Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 2

[edit] Delicious Vinyl

I'm not sure that this should go here or on the general board. I received an email to my Wikipedia account stating

thank you for your help on The Pharcyde's page on Wikipedia. We are really looking for some that knows Wikipedia editing well to make more overdue Wikipedia enteries for our record labels' artists. of course, we are not talking about any illicit 'marketing' messaging, only justifiable quality entries. If you have some feelings or suggestions on this please email me (name and email from Delicious Vinyl)

Delicious Vinyl is behind such classics as Tone Lōc's Wild Thing and Young MC's Bust A Move, if anyone else is a fan of late 80s hiphop. Any thoughts? - BanyanTree 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything right now. No article, no conflict of interest problems. As for notability, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. MER-C 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Two months old. Inactive. — Athænara ✉ 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyndon LaRouche

Dennis King, who edits Wikipedia as Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has made over 50 edits to this article in the past three days. He was the author of a hostile biography of LaRouche back in the 1980s, and his edits are very problematic from the standpoint of WP:COI#Citing_oneself. --Tsunami Butler 09:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The general case has already been resolved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2 Dennis King is a respected and published author on LaRouche. Why is Tsunami Butler publishing on every possible noticeboard then? Because Tsunami Butler is simply another LaRouche follower who is attempting to whitewash negative facts about LaRouche. Please be cautious in reading any claim of Tsunami Butler because many of them are simply incorrect. Mgunn 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a more appropriate place for this would be the arbcom enforcement board, as this could be in violation of the two arbcom rulings. Please file your request there, complete with diffs and links to the two arbcom decisions. MER-C 12:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read those ArbCom decisions, and the issue of self-citing never comes up. I have no basis for bringing this complaint to that forum. Self-citing is a COI policy issue. If you need diffs, a brief glance at this should get you started. --Tsunami Butler 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I too have read those two ArbComm decisions, and am completely puzzled by Mgunn's comment that the matter has already been resolved. WP:COI as a policy post-dates the ArbComm decisions (prior to the current policy, it was limited to vanity pages, I believe, and that's not the issue here). And in any case Dennis King was neither a party to nor mentioned in the ArbComm cases; these decisions thus provide no guidance or his edits nor a basis for enforcement.

This is a current WP:COI issue, and deserves further scutiny. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• The last post in this section was almost a month ago: has there been any progress or resolution of the problem as described when it was posted on the first of this year? — Athænara ✉ 01:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No. --Tsunami Butler 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A comment was posted on the article talk page: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#On_conflicts_of_interest by User:Pascal.Tesson, who represented himself as bing a neutral observer. He was immediately accused by User:Dking of being a covert LaRouche sympathizer, and bullied off the page. --Tsunami Butler 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/medcab06-07, a subpage of the article talk page (which itself has two long lists of previous mediations and arbitrations) has been created as well. Though the article name rather than the username is in the WP:COI/N section heading here (maybe it should be changed?), this is a user/editor problem more than an article problem. Dking's activities strongly suggest Wikipedia:Ownership of articles issues. — Athænara ✉ 01:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Input from neutral editors would be helpful here. The tactic of Dking, and his allies (which include Cberlet, 172, and Will Beback,) is to accuse anyone who disputes their edits of having a hidden, pro-LaRouche agenda. --Tsunami Butler 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean these? (I had to dig this information out of article/talk histories—you didn't provide it.)

• Cberlet (talk · contribs) (one article edit, 4 January; one talk page edit since 6 January)
• 172.194.167.223 (talk · contribs) (one talk page edit, 18 December)
• 172.191.190.144 (talk · contribs) (four edits, 9 January)
• 172.192.141.130 (talk · contribs) (three edits, 3 January)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs) (no article edits since 31 December; one talk page edit last week)

In addition, I read about fifteen Dking diffs. I am neutral. I don't think there's a case here. — Athænara ✉ 11:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Inactive. — Athænara ✉ 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kathryn Cramer

• Pleasantville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This user has created articles about herself, about projects that she and her husband have financial interests in, about her employer, etc. She's also made contributions that appear intended to settle scores, such as her disputes with Joseph A. Cafasso and GoDaddy. She's used her own blog and flickr accounts as sources for these articles. She has reacted poorly to suggestions that she shold follow WP:COI and has threatened to organize a boycott of Wikipedia unless given a free hand.[1] -Will Beback · † · 02:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned the user for violation of WP:BLP, cleaned several BLP articles by removing unsourced or poorly sourced negative material, tagged other articles for cleanup and requesting sources, and advised user to comply with WP:COI and WP:AUTO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good work. -Will Beback · † · 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact she's already trying to organise the boycott via her blog [2]. 86.139.253.137 09:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she realizes that it's not in her power to delete articles from Wikipedia. It seems like this situation is dealt with, unless she turns up again. (Why are people so astounded by the COI principle? It's not like Wikipedia invented the term.) LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This user continues with editing her own article and making long diatribes against WP while doing so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not within my power to delete articles from Wikipedia. But it is within my power to encourage others to request that their articles be deleted once moved elsewhere.

None of you are taking my general point at all. In my professional judgement, you collectively are being overzealous about how you enforce rules involving your connection with who you write about in a way that is not appropriately applied to the science fiction field. ISFDB outsourced this to Wikipedia. That's how you got the bare bones of the science fiction author bios here already. I write a lot of author bios and I publish a lot of articles about science fiction.

None of you who have been worrying about what I've been up to seem to have much familiarity with the subject area or the issues involved in objectivity in a situation where we do all know each other. Perhaps you should consult with those primarily engaged with organizing and creating the science fiction related bios.Pleasantville 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not been built on the expertise of the few, but on the collaborative efforts of the many. If you want to explore other wikis that use a different approach, in which subject experts have specific privileges, you may want to consider contributing to Citizendium rather than to this project. Coming here and as a new editor, and disregarding each all and comments made to you by other editors with sarcasm and incivility, will not earn you any points 'round these frontiers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"But it is within my power to encourage others to request that their articles be deleted once moved elsewhere."

They can request it, but it won't happen. All posters have accepted by clicking Save page that they accept the GFDL license - so they have given up any control over whatever they've posted. Tearlach 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The acrimony seems to have subsided here—are there remaining problems with the user/articles which need further attention on this noticeboard, or have the issues been resolved satisfactorily for all concerned? — Athænara ✉ 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   The editors involved seem to be reaching an understanding of the issues vis a vis Wikipedia policies and guidelines. COI/N role in this now defunct. — Athænara ✉ 09:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcendental Meditation

Transcendental Meditation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).
TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has had a lot of input in Transcendental Meditation. He is a WP:SPA [[3]], a faculty member of a college run by the TM Organization [[4]], who authored the origonal version of the TM article [[5]], which clearly reads like an ad [[6]]. He has challenged nearly every single addition of critical material to the article. Now he is challenging material that is critical of his university. I don't think his affiliation with the TM organization rules him out to work on the TM article per se, however, the fact that he is faculty and seeking to remove well-sourced critical infromation about his own college I believe crosses the line. Sethie 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on this testimony and what I can see, you have pretty much hit the nail on the head. You're right in that he should be allowed to edit because he obviously has some good things to say, but it seems that he's taken it too far. I hope that others see it this way, too. → JARED ^(t)  20:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Consensus building by several active editors (who include the user named in the report) has addressed the COI issues appropriately. This is no longer an active issue on this noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychiatric service dog

PSDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems determined to make their version of the Psychiatric service dog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article rule supreme, regardless of quality, and does not seem to even want to think about trying to cooperate with myself or other editors. This morning/yesterday a large edit-war was fought over what goes in the list of tasks "psych" dogs may be trained to do, which already had a history of debate. I tried to fix the problem by rewriting the list in general paragraph form, but they just re-pasted their content back in. I am concerned, because the editor signs their Talk posts as the "founder" of such and such, and seems to take everything as a personal attack against their work. They have been going on about representing federal law and other things "accurately," but I feel there is no difference in accuracy between the various revisions. I am hoping my attempts at contacting them and adding references into the article will help, but if not, I simply don't know what to do next. -- Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

File a 3RR report if the edit warring continues. MER-C 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Has the user been advised of WP:COI and WP:OWN? I've been looking for a user-warning template, but the only COI-related one addresses non-notable COI articles only. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You can easily write your own. You don't have to use a template. MER-C 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, but in the interest of uniformity of policy/guideline, I was interested to know of there was enough demand for a user warning template. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   No longer active on this noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lattice Semiconductor

• Tomstdenis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - User tagged Lattice Semiconductor AfD, but works for a competitor, Elliptic Semiconductor [7]. See user's talk page history for proof that the person is Tom St Denis. Aboutmovies 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Four articles so far nominated for deletion by the user in question:

• Vendors of semiconductor IP cores (16:09, 2 February 2007 UTC)
• Lattice Semiconductor (14:22, 2 February 2007 UTC)
• 4i2i Communications (14:16, 2 February 2007 UTC)
• IP Cores Inc. (16:19, 24 January 2007 UTC)   (Deleted (log) twice.)

(User's first edit after registration was an AfD nom.) — Athænara ✉ 21:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can I add that it does seem to be a bit of a conflict of interest when somebody working in the semiconductor industry takes the trouble to delete the pages of competing companies. I am one of the contributors to the 4i2i article, and spent a good while debating with Tomstdenis (see the deletion debate) as to whether the article should be kept. The eventual debate consensus was Speedy Keep. But, I'm disappointed that instead of taking the trouble to do a bit of research to see whether the article was notable, Tom instead opted to immediately nominate the article for deletion. It took me no time at all to do some research to add more notability to the 4i2i article. Dfmcp 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• This one seems to be over, and the user hasn't (yet) nominated any more such articles for deletion. — Athænara ✉ 01:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that any conflict of interest was dealt with at the original afd. The user may or may not had intent to disrupt by nominating a competitor's article for deletion, but the editors at afd were sensible enough to keep, and clean up, a clearly notable article. --Iamunknown 20:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed—good summary. — Æ.

• Conclusion:   Resolved. Inactive. — Athænara ✉ 23:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ditch Witch

• Ditch Witch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article has been created by an employee of the company, Ajcross2455 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), as evidenced in the following diff. The user is new, and probably unaware of the policy. I have left a message on the user's talk page refering to this notice. Donald Albury 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The article as it stands is mostly copyvio from the About Us page on their website, so I'm going to stub it and leave a message on the creator's talk page, as well as recommend that they find some good sources based on WP:CORP and take them to the article talk page, then see if I can help work out the article from there. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• The COI aspect, at least, has been dealt with appropriately, and the fate of the article itself lies elsewhere. The user who created the copyvio original has zero edits (see contribs above) since the first of February. — Athænara ✉ 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Resolved. Inactive. — Athænara ✉ 23:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephanie Adams

Sean D Martin (talk) (contribs) has repeatedly vandalized Stephanie Adams using Sneaky vandalism (bad edits, reverting legitimate edits, etc.) and Modifying users' comments (Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning). This user also has a bizarre vendetta offline against Stephanie Adams, as seen when you google his name with hers. Being that she is suing his friend, he obviously has personal intentions in vandalizing the article and should no longer be allowed to edit it. -Sacha 69.203.12.73

I would also have to agree that User:Sean D Martin poses a conflict of interest by being a Lawsuit Antagonist and has repeatedly vandalized the Stephanie Adams page, using Sneaky Vandalism and Modifying User Comments. This user is directly involved in a court case started by Adams, making it very hard to demonstrate that his edits are objective. I suggesst his name and IP address be banned from editing the article. ~Lynx~

This looks like a content dispute. Take it to [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes|dispute resolution. -- Donald Albury 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To reply before heading off to dispute resolution, I have not been vandalizing anything. Every edit I have made has been specific, minor and accompanied by a clear reason for the change. Every edit I have made has been signed; I have not been "sneaky" about anything. When edits were repeatedly reverted back to something less accurate and more self-serving for Ms Adams I asked what is appropriate. [[8]]

Not sure what "Lynx" means by calling me a "Lawsuit Antagonist". I am not a party to any lawsuit with Ms Adams and, certainly have no involvement whatsoever with her suit against the NYC police. It would be clear to anyone who objectively looks at the few edits I have made that they are indeed objective and more accurately report the information in the sources cited in the article. None of them have insulted Ms Adams or damaged her reputation in any way. Yet I have been personally attacked.

A final comment: A tracert of many of the anonymous IP addresses used to edit the page in question shows many originate from a particular IP block in Manhattan, and Wikipedia contribs history show most have edited only the Stephanie Adams page. Might some resident of Manhattan be using multiple IPs to anonymously do edits and make insults be the actual practitioner of "Sneaky Vandalism"? Sean Martin 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sean D Martin (talk) (contribs) is in fact involved in a lawsuit Stephanie Adams filed against his friend who posts derogatory, defamatory blogs about her, filled with lies and false, libelous comments.

I too googled his name along with hers and found the actual proof. Therefore, he should be banned from editing the article or blocked from editing entirely.

First he questioned valid information that was clearly valid, then he removed valuable information and lied by stating that it was not a fact when it actually was according to hundreds of article all over the news media (with at least three of them referenced).

Even in his reply here, his comment that previous edits were more "self-serving" for Ms Adams" suggests she is editing this, which is false. This article is a project and product of Wikipedia by which several people edit.

Due to his personal vendetta against Adams (and his name listed as a witness to the defendant in the case she filed against an amateur blogger) his false accusation is personal and begrudgingly biased.

This has to stop, which is why several are suggesting he no longer edits this article. At best, it's conflict of interest and at worst, it's vandalism.

- bbl 162.83.205.36 02:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

At least Sean Martin edits under his own name. I did not notice you providing any evidence that Sean Martin is involved as a witness, or in any other way, in a lawsuit involving Stephanie Adams. Failing that, no conflict of interest can be shown and your submission doesn't belong here. Since you don't give your name or say why you are interested in the Adams case it's impossible to tell if you have a conflict of interest yourself. EdJohnston 02:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams has filed no lawsuits against any of my friends. James Poling, against who she has filed a lawsuit Metadish, is not a friend of mine. We've never met, never spoken.

Please do google my name with hers. It should provide an interesting perspective on Ms. Adams.

I haven't questioned any "valid" information. I asked that a piece of info be supported by something other than a link to Ms Adams own web site (Note: I didn't change the info presented.) and someone anonymous (let's call them "SA" for short) provided links to actual news articles. The article stated that the cab driver was fired, but all of the supporting references only say that his license was revoked, so I changed "fired" to "license revoked" and SA keeps changing it back. The only other edit is of the statement that the police are being investigated, which is not mentioned in any of the references provided yet SA keeps reverting any edits of that phrase. No objective person could look at any edit I've made and claim it has been inappropriate.

I have no personal vendetta against Ms. Adams. Vice versa, in fact.

"Several" have not suggested that I no longer be allowed to edit this article. Any such suggestions have come from SA. And if they have come from more than one SA, it is interesting to note that the IP addresses all trace to the same place... Sean Martin 17:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this clarification from Sean Martin, but I'd suggest that the rightness and wrongness of edits should be discussed either at Talk:Stephanie Adams or in a forum for handling editing disputes. The only further information that would be useful here, for completeness, is what relationship does the anonymous poster of this COI issue have to Stephanie Adams? EdJohnston 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to confine any discussion to the edits actually made and the merits (or not) of them. I regret things started down this path when SA started with the personal acusations to which I feel I must be able to respond. In any event, I have asked on at least two occasions for opinions on the edits [[9]][[10]]and look forward to any objective comments editors have to make about the edits.Sean Martin 21:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an ongoing "issue" with Stephanie (which is why I choose to refrain to edit her page and have only once piped in on her Talk page). Sean D Martin is MY friend; he is NOT a friend of the defendant in the lawsuit in which Stephanie is the plaintiff -- which might have lead to some of the confusion as to his COI status. Factually, there is absolutely no lawsuit between Stephanie and I, despite her having repeatedly threatened one due to her objection of the contents of my own blog. Despite my therefore understandable interest in her lawsuit with fellow blogger James Poling, I have not seen Sean's name "listed as a witness to the defendant in the case she filed against an amateur blogger". I would think that only someone a bit too close to the matter would have that information. I also find it compelling that the IP address of the anonymous "bbl" above is from a Verizon access pool in NYC Manhattan, a coincidence seen far too often in the edits and discussion for these pages, a point also raised by others and easily proven and quantified...

I believe the real issue is whether or not Stephanie should be editing her own page. If there were a page about me here, I would not edit it (except to revert vandalism or for minor edits, and signed with my real name) because it is both against the rules and against the whole point of responsible objectivity. I like the suggestion that I'd seen discussed somewhere that anonymous editors be banned from editing this page, and additionally that all future edits be examined for continued use of sock puppets.

Without intending to offend anyone, might I be bold enough to suggest that a list should be created of people that perhaps should not edit the main Stephanie Adams page (access limited to the Talk page only), regardless of intentions. I would certainly include myself on that list, as well as James Poling (if he were ever to become a Wikipedia contributor), Sean D Martin, Stephanie, attorneys Neal Johnston and Martin Siegel (if they show up), Goddessy or any Goddessy representative, sock puppet SEKHMET7, sock puppet Cle0patr4, sock puppet Ladysekhmet, and any more sock puppets that may surface. I don't think many people are fooled by the "several" editors.

As biased as I may be, I think this is the most level-headed approach to the on-going problem. Don't let any of us edit it. Richard D. LeCour 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   COI/N no longer has a role in this dispute. If I'm wrong about this, it can be reinstated on the noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 10:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juice Plus

• Julia Havey (talk) (contribs) has vandalized the Juice Plus page twice already tonight by unilaterally blanking the entire critical content section without prior discussion. This user is a distributor and spokesperson for Juice Plus, and is in clear violation of several aspects of the Wiki policy on conflict of interest WP:COI. These issues are outlined on the Juice Plus discussion page.

A review of this user’s contribution history reveals an alarming pattern of vandalism, spamming, self-promotion, and hectoring of other Wiki editors. The user has repeatedly been warned for such behavior and all attempts to engage her in meaningful dialog have failed. Her comments on the Juice Plus discussion page have been consistently incendiary and hostile, and repressive of criticism of the product she sells. She has contributed virtually no worthwhile content to the topic page itself and has made it brutally difficult for those who are engaged in legitimate work on the page.

The latest act of vandalism by this user involved blanking the entire critical commentary section of the Juice Plus page, which had been in place for several months without comment. This action is a clear violation of the conflict of interest policy, and on that basis, this user should probably refrain from editing the Juice Plus page and contributing on the discussion page. A block may be necessary and seems called for at this point. Shell Kinney, a Wiki admin, had participated in editing the Juice Plus page and has been alerted to the activities of the user in question.

Can someone here please help with this situation? Rhode Island Red 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A brief comment: this article appears to have excessive, promotional, detail about the precise contents of some unremarkable vitamin-fortified fruit juice derivative. It needs hard-nosed assessment of notability. Tearlach 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A brief reply: I am one of the editor’s trying to keep the Juice Plus article from becoming a promotional piece, and it has been no easy task. Those who sell the product have been keen on vandalizing the page and altering it to be more promotional. However, the subject matter is notable and surrounded by controversy, and the entry that is up now has been the result of considerable effort on the part of many different editors. The details of the product contents are actually not flattering and are probably counter-promotional. It might be appropriate for now to block users who are affiliated with the product and yet repeatedly vandalize the page and attempt to suppress unflattering content. Such actions are a clear violation of WP:COI.Rhode Island Red 05:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether promotional or not, I still think the detail is getting into the territory of WP:NOT#IINFO; is listing every single ingredient of a product encyclopedic or necessary? Tearlach 15:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red was the submitter of this COI complaint. In the above discussion, he or she suggested that User:JuliaHavey's edits might be vandalism. I've been trying to figure out if this might qualify for intervention by WP's ordinary anti-vandalism policies. So I was paying attention when User:MER-C, in a previous comment on this noticeboard, described a case where removal of criticism by a company-based editor should be recorded as vandalism. I'm paraphrasing what I think was his rule:

1. The editor is in the COI situation of editing his own company's article, and
2. The editor removes a properly-sourced critical comment that makes his own company look bad.
3. The editor does not give an edit summary or proper Talk page explanation

Under those conditions MER-C argued that you should revert the change and leave the {{test1a}} vandalism warning on the editor's Talk page.

With regard to the Juice Plus page, I see that the company spokesperson is willing to engage in very extended discussions and parry facts with facts. The spokesperson is arguing that Rhode Island Red is violating WP:OWN. I haven't looked into this carefully, but I urge anyone who has a bit of spare time to consider joining in the conversation at Talk:Juice Plus page. Even one or two experienced editors could make a big difference. I have to say that I did not notice any 'vandalism in the sense of MER-C' in a brief glance, but more thorough study would be instructive. EdJohnston 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Parry with facts? With all due respect, I think upon closer inspection one would see that this is not the case at all. Please look at the user’s contributions in more detail. I have been fighting hard to be fair and NPOV while at the same time not letting the article turn into a promotional pamphlet for the manufacturer, which it is at risk of becoming. This user’s contributions on Juice Plus have consisted mostly of personal attacks, accusing me of article ownership, and attempts to eliminate content that is unfavorable to the product. Please look closely at my edits and discussions and you will see that this is not an issue of ownership but merely a fair and reasonable attempt to prevent the article from degenerating into an advertisement for Juice Plus.

JuliaHavey is blatantly flouting WP:COI guidelines, and their comments and actions have been hostile and disruptive. It seems this user is also becoming emboldened, since no action has yet been taken, and today removed legitimate warning tags from their user page claiming that they are “idle threats” with “no validity”. [11][12][13]. I don't know if there are any rules prohibiting a user from removing warning tags from their user page, but it is concerning that the user refers to legitimate warning tags as idle threats with no validity. In the last few two days there have been more incendiary comments [14] from this user on the discussion page and a nonsensical, uncited, promotionally-friendly contribution on the article page.[15] The user has insinuated (falsely) that I am Stephen Barrett [16]and is again arguing for removal of legitimate critical commentary [17]. Can somebody please look into this. Rhode Island Red 06:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was told that Rhode Island Red has no authority to place his threatening stop signs on my talk page. I should have some right to remove them if he has no right to place them there. GROW UP Red. You are seriously becoming a stalker and I am going look into my rights. You are obsessed with me and with Juice Plus. Get a lifeJulia 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to respond directly to the comment Julia just posted but I think it amply demonstrates the abusive tone to which I have been objecting. I have no interest in this user beyond preventing further violation of WP:COI, vandalism, personal attacks, and attempts at suppressing properly sourced but unflattering information about the product she represents. The user may be within their rights to remove the warning tags, but the tags were legitimately placed on their user page in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia; the user blanked critical content twice [18]][19] and was given the appropriate warning [20][21] as outlined by EdJohnston above. JuliaHavey launched yet another personal attack on me today: [22] and again blanked properly sourced critical commentary [23]. Can someone please take appropriate action to prevent further violation of WP:COI by this user. Rhode Island Red 02:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

the so called "properly sourced critical commentary" was agreed upon that it should be removed by every other active editor commenting on the page. Again, Red's insistance that it isn't fair only happens when it isn't what HE wants. In subjects on this page, I read editors using the "F" word, that is harsh, I am not doing that. Red has it wrong. I want truthful, NON=bias slanted information on EVERY page on Wikipedia. I don't mind if there is something actually thruthful that happens to be negative about Juice Plus or any other article and that is told, but to take technicial sentences out of contect and use them to further a negative agenda? Yes, I will fight for that, one Juice Plus, on Pro-Choice, on my politicians, on my other interestes.

He makes it sound like I am some big honcho there. I am a low level distributor, I just happen to passionately believe in the product and it doesn't sit well with me that ONE rooster on a single subject mission has the power to attempt stant public opinion by spinning every i and t to his agenda. I don't think that is what Wiki stands for, or at least not what he foundation set it up to stand for.Julia 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing based on passionate belief in the product, rather than on facts, is consistent with the claim that this user has violated WP:COI. Rhode Island Red 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, my favorite barnyard friend, you are twisting the words to suit your purpose, having a passion and belief in something does not proclude the use of factual information when editing, commenting or discussing any subject.Julia 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This editor is clearly STALKING me! He is calls me out for "attacking him" and he is trying to have a ligitmate article on me/my career deleted because he disagrees with my edits? to quote Red:

Elonka, although I am reluctant to enter a disupte over the content you recently contributed, based on the fact that we are having editorial disputes on another article; however, your recent edits on this bio are inappropriate. This article, originally submitted by Havey herself, had previously been nominated for speedy deletion in part becuase the article read like a self-promotional advertisement. After considerable input from roughly a dozen different editors, a pared down version [1]] was voted on as acceptable, the article was deemed to be suitable, and the deletion and ad tags were removed. You have now unilaterally reverted the article back to a version that is almost identical to Havey's original. This clearly usurps the consensus of the editors who expended considerable effort in making this article worthy of inclusion. I am going to revert back to the last version prior to your edits. I highly suggest that you go back and review the edit hitory of this article. Rhode Island Red 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Though it seems obvious that Julia Havey should avoid editing the Juice Plus article due to her business relationship with the product, Rhode Island Red's own contribution history (Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs)) seems to indicate a COI on his part as well. His contribs show a near single-minded attention to the Juice Plus article, including repeatedly reverting other users' good faith edits, and accusing other editors of vandalism. His behavior has now escalated to the Julia Griggs Havey article, where he did a wholescale revert of an article expansion.[24] I would appreciate assistance and comments from outside editors on this issue. --Elonka 21:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Elonka (talk · contribs) and I are in agreement that JuliaHavey (talk · contribs) should not be contributing to the Juice Plus article in keeping with WP:COI, and I hope that appropriate action to enforce this policy is soon taken. However, the actions that Elonka has accused me of do not constitute a COI (nor do I have a COI) and, therefore, this does not seem to be the appropriate forum in which to raise such concerns. If Elonka wishes to pursue this matter as an issue of ownership, and does so in the appropriate forum, I will address any concerns. I have no doubt that I can successfully defend my actions. Rhode Island Red 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article seems (like this COI/N section ;-) longer than it needs to be, but the dissension seems to have died down and other editors have taken the article under their wings, as it were. The distributor with COI hasn't edited the article since last week. Done, or too soon to call? — Athænara ✉ 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Whatever the status of this dispute elsewhere, it is inactive on this noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 10:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Channel

• Discovery Channel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I am filing a request in regards to an Advocacy Request - here is the original statment: "Discovery Communications appears to be favorably editing the Wikipedia entry on The Discovery Channel, which is owned by them. Specifically, a Discovery Communications IP address has "re-worked" the Discovery Channel entry to be significantly more favorable to Discovery Communications, most notably (and most ironically) by removing the reference to Discovery's reputation for guerrilla marketing. Here's the side-by-side comparison of the Discovery edits. You'll notice the IP address that made that alteration is 198.147.10.56 , which belongs to Discovery communications. This edit was likely due to a negative article that was published about Discovery, which exposed their guerrilla marketing tactics. The article is available here. The pro-Discovery changes to the Wikipedia entry were made shortly after the publication of that article.

I have put information on this in Talk:Discovery Channel. However, I haven't edited the article itself.

Discovery Communications is clearly involved in guerrilla marketing. There are numerous credible articles on the web about this. All that's necessary to verify this is to go to Google and enter "Discovery Communications" and "guerrilla marketing". I have spoken on the phone with Anthony Lupo, who is representing Discovery through the law firm of Arent Fox, LLP. He insists that it's not at all against Wikipedia rules, and that their actions are perfectly legitimate. Seems ludicrous to me. Any help at all in reconciling this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --71.212.187.150 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)" // Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• 198.147.10.56 (talk) hasn't edited the article since the 4th of January. The COI/N issue seems to have been resolved, one way or another. — Athænara ✉ 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Not active on this noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 23:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cobra Group (Marketing)

• Cobra Group (Marketing) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A recent Afd discussion has left us with the article above. I have tried to make this into an accurate, verfiable stub but I should declare that I worked for this company in Summer 2000. As there exists a lot of negative information about this company online it would benefit from an outside view. Catchpole 10:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Good neutral report which notes that the article was addressed elsewhere—inactive on this noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic voice phenomenon

Electronic voice phenomenon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Tom Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been making POV edits at Electronic voice phenomenon even though he is the head of an organization discussed in the article and is mentioned himself by name in the article. I have asked him not to, but he has continued editing, specifically making POV changes favorable to his organization. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this, and would like to add that he has been doing this for a long time, is disruptve, and should be officially barred from editing the article.-MsHyde 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Butler is the director of the AA-EVP an organization devoted to promoting a credible view of paranormal beliefs for the subject of the article. His activity at the article has been long-term (over a period of 3 months) and has included threats against Wikipedia, POV-pushing, and allegations that Wikipedians are not qualified to edit an article on the subject. Please remove him as this is clearly a case of COI. --- LuckyLouie 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   The COI editor has not edited the article since 12 February. Whatever the article's other faults (the introduction is too long, for example) several other active NPOV editors are quite aware of the COI situation. The situation as reported here two weeks ago is inactive on this noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 01:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultima Thule Ambient Music

• Ultima Thule Ambient Music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Blatant violation of WP:COI: its creator, Gene Poole, explains his affiliation and current involvment with such Australian Radio. With regard to this subject, he's also a long term spammer of the article Ambient Music--Dr. Who 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Gene_Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Blatant violation of WP:COI. His userpage also contains hidden advertisements and self-promotion:

"As co-founder and chief executive of Atlantium I'm the public face of a socially and politically progressve globalist organisation with around 1000 members in over 90 countries"..

Self-advertisement, hidden agenda. He's an active contributor of that article, Atlantium. Blatant WP:COI

"I've been a volunteer broadcaster on Australia's oldest and largest public (community) FM radio station, 2MBS for nearly 2 decades. Since October 2005 I've also been a director of the station, and as Chair of the IT Committe am responsible for driving the organisation towards online multi-channel content delivery.

Since he has created 2MBS and Ultima Thule Ambient Music articles, he's in blatant violation of WP:COI. Possible hidden agenda and possible non neutrality in some music related articles.

"I enjoy international travel and photography, and try to spend at least 4 weeks every year outside Australia indulging these passions. My architectural photography has featured in exhibitions at such institutions as the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Melbourne City Museum. If you'd like the URL of my commercial photography site, send me an email.

Self-promotion, hidden sale advertisement.--Dr. Who 23:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep: comparison of photos shows User:Gene Poole to be George Cruikshank, founder and broadcaster for Ultima Thule. Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultima Thule Ambient Music, where he appears not terribly receptive to the WP:COI advice not to edit. Tearlach 13:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is not the article itself, but his whole behaviour: insults, harrassmnt, cyberstalking, general advertisement and self promotion, even regarding the article Atlantium (can someone check it?). I am wondering if this is the proper page for such a serious (former borderline) case.--Dr. Who 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The user has just vandalized my talk page with personal attacks and threats, and he oftn reverts other editors' as vandalism", assuming bad faith behaviour.--Dr. Who 09:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for the "as he's done with several users" claim; otherwise, you're potentially just playing the pot to his kettle... EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, I do not currently live in an English speaking country, and I can't say that English is my native language. I am busy with work now, maybe I'll be back in 5 or 6 hours, but I have to understand/translate your last sentence before, I don't know what is/are "diffs". Could you please remove, or put a middle line along that sentence that you are quoting? or even delete, if it is allowed? I am not able to do that by myself. Please assume my good faith, anyway, for everything I say or do. Thank you for trying to keep things cool, bye. Dr. Who 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A diff is a page that shows the exact edit (short for "difference", as it shows both the before and after). You can find diffs in an article's history, or by viewing their contribution log (for example, Special:Contributions/EVula). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• An example of a diff. — Athænara ✉ 01:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this diff, Doktor Who has again edited his own previous comments without providing the evidence requested above, i.e. "Please provide diffs for the … claim." — Athænara ✉ 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There's something fairly messy going on here. One the one hand, this looks like the latest in a long history of bad-faith attack edits, from various accounts, on articles relating to George Cruikshank and/or edited by User:Gene Poole - (see [25] [26] [27] [28]).

On the other, I still agree with the thrust of the original complaint: that User:Gene Poole is in COI for editing articles - notably Ultima Thule Ambient Music and Atlantium - where he has a personal involvement. Tearlach 13:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To best of my knowledge, I'm not related to any of those editors (unless some alien spaceship has kidnapped me and made experiments with my brain), and a checkuser should easily prove that. I will provide those diffs that are needed after some works (I'm a professional h/w "techie") that I have to do in my location. I have not done before becouse I see blatant violations of WP:COI at Ultima Thule Ambient Music, Ambient music, Space music and Atlantium. Thanks for patience. Dr. Who 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] --Doktor Who 11:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Attacking my person and not my editions is not something that I would expect from someone with higher education. [34] [35] --Dr. Who 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The campaign of personal attacks currently being waged across a number of articles and talk pages by Dr. Who is a deliberate disruption of Wikipedia, and needs to be brought to a swift and immediate halt. The bottom line is that Dr. Who has an aggressive, proprietory attitude toward a number of articles - among them Ambient music and Space music. Over a period of time he has managed to insinuate his own highly eccentric personal opinions into these articles at great length. The material added by him was and is unsupported by any reference source. It was and is completely unverifiable. In some cases it verged on total incomprehensibility. A number of other editors have recently rewritten or removed the offending content. Dr. Who refuses to accept this, and has since responded with a barrage of attacks on those editors via numerous specious Admin noticeboard postings (like the bizarre example above, in which my 4 year-old user page is characterised as font of insidious hidden commercial agendas), accusing multiple editors who disagree with him of being sockpuppets, the posting of talk page comments that make little or no rational sense, and even attempting to slap a speedy delete notice on an article (written by me) while an AFD on it was still in progress - because he would not or could not accept the overwhelming AFD consensus to keep the article. These are not, in my opinion, the actions of an editor who works co-operatively with others. --Gene_poole 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Enciclopedic tone. What part of this very simple concept do you not understand?Dr. Who 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling noticeboards with incoherent nonsense comments. This is an encyclopedia, not a kindergarten. --Gene_poole 01:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Disruptive and tendentious disputes between frequently uncivil editors briefly overflowed onto this noticeboard. Inactive here. — Athænara ✉ 01:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum and Middle East Quarterly

Daniel Pipes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]
Middle East Forum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]
Middle East Quarterly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• An adminstrator Slim Virgin has a conflict of interest in relation to these articles and to WP:3RR reports that I have made in relation to them concerning Isarig; she deleted the entire record of my report from the 3RR reports page claiming "harrassment"; however, it is she and he who have been "harrassing" me--in the editing histories of these articles, on their talk pages, on my talk page, and even in the 3RR reports page, from which she has deleted the entire report that I wrote and my update. My 3RR report update was requested there by User talk:Newyorkbrad, another administrator, responding to the 3RR report that I wrote, in reply to Isarig's disingenous one, on Feb. 20, 2007. I replied appropriately in the 3RR report page where his request occurred. But she deleted the entire report and his reply. I have archived the problems in my own talk page archive 3. I had elicited help from administrators who have acted on a 3RR retaliation report against me in which she has been involved despite being involved in "editing content disputes" relating to my attempts to edit these articles, which she and Isarig have repeatedly reverted. But she deleted the entire record of my report from the 3RR reports page (see the editing history there). Please find some actually-impartial and disinterested administrators to mediate and arbitrate if necessary. She is abusing her "powers" as an administrator. Thank you. --NYScholar 10:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the original link, which she has deleted material from: User Armon and User Isarig reported by User NYScholar Result No action at this time.29. The material is saved in the link to my archive page 3 given above. Sorry for the complications that she has introduced into this situation. To see her deletion, you will have to examine the editing history of the 3RR reports page linked in this paragraph. (She appears to me to be clearly stalking me and totally out of control.) Thank you. --NYScholar 10:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition to removing my entire report, and my follow-up to it, she removed the other administrator's reponse there to me: "Given the withdrawal of the earlier report [i.e, referring to Armon's withdrawal of his report against me, NYScholar (which, in my view, as I explained there, was reallly not justified], hopefully the edit-warring will cease. No action at this time. Return if problems continue and reference this report. Newyorkbrad 19:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)". I had returned to "reference this report" in his talk page, however, she deleted it. See rest of explanation above. --NYScholar 10:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at our dispute resolution processes? It's fairly easy to find uninvolved admins and editors over there and we'd like to know what you've done to try to resolve this dispute so that we can point you in the right direction. Note to other patrollers of this board: harassment diff. MER-C 12:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all that I am going to do, given the lack of responsiveness that I have had to these problems and the conflict of interest of at least three administrators/users working together (Slim Virgin [admin], Jayjg [?], Leifern [user]). I suggest that you read the material that I've linked and deal with it at a higher administrative level. I can't spend any more time on this. Wikipedia has some really terrible problems in these kinds of controversial articles; I tag them and the administrators delete the tags. That needs redressing. I can't and won't do anymore. It's up to Wikipedia administrators to enforce their own rules. Someone will have to refer these articles to the dispute process (it requires more than one editor anyway; I suggest that two of you start the ball rolling. I've done all I can do; even my 3RR reports are being deleted by the administrator Slim Virgin. She needs to be reprimanded and dealt with. --NYScholar 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say an article RFC would be the way to go, but I need some sleep and won't be able to file for a while. MER-C 12:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have same problem: I have to get some sleep. I won't be back here for quite some time, maybe days; maybe forever. It's been too distressing. --NYScholar 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry to report that I am back. I am currently being further harrassed (yes, truly harrassed) on my own talk page by Slim Virgin, who is now also threatening me with "banning" from Wikipedia entirely for filing this report and for having filed my own 3RR reports against Isarig (please see above). This is outrageous behavior on the part of a not-impartial, not-neutral administrator and needs checking. Please assist. Thank you. (I will have to file a dispute at higher levels if this keeps up. I do not have time now due to the immense waste of time all this has taken thus far. I am considering my next course of action.) In the meantime, I believe that she (and other administrators that she may try to enlist in attempt to do such an unfair and clearly-vindictive measure) need to be blocked from "banning" me, under these circumstances. (On my talk page, she tries to claim that I am being retaliatory; that is absurd. I am sticking up for my rights as an editor of Wikipedia not to be abused by others.) I have attempted most strenuously to edit only in good faith in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. I am being confronted by administrator(s) who are seriously out of control in their exercise of power. They need to be checked. --NYScholar 01:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This report does not appear to be a case of WP:COI according to our guidelines:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors.

The present noticeboard is not intended to cover controversies between WP editors of the kind that are normally handled at WP:AN/I. Not enough information was included in this report to justify study of the issue by those editors who normally follow COI issues. For instance, which editors are said to be promoting what causes? Often we see advertisers writing articles to promote their own products, performers inserting their own biographies, and so on. The person editing is often the one selling the product or an employee of the company. There has not been any suggestion of that here. While I think User:MER-C's suggestions for WP:RFC might be useful, the need for the conflict of interest noticeboard to consider the problem at all has not been shown. For general background, other editors who want to look into this matter may wish to peruse this editor's talk page and block log, as well as the WP:AN/3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple kinds of conflicts of interest: I find that in the articles I mention, the other editors appear to be promoting pro-Israel points of view consistently and deleting information about various points of view, creating the appearance of POV and thus not adhering to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. In my attempts to restore neutrality to these controversial articles, I have been trying to present full citations of sources; those attempts have been continually reverted. The conflict of interest involves both the partisan editing and the attacks on me creating a double conflict of interest. This is an appropriate noticeboard in my continuing view to register this objection (as a notice). Please investigate the lack of impartiality in the 3RR reports, the blocks, and the other kinds of administrative actions that Slim Virgin and these other users are engaged in. They appear to me to evidence multiple conflicts of interest that are damaging the neutrality and hence the credibility of these articles that they work on. --NYScholar 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard specifically addresses issues as detailed in the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. It does not address "conflict of interest" issues in the more general sense.

NYScholar, please read the WP:COI guideline page if this distinction is not yet clear to you. You may find Wikipedia:Administrators#Dealing with grievances more useful. — Athænara ✉ 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Not a WP:COI/N issue. — Athænara ✉ 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Spider-Man

User:Wrestlinglover420 has been repeatedly removing verified information from the article Ultimate Spider-Man, claiming it to be vandalism when it is added again, despite having shown a tendency to add unverified information in other articles. For both these reasons, the article Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) was blocked. He refuses to see reason. Please stop him. SaliereTheFish 23:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like just an ordinary heated content dispute. Why do you think a conflict of interest is involved? –Henning Makholm 23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1), Because he believes the content shouldn't be there, and I believe it should, hence the problem; 2), Never mind. he's been given a 90-hour block for frequent misuse of edit priveliges and abuse of other editors. Thanks anyway.SaliereTheFish 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You describe a simple disagreement between two editors about what should be in an article. That is not a conflict of interest. –Henning Makholm 00:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Content dispute, not WP:COI. — Athænara ✉ 10:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles related to scientific skepticism (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism

An AfD discussion for this list, then named List of articles related to quackery and in article space, was closed as "move to project space". This closure was overturned at deletion review, but consensus was insufficient for outright deletion. In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors. So this is hopefully the final debate over whether the edited and renamed page meets the requirement to remain in project space. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion other that I strongly prefer not to see this back at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Afd page for "List of articles related to scientific skepticism."

Additionally in the AFD an adiminstator stated: The result was Speedy delete as POV and largely reposted conent. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC). This statement completely contradicts the statement made by trialsanderrors.

I have transfered this information written above by trialsanderrors who has cleared stated, I quote: In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors.

However, this administor who nominated this list for deletion endored deletion here because he believes the article was largely the same. How could he believe the article is the same when he stated: In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors. < This is a direct quote from the nominator for deletion. This nominator for deletion endorsed a deletion review which is a clear case of a huge conflict of interest. Someone who nominated a list for deletion then saw the new and different list in the deletion review and endorsed deletion. A nominator for deletion should not be allowed to then endorse deletion of a list that he previously nominated for deletion or otherwise it becomes a COI.

Here is what the old version was before when it was in mainspace. Click at top hand left where it states project page and see the current version. They do not even look like the same list. They are both completely different.

I request, based on COI that the new and different List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts be put back in article space because of the COI by an administrator and multiple contradictions and misrepresentation made by multiple editiors at the deletion review. I recently changed the title from the List of articles related to scientific skepticism to the List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts.

Consensus cannot be reached from contradictions, misrepresentations, and COI.

Editors stated in the deletion review is was largeley the same. This was inaccurate and a misrepresentation of the list. According to trialsanderrors it was I quote: In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors. This is the administrator who endorsed deletion and nominated the list for deletion previously. Therefore, a thorough investigation is requested. The only remedy and solution to this COI is for the new and different list to be put back in mainspace. I have provided evidence which proves COI and that multiple errors have occurred because of administrators listening to editors instead of investigating the facts and drawing their own conclusions. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• The conflict of interest noticeboard is not for review of administrative actions. You may request a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Iamunknown 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is about the deletion review. The closing administrator endorsed deletion at the deletion review which was a COI according to the evidence I provided above. There already was a deletion review endorsed by the admin. who nominated the list for deletion previously. A clear case of COI. --QuackGuru 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll assume you mean for the second diff to be this one. Yes, User:Trialsanderrors did close the deletion review and open the mfd. No, that is not a conflict of interest. There still was not a consensus, so trialsanderrors sent it to mfd to see if there would be a consensus there. Also, there is no evidence that trialsanderrors was in any way breaching one of the four criteria listed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Iamunknown 02:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• COI-regulars, what follows is a simplified timeline:
  1. 16:24/16:25, 3 January 2007: User:Colin nominates the article for deletion (see afd)
  2. 16:04, 10 January 2007: User:Herostratus closes the afd and moves the article to project space.
  3. 17:39/18:07, 10 January 2007: User:Doc glasgow lists the now-project-fied page at deletion review (see drv)
  4. 01:03/01:10, 16 January 2007: User:Trialsanderrors renames the project space article to ...related to scientific skepticism
  5. 01:13/01:20, 16 January 2007: User:Trialsanderrors starts mfd per drv decision (see mfd)
  6. 19:57/21:04, 21 January 2007: User:Bucketsofg closes mfd with "no consensus"
  7. Since moved to current page
• Iamunknown 02:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I second the motion of User:Iamunknown, that WP:COI/N should not be used to review administrative actions. In the past this noticeboard has confined itself to potential conflict between real life roles and editorial neutrality on Wikipedia. That's what COI is for. Deletion review is a perfectly good venue for the type of issue you are trying to raise. If you perceive a well-defined case of misbehavior by an administrator you could take it to WP:AN/I. Here, you seem to be asking to restore the list into main space, which you could perhaps state more clearly. The project space version of this list seems to be alive and well and is not nominated for deletion. If you value the community's patience you might wait a while before you ask to put the list into main space again. There have already been enough AfDs, deletion reviews, speedy deletions, undeletions and moves to cause total confusion. (The helpful summary above is actually missing a few). As a COI commenter, I argue that your question doesn't belong here. EdJohnston 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hard to see anything wrong there. But even if there had been something amiss, this appears to be the wrong noticeboard for it. One can certainly imagine "conflicts of interest" within Wikipedia (e.g., an admin should not close an AfD discussion for an article to which he has been a major contributor) – but such cases would be very different from the ones we discuss here, where the conflict concerns an interest outside of Wikipedia which influences (or is suspected to influence) somebody's editing. I don't think it is a good idea to lump the two cases together on the same noticeboard. The former is a conflict within the community; the latter more often than not involves users who do not self-identify as "Wikipedians" but simply need some coaching in the ifs and buts of "...that anyone can edit". Those require somewhat different skills to resolve. –Henning Makholm 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The user User:Trialsanderrors endorsed deletion at the deletion review based on comments the text was largely the same but according to User:Trialsanderrors I quote: In addition the text of the article changed considerably and renaming as a precondition for keeping was endorsed by a number of editors.' He/she has made conflicting decisions. Where is the best place to report this incident. User:Trialsanderrors endorsed deletion based on comments that were not factual according to User:Trialsanderrors. User:Trialsanderrors previously stated the text changed considerably then endorsed deletion based on comments it was the same list. --QuackGuru 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a conflict of interest here as far as I can tell, as Trialsanderrors clearly stated he had no opinion on the XFDs. However, I think you should give this a rest. It's been dealt with to the satisfaction of the community and it's pointless, ironically, whinging about the resolution. Disclaimer: I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles related to scientific skepticism though I've forgotten about it. MER-C 04:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question, "Where is the best place to report this incident," I have a recommendation which you may take or not take, it doesn't really matter: instead of reporting this incident anywhere, please first consider just asking Trialsanderrors this (or a similar unloaded question): "Why did you close the drv and then soon after open the mfd?" I'm sure s/he will not mind answering a mild question, and I want to assume good faith on Trialsanderrors' part. If you still have questions after that, then feel free to come back here and ask more questions. --Iamunknown 08:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

According to MER-C the list met the criteria for speedy delete.

First Question:

Here is what the old version was before when it was in mainspace. Click at top hand left where it states project page and see the current version. They do not even look like the same list. They are both completely different. The votes for speedy delete do not match the criteria for speedy delete. They were two different articles. I would like MER-C to explain his/her vote. Why did you vote speedy delete when the list had substantially changed according to the evidence I provided and according to Trialsanderrors it changed considerably?

Second Question: According to Trialsanderrors it was a precerderal nomination. According to what policy or guideline it was a precerderal nomination. I quote: So this is hopefully the final debate over whether the edited and renamed page meets the requirement to remain in project space. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion other that I strongly prefer not to see this back at DRV. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Where is the policy to back up what this administrator said? trialsanderrors endorses deletion because of the comments it was largely a recreation of the same article but trialsanderrors previously stated: ...the text of the article changed considerably... in the MFD. This comment by trialsanderrors contradicts his/her decision to endorse deletion it was the same list when he/she believed otherwise. The deletion review was supposed to be a remedy for any errors in the AFD. The AFD votes was for speedy delete according to the closing admin. Additionally in the AFD an adiminstator stated: I quote: The result was Speedy delete as POV and largely reposted conent. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC). How could the result be speedy delete when the text of the article changed considerably?!

Here is the old version before. Click at the top left for the current version. They are substantially different which did not meet the criteria for speedy delete. Thanks. --QuackGuru 17:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it does not have policies for every single action that a user may or may not take. It would become impossible to decide what the appropriate action is to take. Instead, we work towards a consensus. That way, even if there is not a specific policy or guideline governing every possible action, it is still possible to do that action. There is, whether it is written down in formal policy or guidelines or not, precedent that it is appropriate in various situations to file a "procedural nomination." Specific situations may be: if one comes across a contested prod which s/he did not originally lodge, s/he may file an afd; if consensus was too rough for the administrator to discern, then s/he may relist it an attempt to gain consensus; etc. Finally, regardless the process by which the article got moved to the project space, it does appear that its move was appropriate due to consensus: there were many reasonable arguments to move it there. I would suggest that you drop the issue for a while, perhaps find a different article to work on, and then come back to this one and see if you still think it is appropriate, all-the-while remembering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you ever have questions, feel free to post them here (if this discussion has not closed) or at my talk page (but no cross posting :)). --Iamunknown 20:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but the consequences has been a deletion of an article. In all fairness, the best step to move forward is for the article to be put back into mainspace and then anyone can nominate it for deletion if so desired based on the facts not a speedy delete based upon confusion. It was voted off of mainspace as a speedy delete of the same article which was absolutely not true and yet it is more than obvious the text of the article changed considerably. --QuackGuru 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, the article should stay where it is: that is what the majority of user's who contirubted to the afd, the drv, and mfd thought and thus that is what the consensus was. There was never a mention of a "speey delete" on the afd. The text of the article did change considerably, which is why Trialsanderrors listed it on mfd even after s/he closed the drv. It has gone through three different measures of consensus—afd, drv, and mfd—and it should stay where it is. --Iamunknown 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Iamunknown I quote: There was never a mention of a "speey delete" on the afd. According to the AFD it was voted off of mainspace because of speedy delete criteria it was the same article. I consider the statement made by the previous editor a result of confusion. Look for yourself here. Since the article considerably changed it did not meet the criteria for speedy delete but that was how the votes went. --QuackGuru 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then, if you think the content was sufficiently different from the previous article, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. In the meantime, will someone, if they think it warranted, please close this discussion? --Iamunknown 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment User:QuackGuru left an equally confused and inscrutable stream of comments on my talk page. I directed him towards WP:UNDEL where the procedures for deletion review are laid out. I recommend someone close this as pure WP:BOLLOCKS. ~ trialsanderrors 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I believe this a good case for a COI. Trialsanderrors nominated the article for deletion at the MFD that was not a procederal nomination and then jumped in and endorsed deletion at the deletion review from a review of the AFD later on. Someone else not directly involved should of reviewed the deletion process. Someone who attempted to delete an article off of Wikipedia and then endorse deletion is just a case for COI. I asked trialsanderrors to answer some basic questions on his/her talk page without a coherent response. Look for yourself here. --QuackGuru 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • QuackGuru: please consider reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Then, consider reading them again. Then again. You will notice that Trialsanderrors' only edits to the drv were to close it, rename it, and list it on mfd. Her/his only significant edits to the mfd were to start it. I see absolutely no case for a conflict of interest. S/he never "attempted to delete an article ... and then endorsed deletion." What s/he did do was to rename the article, as a result of his/her interpretation of consensus at the drv, and then list it on mfd in order to more appropriately measure consensus — not because s/he endorsed deletion. Please, assume good faith and don't toss thinly veiled insults around like "...without a coherent response." --Iamunknown 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I asked very specific questions to trialsanderrors on his/her talk page but he/she did not answer all of my questions. Draw your own conclusions. Additionally there is no policy for a procedural nomination. Proposed for deletion is not the same as nominating a list to be voted off of Wikipedia. --QuackGuru 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe how long this thread is. QuackGuru, please refer to conversation with Trialsanderrors, now archive at User talk:Trialsanderrors/Brchive. Please help me understand by explaining in detail, according to what specific policy it was a procedural nomination at the MFD. Irrelevant. Specific policies are unnecessary per Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Wikipedia:Consensus. Trialsanderrors nominated the list for deletion at the MFD and later endorsed deletion at a deletion review without an opinion. Demonstratably false. Trialsanderrors closed the drv, not necessarily endosring it but acknowledging rough consensus, and then opened the mfd. Since the list did not meet the criteria for speedy delete which was the reason for deletion is should have been overturned. The list was never speedily deleted, nor were there any arguments to speedily delete on the afd. I suggest that we now close this topic, as it is not a conflict of interest, and that QuackGuru take this to the appropriate venue, whether it be User talk:Trialsanderrors, Wikipedia:Deletion review, or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --Iamunknown 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Iamunknown there was was never arguements to speedily delete. So what is this. This is in part about the speedy delete criteria was inappropiately used to incorrectly delete an article off of mainspace. --QuackGuru 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then, if you think the content was sufficiently different from the previous article, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. In the meantime, will someone, if they think it warranted, please close this discussion? --Iamunknown 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This was already decided at DRV, with overwhelming consensus against Quack's interpretation. If he relists it chances are it will be speedily closed. In the meantime I asked at WT:DRV for other closers to review my decision to get this off here. ~ trialsanderrors 22:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard:

• does address Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues as specified in that guideline.
• does not address "conflict of interest" in a more general sense.
  

Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (Simplification of primary points repeatedly made above for QuackGuru.) — Athænara ✉ 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Trialsanderrors was responsible in nominating the list for deletion at the MFD and then saw the list in a deletion review and endorsed deletion. When an editor nominates a list for deletion that same editor should not endorse deletion or it becomes a COI. Period. --QuackGuru 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not "period." Please read the WP:COI guideline to understand this. — Æ. ✉ 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The COI noticeboard is not the place to whinge about unfavourable resolutions of deletion debates. It has never been and always will not be. Let's just forget about it and move on. MER-C 11:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel McGuinness

Nigel McGuinness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The conflict of interest and debate occurred back in September of 2006 and was never completely resolved and thus I believe a re-look at the case should occur.

Prior to the debate the real name of the professional wrestler in question was listed, sourced to the USPTO of the registered ring name. A new user, TrishBunkey (talk · contribs), appeared and removed the information citing privacy which lead to a debate about censorship, how the USPTO a public source is a private source and whether precedents suck as Buckethead and Criss Angel applied.

It was discovered that TrishBuckney was the webmistress of the official website of Nigel McGuinness and sent a note to the wikifoundation to have the information removed. The information was removed due to this by admin FCYTravis (talk · contribs) (06:05, 23 September 2006 FCYTravis (Talk | contribs) (rm realname per OTRS ticket #2006092210008209)), who subsequently unlocked the fully protected article even though the dispute was still going on. Some other admins, namely Alphachimp (talk · contribs), disagreed with this conclusion and other users also disagreed leading to many versions of the article being deleted from the history to remove any reference to the real name. The dispute eventually died down as FCYTravis was adament and no area came to a conclusion.

For the previous arguments on this case see;

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#WP:BLP Concern - Wrestler's Real Name
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive1#Nigel McGuinness
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 14#Nigel McGuinness
• Talk:Nigel McGuinness

I would like a clear look at the dispute as the legal issue of ones publicly available name being banned from their own article in question seems bizarre, the conflict of interest involved with the people in the dispute, the lack of policy on a case such as this, censorship and how the result of the discussion was clearly against precedent set by other articles. // –– Lid^(Talk) 10:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

TrishBunkey has not edited for more than 4 months; thus there seems to be no current CoI concern. What remains is apparently an intra-WP dispute about the proper application of WP:BLP, which should be resolved at the relevant BLP discussion fora instead of here. –Henning Makholm 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in my opinion, this is not nor ever was within the scope of this noticeboard. It is, as Henning mentioned, a issue about the proper application of WP:BLP. --Iamunknown 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   As above: not a WP:COI/N issue. — Athænara ✉ 02:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone

• IPhone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - appears that various Cisco employees have been edit warring on this article regarding the trademark dispute between Apple and Cisco over the iPhone. Numerous attempts to create disambiguation page contrary to consensus and WP:NAME guidelines. For example, confirmed that 64.102.36.140 (talk · contribs) edited the page in such a disruptive fashion from a Cisco IP, and I'm confident that same user was also Whointhe (talk · contribs). Another editor identified 171.71.37.171 (talk · contribs) as another possible Cisco employee, and I'm sure there are others. // --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Confirmed 171.71.37.171 (talk · contribs) is Cisco, however the edit warring seems to have stopped for the time being. MER-C 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• The two IPs have not edited since January 11th, and the user since January 23rd. Are there still problems that need to be addressed on this noticeboard? --Iamunknown 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There may not be, but it is a current issue (the product was released six weeks ago) which may go live again, and it's a short section (which on this sometimes overloaded/abused noticeboard is a nice feature  ;-). — Athænara ✉ 23:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I was nearly a week behind the curve there, according to this from the article:

"On February 2, 2007, Apple and Cisco announced that they had agreed to temporarily suspend litigation while they hold settlement talks, and subsequently announced on February 20, 2007 that they had reached an agreement. Both companies will be allowed to use the "iPhone" name in exchange for "exploring interoperability" between Apple's products and Cisco's iPhone."

It looks like this section can be archived at any time. — Æ.

• Conclusion:   Inactive. — Athænara ✉ 08:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)