper behavior has been proved, the relationship still has reduced the credibility of the Bush administration.

That's not to say that Jossi has done anything wrong. I haven't had a chance to dig in enough to have an opinion, and from seeing him around I have favorable impression of him. But because Wikipedia only matters to the extent people trust us, I think it's worth taking the questions raised very seriously. William Pietri (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a point to looking into this further. Jossi has admitted to having a COI, and the only things that can actually be done about a COI are blocks and topic bans to prevent bad behavior. And to disagree with your third point, the lack of bad behavior (or the lack of evidence thereof) is a pretty good indicator that there's no bad behavior to prevent, except some completely hypothetical one. Issues with the article should be handled by bold action, discussion, and dispute resolution; they should not be dealt with by suggesting that Jossi is responsible for them. And what's really feeding this thread are a few editors screaming "POV-pushing" without providing any diffs of such behavior, which to me is just further suggestion that no bad behavior exists. And while action can be taken merely to preserve Wikipedia's image, I think it would be a bad idea to give the Register article any more weight in that sense than your run-of-the-mill Wiki-bashing news story. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That there are no codified options doesn't mean that there are no options, and it certainly doesn't mean that there's no point to discussion or further investigation. We could jointly put together an examination of the Register's claims, for example. If we think they are meritless, we can say so. And if people feel there's a problem, we could, as Cla68 has, ask Jossi to stay away from those articles where he has a conflict of interest.
My current feeling is that even if we throw out the Register article entirely, I'm still concerned. That an admin has made thousands of edits to a topic where they have a deep and multi-decade conflict of interest strikes me as a big image problem, no matter who the admin or what the topic. William Pietri (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it is all about edits. Nothing else.
  • People with possible COI are invited to edit the article, as long as the do so carefully and follow NPOV [17].
  • Actually, your horror at possible COI is fine- it's yours, and you have a right to it. But it isn't WP.
  • No bad edits mean there is not a problem. It isn't an implication, it is a fact. We aren't about appearance, we are about content.
  • Someguy is correct: no bad behavior means no problem. Further, it means that jossi's expertise is applied in the proper way, the way that WP should hope all experts will edit: toward the creation of an NPOV article without letting personal bias interfere. The more experts, AKA "people with COI problems" who edit that way the better.

Either present some evidence, or quit harassing jossi. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I deeply resent your claim that I am harassing anybody. If you'd like to suggest ways that I can raise my concerns more politely, feel free. But telling me not to raise them is inappropriate. Second, conflating expertise with a conflict of interest is, as I said above, bad thinking. Third, conflicts of interest harm credibility, which is why real-world institutions take them so seriously. This is important to us because our mission requires not just that we write articles, but that people trust them. William Pietri (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about this whole claim. Lack of evidence = harassment. And I've seen this often: claims of COI without evidence of POV editing. It just adds up to a way to harass editors. "conflating expertise with a conflict of interest is, as I said above, bad thinking" Right, and that is why we need evidence. Which we don't have. We aren't a political institution- if we do a good job, and people say "ah, they're just COI" then that's just what happens. All you do otherwise is encourage people not to use their real names. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Martin, are you seriously suggesting that he doesn't have a conflict of interest? It seems pretty obvious to me that he has a huge one. From that, I think there are three reasonable questions: Have his edits been good ones? Is the article balanced? And, setting aside the edits and the article, does the conflict of interest harm Wikipedia's reputation? Of those three questions, only one of them can be decided by looking at his edits. Which we should certainly do, but the discussion must not stop there.
I also disagree utterly that our reputation does not matter. It may not matter to you, but credibility is vital to our mission. William Pietri (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that puts it well. I would say:
1. A COI is not a potential COI. Whether or not a person has a real as opposed to potential COI is determined by their edits. So it is yet to be determined whether or not he has a COI, see nutshell quotation on the COI page.
2. Whether or not the article is balanced is not relevant, unless it is determined it is jossi's fault that it is not balanced.
3. If we are going to determine COI on whether the editors have the potential for COI, WP won't work. Jimbo can't edit policy, and no one can edit anything they know anything about. It simply won't work. No, we cannot determine whether a person has a real COI on who they are or what they do, only on their edits. Think of the results otherwise- if nothing else, as I said above, it merely gives an advantage to the less honest, who don't use their real names. What you want is to treat people fairly- which means judging them only on their edits. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem. Take a look at our mainspace article, conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists not when somebody has behaved badly, but just when their interests conflict. Jossi has many roles, including editor, admin, devotee, and employee. In those roles, he has different interests. When he edits Wikipedia articles on his guru or his employer, those interests conflict. Whether he handles the conflict well or poorly does not affect the existence of that conflict. What you call a potential COI is just a conflict of interest. Is that clearer?
On point 2, Jossi, especially as an admin, has an obligation to work toward a balanced article. Doubly so given his vast activity on the topic.
Regarding point 3, expertise does not automatically create conflicts of interest, and having conflicted interests does not make you an expert. An expert should be able to write broadly and neutrally about a topic. Being a partisan may give you a fair bit of information, but does not make you an expert. I agree we should avoid advantaging the dishonest, but that doesn't mean we should ignore problems with honest editors, either.
Hoping that makes things clearer, William Pietri (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, that's just not true. The article begins "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor.
COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Emphasis added.
Well, that means if he has been an NPOV editor, he has only a potential COI, not one which WP is concerned about. Thus, evidence of POV editing is necessary to determine if his COI is anything real or not.
The rest of what you say I agree with. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Martin, when I say "conflict of interest", I do not mean "Wikipedia conflict of interest as defined at WP:COI". I am talking about the thing that the rest of the English-speaking world calls a conflict of interest, where one's interests conflict. It is defined in our main-space article on the topic, and any number of other reference works. Jossi has a major conflict of interest on these articles and on the COI policy itself, even if he has not edited in violation of our WP:COI guideline.
I understand that you are saying that he has not violated that guideline as written. I agree that if people want to accuse him of that, they should provide evidence in the form of diffs. However, there are other important issues here, and it is mainly those that concern me. William Pietri (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
With that explanation, then, we agree on things, and Durova's advice below would be good. As usually defined, he has a COI, and should be open and highly circumspect with relation to the articles -as I'm sure knowing him that he has been all along. The COI as defined outside Wikipedia shouldn't entirly keep him from editing and participating in the articles though. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
William, if you'll notice, Martin has no confusion over what a COI is, merely over what wording to use and when. His point is quite on the ball that COI doesn't promote sanctions against NPOV editors, and Martin prefers to call these "potential COIs." You can call them actual COIs if you want, but that change of wording doesn't translate into a need for action. You say that investigation is warrented, so please, go ahead. If you look up through this discussion, you'll notice that Martin and I have searched for problem edits and didn't find any. Others claim they exist but won't provide actual diffs. If you see something bad in Jossi's contribs (ie, an actual reason to believe he can't be trusted to edit under his COI), please let us all know. But until then, there's nothing here to warrant any action. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
When a person's interests conflict, that is a conflict of interest, not a potential one. This is not a quibble over definitions; actual conflicts of interest have real-world implications, and Jossi has a major conflict of interest. As I've said several times in this section, the issues that concern me exist whether or not any individual edit is in violation of the WP:COI guideline. I've explained it several ways and don't know how to be clearer. If there's some way I can aid you in understanding my concerns, please let me know what that would be. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to get you guys to see the gravity, tonight and tomorrow, I will list each article Jossi has a COI with so you can see the totality and severity of the situation. It's not _just_ Prem Rewat article. It is many articles. I'll start with the one from an episode of 'The Simpsons' and owrk on down. My example above was a poor one, but I'll be damned if anyone claims there's a COI with Jossi on ONE article. --Pax Arcane 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


I'm sure there are a lot. But it won't matter a whit unless you find some POV diffs. Here is what COI is:

This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.

Unless you show where jossi violated this, rather than where he might violate it if he were going to violate it, you really show nothing at all. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to take a moment to get the articles. There are many. The Reg article took a considerable amount of time to write because it included specific instances. I know where they are, but I'm not an admin, this isn't my day job like it is Jossi's, and it will take time. But each separate article is going to get a COI listing on this page NOT this section. Too much slippery room for it to get swept under the table listing them here. 'The Joy of Sect,' a Simpsons episode is going up first. If parody and humor of a cult leader needs a pro-cult POV, something is horribly wrong at Wikipedia, and with turn-the-blind-eye admins. --Pax Arcane 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So the situation is: a sensationalist article written by someone who probably has very little knowledge of how Wikipedia operates has decided that one of the editors here has a COI. Therefore, all of the articles this editor has worked on will now be posted. Rather all of the articles will be posted as chosen by another editor who independently decides these are COI articles. Then, the assumption will be that every article will undergo careful scrutiny by multiple editors to see if there are COI edits. Rather than Dirova's suggestion "My recommendation to Jossi is to continue monitoring any article of interest, but exercise greater use of noticeboards and ask for impartial intervention when there's a problem, if direct intervention might be construed as improper."If we can be sure that every single article is carefully scrutinized by every single editor who comments than this might be practical, otherwise I would suggest that Durova's recommendation would be less wieldy. Wikipedia itself must provide the internal checks and balances that keep the encyclopedia neutral without the interference of the non-neutral press.(olive (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
Olive, if it's gotten to the point where other admins have to hold another admin's hand like a child, that person (and the enablers) have no business being admins or ever editors at Wikipedia. Jossi is a 50-something year old grown-ass man. Hand holding and gently scolding are for 5-year olds. Is this turning into Wikipedia Daycare for Admins? --Pax Arcane 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Pax. Let me be perfectly clear here. I personally find Jossi to be an excellent admin and editor from all that I've seen of him . I don't think he needs his hand held or slapped , and I see no evidence that he has edited in a way that is non-neutral . I am however invoking the internal structures of Wikipedia to deal with the questions that some editors are asking rather than begin to look outside of ourselves for suggested evidence of wrongdoing.(olive (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Arbitrary section break

The central point of of our onsite mechanisms has been to manage Wikipedia internally so that the free press doesn't manage it for us. The free press is in the business of selling eyeballs to advertisers; this does not incline them to be kind. I have always advised people who had a conflict of interest to manage their own actions so that they minimize the appearance of impropriety. WP:COI and WP:COIN are minor things compared to an actual public relations disaster. It remains to be seen whether other press outlets will pick up on the Register story. Most reporters have very little idea how this site actually operates, and that affects the quality of their coverage. My recommendation to Jossi is to continue monitoring any article of interest, but exercise greater use of noticeboards and ask for impartial interention when there's a problem, if direct intervention might be construed as improper. The particular way the Prem Rawat article looks on some given day isn't very important, compared to the embarrassment of negative media coverage. DurovaCharge! 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the people who've turned a blind eye and essentially colluded need to have the hell embarassed out of them. The world doesn't doesn't have to understand the inner workings of Wikipedia. They don't and won't, but if they smell a rat and impropriety, take your licks as admins and editors. You ALL had the power to prevent this article for happening. You've edited with him and watched him edit. The public has a need to know the end result, and if the behind-the-scenes stuff is something they won't understand, be prepared to explain why what happened, happened.--Pax Arcane 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Pax, your repeated injection of drama into this is not helping us toward clarity. Punishment, through embarrassment or otherwise, is not Wikipedia's way. If people make mistakes, we assume they do so in the best of faith. When we discover the mistakes, we try to correct them and learn from them. When people are unavoidably disruptive, the most we do is disallow their participation, as to do otherwise would hopelessly impede our work.
In this case, I see no evidence that anybody has acted other than with the best of intentions. From everything I've seen, Jossi seems like a skilled, energetic, and affable participant. Everybody else involved seems to be working in equally good faith. If you are having trouble treating your fellow editors with the respect and generosity that is their due, I'd suggest you take a long walk. It does wonders for me. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Pax, please have the good faith to suppose my attentions were elsewhere. Wikipedia has 1500 administrators and millions of articles. It simply isn't possible to keep on top of everything. COIN needs more volunteers; I've implored the community to prioritize it. Please join that effort. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it good-faith, gullability, or complete lack of concern? That's where the distinctions have to be made. You voted this guy on RfA, is this correct? I've watched you congratulate him on his talk page, correct me if I'm wrong. You can't say you didn't know something was up. I just got here and saw what he was doing deep into my second month. It was/is so brazen. COIN does need more volunteers, I agree. I think, however, no one but Admins are taken seriously, and if one follows that to the end result, when one of your brothers and sisters fall...you all fall. I admit to being uncivil, headstrong, and stubborn while editing articles who have cult-apologists hovering over them. I'm in the medical field, mental health...believes in science. I'm also a former journalist. I take both seriously. My behavior at Wikipedia has very much been like heated debated in the press room when we all had deadlines and had to get the facts straight with confirmation. I've had difficulty adjusting to this new environment. But I've worked with biased writers who have ruined rags I've worked for, and ruined the good, ethical work we all did. Wikipedia shall not take that direction. I think the RfA process should take a lot longer than it does, be more lengthy, and I agree more people need to volunteer at COIN. But I think a middle ground of 'tween Admins needs to exist between editors and Admins. And maybe this will prevent the ballot stuffing in the RfA process and will make 'tween Admins earn their Admin status. Just my honest thoughts. --Pax Arcane 03:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is Jossi's RFA. As you can see, it closed on October 15, 2005. My first edit to Wikipedia was on October 22, 2005. To pharaphrase your choice selection of words, is it bad faith, gullibility, or complete lack of concern that led you to pose such a loaded question over a speculation you could have disproven in less time than it took to type the post? DurovaCharge! 04:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a speculation solely aimed at you, it's why I asked if you voted for his RfA...couldn't remember, didn't want to accuse you. I'm tired and not swift at seraching Wikipedia for those kinds of edits on the spot. Please bear with me. I'm exhausted. Do my suggestions make sense, though? --Pax Arcane 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've quite a few thoughts along those lines. It isn't easy to counsel someone about how to protect himself or herself from a major PR liability while the person doesn't understand anything more than Wikipedia is a top Google return and I'm the one saying "no" to them. Those people are often rude, difficult, you name it. And I worry if there's an unfavorable appearance regarding a respective editor. Bear in mind, though, that it's very easy to work in different areas and simply trust the people whose reputations are well established. And once the press gets into a story it's out of our hands. DurovaCharge! 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi COI diffs

Jossi disclosed his conflict of interest on October 15, 2006, if not earlier. The disclosure is deeply buried and the link is in small type. We don't know when the conflict actually started. It predates his editing on Wikipedia according to the Register article. Either way his activities since declaring his COI are relevant. Also, Jossi isn't just a follower. According to the Register article he's been an employee in the office of Rawat. So this isn't like a Muslim writing about Islam - this is like a statesman's press secretary writing about his boss.

Jossi's conflict of interest has been a sticking point for a long time: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]

Jossi said:

  • "I am not editing this article besides making no-contentious edits, making minor edits, and applying BLP as advised by this guideline and the WP:::BLP policy."
  • "I am not participating in deletion discussions"

Here are edits to Prem Rawat that aren't minor, that impact the POV of the article and that don't comply with WP:COIC. [25] [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] [36][37][38][39][40][41] [42][43][44][45][46][47] [48][49][50][51][52][53] [54][55][56][57][58][59] [60][61][62]

He's made significant edits to every article in category:Prem Rawat. Having a conflict of interest regarding Rawat means also having one regarding the Prem Rawat Foundation, Rawat's family, books about Rawat and other closely related topics. These are just the edits from 2007. He made even far more before that.

Jossi's conflict of interest editing isn't limited to the English language. He's made significant edits to PR articles in other languages. Whilst that isn't an enforcement issue for EN.WP it shows his approach to editing with a conflict of interest. [100][101] He also promotes Rawat on sister projects.[102][103]

Jossi says he does not participate in deletion discussions though that hasn't been the case. [104][105][106][107] (a list that includes Prem Rawat)

Jossi has even used his admin tools to block related usernames (the blocks were alright although he should have foundunconflicted admininstrators to do them). [108][109]

He's worked with a tag team of user:Momento and user:Rumiton as can be seen throughout the edit history plus these pages: [110][111][112][113][114][115]

He's come to the defence of members of the tag team [116]

He's pursued action against those who's edits aren't favourable to his POV: [117][118][119]

Jossi looks like a neutral editor and administrator on other topics. On this topic he does not. Jossi has declared his COI and now he needs to follow through by not editing in any way the articles related to Prem Rawat. COIN tosser (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — COIN tosser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (UTC).

Jossi first disclosed his conflict of interest on 1 September 2004, so I don't think it's right to imply he was hiding anything. Thanks for posting the links; I will look through them when I get the chance. Could you say why you started a new account to post this? Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked through about half your diffs before I decided to stop, failing to see a single act of POV pushing. In case this was your point, simply failing to ever add negative material (actually, he did add a teeny bit of that) is not the same as POV pushing. As for the deletion discussions, even SPAs are permitted to participate in those, so even if there's a general reason to be concerned there, I just don't see anything to get worked up over. As for the "tag-teaming", there's nothing wrong with users having similar interests, unless you're going to accuse them of sock/meatpuppetry, or gaming the 3RR system. And as for "pursu[ing] action against those who's edits aren't favourable to his POV," all I see is constructive discussion and one 3RR post that didn't go his way. In fact, pursing action in the appropriate forums in the form of candid discussion shows all the more his ability to restrain himself from abusing his administrative powers, and thus is even more reason to trust him to edit within policy. If I am to go even further, the fact that you're an obvious scrutiny-evading sockpuppet (the log shows you created your account today) is just further evidence to me that this thread exists only to make insubstantive complaints about Jossi. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So you skim a few and bury your head in the sand for the rest? I'm not getting it. What purpose does this serve and what's your interest in beating the "Jossi's innocent" drum? What's the payoff? --Pax Arcane 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If by "a few" you mean 25 of his 90 diffs and links. This serves the purpose of weeding out frivolous complaints. As I said above, if you have a substantive complaint to make, if you have a diff that shows bad behavior, show it to the world. If you're only here to whine about Jossi's COI, nothing is going to come of it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone sort the above into questionable edits and mundane edits? There are 102 (I think) and if someone can sort them into ones that might be POV and ones that clearly aren't, it would help. I know it's been said before, but COI isn't just editing the article (interest), it's editing the article to push a POV (conflict). --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As I mention above, his interests conflict whether or not he has made bad edits. As an admin, he a responsibility to work in Wikipedia's interests. As an employee and follower, he has an interest in people thinking well of Prem Rawat. Those interests conflict when he edits articles related to Prem Rawat. That's not to say he has done anything wrong, and his early declaration of his conflict of interest suggests he's trying to handle the conflict responsibly. But still, the conflict of interest exists and is a major one. William Pietri (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not actually right. If Jossie...
  1. Has a responsibility to Wikipedia's interests (admin), and
  2. Has an interest in people thinking well of Prem Rawat (employee),
then it's only a conflict if either
  1. Prem Rawat is against Wikipedia's interests (admin), or
  2. Wikipedia has an interest in people thinking poorly of Prem Rawat (employee).
Otherwise the two "occupations" and interests are not conflicting. If Wikipedia's interest is NPOV concerning Prem Rawat (policy establishes this), then it can only be a conflict if Prem Rawat's interests regarding Wikipedia are established as non-NPOV. In other words, the conflict of interest is established only through a demonstration of Prem Rawat's interests (Jossi by proxy), and requires a POV push away from NPOV. If Jossi's edits are NPOV, then it is established that Prem Rawat's interests regarding Wikipedia are likewise NPOV, and therefore no conflict exists because the interests are the same: NPOV. So the "conflict" is actually edit-dependent.
Hypothetical example: A marketing representative from Microsoft wanting to make sure the features list on a software title published by them is factually correct is not a conflict of interest, even if their interest is purely financial. The reason it is not a COI is because the edit is factually neutral, and in accord with Wikipedia's NPOV interest. Thus, though their interest is financial, because the edit is factually neutral there's no conflicting interest; the financial motive is made irrelevant through the neutral edit and Wikipedia's NPOV interests are served. Maybe someone else can think of an example where COI isn't edit-dependent, but I can't. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I feel this is an important discussion of policy, not just about Jossi. In much of the world, people are required to avoid a potential conflict of interest. For instance, judges recuse themselves from cases. We're concerned if a judge has a conflict -- regardless of whether we personally deprecate the judgment, so likewise we should be concerned if an editor has a conflict, regardless of whether we personally deprecate the edits. Our current policy is quite lax, in my view, regarding potential conflicts of interest, which should be avoided to the extent feasible. Leaving Jossi aside, I would like to see us make progress in getting editors w/COI to avoid directly editing on their conflicted topics. This could greatly improve our articles and disputes, not to mention the appearance/reputation of Wikipedia (if such "exposes" have any effect). Thanks. HG | Talk 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's failure to assume my good faith diff 9 Sept. 2007, "Just to remind you that you blew your previous three attempts at dispute resolution. You have zero credibility in this project as it pertains to any assumptions of good faith, Andries." diff 14 Oct. 2007 Andries (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I see no purpose in prolonging this discussion at this stage. What mainly seems to have happened here is that The Register and a few other editors have discovered OMG Jossi is a follower of Prem, which he disclosed 3-1/2 years ago. After 88 KB of hand-wringing, we finally have a presentation of diffs that show Jossi edits the article, but no evidence of disruption, edit-warring, or misuse of administrative tools. The Conflict of Interest guidelines do not prohibit COI editing; they advise against it because editing with a COI can sometimes lead to disruptive behavior, edit-warring, failure to follow consensus, and so forth. If you think the article is a "whitewash", then fix it. If, during the process of fixing it, you get into disputes with Jossi that can not be solved by dispute resolution (RFC or mediation), then it would be time to consider article or topical bans. However, be aware that concerns about COI editing apply equally to editors who are deeply opposed to Prem and contribute to anti-Prem web sites. As far as discussion of policy is concerned, and whether appearance of a conflict is actionable in the absence of actual disruptive editing, that policy discussion should be held at WT:COI. Thatcher 11:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Postlude, re. "If you think the article is a "whitewash", then fix it." (part of the closing editors' recommendation): I did. See [120] and [121]. Only I know, and feel bad about, that probably I overwrote some intermediate constructive edits in the process too. So, inviting others to further improve the Prem Rawat article. If however all criticism is whitewashed (again), I might get involved (again), notwithstanding my low interest in the subject of that article. Happy editing! --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So, does this mean I can now start adding the other articles as this one was the only COI Jossi had listed and closed? Good. I start work in the evening.--Pax Arcane 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Thatcher, no Francis, your advice of fixing what is bad has not worked in the past. I tried to fix it incl. many attempts at diapute resolution and it did not work. Andries (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Who put that "Resolved" tag at the top of this? Does that mean that Jossi has agreed to stay away from all Rawat-related articles? If so, then this really is resolved. I hope that those articles will now be neutral, although to be fair, it wasn't just Jossi that was keeping that from happening. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

COI actually relates to a core issue with wikipedia. I was formerly a highly active contributor to this site, but I have found that negative aspects of many topics entailing issues of faith or patriotism or simple allegiance are totally uneditable for "civilian" contributors as they are controlled by vested-interest editors who purposely employ their administrative muscle to restrict criticism of such issues of faith. Anyone who has tried to contribute e.g. in the field of Israel-Palestine knows exactly what I am talking about, these articles are tightly controlled by a couple of zionists, and the article is essentially entirely locked down by these revert-monsters. Its also entirely natural for a brainwashed cult fanatic to attempt to control the exact topic plus the global policy on permissions to control such topics in spite of a COI. Aren't there enough editors around? Shouldn't any COI upon statement or discovery lead to the editor becoming immediately ENTIRELY barred from that topic/subject area? I have actually given up and withdrawn from making contributions. I vastly enjoyed the register article for pointing out just one instance of this problem; nonetheless, this is a systemic issue. Theres been a lot of busting parties with vested interests via IP, which led to good press. When in comes to wikipedia-internal vested interests, the same or even higher standards ought to be applied. COI should be a lot stricter. Best regards 201.17.164.203 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jossi and Prem Rawat 2

See Wikipedia:COI/N#User:Jossi and Prem Rawat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look at Jossi's succesful recent attempt at stopping dispute resolution. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the dates? July 2007 isn't recent. This issue is CLOSED. MER-C 13:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No, this is not closed. This was a pivotal event that had long lasting consequences. How could I possibly have kept the article balanced when there were two editors active (user:Momento and user:Rumiton) who reverted nearly all my edits in combination with Jossi's succes at stopping dispute resolution. Clearly I could not. Andries (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I will propose a policy change to WP:COI that it is inappropriate to assume bad faith esp. when having a conlict of interest and that is completely inappropriate to try to stop serious dispute resolution. Andries (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Go file a user RFC if and only if you have evidence of recent - i.e. no more than a month old - disruptive editing by Jossi. There's nothing we can do until you provide such evidence. MER-C 09:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting that Andries brings that diff. Hope editors go and read it, and see the kind of behavior I have had to deal with there. Some people do not seem to be able to get a clue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking to MusicBrainz

Before I start: I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, so if there is a better place please just point me to it.

Now the problem: Maybe some of you know MusicBrainz, an online database for music metadata (artist and album information etc.). It provides an unique ID for every artist, album and track. Many artist and album pages here on Wikipedia link to the corresponding MusicBrainz entry, allowing the user to get further information on that particular artist or album. There are quite a lot artists and [albums and a few songs that already include those links. There is a MusicBrainz WikiProject that tries to improve on this and cross link more artists and albums.

Now I edited some artist pages here on Wikipedia and added the links to the corresponding MusicBrainz page. For doing this I was, in quite a rude way, accused of spaming by the user John. That surprises me, as for me it seemed common practice to link to MusicBrainz and similar databases like Discogs and IMDB. Those links provide the user with more information on the artists or albums. Is there already some concensus on those links? OutsideContext (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

AutoSimSport Magazine

Resolved. Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoSimSport Magazine. MER-C 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Touchstone Technologies

Chaiman/CEO, CTO: Mark A. Stacy; President--Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Central Asian Shepherd Dog

I did a long needed cleanup for this article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Shepherd_Dog in September, 2007 and did not check it until today.

I found out that 4 days after the article was edited by another user, UKC CASSA, with defamatory and libelous statement about me. I asked to remove the statement, thanks a lot to Pairadox for help and a useful advise.--Afru (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Still unsolved--Afru (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are still two issues that need to be resolved. First is that the information about this breed of dogs is very limited in English. I did my best to translate and publish the most current, accurate and reliable verifiable information while I was in the country of origin for the breed as per September, 2007. It was replaced by way outdated, and way less informative article of very questionable accuracy.

I placed links to the registry in the country of origin and the most complete breed pictures gallery. Those were changed into links to UKC CASSA user's own US based kennel club (she is DBA for) and a US kennel, advertising dogs of this breed for sale.

I do realize that the article may need editing, but in my opinion this is not the sort of editing any given Wikipedia article will ever need. What would be the best way to prevent this sort of interruptions?

Second issue is that user UKC CASSA has years of history of online harassment me and other people involved with purebred dogs, especially of this breed. She did have lawsuits against her, numerous complaints for cyber stalking and such.

What is the best way to permanently stop as well as prevent future personal attacks at Wikipedia site? And who can remove a false and libelous statement about me in the history section ?Afru (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)AFRU

To find out how to have items removed from the history of a page, go to Wikipedia:Oversight. Pairadox (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. Dog breed wars. While libels can't be tolerated, Afru's edits are problematical too.
This breed overview is the most accurate. Further editions of this page contain wrong, incomplete and/or outdated information [123]
Wrote a true and correct breed overview based on modern population analysis. [124]
Sources? I don't see any. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Will add sources and more links. And will do my best to provide relevant materials. I do not pretend that my edit is perfect, but it was replaced with a sort of breed commercial based on 1994 materials. The issue with this breed is that there are working lines and fighting lines under the same breed name. At the very same time, there are traditional dog fights in the place of origin, that differ from modern dog fights. Now, there is a major difference between aboriginal dogs that are normally not dog aggressive within the same pack, and modern time pit and bandog mixes used for "modern" fights. Any given breed description must contain a disclosure and ideally help people unfamiliar with the breed to determine how to differ one from another. --Afru (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PR firm caught editing Wikipedia

This post on the official blog of Moore Consulting Group gives this away. (Even though the edits predate the blog post, it is plausible that the charities had a business relationship before then). What fate awaits these "articles"? MER-C 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks like a COI. First, a COI warning needs to go on the user page. Then we need to check the articles for copy vio (looks like there could from the formatting), and then a cleanup/stubbify pass needs to be taken. For some reason I remember that state chapters of orgs aren't notable, so probably an AFD of American Lung Association of Florida. The Alliance to Save Florida's Trauma Care could be notable, but I'll have to look into it. MBisanz talk 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert O'Connor

And related articles are mostly written by User:Robertoconnor and IPs possibly also him. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs a rather extensive COI tag chat. MBisanz talk 01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI on Mehmet_Oz

User:Mehmetoz has edited extensively on the Mehmet_Oz page today. The user originally tried to remove a section on animal cruelty, but kept getting reverted. I agreed that the sourcing of that section was questionable, so I removed it, put a note on the article talk page, and left the user a note about BLP and COI. Now the user is significantly editing the rest of the article. No response to the note I left - the user may not even know about the talk page. Xymmax (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any edits after the COI warning was left (although I may be converting time wrong). So I suggest a POV-cleanup and monitoring. MBisanz talk 00:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Article is being edited by the "commuications officer" for the foundation, and these edits made the article into something resembling a non-neutral press release, full of corporate gobbledygook. The text exactly resembles the "about" section of the foundation's website. [125] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User is "communications officer" for the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and therefore has an apparent COI in editing the aforementioned article. Regarding my reversion of their edits, User:Gnelson1234 asked me to "Please contact me if you'd like to discuss. Otherwise, the info I post is correct, current, and needs to remain intact" [126] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree that the version Gareth reverted to is less-POV than the version Gnelson puts foward. Some of Gnelson's things are so minor as to not be includible. Others need sources to back them up. I suspect the age of the foundation can be cleared up with a simple guidestar.com search for its Form 990. MBisanz talk 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Majken schultz

I've placed a coi notice on the editor's talk page, but there's no indication that this new editor has seen it yet. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
An independent editor has restored the content to Corporate branding. I've removed it, as this is a very strange situation. The book has not been published yet, so how can it possibly meet WP:V and how is including it not promotional? I'd appreciate suggestions on how to handle this. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This seems blatant. I agree that Majken schultz shouldn't be adding links to his own book to articles. Let's see if your {{uw-coi}} notice will get his attention, and persuade him to join this discussion. He has not edited since your notice on 28 January. I also invited the independent editor to participate here. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the 2001 reference was just an article in the harvard business review. Obviously, we need some other way to verify the contents of the 2008 book;; we may just have to wait until march. Although, maybe Majken can provide us with references from this book to substantiate his contribution. --BETA 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear all. Thanks very much for all your comments. I sincerely appologize for these misunderstandings, and for being this slow at replying. I am only beginning to understand the Wiki Media. I thought I could add perspectives on the article on Corporate Branding. I understand now that references to an upcoming book is inappropriate. The figure I have uploaded is a new rendering of a figure used in several other publications. I will proceed with caution to broaden the Corporate Branding article with references to the published research of myself and others, adhering to wikipedias NPOV principles. I will keep an eye on this talk-page for your comments. Thanks again. Best, Majken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majken schultz (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for answering, Majken Schultz. On a general note: Using ones own publications as references is fine, as it shows a deep understanding of the subject at hand. The main problem was WP:V of an upcoming book. As long as you, and others, keep it useful, self-references are fine if not avoidable without complications. Poeloq (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Northern Way Campus

There's a clear conflict of interest at Great Northern Way Campus: said article, which previously was simply cut and pasted from the organization's website, was then (subsequent to my deleting this wholesale repetition, which at the time I thought was merely plagiarism) replaced by PR blurb written by a user named Gnwc. See also the article talk page. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflicted editor has recognized conflict and has requested an edit be made onthe article talk page. I suggest a POV-clearing swing be taken and that the user's content be incorporated as best as possible, moving from the talk page. MBisanz talk 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup. POV-clearing swing has been taken. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jorge Ferreira

The Ogre (talk · contribs) posted to the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jorge_Ferreira about this article. Basically it would seem that this is a very positive article written by a very small group of editors. Would it be possible for someone more experienced in this field to have a look at it? --RicDod (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! My previous addition of the complaint header was wrong. User:The Ogre is not an editor claimed by RicDod to have a COI. He is a regular editor who happened to notice the peculiar content of this article and posted about it at WP:BLPN. The true source of the promotional edits remains to be figured out from the article's edit history. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have restored my original comments after they were altered by EdJohnston. I think that it is patently clear that I did not accuse The Ogre of having a conflict of interest. --RicDod (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake when trying to restore the previous complaint header, and not double-checking. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the edits concerned have come from:

Both track to accounts with Numericable, Champs sur Marne, Paris: about 10 miles from Vitry-sur-Seine, Paris, location of Nicky Lemos Production, Ferreira's European agent. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Media properties of the Unification Church

I think this is a pretty familiar topic here, so I will return later to post whatever diffs necessary, and assume for now that the admins here are familiar enough with this perennially problematic issue.

Briefly, at News World Communications related websites, particularly The Washington Times and Insight magazine, it "tis the season" (election year) in which the combination of tendentious editing by Unification Church members is joined by a few editors with nearly single-issue tendentious-looking edit histories in support of the political views of the media properties owned and subsidized by Rev Moon's church.

I have tagged the Washington Times page with coi and coatrack tags, will return at my earliest oppty to check in and provide requested details. WNDL42 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the BLP of Moon critic and former Insight Magazine employee David Brock is being repeatedly vandalzed by what look like pro-Moon IP editors. WNDL42 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok...this will provide some context until I can assemble the diffs, see here WNDL42 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

New College of California Editing Its Own Page

An anonymous user with the IP address 63.89.115.10 has edited the page 5 times, usually removing information. According to Wikiscanner, this address is a New College computer. Is there any way to stop this from happening? Thanks. Berkeleysappho (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a student at New College could not edit the article on the school? If so that would be a great expansion of COI. We should be focusing on whether you can show evidence that this IP is actually being used by some kind of administrator of the college. Not just a computer at the college. Wjhonson (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Editors familiar with our WP:BLP policy might want to look at this article. Some of the sources, while offering information that may well be correct, don't appear reliable. For instance http://www.stopsilence.net indicates a policy of accepting reader-submitted information. If this were removed as a source, we would lose refs 16, 19 and 20 plus the statements they are supporting. References 11 though 15 are cited to to paper publications such as Pipsqueak! that might be informal student productions, unsuitable as sources. These might have to go as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Students don't have access to New College computers unless they are work study students, which makes them employees. Regarding stopsilence.net and pipsqueak!, have you read the documents in question? Pipspeak!'s publications are part of the historical record and are supported by the Bay Guardian article from the 90s. While pipspeak! and ASAP were student groups, their documents are primary sources which detail past student activism. Stop Silence is participatory journalism, however the links are not to user-generated articles. The SF Bay Guardian, Journal of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, SF Chronicle and SF Weekly all use Stop Silence as a source of information. I think if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for Wikipedia.24.7.73.28 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Berkeleysappho (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

iTalkBB

While patrolling recent changes, I came across and reverted this edit, deleting the Controversy section from the iTalkBB page. It appears that all the edits made from this IP address (216.141.201.178) in the last year have been to remove this section from this article. I left a COI message on its talk page and reverted the edit. Is there anything else to be done? —BradV 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A problem, though: however likely it may be, COI in this instance is speculative, as there doesn't appear to be proof - via disclosed identity / geographical location - that these IP edits are from anyone related to ITalkBB. That just leaves it as tendentious editing, and I'm not sure there's any mechanism with teeth for dealing with that. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

M. Jamal Deen

Resolved. No article, no problem. MER-C 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User created the article and is the only contributor of note. Article is full of vanity language and personal details, including info about family, current location, current whereabouts of students, and personal interests. Almost certainly an autobiography and user given the appropriate template. Pairadox (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadsix Communications

Forgot to mention that band mentioned as an example is on Deadsix records. Ridernyc (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
He has now gone on to making a article for the band Noisecore Freak which will most likely be deleted soon. Ridernyc (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, issuing a {{subst:uw-coi}} warning is usually a good thing; many new editors don't realize that creating articles in the face of COI is a bad thing. Pairadox (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
After the COI warning an IP is now making disruptive edits to the article removing tags and citation requests. Ridernyc (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

FreeLife

Article
Editor
Freelifelegal has been informed of WP:COI and WP:U, but could still use some help getting a new username as well as assistance with editing FreeLife. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

TuneCore

Co-founder, Peter Wells [129] --Hu12 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

25Gs

Resolved. Deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25Gs

. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25Gs. MER-C 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

COI edit requests

I recently discovered the category Category:Requested edits. Does anyone watch this? I know unblocks and editprotected requests are watched well by admins, but I think this category should be encouraged to prevent COI abuses. Maybe even merging it with editprotected requests. Any ideas? MBisanz talk 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some old requests still sitting in here, and they are pretty quick to handle. Does anyone object if we leave a permanent mention of this category up at the top of this noticeboard? (just below the bot item). EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Go for it, I'm still trying to figure out how to watch a category the Right Way. MBisanz talk 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Requested edits is probably the best bet. MER-C 05:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ebiser

Resolved. The articles are fixed, and the COI-affected editors have stopped work. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I may not have time to get to this quickly, and I think it should be. Looks like an inappropriate username, spamming, and something else that at a glance looks like complicated spamming and promoting a single viewpoint, all with a very obvious COI. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We're talking

Ebiser S.A. of Spain produces and sells ... guess what. I've tagged the article and notified the user of discussion here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleanup at hydroxytyrosol. Although there are uncited claims in the article, I don't think any of them are dubious and/or exaggerated. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the main problem lay in the links to sites selling the stuff, and the indiscriminate list of patents. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sergiofmoya (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of User:Ebiser: "this is not advertisement. (lot of work to write it)" [130]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I left a message for Sergiofmoya asking him to join this discussion, but he has not edited since my comment. It appears the editors above who already worked on Hydroxytyrosol have restored it to decent shape. Ronz took care of Olive oil. I deleted the mention of hydroxytyrosol from Mediterranean diet, since the references didn't support it. Unless bad edits resume, this problem may be solved. It would not hurt for those interested to add Hydroxytyrosol to their watchlists. EdJohnston (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Serverware Group plc

Resolved. user aware of COI policy, no violations evident. MBisanz talk 04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article created and maintained by a single editor, User:JediLofty. On his user page, editor writes that he is a computer programmer from Paddock Wood in Kent, England. As cited on their website, Serverware's "Core Development Centre" is also located in Kent. User has subsequently created a number of articles for this nonnotable company which read like advertisments and for which he is the only major editor:

Configuresoft, Inc.
Serverware Racing

COI users:
JediLofty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit iffy. I mean the user doesn't seem like a WP:SPA and has editted lots of unrelated articles. And in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Configuresoft,_Inc. he refers to the company in the third person (they) as opposed to the first or ambiguous (our, the, my). I'd suggest an uninvolved user, (might be me), ask him nicely if he feels he has a COI in the matter. MBisanz talk 02:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
According to his Curriculum Vitae (as posted on the website linked from his userpage), he worked for the company for 5 years: http://www.brainache.demon.co.uk/mates/cv.htm
Interesting, I'd say a company he worked for 7 years ago, in a capacity where he wasn't the owner or had direct control, wouldn't qualify as a non-editable COI unless he was going around bad-mouthing the company for making him redundant. MBisanz talk 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll freely admit to having worked for Serverware Group plc. I was a developer there, and was made redundant in 2001. I also spent some time working with Configuresoft, Inc. when they bought the IP to Enterprise Configuration Manager. While we're on the subject, I went to school with Wayne Pilbeam (18 years ago); would you like to nominate that for deletion too, Cumulus Clouds ;-)? In any article where I have a connection to the subject I am particularly conscious of WP:NPOV and strive to ensure that any information I add is cited and neutral. I think Cumulus Clouds is being rather WP:POINTy here, because I didn't like the way he merged articles into Central obesity without achieving consensus. See my Request for Comment on that issue. As for Serverware being a non-notable company, they created the software that went on to become Microsoft Operations Manager, which I'd have thought conferred at least a little bit of notability!-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read the article, found it interesting, but did not think there was any POV in there. This more than just a bit iffy Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
These seem to be neutral articles. They contain useful information and they have references. All of them have reliable sources except for Serverware Racing. (That racing team seems to have been covered in AutoSport magazine; someone should get the exact references and add them to the article). There could be fewer red links. Does anyone believe that these articles need to be fixed due to the COI? If so, what changes are needed? EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Configuresoft, Inc., proposed by the same nominator as the present complaint. Over there he has mentioned COI as one of the reasons for deletion. Considering WP:MULTI, It is not totally obvious why you would pursue two lines of critique against the same article at once (both here and at AfD). In such cases it would make sense for the nominator to tell each forum of the existence of the other debate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds might shed some light on the reporter's motivations, I'm about ready to archive this one as resolved. MBisanz talk 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Close? The article creator has a technical COI but is cooperating. Three editors commented. So far no-one has agreed with the submitter that there are any neutrality issues that need fixing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

There have been allegations of COI problems at Talk:Homosexual transsexual, and I thought it would be nice if people who know way more about COIs than I do, and who haven't had the whole long saga inflicted on them, would please take a look. If I can summarize the background (probably badly), this cluster of articles is about a theory of transsexuality that divides transwomen (people who were born male and are now living as women) according to whether they are attracted to men or women. Offensively, it defines their current sexual orientation according to their birth sex, so that a transwoman who is attracted to men is considered a "homosexual transsexual" instead of straight. There was a major scandal related to efforts to discredit this idea, and it seems that long-time Wikipedia editor and prominent trans activist, User:Jokestress, was a significant player in the scandal.

This is the current issue: User:Hfarmer self-identifies as a transwoman who is attracted to men and has recently offered to post a photo of herself on the Homosexual transsexual page. User:Jokestress has lodged many protests about potential policy violations in these articles. Now she says that Hfarmer's offer to post a photo of herself is obviously a COI (but presumably Jokestress' own efforts to shape these pages is not).

What I would like from you: Could a completely independent, uninvolved someone (or preferably several someones) stop by the article's Talk page and give an opinion about whether posting a photo of yourself is actually a COI? I feel like we've got people tossing around policy names as if getting enough three-letter acronyms on your side will convince everyone to agree with you, and it would be nice to have a reality check. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should add a photo of themselves to an article without consensus from the other editors that it's OK. In this case, it's especially unlikely that there will be any reliable sources to prove that the person pictured can be correctly said to be a 'transwoman.' This is a surprisingly well-sourced article right now and I very much doubt that a photo of an individual Wikipedia editor is going to be a valuable addition, given that sources are unlikely to have published anything about that specific editor. Any photo should be of a person already covered in the media, so we can quote whatever the media said about their transwoman status. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think it a warning sign of some kind of agenda when someone is so hot about their picture being used in an article, especially as it's not depicting anything self-evident (where there'd be no verifiability concerns).
Since we don't know what is motivating this enthusiasm, and thinking of the possible legal consequences if it should turn out that, say, the poster isn't the person portrayed, it'd be better to err on the cautious side. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Annapolis Winery

Resolved. deleted by User:Acroterion. MBisanz talk 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have notice this article to be advertising. I'm not sure what to do next, but I've tagged the article and am placing this notice here. Annapolis Winery even has at the end of its article, "This wikipedia article was written by a member of the family who owns Annapolis Winery." Clearly, they are doing it out of good intention, but I believe this constitutes as advertising

Cheers, Tjbergsma (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's blatant spam, tagged accordingly. MER-C 01:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Greensburger / Ziusudra / Eridu Genesis

I would like to express serious concerns about agenda pushing on the part of User:Greensburger.

I am trying to create an article on a famous archaeological artifact, known as the "Eridu Genesis", which inexplicably has not had it's own article at all until now, but was tucked away under the Ziusudra article. This led to a conversation with User:Greensburger: Eridu Genesis, and I really didn't grasp what he was trying to propose.

When I tried to make the move that I said I would, he reverted it, calling it vandalism [131]. So I then put a "split section" tag on the page, which he changed [132]. The ensuing discussion on the article's talk page is here: [133]. When I perused his talk page, trying to figure out where he was coming from, I noticed a discussion (Genesis 5 article) about the book Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic by Robert Best, which appears as a reference on a number of Ancient Near East pages. The theories listed on the back cover of the book ([134]), that Noah was Ziusudra and was the king of Shuruppak in 2900 BC when the Sumerian river flood occurred, are obscure to say the least, and very fringe theories. Fringe books get published too, and simply the fact that somebody published it shouldn't give it credibility. More information about these theories is on its website [135]

The problem is that archaeological facts need to be "adjusted" to make these theories work at all. Two areas of original research which I see repeatedly all over the Ancient Near East articles are:

1) Attempts to link the "Eridu Genesis" Flood myth to the mention of a historic flood on the "Sumerian king list". The way to do this is to insert Ziusudra, the hero of the Flood myth, into the king list, right before the flood. (see the discussion mentioned above on the Ziusudra talk page).

2) And attempts to "re-interpret" the very long lives and reigns that ancient literature gives to ancient kings ([136] and [137]). This is entirely original research.

I also have to say I can't help thinking that this could be the author of the book himself, as his other editing seems to be in line with having a BS degree in Physics (about the author), and he's created and edited articles about other people with the same last name.

I hope I'm submitting this in the right place, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the above sounds like an ordinary content dispute. I do not see evidence of any conflict of interest. "He sounds like he might know some physics; ergo he must be the person who wrote this book, who is also a physicist" is the weakest link to a CoI I've seen proposed here in a long time. Even if this editor pushes a fringe theory (which I'm taking your word for, for the purpose of the discussion), is there any good reason to think that he does so for a reason other than a perceived wish to spread the truth? –Henning Makholm 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned the physics degree because that and the other circumstances I mentioned suggested to me that he might be the author of this book and that he might be quoting himself, and I thought that was against the rules.
The big problem is his persistently promulgating original research and fringe theories, which I also thought was against the rules. Sumerophile (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the article which Sumerophile is nominating for COI investigation is Ziusudra, so I formatted the header of this COI complaint accordingly. Greensburger has not edited Sumerian origin legend at all, so there is no reason to include that in this complaint. I don't perceive that a Talk page consensus was reached anywhere on Sumerophile's idea of splitting the Ziusudra article. There may be WP:FRINGE stuff floating around, but I don't believe that S. followed due process with G. on the issue of splitting the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I was nominating the User:Greensburger, if that can be done. The problem is this fringe agenda has been spread all over the Ancient Near East articles, and possibly on Genesis and Noah-related articles as well. I'm vetting it in the Ancient Near East section, and came up unexpectedly against Greensburger again in the Sumerian king list article [138], in what appears to be another fringe agenda he's pushing - about when the Ubaid and Sumerian Dynastic periods occurred. Sumerophile (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether Ziusudra and Eridu Genesis should be two articles or a single article is open to debate, and can be discussed calmly on talk. This is a perfectly pragmatic question. I have misgivings about Greenburger's attempts to portray any of these floods as "historical", but looking at the debate, it appears clear that Greenburger is perfectly willing to base his argument on academic literature, while Sumerophiles behaviour is much more erratic. Perhaps Greenburger is pushing an outdated academic view, but the way to counter this is by citing more recent academic literature, not by removing his material. This is entirely the wrong noticeboard for this. If Greenburger presents a lop-sided argument, set the score right by citing academic literature, not by wikilawyering about it. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a fringe theory [139] using outdated sources for its base is very different from an outdated academic view. Just because somebody cites academic literature doesn't mean he's an academic or that his theories are sound, and his selective use of older material is a good example of what citing academic literature should not be.
And I do not appreciate being labled "erratic" for getting to the bottom of this, or for reporting concerns about this matter here. Sumerophile (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Just because somebody cites academic literature doesn't mean he's an academic" -- nobody claims that, but in case you have missed it, this is precisely how Wikipedia works. Please review WP:5P, and specifically WP:RS. I wouldn't dream of using http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ as a source, nor do any of the diffs you provide show that Greensburger is touting that website. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

dab, above you suggested Greensburger was pushing an outdated academic view. And no, he has not cited the website, merely the book that it is based on. Sumerophile (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
dab, I would also like to point out to you here, that Greensburger has in fact linked to http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/, on the Ziusudra article, which is now enmeshed in the Sumerian creation myth article. Sumerophile (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

dab, now we have a problem: User:Til Eulenspiegel is now re-linking the mythical Deluge (mythology) with the historic king list [140]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumerophile (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Osho

  • Resolved. This seems to be a resubmission of a complaint which expired with no action being taken. No specific problem was ever clearly identified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) - This single user keep son pushing his agenda with multiple articles about the topic. Possible POV/COI issues have been raised by various people in both the english and german language wikipedia. If he finds any small error he tends to revert much more massive changes. He repeatedly claimed to aim at a neutral article but any changes he makes read like love letters unless someone massively steps on his foot. It was previously suggested in the discussion page to notify people here to enable balanced revisions without single users interference in the future. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
We had this one already 15 days ago, User:Semitransgenic. Give over. -- Jayen466 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The archive of the previous (inconclusive) debate is here. There is no reason to re-open it. jalal (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The previous Osho complaint was filed by User:Semitransgenic, who has not been active since 5 February. In an exchange of User talk messages on 1 February, Semitransgenic told me he would provide further details, but they have not yet been forthcoming. If 62.47.23.131 (talk · contribs) believes there is still a COI issue with this article, he should give diffs of what he believes are inappropriate edits. Jayen466 is one of the editors who worked on 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. This article, related to the topic of Osho, has been identifed as a Good Article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Teshkeel Comics

Resolved. No-one who commented agrees with the submitter that there is any problem with the neutrality of these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would verify what the IP address is for each of these entries. I would suspect they are all from the same user. — 66.108.12.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18 February 2008.

COI users concerned:

No contributions for more than a year. MER-C 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Teshkeel Comics looks like a decent article. The comic is mentioned by the New York Times. Comics published in Arabic are a topic that deserves some coverage on Wikipedia, and what these articles have to offer is probably new information for many people. As MER-C points out, the people named above as COI editors have not been active lately. I removed some advertising language from the Sven Larsen article. Does anyone see a problem here that needs further study? EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This does not seem to be one of our more burning issues. Only MER-C and I have responded in the six days since the complaint was filed. Can we close this? EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bob Goodlatte

  • User Ks1123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • User Marge60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Bob Goodlatte (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - two single purpose accounts, likely the same person, continue to add overtly partisan, obviously inapproriatte text like: "An example of the system gone awry" and "There is also a growing concern that..." and "...which will force Congress to enact fiscally responsible spending measures...", etc. It all reads like a campaign brocure, and in fact is probably copyvio of one since the new text often strays wildly off the subject of the article. I've been reverting the changes but could use some help and a few more eyes. 2005 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If they have similar editing style, times, etc, WP:SSP will probably produce a faster and more lasting result than a COI tag would. MBisanz talk 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The second account did nothing but revert back to the version by the first one, so unfortunately there is no "similar editing style". The reversions are the only edits of this editor, so I assume it is a sockpuppet but at the same time there is no evidence of sockpuppetry except a pretty logical guess. 2005 (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, checked their edit histories. Would be reason enough IMHO to file a SSP, but I've been known to have a liberal view of that. Try a Template:Uw-npov2 and Template:Uw-coi on each and work your way up. MBisanz talk 02:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the POV excesses are breathtaking. This deserves someone writing up the problem at Talk:Bob Goodlatte. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Organic chef

Resolved. Deleted as spam. MER-C 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The Organic chef (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Clearly self promotional, but not quite SPAM. I am not sure what to do. Possibly notability also. Style also is well off. Lastly This really gets me. Triwbe (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:EmmSeeMusic

Other editors adding same links

I've run across this guy before, but never had the time to look into some very suspicious editing by him. I'm guessing that the many picture and forum links he adds (and re-adds) are all run by the same people or company. If not, he's still spamming them. Anyone have time to look into this? --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The latest site that EmmSeeMusic addded is connected to a number of other sites. EmmSeeMusic added links to most of those sites: [141], [142], [143], and [144]. The websites probably belong to EmmSeeMusic, as they left a message on their talk page that said: "Your personal attacks against my websites are what is in question." I removed the links that were still in the articles and left the user a warning. BlueAzure (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He's added another. Given his history and the warnings he's received, I've left a uw-s3 notice on his talk page.--Ronz (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And now 75.68.106.136 has contacted me on my talk page, claiming to be owner of [145] mandymoorepictures.com. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This revert of a spam link removal shows a certain chutzpah, since it uses popups. The total number of edits made by this user (through all his accounts) in 2008 is not large (less than a dozen, I think). Doesn't WT:WPSPAM have a highly-tuned system for dealing with these guys? Can't they block him if he persists after escalating warnings? EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this needs to be taken to WT:WPSPAM. I wanted the raise and discuss the COI issues first. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As the owner of the sites I stand by them as relevent links. I have been on wikipedia for a long time and my links for Hazel Mae, Suzy Kolber, Betty Nguyen, Giada De Laurentiis have better information, media, etc than their official sites. Regardless they are quality editions to wikipedia, IMO. They are not "SPAM" - I have ads on my sites to keep them up. I am a volunteer on weekends, I am not a wealthy guy. My posting of my sites on Wikipedia is not malicious. I just had to give my 2 cents. EmmSeeMusic (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your intentions may be, you can't keep adding these links against consensus. (The Wikipedia community gets to decide on the value of these links, not you). You've had plenty of notice. Do you understand that you may be blocked if you continue? EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So I need to present members of the Wiki community (besides myself) to dispute your claims that HazelMae.net and BettyNguyen.net are SPAM? EmmSeeMusic (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, look at my complete EmmSeeMusic edit history. You are pigeonholing me into a typical malicious spammer category and my websites sites are far from that. I've had my HazelMae.net / SuzyKolber.net / BettyNguyen.net / Rachael Ray / Giada De Laurentiis links up for years, the regular editors of those wiki's did not have any issue since they actually know the subject of the article and believe the links are relevent. Those people are members of the Wiki Community.EmmSeeMusic (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You realize we're not having a long discussion about this. Since hazelmae.net is your own site, you are not supposed to add it anywhere. Nobody needs to pigeonhole you. Admins can block you for violating the rules, of which you've been notified many times. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded, site owners should not post their own sites to articles. MBisanz talk 06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
"Also, look at my complete EmmSeeMusic edit history." Yes, I think an in-depth look at his edit history is worthwhile. It appears to consist mostly (almost completely?) the addition of links which he has a COI, as well as what appears to be the removal of links competing with his own. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started a spam report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#User:EmmSeeMusic_.26_related_accounts --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Olaffpomona

Resolved. Its snowing outside. MBisanz talk 07:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Olaffpomona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - User creates article for own company (Olsha Law Firm), links this and other (smaller) companies owned by themselves to different articles, and removes all tags from these articles (speedy deletion, not added by me, and notability and COI tags, added by me). As I don't want to be harassing him or her (I have already deleted other articles by same editor, tagged problems, ...), perhaps some other, uninvolved editor can have a look and try to solve this. Fram (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated Olsha Law Firm as AFD on grounds of lack of notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olsha Law Firm. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Tureya Ashram in India

Very slick single-edit SPA creation, clearly by experienced editor (is a new account allowed to create an article in semi-protected state as has been done here?). Poster asserts to be copyright holder of images in the Tureya Foundation Achieves [sic], which would imply a relationship with the organisation, perhaps webmaster@tureya.org [146]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say either stubbify it or AfD it. Its got too much content and sources (however inappropriate they may be) to go the Prod and CSD route. And of course the user should be warned with the right COI tag. MBisanz talk 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Norman Bettison

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Bettison (now closed as Snow Keep), and one of many news stories in the UK press today.

This bio of a UK Chief Constable has been doing its best impression of a slow-motion tennis ball for a while now. It started as a puff piece, got turned into a hatchet job, I waded in and tried to de-POV it (and got barked at in the process), then found some neutral ground... only to have some IPs and now an editor, Webteam3 (talk · contribs), start replacing what seemed to be relatively neutral and sourced copy with what they're calling an "official neutral version" from the West Yorkshire Police. Problem: the "official neutral version" looks kind of whitewashed to me. I'm utterly perplexed as to how to manage this one. Could we get more eyes on it, please? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So we're talking
As long as WP:BLP is satisfied, Wikipedia is in no way obliged to use a version matching an "official neutral version", which can be guaranteed to put the best spin on anything controversial. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 81.86.147.19 (talk · contribs) was also involved at one point, and got a 24-hour time out for edit warring. I agree with your assessment, but would like to be sure that there isn't a problem with the previous version before doing anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help and the discussions, I appreciate the feedback. However we find it frustrating that a previous editor who appears to be seeking to harm Sir Norman's reputation by including very carefully selected negative assertions, without any right to reply, seems to be considered "relatively neutral and sourced". This person has been very clever to reference only controversial, negative issues which in many cases were later satisfactory resolved. The same editor also, at one stage, published on the page a reference to "Sir Norman being a moron" which surely undermines any credibility he/she might pretend to have. Bearing in mind Wiki's policies on LPB being factual and non-controversial, we attempted at first to publish a straight lift adapted from Sir Norman's official CV on the West Yorkshire Police website. This was not only rejected by Wiki but resulted in my IP address being temporarily blocked for 24 hours for "vandalism". Therefore, following feedback on discussion pages and bearing in mind your policies, Sir Norman prepared the current version which attempts to respond to the negative issues raised in the previous unauthorised entry, ie Sir Norman's appointment to Merseyside, the Force amalgamation programme and the recent vote by West Yorkshire Police staff on the shift system. As an example, the previous author sought to raise negative capital with a reference to the fact that staff had rejected the shift system, by a slim majority, attempting to create a perception that Sir Norman was unpopular. However, it is a fact that officers in the Force have now voted by an overwhelming majority to accept the new shifts. It is also important to point out the changes were being made in the first place to better meet the needs of local communities. So we have attempted to answer his/her points objectively, whereas the previous Editor was being very selective with half-truths. I must repeat that this person appears to be seeking to damage Sir Norman's reputation which is why we have been forced to respond by publishing a biography which does not shy away from the accusations but attempts to meet Wiki's policies on LPB - factually complete and correct, not littered with tabloid assertions. I thank you again for your help and can provide any proof required that I am acting on behalf of Sir Norman, and I hope you will find that by carefully reading our version, it does provide a full and balanced view, as one would expect to read on a published biography. Otherwise, we will be forever having to respond to every negative issue the malicious author can think up next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webteam3 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there never is a "finished" version of Wikipedia articles. Whatever the problems, if you represent Sir Norman, you should read the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. Being in this position gives you the right to reasonable correction, but not the right to demand your own version of the article, permanently. The guidelines suggest strongly that you help via the Talk page.
As it stands, the version you favour does need editing, and I agree with Tony Fox that it has a whitewashy flavour. Where it touches on controversy, it so underplays it as to leave readers no idea what it was about. For instance
"This was despite a difficult introduction when it was reported that Sir Norman had been involved in the investigation of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989 when 96 Liverpool football fans died. He offered to meet with relatives of those who lost their lives at Hillsborough to defuse the controversy"
is meaningless without explaining why his involvement was controversial. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Given the level of control that Webteam3 (talk · contribs) is demanding over this article, we ought to have proof that he/she is acting in some official capacity related to Sir Norman. Otherwise, WP:BLP is quite sufficient. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in a news story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/nwikipedia129.xml —Random832 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but wrong in many respects. It hasn't been "locked down" (that was only what he wanted); it doesn't mention the conflict of interest guidelines; it omits the very real controversy about his role in the Hillsborough enquiry; and it doesn't grasp the basis of Wikipedia in collaborative editing. I see they don't allow comments.
Still, I take that (and the coverage in Police Review) as confirmation of the COI. I suggest Webteam3 (talk · contribs) and socks should now be held strictly to WP:COI guidelines.
The "official version", now it's wikified, is actually not too bad as a starting point. The semiprotection should calm down both the vandals and the socks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Please would Webteam3 upload a GFDL photograph. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Smith (painter)

Fairly obviously a self-promoting account, since he's responsible for just editing Peter Smith (painter) and adding a massive, spammy section to Mansfield advertising the same. Is he even notable? 91.84.79.118 (talk) 10:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not. AfD it, adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits that promote company by the supposed new key person

Template:Intown Suites - I have discovered several edits within the last month on the page Intown Suites (which I initially created) by a user named Collierdaily. These edits, for the most part, have changed the content of the article from a near neutral point-of-view to a promotion of the chain (some of these changes I have reverted). One of the changes that has been made is that the "key people" section of the template has been changed from "David Vickers, Cheryl Vickers" to "Scott Griffith, Collier Daily." Not that doing this is anything wrong, but that the user who has been making the changes that promote the chain is one of the key people of the company. This user's contributions now list just 6 edits, all of the Intown Suites article.Tatterfly (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: A Google search of "Intown Suites" and "Collier Daily" produces just 5 hits, one of them which is the Wikipedia article on Intown Suites.Tatterfly (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gamers: The Movie

For nearly three months, Encyclopedia Mike (talk · contribs) has made dozens of edits across multiple articles that all promote a small independent film, Gamers: The Movie. The same user created the movie's article and an article on its director, Chris Folino. Many edits are trivial insertions to promote the film, such as this, this and this. As far as I can tell, the user's entire edit history has been a campaign to promote the film throughout Wikipedia. Conflict of interest? —Whoville (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoville, are you saying that any of those edits were inappropriate? COI requires bad edits. It doesn't matter if the contributor only cares about one thing, in itself; if he's merely self-promotional, then it's COI (and I suspect that's what you mean). I don't want to follow all the links unless you are asserting that some of them are bad edits, right? Pete St.John (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The links above are examples of where the film or its director have been inserted into articles with a non-notable connection. I don't think it's notable that Gamers: The Movie is an example of a "mockumentary" and needs mention in that article, or that because the film features a Loverboy song it requires a mention in the band's article. Or that This is Spinal Tap is in any way notably linked to Gamers: The Movie. That's the type of COI I'm concerned about. I've since found other edits from a second IP address that inserted Folino's name into articles connected to his birthdate, cities he lived in and lists of genuinely notable screenwriters and directors. A separate discussion is whether Gamers: The Movie and Chris Folino meet Wikipedia's notability criteria in the first place. —Whoville (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
These look like examples of spamming which needs dealing with; but unfortunately it only comes under the conflict of interest brief if there's solid evidence (e.g. self-identification, IP address) showing the editor(s) to be connected with the movie. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Help me out, then. Is there a different process for reporting this kind of spam? I figured it would be rejected as vandalism which is why I didn't report it at WP:AIV. Since there seems to be some consensus that these edits are inappropriate, I'd hate to think they'll be ignored because of a procedural technicality. —Whoville (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am the author in question. The movie in question was critically acclaimed by several movie websites. Both the author and the movie were covered by major media outlets for film like CNN, ABC television and the Hollywood Reporter. All the facts are verified. I swear on a stack of bibles that I am not doing this to promote the film and I am receiving no financial gain from it whatsoever. I find this to be a talented up and coming director who made a very good acclaimed movie. As far as the links go, I am new on Wikipedia. I thought you were supposed to link your work. If it came off as overexuberant, I apologize. (Although I would say that linking a movie voted BEST FILM OF 2006 by two sources to LOVERBOY is hardly undermining LOVERBOY.) But I honestly want to follow and respect Wiki's rules. Most importantly, I would hate to see a notable subject penalized for my lack of procedural knowledge. I hope the articles in question stay. I believe this is an artist of merit. I would very much like make this an Wikipedia insertion considered scholarly and proper. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia Mike (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC) --Encyclopedia Mike (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoville, if it helps you resolve this faster, I will refrain from making any further edits regarding Folino or the film in the future. Being new to Wikipedia I thought everything had to be cross referenced. Again, I will happily leave further authorship on this subject to others to avoid the appearance of conflict. Thank you.--Encyclopedia Mike (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Politician Dean A. Hrbacek

Single-purpose accounts with apparent conflicts of interest:

Various users have been edit warring on the article about Hrbacek, a politician who is a current congressional candidate in Texas.

User JamesMLane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has attempted to engage the other users on the article talk page. The issues came to my attention on the Third opinion project. — Athaenara ✉ 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FreeLife

Article
Editor
Freelifelegal has been informed of WP:COI and WP:U, but could still use some help getting a new username as well as assistance with editing FreeLife. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I restored this complaint from Archive_22, since the debate is heating up. User:Freelifelegal has been blocked for 3RR. Looking at Talk:FreeLife, that page shows a history of not-terribly-cooperative editing going back to April, 2007. There have been complaints about company supporters removing negative information at several points during the last 11 months. Barek has lately been doing some useful cleanup work on the article. In its current form, the article looks OK to me, but we may have to persuade Freelifelegal to edit more carefully in the future. Though Freelifelegal's user name may appear promotional, I wouldn't suggest blocking for username unless further issues appear. Anyone who has the time is urged to leave messages at User talk:Freelifelegal if you notice any further edits that seem worrisome. At this point, we can't consider the COI-affected editors to be newbies any more. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Jsteelefreelife (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
Jody Steele (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Steele LinkWatcher search • Google)
Not sure if these are related, but may be.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I took me a while to get anyone to even comment on my edits. Finally Barek will be working to help create a balanced entry. I chose this username so that there would be no question that I was associated with FreeLife (a the suggestion of Jimbo Wales to our company). One of my first posts on the discussion page was that I was associated with FreeLife, was a newbie to Wikipedia, and would appreciate any help I could get to ensure I was not violating the COI rules. I received absolutely no responses until all my edit were recently removed without any explanation on the discussion page. There seems to be a tendency to immediately jump to the conclusion that anyone associated with the company cannot possibly make edits without violating the COI rule. I respectfully disagree. I am thrilled that Barek is now involved and I will work within the rules with his help to get this entry to where it should be.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

user Crlittle1

i see no other edits besides inclusion into many dozens of articles 'references' and 'see also' promoting author's own book, with 'helpful' link to amazon page for same. i left a notice on user's talk page, no response. if there's a way to blanket revert all of these i think it would be appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. They can't be "references" if he wasn't actually adding content to the article, and most of the other entries were under "further reading", with links to amazon.com. Rolling back now. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thanks kindly. Anastrophe (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

user:Jossi

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
No action required or taken. MastCell Talk 18:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User Jossi had declared that he will not be abusing his administrative power's for promoting cult view, as it is established beyond doubt that he is promoter of cult view's on wikipedia, and abuses his administrative power to delete pages without any scope of discussion, attempt to discuss matter with him result in response such as uh!! as a latest example he himself was involved in nominating a page for deletion and then deleting the page himself. Under normal circumstances if an admin is acting as editor, he must not abuse his admin power's in those article's, especially when it is well known and accepted by himself that he will stay away from editing or abusing cult related topic's on wikipedia. --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

With a user-name such as User:Cult free world, that contravenes WP:IU, and with accusations that are personal attacks, such as calling me a "cult member", you should know better than to continue soapboxing and trolling my page. If you have any issues with my admin actions, feel free to report them at WP:AN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The page you refer: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahaj Marg was deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, and not by me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I have responded to above statement on Jossi's talk page, but he has removed it, without giving any response --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And also on my talk page --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


User:CultFreeWorld's (aka talk-to-me!) stated purpose is to create a cult free world. This strong POV bias even appears in his user name. He name-calls and harasses any person he thinks is practicing an eastern spiritual tradition with a guru. He is not here to create valid Wiki articles but to promote this POV (consider his user name).
Are there some sanctions available for this type of behavior? It is slanderous to run around calling everyone who has expertise in eastern spiritual traditions cult members. It's like someone running around and calling every German a Nazi. 66.240.236.80 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jossi has declared a COI regarding Prem Rawat and related articles. It's appropriate for him to avoid editing those articles and he has committed to doing so. While he may have a POV on articles concerning cults in general, he does not have a conflict of interest with that broad topic. This request is inappropriate for that reason. Further, the article was properly deleted. Jossi is free to remove items from his talk page just as user:Cult free world may also remove material from his own talk page. I don't see any legitimate issue here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Affinion Group

Cleveland Museum of Art

Resolved. The article was fixed up and the promotional tone was removed by a helpful member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Laura Andrews, a communications assistant at the Cleveland Museum of Art, recently made some edits to the article. She substantially expanded it, added pictures, etc. Her edits were later reverted as being inappropriate in tone. She emailed me, confused, asking what had happened. I'd like someone (or several someones) willing to work with her to make this article better. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits by User:LAndrewsCMA did create an article with a promotional tone. Unfortunately, there is no relevant conversation happening on the article's Talk page. Since this article is causing so much trouble, maybe stubbifying is the right thing to do. Promotional edits keep on being made, and then policy-enforcers sweep through and revert them, so we need a genuine improvement (even if it's only a stubbification) to stop the cycle of reverts. Any volunteers? :-) EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I will leave her a message and try to help.--Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't really see the problem - she has not edited it for over a month. If she wants to be useful, releasing low-res images of star works of theirs we have articles on like The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew (Caravaggio) and Battle of the Nudes (engraving) would be a sensible way to boost their PR. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod, thanks for your improvements. Can other editors look at Johnbod's March 1 version to see if they agree it's sufficiently neutral? EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - feel free to keep adding artist links after I got fed up doing so ... :) Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

COI tag on Leon's

Resolved. Apparent consensus at Talk:Leon's that the COI tag should be removed. The disputed passage mentioned earlier is now out of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Over the past 18 months, an IP user (207.188.94.238 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)) has made less than 10 minor edits to an article which, as of a few days ago, s/he was revealed as being connected with (via the Helpdesk edit in the history). Now two editors have added the COI tag, which says, "The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.". This doesn't seem to fit with the minor contributions of the IP editor - is this correct use of the tag? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this removal of a paragraph of criticism by the IP editor I think the COI tag is justified. The comments by this IP at the Help Desk should be carefully listened to, though, since under WP:BLP the subject of an article is allowed to remove what they believe to be factual errors. It needs an investigation to see whether the removed paragraph is truly justified, since it may not be relevant to an article about the furniture store. (Misbehavior by a relative of the store owner seems remote, unless his activities are blessed by the store management in some way). Consider inviting the IP editor and the person who restored the COI tag to join this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Naseba

125.16.229.162 (talk · contribs) who is trying to remove fact tags and resisting clean-up on Naseba and associated articles such as Scott ragsdale, doesn't communicate. IP resolves to Naseba so clear COI. Also likely that Indira.ravi (talk · contribs) and Veena.ammadu (talk · contribs) are same editor. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistant little IP isn't he? Has he hit 3RR yet? Didn't look too closely at the others, but WP:SSP might be the best place. Do you think the article needs semi-protection at this point? MBisanz talk 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I added {{userlinks}} above for users Veena.ammadu, Indira.ravi, and Sachinuppal. — Athaenara ✉ 17:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

XBRL

Article

The page XBRL could use some attention. Almost all recent editors seem to have COI issues, large or small (including Lancet75, Colcomgroup, Mike Willis, and myself). I include myself in this category since I have been an editor of the XBRL specification, and I'm asking for some advice about the quality of my editing on the page and the talk page. Thanks! Dvunkannon (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since XBRL is an open standard, that argues in its favor. But nearly all the information provided in the article is from proponents. Isn't there any press coverage? Who needs XBRL, exactly? Who invented it? Does anyone agree with them? What's the extent of its adoption? Does it have disadvantages? Are there alternatives to XBRL? Our readers might like to know these things. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:212.183.163.237 appears to be advertising books by an Italian publisher

212.183.163.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) edits seem to be adding lots of book references to material published by Zecchini Editore who appear to specialise in classical music books.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Failure to understand the term "references" is a dead giveaway. Don't think there's a COI here but it's definitely spam. Reverted. MER-C 12:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it might be COI as it was adding disproportionate weight to this publisher as a source. How should I report such incidents in future?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
WT:WPSPAM - 52 Pickup (deal) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

National Policing Improvement Agency

Resolved. user blocked, COI removed or tagged. MBisanz talk 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(See accounts and IP's below) is making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up recent changes and the page histories of National Policing Improvement Agency - (created by Amcluesent), List of Special Response Units, Serious Organised Crime Agency and others.

Claims he works for the NPIA, see [151][152][153][154]. All the accounts and IP's have similar edit patterns. --Hu12 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work finding all the IPs. Probably a nice notice about COI and maybe an intro to editing template would be good. If anyone is thinking of blocking any of these IPs, it would probably be nice to report them to Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses since these seem to link back to official UK national police departments. MBisanz talk 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not inconceivable that WP might need to work with the UK police on some occasion, so let's be a little bit nice.
The only currently-active logged-in user in this group is Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).
We need to get the attention of Bamford, to persuade him to moderate this editing. I suggest semi-protecting both of the articles listed above and all the related UK police articles, to prevent the clogging up of recent changes. Bamford was recently blocked for six hours. Until we can abate the flood of changes, it will be hard to discuss article improvement. The usage of so many IPs is very peculiar by WP standards. My guess is that a number of police employees have been asked to add information, but only Bamford has created an account. I suggest we ask Bamford to agree to some conditions:
  • Ask all his colleagues to create an account before editing
  • Identify (by account name) all the other editors who have affiliations with his organization
  • Provide edit summaries for all changes
  • No editing under an IP address
  • No reversion of anyone else's edits without a Talk discussion
  • Participate in discussions in good faith, and listen to the responses
  • No more than 20 edits per day on UK police articles (per editor) until this COI item is resolved.
I suggest semi-protection until this is closed. I welcome your comments on this idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestions. Although I might not list it as directly, say "If you could try avoid editing under an IP address". Also, edit summaries are important, but for many new users, I suspect their easy to forget. MBisanz talk 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't block or protect. "Clogging up recent changes" is not a reason to pull out the administrative tools. Leave messages for everybody and explain site standards to them. Coach them how to do things the right way. Jehochman Talk 12:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this point of view. Very strongly. Relata refero (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not? Editing in a manner that messes up the tracking infrastructure and confuses ongoing review of changes is a form of disruptive editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't. It means our systems haven't handled it properly. It isn't disruptive in and of itself. Relata refero (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In this context, I don't see the difference. It's an edit pattern that's damaging the purpose of cooperatively creating an encyclopedia. It's academic whether this arises by directly impeding other editors or interacting badly with "the system". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perplexing situation, there has been multiple attempts at dialog with little or no results. The latest response is a bit concernining, "I find this all rather sad and so pathetic that I can't even be bothered to debate this any further".--Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not surprised. Have a look at the three edits that he was blocked for. (After scores of normal ones.) He's blanked the page twice, which is fine, he receives a warning. But in heaven's name, look at the third, which he was blocked for. Sheesh! Relata refero (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Just for clarfication as some editors seem to be confused about this - the NPOA is an govt administration and advisory body set up to assist and give direction to Police forces in a number of areas - they are [i]not[/i] connected to operational policing as carried out by UK police forces. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Guess he's decided against any communication. --Hu12 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Article talk vandalism [155][156]..--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
More:
204.245.42.164 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
90.205.89.56 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
90.205.89.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
90.205.89.141 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
90.205.89.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
90.205.89.11 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
I've protected the page due to the Anon switching IP's to remove the COI tag--Hu12 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[157] [158] removed the COI tag, and added 5 links to npia.police.uk.--Hu12 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
More [159][160] COI tag removal.--Hu12 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Maintenance_tag_vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Created another sock account Konemannn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) --Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. User:Bamford was indef blocked, and controversial editing of the main articles seem to have stopped a week ago. How do we feel about removing the COI tags? Does anyone see a current problem with their neutrality? To refresh your memory, here are the articles concerned (add others if you see any that were edited significantly):
EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say another week would be good. There were 5 days between the creation of his last 2 accounts. MBisanz talk 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Close? The week has passed. I looked over the articles listed above and noticed no serious problems. I added a notability tag at Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases. Though the issue of American bases may have significance in British politics, the article doesn't show the notability of this particular organization from reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and done. MBisanz talk 06:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum

See WP:AN#Second opinion for spammer (User:Wcfirm, Channing Tatum). Wcfirm (talk · contribs) has spent the last year here doing almost nothing but squeezing mentions of his own site into the article for actor Channing Tatum. He (she?) is now claiming his site is official (despite being a blogspot.com site) and therefore is more appropriate - but an entire paragraph?! Thread at WP:AN and recent WP:AN3 report have led to a week-long block. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I Googled for it and found another site channing-tatum.com that claims that the blogspot site is the official site. It could well be, because blogspot is easy to mantain and Google gives good search engine ranking to its own domain. Now a days the upcoming actors and musicians use free Web platforms like blogspot, facebook, and myspace to promote themselves. Igor Berger (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
MaxSem blocked Wcfirm for a week at 05:54, 6 March 2008 UTC. At 06:31 UTC, another single-purpose account, Laquishe, began editing. Same? — Athaenara ✉ 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
--Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say Laquishe is a sock. That account has been indefblocked and Wcfirm's block has been doubled to two weeks. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I would say that his block needs to be extended again, as he continued to sock puppet even after he was warned not to. Here is an edit by his new blocked sockpuppet to my userpage. Daedalus (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Already done. A month now although I don't expect it will end there. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Murdo MacDonald-Bayne

I stumbled on this after a posting to the external links guidelines talk page. It seems there is a disagreement about external links on this page that may be fueled by conflicts of interest by (I think) all currently involved parties. More eyeballs and comments from established editors could be useful. -- SiobhanHansa 10:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Considerable lack of sources too: all I can find are bios on a handful of tribute/promotional sites. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

Resolved.

Order of the Arrow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Editors and a number of administrators who are also members of the Order of the Arrow are violating conflict of interest policies by prohibiting verifiable OA “secrets” from being included in the Order of the Arrow entry. To get around disputes on policy they have created a unilateral concensus that so-called "safeguarded" OA literature and information is off limits for inclusion in the article. however, such a concensus should not be allowed to stand since it a) was arrived at by a group that self-identifies as OA members b) that OA membership carries with it an oath not to reveal this "safeguarded" information c) creates a defacto censorship of the Order of the Arrow entry. Ahoalton1 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and agree why the circumstances as described might create the appearance of collusion. But I fail to see how that can be extended to assume that a COI exists. I see no harm in allowing members of the Order of the Arrow to continue contributing to that page. If verifiable and notable information is being kept of the page (please cite diffs), then that might reasonably be a matter for an WP:RFC. Ronnotel (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A COI exists because the editors are under obligation by the Order of the Arrow to keep certain information secret. They take an oath affirming as much. While I have no objection to their not revealing such information themselves, it becomes a conflict of interest when they enforce this "safeguarding" on the wikipedia community at large. They have literally reached a consensus to censor and entire body of verifiable information.--Ahoalton1 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can provide diffs that support your claims of censorship of well-sourced information then it would be easier to establish that something inappropriate is going on. However, I'm still not sure this is a COI issue. I think it might be more appropriate at WP:AN/I. The more evidence you have, the easier time you will have in getting someone to intervene. Ronnotel (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
--— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This was opened by a indefinitely blocked disruptive sockpuppet. Dreadstar † 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And the list of socks continues to grow: [161]. Dreadstar † 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with closure. See also an ANI thread about the submitter of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Common Cause article may need attention again

→ See also: COI/N archive 8 (two sections) and COI/N archive 14.

Single-purpose account user Dbarnold1 expanded the article four-fold today. Earlier discussions of COI edits to this article are in more than one COI/N archive; the difference this time is that quite a few references to independent sources (in addition to several citations of the organization's own website) were added. I'm posting here to draw the attention of impartial editors to it again. — Athaenara ✉ 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been in the Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities since 2004 (diff). User Dbarnold1 removed it today (diff). I invited discussion on Talk:Common Cause#Question about removal of category. — Athaenara ✉ 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a student volunteer for this organization. However, I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest that would require me to withdraw from editing this article. I volunteer for their media and democracy department, which I made sure to not comment on as to avoid bias. I also made sure to cite credible sources for each statement made, pulling only from the organization's website for the mission statement, membership/funding data, and only two references to issues. — Dbarnold1 (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A well-known organization like Common Cause that is active in public issues should be heavily covered in the press. We prefer to reflect what outsiders say about an organization rather than what the organization says about itself, unless the facts involved are quite simple and uncontroversial. Someone who works in the media department of Common Cause should have access to lots of press clippings, I would assume. The current opening of the article sounds promotional, and we don't usually include multi-sentence direct quotes of somebody's mission statement as in:

Common Cause’s mission is: “To strengthen public participation and faith in our institutions of self-government; to ensure that government and political processes serve the general interest, rather than special interests; to curb the excessive influence of money on government decisions and elections; to promote fair elections and high ethical standards for government officials; and to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans

It would be OK to address some of those topics in our article, but we should obtain reasonably neutral and balanced press sources for the quality and extent of Common Cause's work in each area. We should not just report Common Cause's own opinion on how well everything turned out. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that I've taken this article off my watch list, where it had been since the first COI/N discussion nearly a year ago. — Athaenara ✉ 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Rolling back to before Dbarnold1's 29 February edits is a possibility. However the new material is not without interest so rewriting would be better, if anyone has time to do it. Dbarnold has not edited the article since he was notified of the COI, and has made no Wiki edits at all since 3 March. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

John Saldivar

Resolved. The article's promotional tone has been fixed, and the COI edits have stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Article: John Saldivar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
User: Jsnyc79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

A self-penned article that has been tagged for various things since Feb 2008. User:Jsnyc79 continually removes the tags, the main one being lack of references for which he doesn't seem inclined to provide. There is also a smattering of peacock terms. It's debatable as to whether this article should go to AfD but I'd be grateful for other eyes on it first. WebHamster 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up this article, formatted the references and reduced the promotional tone. Can others look at it and decide if the tags can be removed? If the article creator reverts the improvement, we might consider other measures. Since the article is neutral now and is quite short, I don't see the need to keep a COI tag on the front. Perhaps the 'Notable Wikipedian' banner is enough warning of possible autobiography, and it goes on the Talk page. References seem to show just enough notability to have an article on him. Your opinion is welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous User 66.182.15.218 Widely Posting Commerical Links and Content

Resolved. Unclear if this was a COI or spamming. Either way the IP has been blocked for three months for disruption and the spam links have been removed. Euryalus (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

66.182.15.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is posting widespread content and links which look like ads for the company ZAP (motor company). He/she has ignored my polite requests to stop posting this commercial content, as well as my more recent, firmer requests. Please see Plug-in hybrid for examples, but this editors recent commercial postings have been widespread on many electric vehicle-related sites. Please help. Thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User is in danger of contravening 3RR e.g. in Motorcycle by re-inserting a link that was removed. IMHO user is just a vandal. --TimTay (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The user has been blocked (3 months). — Athaenara ✉ 03:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems resolved to me. Can anyone label this issue as resolved, or is that up to an admin? Fbagatelleblack (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
We invite you, we beg you to resolve things! At the top of the report, add:
{{Resolved | Reason why you think it's resolved. ~~~~ }}.
If anyone disagrees with you later they can undo the resolution easily enough by removing the template. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This looks more like spamming than a COI but either way the three-month block and reversion of the unhelpful edits would suggest the issue is resolved. Euryalus (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Article for Iga A.

Resolved. Article was deleted as per Afd consensus. — Athaenara ✉ 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iga A.

It seems that a person or persons believing to be in contact with or running a site about Eve Wyrwal have been editing and/or vandalizing this page with conflicting information. They have not cited a source, but have alluded to a website that has questionable credibility in their edit summary. A portion of the information they edit is conflicting when checked against her published word in Nuts Magazine. Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

you have the wrong link. that lijnk goes to a polis model named Iga. Smith Jones (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the page history, you will see that there have been several Eve Wyrwal and Iga A. page moves, with the pages alternately serving as redirects to each other ... — Athaenara ✉ 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that is part of the problem, Iga A is just one of her nicknames, the usage of Eve Wyrwal is more wide spread. The page should be Eve Wyrwal. Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We have an infobox that notes if a woman has natural breasts? --Fredrick day (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You learn new things every day on this Noticeboard! Can anyone figure out the history of Iga A., which seems to involve an OTRS complaint? It appears that the administrator John Reaves had to intervene to impose move protection on one of the articles. Someone in the edit history is complaining about FlieGerFaUstMe262 adding incorrect information, but I have no idea who is right. An edit like this one should only be done with consensus. Various IP editors have been indignantly reverting the changes by FlieGerFaUstMe262. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly an easier way of handling this: is this Eva/Eve/Iga notable enough for inclusion per Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are many un-notable women in that category. I would say it is "the" un-notable category, and when weighed against others in that category I would say yes, notable. The complaining editor threatened to "take over the wiki" if I did not comply with his point of view. Then after claimed he filed a ticket. My case is that they have not cited a source, even an un-credible source. When they did imply a source, asking anyone who would disagree to contact an admin at what appears to be a fan site; one of the many fan sites with incorrect and conflicting information. The information I keep reverting to is information from a well know magazine that is publishing words from her mouth. Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Too complicated. I've passed it to AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For the Record I have been correcting the article. The website refered to is the official site for Iga Wyrwal, currently under development. FlieGerFaUstMe262 has cited nuts as his source, for the americans amongst us this is akin to somone saying "It must be true i read it in The Enquirer". These Lads Mags are notorious for making things up. The daily Star for example will change her age every time she is on page 3. My Source is Iga Herself. I can provide concrete proof of this but i'm not prepared to publish it on a public forum, (i have although sent it as an attachemt to the OTRS Complaint) If anyone can email me then i will do so. As for the name, Before coming to the UK Iga used her real name, The Daily Star used the name Eva & Eve without her consent, as they decided that this would be easier for people to pronouce this as you can see causes much confusion. For the Record She would prefer to be refered to as IGA or IGA A. All Iga & myself want is for the correct information to be displayed. Whilst i understand the difficulty you have in verifying information you must understand the sheer annoyance of somone trying to change incorrect information about themselves only to have it reverted DigitalWebDev (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:CCHRInternational removing content from Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Resolved. Article now looks OK; the COI-affected editor has been indef blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also adding poor content, probably copied from CCHR materials. John Nevard (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alex.muller blocked the account indefinitely 3 days ago. — Athaenara ✉ 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for opinion about myself

Resolved. Voluntary self-report (which is good). Nobody has any concerns. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been accused of having a conflict of interest. Since I develop real estate on the island of Bonaire, and used to own a hotel there, it has been suggested that I should not have made this edit. By extension, I would think that my edits to the Natalee Holloway article would be called into question as well. I think that that is on the level of claiming that someone from Boston can't edit an article about Kitty Genovese, but I am airing the accusation here so that I can see the consensus.Kww (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the deletion of the reference to Holloway from the Aruba article, I see no conflict of interest there - I believe that there is no need to mention her in the body of the article (see Missing white woman syndrome).
For the Holloway article itself, most of your edits look fine, although I'm not so sure about this change. Why delete a link to a news article from a point in the article where a citation was explicitly requested? - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Stylistic, I guess. The citation needed flag seemed to be on the concept that there was coverage on Aruba (which really seems to be kind of a pointy flag in the first place), not on the fact that Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers.Kww (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. To me, the sentence says both 1) there was coverage on Aruba; and 2) Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers. Since this is an example of such local coverage (although Amigoe is based in Curaçao, Aruba still appears to be within the paper's circulation area) I think it is worth inclusion. Apart from that, I saw no other problems with your conduct, unless anyone who disagrees can provide a diff that proves the contrary. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
No harm here, but that you for being careful. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PowerBasic Conflict Of Interest

Article
Single purpose accounts

The Entry for PowerBasic reads like glossy corporate brochure. It contains all of the highlights and none of the pitfalls of the product. It is the work of the owner who resists any and all attempts to edit his work counter to guidelines that state clearly state "You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organisations in which you hold a vested interest."

I have tried to add a couple of simple paragraphs to provide verifiable information to provide a more complete understanding of the product.

My addition, has been deleted five times by the owner of PowerBasic and is a clear case corporate vanity

"...I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation." -Brad Patrick

User:BradPatrick

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.


Deleting this content is by definition Tendentious.

"Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view."

My addition is conservative in its tone and respectful in its nature, truthful and verifiable.

This is what I Added: "Adherence to the strict "No Vaporware" policy, practically translates into "No Announcements" of future features leaving an otherwise sound product in the unknown category for developers looking for a compiler capable of embracing future needs.

The PowerBASIC compiler exhibits some features that diverge from mainstream compilers, including the use of the FPU for unsigned 32bit Integer calculations as acknowledged by the owner, Bob Zale. PowerBASIC COM integration is limited, but third party libraries exist to facilitate a more complete implementation. Jose Roca Forum

The User Forums are designed as "User to User" Forums and comrpise a significant body of imformation and support network for new users. Little, if any, official support is provided. PowerBASIC strictly enforces a policy requiring forum users to use their full real name when posting. PowerBASIC staff are very sensitive to criticism. Users are frequently banned for challenging PowerBASIC philosophy or criticizing the product and threads are deleted by staff. This situation is especially relevant for new users who may suddenly find themselves without access to any real support."


Citations: The first paragraph is self evident. There are simply no announcements defended under the guise of "No Vaporware"

Using the FPU for unsigned Integer calculations is acknowledged by the owner, Mr Zale here

My assertion: "PowerBASIC COM integration is limited" is discussed fully here

"PB returns DISP_E_EXCEPTION. This highlights a very serious shortcoming with PB-automation, and is why PB-automation can be a nightmare to work it."

I state: "Little, if any, official support is provided". This can be easily verified by looking at any category of the user forum for posts by powerbasic staff going back at least 5 years. Mr Zale also states: "It's not possible to include a free lifetime consulting service.... This is simply not something we can do free of charge based upon upgrade prices under $100. We'd like you to get the assistance as inexpensively as possible, and I really hope you can make a connection here. However, if all else fails, we have always offered paid technical assistance for "in-depth" problems of this nature. Feel free to contact us at your convenience if that is of interest to you."


"PowerBASIC strictly enforces a policy requiring forum users to use their full real name when posting" As stated directly on the User Forum signup: "Forum Rules To post, you must register with your full, real name (both first and last names). No handles or abbreviations are allowed. ... Profanity, rude, or disparaging comments (about PowerBASIC or others) is strictly prohibited... The owners of PowerBASIC Peer Support Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."


I assert PowerBASIC staff are very sensitive to criticism and users are frequently banned. From Mr Zale himself: 'Bob Zale, Administrator 'posted June 11, 2004 04:21 AM Actually, suspension was for a very short period of time... enough to "cool off"... certainly not permanent. Long ago, he was offered reinstatement upon agreement to follow forum rules. Regards, Bob Zale PowerBASIC Inc.


Another example

I further state: "threads are deleted" This thread was deleted, Because a PB Staff member, Dave Navvaro states: "we will have a compiler for Linux some time this year"

The original thread is here It should be noted that despite the alleged "No Vaporware" Policy, a Linux compiler has never materialized.

This thread was also deleted, because it pointed out the unsigned integer inconsitency in the compiler. "I've had more than one experience while converting C to PB in which PB's DWORDs have created results that don't match the results of the same operations employing unsigned integers when coded in C. " The thread is still available here Any casual developer can verify this in seconds, but if you do not know it's there you are likely to waste hours looking for a non-existent bug.

My Last sentence is self evident.

I also added a link to a very important resource for PowerBasic users, Jose Roca Forum This has also been deleted. The site contains a large amount of very useful content, much more so than the sites sanctioned by the owner, but also contains threads like the one linked above that point out the issues with the compiler.

I was advised that my comments must meet verifiability policy. While I agree that in general "Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable" Some however, are edited by reliable organizations, and therefore may possibly be justified as exceptions. I can't imagine any stronger verification than statements from PB staff and the owner himself, on the official PowerBasic website.

I would like to see this content on Wikipedia to reflect a balanced representation as intended by the five pillars.

I would appreciate any feedback

RealWorldExperience (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise architecture

Resolved. Since active COI editing has stopped. StanLocke (also known as Metaframe), Phogg2 and MatthewFordKern have been helping to improve the articles. Another editor was given a final warning. Any new COI edits might be taken directly to WP:AN for action, since the investigation seems to be done. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles:

Single-purpose accounts

Metaframe self-identified as Stan Locke, managing director of Zachman Framework Associates (note similarity in Lockezachman username).

COI edits, which for some reason included removing references and templates, were brought to my attention on my talk page by Ronz; he will probably have more to add here. — Athaenara ✉ 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither John Zachman or Stan Locke is Lockezachman and we detest the comments being entered as ours but in our initial protest of this userid Ronz pointed out there was nothing we could do to stop the use of this ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StanLocke (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Related discussions

--Ronz (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lockezachman claims to "represent a group of about 60" [162]. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else think it's time to semi-protect these articles, given all these new accounts joining in? --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Enterprise architecture is protected because of the edit-warring there. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing the Zachman Framework article for the past couple of weeks in an effort to clear up its problems and clear the tags. A few others have made some contributions, but they have been constructive in my opinion. I don't think that article needs to be protected at this stage.

Phogg2 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: I have only just noticed that you restored important material on the Zachman Framework that users LockeZachman and Len Morrow had deleted for no reason that I could tell. Thank you. --Phogg2 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You might add User talk:Tom Corn to the list, he contacted me after I semi protected Enterprise Architect to complain about the Wrong Version I believe. MBisanz talk 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This tag-team edit-warring is getting tiresome. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, an editor named User:Metaframe, who is probably the same person as User:Lockezachman, made a very sensible contribution over at Data modeling#Data model, including a new image of the Zachman model. It is at Enterprise architecture, Zachman framework and Enterprise architect that he seems uninterested in paying any attention to our policies. Athaenara left a warning over at User talk:Lockezachman that included a big picture of a stop sign. Apparently this editor feels that only those references that are approved by his company should appear in Wikipedia. (We are not allowed to entertain any opposing points of view). Since he doesn't own Wikipedia, I'm not sure how he expects to make this happen. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Lockezachman continues to revert out the TOGAF reference. I just left him a blatant vandalism warning. Would welcome some advice on how best to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to consider an initial block for Lockezachman. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There appear to be grounds for a block on a particular editor, but while we're still meditating on that option, I see there is movement over at Talk:Zachman framework. A couple of editors have been trying to remove the POV issues with the article. Phogg2 appears knowledgable in this area and (though he is still included in the COI list above) he has made some useful edits. Ronz has removed the notability tag from Zachman framework in response to the edits by Phogg2 and Nickmalik. I'm still hoping that someone can improve Enterprise architecture, which is really the parent article for this whole area. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping that the recent progress is a sign that this is coming to a resolution. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

StanLocke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) just edited Athaenara's comment [163]
--Hu12 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

May want to look into these;
Svtveld (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
Jclouse (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
Yogishpai (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
Metaman1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
Graham Berrisford (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Berrisford LinkWatcher search • Google)
Mbwallace (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
59.180.191.55 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
71.79.123.117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
80.36.91.222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
87.60.223.12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
81.82.136.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • search an, ani, cn, an3 • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google • AboutUs)
--Hu12 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to StanLocke (talk · contribs) to try to get his user name clarified. If Lockezachman (talk · contribs) is someone else, then maybe we can get that name changed. It is logical that the real Stan Locke should be the person who logged in earlier as User:Metaframe. The latter had already complained to Ronz on 4 February about the situation with the names. In effect the misbehavior of Lockezachman (deleting references) appeared to emanate from the real Stan Locke. Per WP:U,

You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name

This might justify getting Lockezachman to change their name. At the same time we'd persuade Stan to use just a single login to avoid confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Close? User:Stan Locke sent me Wikipedia email from an address at zachmaninternational.com which seems to establish his identity as the real Stan Locke. Stan indicates that he has also used the User:Metaframe and the User:Metaman1 accounts. Some useful edits are happening over at Zachman framework. The troublesome editor User:Lockezachman has not edited since 26 February; we have no idea who he is. If Lockezachman comes back we might consider a username block, since his name is too similar to the real Stan Locke. Since the article issues appear resolved, closing seems logical. Anyone disagree? EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Millennium Pharmaceuticals

Resolved. COI SPA blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I rescued this article from deletion, because the company is clearly notable, but User Millenniumpharmaceuticals keeps insisting on changing the article into a piece of marketing blurb rather than an encyclopedia article. My patience is running out, and I'm sure I will end up being uncivil if I carry on trying to sort this out, so could someone please help out? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have soft-blocked the user for having a promotional user name. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi

Resolved. Editor warned, edits have stopped. --Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New iraqijm (talk · contribs) has been entering text describing "Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi" in the strangest places, often deleting valid contents. His entry is often long, and starts out something like this:

  • "Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi, MD, PhD is the most distinguished Iraqi physician during the previous 3 centuries...."

I would just revert the whole thing, but thought I should bring it to your attention first, and gain some input from others.--Endroit (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I added a {{welcomeg}} and {{uw-coi}} tag to his talk page and a {{uw-v2}} and reverted what had not been taken care of already. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for a very expert handling. I wanted to be very careful not to bite the newcomer, but didn't know how to approach it. Those good faith templates are very nice, and I'll learn to use those in the future.--Endroit (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Schwellenbach

Resolved. User hasn't editted in 2 weeks, tags in place. MBisanz talk 08:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.144.3 (talk • contribs) 28 February 2008

I believe the subject is borderline notable. Though he created the article himself, he appears not to like the current version, since he tried to blank it, though his change was reverted. The article is at present tagged for notability, which seems correct. A thorough search might bring forth new references to show his notability, though that has not been done yet. Anyone who wants to propose an AfD is of course free to do so. I suggest this be closed as a COI item, since the article is reasonably neutral and very short, and it is appropriately tagged for its remaining issues. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well the current version is nearly identical [164] to the version this fellow started, except the current version lists the subject as deceased. So its either actually him disagreeing with his life-status or a relative/fan. Maybe a COI tag to the user's page. MBisanz talk 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Left a uw-coi for the editor, and put {{Notable Wikipedian}} at Talk:Nick Schwellenbach as warning of the possible autobiography. EdJohnston (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


User:TStolper1W

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills (result: redirect to Hydrino theory)

TStolper1W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has written what is essentially a vanity (i.e. self)-published biography of Randell Mills, an entrepreneur working in an area of unconventional physics. There is a legitimate question of whether there is a WP:COI generated by promoting the target of his work. In his defense, he claims that he has published the book on Amazon free from royalties and claims no other financial ties to Mills or his company, Blacklight Power. He has been asked to refrain from contributing to Hydrino theory, the main page on Mills' work, but shows no interest in stopping. Is there a case to prevent him from contributing at all based on this history? I'd appreciate some expert opinion on this. Ronnotel (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional information: Stolper is running a single-purpose account - he has only edited regarding Mills. Stolper was blocked once for edit warring on hydrino theory, and also continues to push his own personal POV on the article. Stolper's POV is in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus, which makes the edit warring and COI problems somewhat worse. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin note: awhile back, I restricted TStolper1W (talk · contribs) from editing the article Randell Mills, requesting that he limit himself to making suggestions on the talk page given his evident COI and related issues. However, now the Randell Mills article has been merged/redirected to hydrino theory, where TStolper1W is editing, and rather heavily at that. One option is to extend the sanction I placed on the Randell Mills article to hydrino theory now that the Mills article has been redirected there. MastCell Talk 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's clear (at least to me) that User:TStolper1W has a COI when contributing to either the original article Randell Mills or to the article where it now redirects, Hydrino theory. MastCell banned Stolper from directly editing the Randell Mills article here, and his notice to Stolper can still be seen on the latter's Talk page at User talk:TStolper1W#Notice. If editors who have a COI respond combatively to suggestions from regular editors that they be cautious, this inclines us to limit their editing to the article's Talk page, which is exactly the remedy that MastCell has established in this case. After perusing Stolper's talk page, and noting his approach when he receives comments and suggestions about his COI, I believe the situation fully justifies extending his ban at Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory. Ronnotel already notified him here about the WP:COIN report, but if he does choose to offer comment, we should listen carefully to what he has to say. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Provided Tom respects WP basic editing protocols I see no reason not to allow him to try to influence debate on the talk page. However, I would also like to hear more from Tom on this matter. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My paperback book isn't a biography of Mills. It's an extensively documented and footnoted study of the reception of his work, in historical and contemporary context. The paperback book is available from Amazon for $10.25 + shipping. At that price, there is no profit. Writing such a study and making it available is a credential, not a COI. Mills is a real and original scientist. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done: found a company, direct it himself for over 16 years, raise over $50 million for it, recruit and retain scientists and engineers with standard degrees and research backgrounds to work with him and for him, make presentations at scientific meetings, and publish dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. TStolper1W (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. You were invited to contribute here because an administrator, MastCell, is planning to extend your existing article ban on Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory as well. Your blanket defence of Mills's wonderful work doesn't give us much reason to take you seriously, since you didn't make any reference to obeying Wikipedia policies. Please explain how you plan to moderate your editing in the future so that you don't continue to deserve a ban from the Mills-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be far apart. Michaelbusch has been biased in the extreme against Mills from the word go, as one can see from what Michaelbusch has done and has written in the discussion elsewhere. In this section, he added a charge against me of running a single-purpose account (see above). It’s illogical to ask me to edit articles about which I know less in order to edit the article about which I know the most. As even Ronnotel conceded at the bottom of my User talk page, I know as much about that material as anyone (other than Mills himself). Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be very unneutral. TStolper1W (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TStolper, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this COI discussion. This is not about your views of Mills, or your mis-understanding of my enforcing Wikipedia's adherence to the scientific consensus. Here we are trying to determine if your block from editing of Randell Mills should be extended to hydrino theory, nothing more. As Ed noted, you are not helping yourself. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s not a COI to have studied, since 1991, the reception of Mills’ work, nor to have written and made available an extensively documented study of that reception. It’s a credential. The Wikipedia wasn’t founded to enforce orthodoxy. Enforcing orthodoxy by silencing other views stunts the progress of science and always has. Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be unneutral at best. TStolper1W (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that IS what wikipedia is suppose to do - we take the mainstream view on things using published sources - the "progress of science" is irrelevant to wikipedia. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's do this: TStolper1 may comment freely on the Talk:Hydrino theory. However, he is limited to 0RR in editing the article hydrino theory. This means that he may make an edit (as proposed text), but if it is reverted for any reason, then he may not reinsert it, in any form. This is an alternative to a complete ban from editing the article which would allow TStolper1 to contribute text suggestions directly, but not to edit-war. Expertise is welcome, but where there is a clear and well-documented connection as exists here, that expertise should be used persuasively on the talk page rather than by editing (or edit-warring) on the article directly. I'll open this for comment before imposing it. MastCell Talk 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me. It does depend on him knowing how the 0RR works. I assume you'll be the one enforcing it so you'll be able to explain it if he winds up violating the ban due to misunderstanding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a WP:1RR would give him enough leeway to avoid being blocked out of unfamiliarity yet have the same practical effect of preventing him from engaging in edit warring. Zero reverts seems akin to a topic ban. Ronnotel (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, what is the connection to which you currently object? TStolper1W (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I like the idea of your proposal above, but I'm afraid Stolpher has considered it license to add bollocks back to the article - which I have just reverted. Please see hydrino theory's page history. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And again yesterday evening (revert by Athaenara). Michaelbusch (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
MastCell has updated TStolper1W's article ban to a 1RR on Hydrino theory here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on his editing history, Stolper will likely not change his editing habits with a 1RR/24 h ban - in the past week he has logged on three times, blanket-reverted to one version of his unacceptable content, accused the editors that removed it previously (three different editors) of having a personal grudge against Mills, and then gone away for roughly two days. Unless something stricter than 1RR/24 h is implemented, this will presumably continue. I may be overly cynical, but Stolper has demonstrated persistence. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I hope that you will examine the revision history of the Hydrino theory article, as well as the version that results from my editing, before accepting Michaelbusch’s interpretations. He has been leading and encouraging the attack upon Mills in the Wikipedia ever since I became aware of that attack (at the beginning of November 2007), and leading and encouraging the attack upon me ever since I began editing the article about Randell Mills (now deleted) and the article about his work (Hydrino theory), at the beginning of December 2007. Furthermore, Michaelbusch has shown himself to be biased in the extreme against Mills. Here is how Michaelbusch put it on 13 December 2007 in my talk page (his emphasis): “Understand this: Mills is a pseudoscientist and either a fool or a con man - that is the neutral evaluation.” If Michaelbusch thinks that evaluation is either neutral or right, then we are hopelessly far apart. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done, including the publication of dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. TStolper1W (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I hereby invoke WP:DENY and request that Stolper be blocked completely from editing. This entire sad drama needs to end. Wikipedia does not cater to the whims of individual editors, especially when those include denials of the scientific consensus. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The Wikipedia:Deny recognition essay doesn't really apply here, and the "solution" requested regarding a content dispute would be quite draconian. — Athaenara ✉ 09:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have begun to lose patience here, but here is the logic: 1. Stolper has made no contributions to Wikipedia except for adding large quantities of POV and nonsensical material to the hydrino theory article (let that include the Randell Mills page that was combined). 2. Stolper refuses to accept repeated removal of his additions and explanations from many editors, nor has he modified his conduct or respected the bans. 3. His stated reason for doing this is that editors who have removed his content are quote 'Mills' opponents' - despite most of them first hearing of Mills when they saw the page. So, we can ask: what is Stolper's motivation for continuing his disruptive edits? I suggest he has been unsuccessful in promoting his views elsewhere and sees Wikipedia as a venue where he can push them on people without their being able to entirely ignore him. Thus I cited WP:DENY and propose a complete block (under the rules regarding long-term abuse of editing rights). It is true that Wikipedia:The_Motivation_of_a_Vandal is a better reference. Michaelbusch (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Pyrex

Resolved. Unsourced negative claims have been removed from the Pyrex article. Bad edits have not resumed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As a representative of World Kitchen I am asking for an experienced Wiki-editor’s help to correct a number of errors, inaccuracies and incomplete information on the entries for Pyrex, soda-lime glass, and borosilicate glass. Given the damaging edits on these pages, I believed a COIN posting was warranted.

The Pyrex entry is incomplete.

The Pyrex entry focuses almost exclusively on a debate over whether the product is made from a borosilicate vs. soda-lime glass formulation. Pyrex® glass bakeware is nearly a century old and currently is used in 80% of American households. I suggest the Pyrex products website as a starting point for information on the brand.

Today the Pyrex trademark is actually used on a wide range of products in addition to glass bakeware and laboratory products. For example, metal muffin pans, cake pans and cookie sheets are all included among the Pyrex branded products. The trademark is used to refer to products with many different glass formulations and even some products which contain no glass at all.

The formulation of Pyrex glass bakeware did not change with the acquisition of the relevant consumer products business by World Kitchen.

Pyrex glass bakeware was composed of borosilicate glass when it was first introduced in 1915. However, by 1946, and possibly earlier, Corning Incorporated (named Corning Glass Works then) was making bakeware from a soda-lime composition that is heat tempered for additional strength. There was no change of the formulation of Pyrex bakeware in 1998 when World Kitchen acquired the relevant business.

The “safety issues” section of the Pyrex article contains numerous false and damaging claims.

The focus on the borosilicate vs. soda lime issue appears to be spurred in large part by ConsumerAffairs.com, a website that is affiliated with at least one law firm representing plaintiffs in product liability lawsuits. ConsumerAffairs.com has been criticized as being biased.

Most if not all glass bakeware products and food service glassware manufactured and sold in the United States today is made from soda-lime glass. The Pyrex article, as well as the associated soda-lime and borosilicate articles and talk pages, confuses tempered soda-lime glass and un-tempered soda-lime glass. Tempered soda-lime glass is able to withstand a wide range of heat changes and is the glass used in Pyrex bakeware. It is more resistant to mechanical breakage (e.g. dropping) and is more environmentally friendly to produce than borosilicate.

Since 1998 World Kitchen has manufactured over 369 million pieces of Pyrex glass products. There has never been a recall of Pyrex glass bakeware. The Consumer Product Safety Commisson’s database of injuries for 2006 reported no instances of injury resulting from any brand of glass bakeware allegedly spontaneously shattering. Given the hundreds of millions of pieces of Pyrex glass bakeware in American households, there should be a far greater number of complaints if the accusations made in this article were true.

When World Kitchen looks into the few reports it receives of safety issues with Pyrex glass bakeware, the company finds the reports largely fall into three categories. In some cases, complainants do not provide glass pieces that can be tested to determine if the broken bakeware is even a Pyrex brand product (and what the cause of breakage might be). In other cases, when World Kitchen tests the returned glass sample, analysis reveals that the product is not a Pyrex brand product. In other cases, we are able to determine the bakeware has been used in ways it is clearly not intended to be used, according to the Safety & Usage Instructions provided with the product. (e.g., placing the dish under the broiler).

STATS.org has written a number of pieces on the science behind this issue. These entries, as well as this link to the Pyrex products website are good starting points for someone interested in editing these pages:

Pyrex, Soda Lime, Borosilicate, and the Environment

Does Pyrex “Explode” Because the Manufacturer Changed the Mix? CBS Chicago’s Epic Investigation Continues

Pyrex-O-Mania Continues on CBS Chicago

CBS Sweeps Week Shocker: Glass Can Break!

I am concerned that speculation and unsupported anecdotal statements and reports are being posted as fact in this entry and, as a result, are migrating to wider discussion. In the case of safety issues, this is particularly damaging. For these reasons, we ask that both the inaccuracies and misleading statements outlined above as well as the picture of what is alleged, but not substantiated, to be a broken Pyrex dish be removed.--Bryan.glancy (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I share some of the concerns just mentioned, and I left a note over at Talk:Pyrex inviting those editors to participate in this discussion. Negative information about the safety of Pyrex glassware that has no reliable sources ought to be removed, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This might be better discussed at Talk:Pyrex as there's no real need for noticeboard discussions unless Mr. Glancy attempts to edit the page directly. I see the issue being one primarily of WP:PROVEIT and WP:V - cull the claims unjustified by reliable sources, write the page based on reliable sources and discuss on the talk page. Mr. Glancy's assistance in providing reliable sources in this regard would be invaluable. WLU (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the culling should include the image of the bowl of chips. There's no verification or sourcing either here or on Commons. — Athaenara ✉ 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, wholesale, comments welcomed. WLU (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)