Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 3

[edit] Georgetown University

The IP user User:68.98.161.246 has made more than 300 edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University and Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in a positive nature. I think the IP should be checked to see if it comes from the university. For example, there has been a discussion at the School of Foreign Service article about academic boosterism by the user. Here are their contributions: Special:Contributions/68.98.161.246. Another similar IP user has made similar boosteristic edits, Special:Contributions/68.49.15.185. Thanks --AW 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Likely I did the whois on both IPs. Neither resolved to the university itself, but rather the surrounding urban area, Arlington and Vienna to be precise. It's consistent with a student/employee editing from home. MER-C 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a {{primarysources}} to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but they are still doing that sort of thing to other articles. I've left them messages to see the Conflict of Interest policy but they haven't responded so far. --AW 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is this problem as described early last month still an active issue needing further attention? — Athænara ✉ 01:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• As a general comment, the Georgetown University article is not that bad, though it suffers in part from boosterism and weak prose, as the following illustrates:

  Several academic themes distinguish the McDonough School of Business and give the school a special identity among managers and academicians, including international and intercultural dimensions of the marketplace, the importance of written and oral communication, and interpersonal effectiveness in organizations.

  So there is a mixture of really interesting stuff, and passages of flabby prose. There is an insufferably-long list of notable alumni. Luckily there is a separate article with a list of alumni, which is pretty well-written and not objectionable. In the recent edit history, there seems to be a dogged attempt by one particular anon to reset the University's founding back to 1634, rather than the more logical 1789. There seem to be a variety of different editors who are working on it, probably enough to keep it in check. If someone wanted to make this article a project, they could probably attempt a rewrite to make it less spammy. EdJohnston 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I found these in the article history:

• 68.98.161.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 24 February - most active, longest active, more than 300 such edits as reported above)
• 68.48.79.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 21 27 ^[_*] February)
• 68.49.94.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 13 February)
• 68.49.15.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 3 January - added per AW below)
• Durbs61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 24 January)

The most active one clearly has not backed off, editing Georgetown University and other GU-related (alumni, sports, foreign service school, etc.) articles, and of course may be the same person as at least two (or all) of these. — Athænara ✉ 06:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Likely, same geographical area as the other IPs. MER-C 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to at least get a response from the user. The edits aren't too bad, but it does ring of some boosterism and COI. Also, this guy didn't make too many edits, but they were also all to GU related articles, and he has a similar ip: 68.49.15.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) --AW 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

The editor has never responded to posts on own-talkpages (nor on anyone else's as far as I've been able to find in contribs) and has never signed messages posted to article talk pages. The probability that the four 68*s are not the same user is infinitesimal (1), and it's someone who is deliberately not part of the Wikipedian community. The remaining question here for WP:COI/N purposes is: has s/he stopped, or will s/he stop? Persistent tampering like this can prevent GU articles from ever becoming encyclopedic. — Athænara ✉ 06:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the 68.48.79.224 user made some edits on Feb 26th --AW 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) here ^[_*]. (2)Looks well referenced. (2) strike: I was wrong about that! — Æ. 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (1) strike: presumption in my previous post was not NPOV. — Æ. 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that User:CasqueGauntletDmouth is the same as 68.48.79.224, as they both made the same edits, and both seem to be ignoring requests to talk about it. CGD has only edited the Georgetown page so far. --AW 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Georgetown University#Founding date for some evidence why the earlier founding claim is bogus. They want to establish a 1634 founding date based on someone coming ashore who had a letter from Rome endorsing the project? This date is well before the actual founding of the town of Georgetown. So an empty piece of uninhabited woodland constituted Georgetown University back then? I wonder how many degrees can be issued by an uninhabited woodland, especially when it had no definite location. Actually this seems to rule out a normal COI because a college employee wouldn't insist on a nonsensical founding date. Although this editor is peculiar, in my view, I doubt that he could do major damage because he has so few edits (only 12 in the last two months, and only 2 to the GU article). The guy above who has 300 edits should deserve more of our attention. EdJohnston 21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about 68.48.79.224, he only has 12, but they're all Georgetown related. It makes me wonder if all the 68 IPs are the same person. --AW 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's a sockpuppet issue, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (e.g. the "avoiding scrutiny from other editors" section) is the place to pursue it. I doubt any benefit to the Georgetown University encyclopedia articles as such will accrue from further exposure on COI/N. — Athænara ✉ 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the guy with 300 edits, 68.98.161.246 (talk · contribs), has never responded to a message on his Talk page, and never writes to anyone else's User_talk, he does seem to make some good edits, so he's not a pure vandal. He also writes occasionally on article talk pages, though he hasn't mastered signing his name. (That's the IP that the nominator, User:Awiseman, complained about when opening this item). This guy has never pushed the 1634 founding date. I've also managed to engage 68.48.79.224 (talk · contribs) in a conversation on his talk page (he's one of the enthusiasts of the 1634 founding date). EdJohnston 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it appears to be two groups. The COI people seem to have stopped, while the 1634 folks have gotten a few more sock puppets, it appears to me at least, but at least they're talking. So I'm ok with closing this one if you all are. Thanks! --AW 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Inactive. — Athænara ✉ 08:34, 28 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)

[edit] Bloodless bullfighting

• Bloodless bullfighting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Originally brought to AIAV, User:Athaenara directed me to COI/N. The shortest, simplest way of describing the current situation is such: the article was created on 6 June 2006 by User:Pebs96, also known as Webmistress Diva. Throughout the course of editing the article, Pebs96 has added links to businesses in which she is involved and photographs which she may or may not have permission to upload. Nearly every time someone has removed self-promotional links or incorrectly tagged photos (or in my case modified and retouched photos that were uploaded as GFDL), she has gone on a tirade against them in their talk page. Pebs96 has been combative regarding this article from the beginning, and said article is completely unreferenced despite being tagged as needed references. When I attempted to merge what was usable to the parent Bullfighting article, I was reverted and accused of vandalism. Can we get some help? Many thanks. // fethers 14:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION>> Fethers feels the need to go attack an article he knows nothing of. Simply put, I had added photos that I have full copyrights to, which I even got my photographer to make a statement as well. When Fethers had my photos deleted, Fethers did not give the proper notification. Had this person done so, I then would have remedied the situation. Then, after all was said and done, I decided that I did NOT want to reinstate my photos because they were forcing me to give up my copyrights. Even after I kept saying that I did not want my photos up anymore, they kept insisting on what "they think" I should do, which makes no sense at all since I was not putting them back up again. It really puzzled me as to why these folks were so overly concerned about my photos.

Things had died down for a while up until a few days ago with Fethers who thought that "cleaning up" meant to remove my article completely, which if you look at the history of the article, another user (Coudelariaagualva / 68.228.75.244) decided to do the same thing, and removed my external link and replaced it with hers...see edit here>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloodless_bullfighting&diff=prev&oldid=93334102 and then she decided to just completely blank the page >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloodless_bullfighting&diff=next&oldid=93334419 -- and here we are again with Fethers doing the same thing >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bloodless_bullfighting&diff=prev&oldid=107900298

As far as I'm concerned, I have been told that there is no timeframe or deadline to clean this article up. So why is Fethers so worked up about my article to begin with? And again, why would bloodless bullfighting be mixed up with the classic style of bullfighting? The classic style involves killing of the bulls, where "bloodless bullfighting" does not kill the bulls at all.

So once and for all, can someone PLEASE PLEASE get this Fethers person off my back and article once and for all. He is doing more damage and harm to a completely innocent article.

Sincerely, --Webmistress Diva 20:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From skimming the history, it does look like a misunderstanding that's got out of hand: regular editors being over-zealous with a new editor who doesn't know the precise criteria here of (say) the photo licence system here versus new editor mistakenly thinking that deletions/warnings on the basis of those criteria are malicious.

However - looking at the article cold, as it stands now, I agree that there are problems:

1) As others have said, it's completely unsourced. It appears excellent material, but written on the basis of personal knowledge. It's one of the central policies here that articles be based on third-party published sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable Sources). The other editing tags about style and tone also look justified.

2) It is an issue that you have a relationship (web designer and site maintainer?) with one of the firms you cite as an external link (and from which you drew the source material for the piece). This leads to:

3) There's a potential copyright conflict. Anything you post to Wikipedia must be on the terms of the GFDL - that is, anyone can copy and/or alter it. A lot of the article comes verbatim from the ranchcardoso.biz site (e.g. here) where it has a stiff copyright warning on it. You can either release it under GFDL or keep control of the copyright: not both. Tearlach 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tearlach, thank you for looking into this.

Just to shed a few lights, I originally had some different content on the Ranch Cardoso website. Since I wrote the article on Wikipedia, I then took what I wrote and placed it on the Ranch Cardoso site, and I also revised and added a few bits here and there. Here's the link and go to the bottom where I wrote a note about the Wikipedia article.... article

Just an FYI, the business of "bloodless bullfighting" is not mine, it is headed by Portuguese committees, and all I'm doing is letting people know about the art of bloodless bullfights. As much as I would love to, this is not a money making event, rather it is more a hobby for all that are involved.

The issue at hand is Fethers constantly feels like he rules the world of Wikipedia. While there are plenty of good and innocent people minding their own business (such as myself), Fethers should be policing those that are wreaking havoc and spamming the heck out of Wikipedia. Instead, Fethers is intruding and editing an article he/she has no knowledge on. With that, Fethers will use past incidents against me to gain favor from everyone. In the meantime, Fethers will hide negative comments and feedbacks from others he/she has brutally attacked as well.

My article on Bloodless bullfighting only requires some clean-up and referencing, which Fethers seems to be impatient of. If Fethers did not look at the article, then he/she would not be bothered by it. And why would he/she be so bothered by it? It's not in his/her face 24/7. Nobody is telling Fethers to look at it... are they? Fethers looks at it on his own accord and does not need to because it is not a subject that he/she knows about.

There are plenty out there who are experts at this subject, and I'm going to assume out of "RESPECT", they are not getting involved because they are giving me the opportunity to fix the article.

The copyright issue was on the photos that I had uploaded. When I originally uploaded my photos,I was obviously confused with the following statement...

The copyright holder and the license of the file, including:

• A copyright/license tag, either selected from the drop-down list below or included in the upload summary,
• An explanation of why you believe the file is so licenced, and
• A fair use rationale, if uploading a fair use image.

But rather than giving me the opportunity to remedy the situation, Fethers decided on his own that he/she will mark my images for Speedy deletion, without ever giving me notification of such action. Usually, there is proper notification and a timeline of when a specific image or article is deleted, but that was not true with my images. They were tagged and deleted instantly. My reactions and comments were justifiable considering how it all transpired. And I am sure this stands true with others besides myself.

Somehow, Fethers found Wiki people to side with him/her and they all had a field day removing my links, images, and other articles I had created.

What I am confused about is these people who went around and deleted my links because they claim my links to be "business" links, and yet at the same time, left other external links that were obviously more of a business link than mine. Here's an example [Lusitano]

Regarding Fether's accusations about my "self-promotion", what exactly am I promoting anyway? Me bullfighting? I think not. Once again, "bloodless bullfighting" occurs only in California, and the Ranch Cardoso website is really the only accurate "English" speaking website on the net. It's like the article on Football, why is there an external link (*Wilfried Gerhardt, "The colourful history of a fascinating game" (from the FIFA website)) like that, which leads to the "Fifa.com" website, which has marketing all over their site? And same goes for the Baseball article. It has several external links that are very "business" like.... more than the Ranch Cardoso website.

This seems more of a "pick & choose" what we want on Wikipedia, and as we see it fit kind of thing. And I can probably quickly sift through Wikipedia and find several articles that has "business sites" that are listed as external links. For starters, let's review Shrek. It has a multitude of external "business" links that are pure advertisements.

I hope you can see my view in all this.--Webmistress Diva 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think some people haven't terribly well explained. It's not that there's a downer on business links as such, just on editors working on topics (and adding links) where they personally have some business involvement. However sincere the intent, it's a situation that does create a tension, as you've seen, and potential problems about neutrality - which is why the guidelines at WP:COI exist. Tearlach 01:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently adorned with several cleanup banners, all of which seem justified. The furor about photographs suggests that the creator of the article was not patient enough with Wikipedia's copyright procedures for photos, and rejected some of the help that was offered. The article remains completely unreferenced. It would not be out of order to propose it for AfD. That would solve the COI problems. If it is really true that no sources are available, then there is no justification for keeping it in the encyclopedia. EdJohnston 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has access to the NY Times archive, there's plenty of newspaper source material on the topic: see [1]. Tearlach 03:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding to EdJohnston

• ummm.... I don't know who you are and don't know what you have been reading, but you must have been misdirected or misguided somehow.
• I'm trying to understand how you can make a comment about patience with wikipedia's copyrights. First of all, the images were deleted long before any help was given. So tell me now who was patient? User: Fethers, had my images deleted and DID NOT give ANY proper notification or help with copyright. The only time people made any comments is when I had brought up the issue. And help was far from being the proper word that can be used. It was more like "let me tell you what you are suppose to do, and in the meantime here are the guidelines". And mind you, I have full copyrights to those photos in question, which they overlooked each time I mentioned in the postings. And each time I insisted that the whole thing to stop and that I was not going to reinstate my photos, those people were insistent and continued to harrass me about my own photos.
• The photos are mine and were taken by my photographer. And even though I posted the copyrights on each image, they refused to listen to me.
• Who says that there are no sources available? I just haven't found the time to properly source them because it's not on my priority list of things to do.
• Rather than giving a "negative" suggestion such as "deleting" an innocent article, block user: Fethers from the article and it will resolve all problems.
• Thank you in advance.--Webmistress Diva 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tearlach for researching. And true, there are plenty of sources where California Bloodless Bullfighting can be cited from.--Webmistress Diva 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...the Ranch Cardoso website is really the only accurate "English" speaking website on the net and ...there are plenty of sources where California Bloodless Bullfighting can be cited from seem mutually exclusive statements, and Google has so far only supported the former. It tends to point more towards a conflict of interest than not. fethers 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The NYT archive link given above has one 2001 letter to the editor and five articles from 1997 (3) and 2001 (2). Two of the articles are readable by non-subscribers to NYT premium content. — Athænara ✉ 03:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. After it was pointed out that the proffered "plenty of sources" is actually a paucity of sources, all discussion in this COI/N section ceased. Did all the disputing editors resolve their conflicts elsewhere? — Athænara ✉ 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Inactive on this noticeboard for past two weeks. — Athænara ✉ 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgetown University

The IP user User:68.98.161.246 has made more than 300 edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University and Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in a positive nature. I think the IP should be checked to see if it comes from the university. For example, there has been a discussion at the School of Foreign Service article about academic boosterism by the user. Here are their contributions: Special:Contributions/68.98.161.246. Another similar IP user has made similar boosteristic edits, Special:Contributions/68.49.15.185. Thanks --AW 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Likely I did the whois on both IPs. Neither resolved to the university itself, but rather the surrounding urban area, Arlington and Vienna to be precise. It's consistent with a student/employee editing from home. MER-C 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a {{primarysources}} to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but they are still doing that sort of thing to other articles. I've left them messages to see the Conflict of Interest policy but they haven't responded so far. --AW 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is this problem as described early last month still an active issue needing further attention? — Athænara ✉ 01:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• As a general comment, the Georgetown University article is not that bad, though it suffers in part from boosterism and weak prose, as the following illustrates:

  Several academic themes distinguish the McDonough School of Business and give the school a special identity among managers and academicians, including international and intercultural dimensions of the marketplace, the importance of written and oral communication, and interpersonal effectiveness in organizations.

  So there is a mixture of really interesting stuff, and passages of flabby prose. There is an insufferably-long list of notable alumni. Luckily there is a separate article with a list of alumni, which is pretty well-written and not objectionable. In the recent edit history, there seems to be a dogged attempt by one particular anon to reset the University's founding back to 1634, rather than the more logical 1789. There seem to be a variety of different editors who are working on it, probably enough to keep it in check. If someone wanted to make this article a project, they could probably attempt a rewrite to make it less spammy. EdJohnston 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I found these in the article history:

• 68.98.161.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 24 February - most active, longest active, more than 300 such edits as reported above)
• 68.48.79.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 21 27 ^[_*] February)
• 68.49.94.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 13 February)
• 68.49.15.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 3 January - added per AW below)
• Durbs61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 24 January)

The most active one clearly has not backed off, editing Georgetown University and other GU-related (alumni, sports, foreign service school, etc.) articles, and of course may be the same person as at least two (or all) of these. — Athænara ✉ 06:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Likely, same geographical area as the other IPs. MER-C 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to at least get a response from the user. The edits aren't too bad, but it does ring of some boosterism and COI. Also, this guy didn't make too many edits, but they were also all to GU related articles, and he has a similar ip: 68.49.15.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) --AW 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

The editor has never responded to posts on own-talkpages (nor on anyone else's as far as I've been able to find in contribs) and has never signed messages posted to article talk pages. The probability that the four 68*s are not the same user is infinitesimal (1), and it's someone who is deliberately not part of the Wikipedian community. The remaining question here for WP:COI/N purposes is: has s/he stopped, or will s/he stop? Persistent tampering like this can prevent GU articles from ever becoming encyclopedic. — Athænara ✉ 06:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the 68.48.79.224 user made some edits on Feb 26th --AW 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC) here ^[_*]. (2)Looks well referenced. (2) strike: I was wrong about that! — Æ. 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (1) strike: presumption in my previous post was not NPOV. — Æ. 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that User:CasqueGauntletDmouth is the same as 68.48.79.224, as they both made the same edits, and both seem to be ignoring requests to talk about it. CGD has only edited the Georgetown page so far. --AW 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Georgetown University#Founding date for some evidence why the earlier founding claim is bogus. They want to establish a 1634 founding date based on someone coming ashore who had a letter from Rome endorsing the project? This date is well before the actual founding of the town of Georgetown. So an empty piece of uninhabited woodland constituted Georgetown University back then? I wonder how many degrees can be issued by an uninhabited woodland, especially when it had no definite location. Actually this seems to rule out a normal COI because a college employee wouldn't insist on a nonsensical founding date. Although this editor is peculiar, in my view, I doubt that he could do major damage because he has so few edits (only 12 in the last two months, and only 2 to the GU article). The guy above who has 300 edits should deserve more of our attention. EdJohnston 21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about 68.48.79.224, he only has 12, but they're all Georgetown related. It makes me wonder if all the 68 IPs are the same person. --AW 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's a sockpuppet issue, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (e.g. the "avoiding scrutiny from other editors" section) is the place to pursue it. I doubt any benefit to the Georgetown University encyclopedia articles as such will accrue from further exposure on COI/N. — Athænara ✉ 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the guy with 300 edits, 68.98.161.246 (talk · contribs), has never responded to a message on his Talk page, and never writes to anyone else's User_talk, he does seem to make some good edits, so he's not a pure vandal. He also writes occasionally on article talk pages, though he hasn't mastered signing his name. (That's the IP that the nominator, User:Awiseman, complained about when opening this item). This guy has never pushed the 1634 founding date. I've also managed to engage 68.48.79.224 (talk · contribs) in a conversation on his talk page (he's one of the enthusiasts of the 1634 founding date). EdJohnston 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it appears to be two groups. The COI people seem to have stopped, while the 1634 folks have gotten a few more sock puppets, it appears to me at least, but at least they're talking. So I'm ok with closing this one if you all are. Thanks! --AW 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conclusion:   Inactive. — Athænara ✉ 08:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afshar experiment (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Danko Georgiev MD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) apparently has a long-running grudge against Afshar. I have requested Danko not edit the article, but he is not cooperating. We are attempting to mediate a discussion on the talk page but it has been difficult. //Ideogram 09:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on Talk:Afshar experiment continues to rumble along slowly, with the help of a mediator, with unfortunately a lot of incivility. I personally think it would go faster without the participation of User:Danko Georgiev MD but it's not obvious how to persuade him to step aside. The nominator, User:Ideogram, who raised this as a COI issue did not explain what the real-life connection between Georgiev and Afshar might be, so this issue is not yet substantiated. EdJohnston 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this item be closed. The nominator, User:Ideogram, did not explain how Danko has a conflict of interest, though I agree it would be better if he did not participate. The article in its present state is not too bad, though the struggle on the Talk page appears likely to continue through many lifetimes. I wonder if there's any chance the participants would agree to Wikipedia:Peer review. Otherwise, I think this should be closed as a COI. EdJohnston 04:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Root of all evil (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Root of all evil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been subject to spamming from Sharonmijares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has been continually attempting to promote her book by this title, including creating a link to her userspace version of a deleted article [2] after a spam4 warning to quit adding the link. Another editor (and likely sock) Sarafinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) recently added another spam link to the same book [3]. I've got the article on watch but would appreciate an eye being kept for spamming of links to this book, and an eye for more socks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• The COI spammer may have backed off—the last edits by Sharonmijares and Sarafinn (see contribs links above) were on the 10th and 13th of February. — Athænara ✉ 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Afterthought: I'm not involved in this, knew nothing about it, but having now read the the article in question I can see the logic of a link to the book in that particular article, perhaps in external links. Just my opinion, I'm not on a crusade here. — Athænara ✉ 10:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the nominator's complaint, I can see that the first-mentioned link is clearly against policy, putting a link to a user page into article space. The second link doesn't have that problem but it has a misleading edit summary. I agree that this should be watched. I actually don't see the relevance of the book to this article. The title of the article is a proverb, or part of one. How would you appropriately reference articles on other proverbs, like 'A rolling stone gathers no moss', or 'A stitch in time saves nine?' Maybe to a work of mythology or popular lore, but this book is a stretch. EdJohnston 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Zoe Williams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The entry on online encyclopedia Wikipedia for Guardian journalist Zoe Williams was recently amended, with the insertion of the phrases "highly regarded", "witty articles" and "critically acclaimed." The user who made the revisions. One "Zoewilliams".

Those edits were a month ago, and it looks like the regulars at Zoe Williams have the situation under control. Zoewilliams (talk · contribs) has edited several other articles since, and frankly those edits do not lend support to the hypothesis that this user is a professional writer. Might be a fan, or a different Zoe Williams. –Henning Makholm 15:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — Athænara ✉ 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Phoenix (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• University of Phoenix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Fairly straightforward: at least one admitted employee of UOP is getting into an extended fracas with non-UOP-related members over controversy sections and other unflattering information (most of which appeared in a front page NYT article the other day) --UOP is different than most universities as it's for-profit and, more relevantly, publicly traded (thus public bad info isn't good). // Bobak 01:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Single-purpose (or nearly so) participants on Talk:University of Phoenix:

• 70.190.90.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 20 February)
• Poweroverwhelming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 16 February)
• Awesomecleric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 15 February)
• Rdenke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 25 January)
• PhoenixStudent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (last edit 20 December)

Have the COI problems been resolved to the satisfaction of the NPOV editors of that article? — Athænara ✉ 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yankee Candle Company (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Yankee Candle Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article is being edited by multiple employees of the company. Wackalectic (talk · contribs) is an Internet Strategist[4] and Annmariehall (talk · contribs) is in Public Relations[5]. They both have added copyrighted information to the article from [6] and [7]. They have both been warned and informed of Wikipedia's COI, SPAM and COPYVIO policies.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Who better to have knowledge of the company than people who work there! I'd love to see some diffs of the copyright stuff you say has been added to the page. For now, though, it seems that they are harmlessly trying to defend their workplace. There seems to be a fine line between COI and asserting the truth, and you haven't clearly pointed out where or how they have cause problems with the page. Again, diffs on the page would be nice. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided in my initial post the sources of the copyright violations; my apologies for not providing the diffs to the article changes. Here they are: [8] and [9].↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; and sorry if my comment earlier seemed a tad rude, I just read it over! Haha. Now, it seems that they copied that right off of the YCC page. Has this been going on long, or was it just a one-time ordeal? I think that, in this case, warnings on the pages of the "vandals" would be the best bet. Unless they've been doing this for a while; then, I'm not the one to ask! It just seems that they are new to WP and don't know about policy, etc, and that we have a system. I think that's really just the problem here. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the article with {{cleanup}} and {{copypaste}}. — Athænara ✉ 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on that, btw—I didn't really focus on this one until after some of the more humongous and acrimonious sections had been squared away. — Athænara ✉ 07:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lera Auerbach (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Lera Auerbach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - A very persistent editor (User:DeStella and User:68.161.47.171) has been aggressively promoting this semi-notable composer (while decently represented by Google, she does not have an entry in the current comprehensive New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians). After a long discussion on my talk page (User talk:Antandrus#Unwarranted deletions) I made the discovery that Lera Auerbach's husband is named DeStella near the bottom of the page. To me this is clearly a single-purpose account to promote this composer, most likely the husband or another member of the family. I could use an extra pair of eyes or two, or backup of any type: he is accusing me of "having issues with successful composers" so perhaps a non-musician could help. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• DeStella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (no edits since 18 February)
• 68.161.47.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (no edits since 17 February)
  

(Article/user links added to aid looking into this.) — Athænara ✉ 00:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a non-musician but I hadn't heard of Auerbach before seeing the report here, and it seems to me that the article is in pretty good encyclopedic shape. Aside from some unpleasant disputes with an editor, what do you think of the article itself? — Athænara ✉ 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIIS

• CIIS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is a New Age-oriented graduate school in California. It is regionally accredited, but does not appear to be widely respected (as measured for example by rankings, publications, or having its graduates teach in other schools). An editor, Psykhosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), has made the page into more of an ad for the school (for example, claiming that it is known for "rigorous academics," which I can assure you is not the case). Dawud   (Posted by 218.167.163.63 (talk · contribs) 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

• There has been no discussion here in this and in the following Baha'i section (except for one question there which has not been answered) since they were posted together more than ten days ago. Inactive? — Athænara ✉ 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'i (100+ boards)

The Baha'i religion is small Middle Eastern sect which is one of the topics of my research. The wikipedia articles on it (and the related topic of Babism) are in my opinion unsalvageable due to the preponderance of Baha'i editors (and corresponding dearth of outsiders), who delete items that make their religion look bad, and otherwise change things to reflect their view of history. (A telltale sign is that all proper names are spelled using their "house" style of accent marks.) I have since learned that the Baha'i leadership has made its presentation in wikipedia a major PR priority.

Not sure if anything can be done about this, short of expelling most of the Baha'is. One issue that has come up is that of "reliable sources." Baha'i critics tend to be found on internet sites, while the Baha'is themselves publish things on paper as well. They claim that wikipedia has a policy against the former medium and in favor of the latter. Another issue that has come up is the "noteability" policy--so if their leadership censors some dissidents, Baha'i supporters will say that the number of dissidents is small and therefore not notable.

Another, related issue is that Baha'is have been trying to promote their religion on unrelated boards, for example by arranging the religion to be name-dropped in places where it is not noteworthy.

I personally decline to get involved anymore, but put this out there for you guys to deal with as best you can. Dawud   (Posted by 218.167.163.63 (talk · contribs) 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

Where is your proof that "the Baha'i leadership has made its presentation in Wikipedia a major PR priority"? Can you provide copies of internal Baha'i documents which state this? —Psychonaut 16:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been over ten days since this question was asked. — Athænara ✉ 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media of the People's Republic of China (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Government control of the media in the People's Republic of China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Registered yesterday and seems to be making a series of political POV edits concerning China, including renaming Media of PRC to Government control of.... - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well the user didn't register yesterday, but seems to have an agenda. I would revert the page back to the title it originally had. For now, though, it seems that the user just needs to be watched. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• The page move has not been reverted. There have been no edits to the article (except by two maintenance bots) since the page was moved. There have been no posts about it on this noticeboard in the past ten days. Inactive? — Athænara ✉ 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potter's House Christian Fellowship (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Potters house (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Darrenss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• Potter's House Christian Fellowship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The issue seems to be two users back and forth. One -User:Potters house keeps saying how links are directly about him dealing with the church in question. And the other user User:Darrenss seems to be a former memeber and they have it out for each other with these links and the article. Now they are dragging me in since I reverted vandalism on User:Darrenss page. And they are debating on my talk page - [[10]] So if they both especially one is directly involved is this not COI? Another user put it this way above "I personally decline to get involved anymore, but put this out there for you guys to deal with as best you can" Thanks --Xiahou 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Netzer (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Michael Netzer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - MichaelNetzer (talk • contribs) has significantly expanded his own autobiographical article. My correspondence with him started when I nominated Image:Michael Netzer spoof of Time Cover.jpg for deletion (here) because it was mistagged and I thought that it was an unnecessary derivative work. Any help cleaning up and deciding what to do with Michael Netzer and Expanding earth theory would be sincerely appreciating. --Iamunknown 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs some {{primarysources}}, so tagged. MER-C 11:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Cutler (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Jessica Cutler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - User:Mcbillips, apparently her attorney in an ongoing legal action, is making repeated edits to this article. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's got a few WP:BLP problems, so I cut down the article. We'll see what happens from this point onward. MER-C 01:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mcbillips (talk · contribs) edited the article only five times, in January and February, before this report. — Athænara ✉ 07:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian College (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Adrian College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - removal of criticism by AC pr office (talk · contribs) Nardman1 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The user has legitimate concerns: the alleged controversy is totally unsourced. They (assuming "AC pr office" stands for "Adrian College Public Relations office") should have not, however, done it themselves, but instead come here or e-mailed info-en-q AT wikimedia DOT org. --Iamunknown 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the lack of sourcing, on a contentious issue; I've deleted it. References in general would be nice. Tearlach 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the controversy claims is unsourced and should go, but the rosy prose that "AC pr office" inserted to replace it is not much better. I have removed it; minute details about year-to-year changes in the number of housing staff and so forth does not sound like encyclopedic material to me. –Henning Makholm 02:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Julia14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
This is more a user than one article. User:Julia14 has been adding various celebrity clothing lines and spam fashion links to articles, I think they might be a press person trying to drum up business. Not sure this is the right place, AIV said to list it here --AW 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

She is claiming to be a new user, so maybe not. She learns really fast, however. --AW 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Checking her contributions I don't see any clear evidence of a CoI. Looks to me more like whatever is the fashion equivalent of fancruft. If somebody showed up and added short paragraphs about Pokemon-themed restaurants to ten articles about cities, would we automatically assume that he or she was a press person trying to drum up business? I hope not. (However, please don't let there actually be such a thing as Pokemon-themed restaurants....) –Henning Makholm 03:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The first few were all from the same website, but since she has branched out. I consider this one closed --AW 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Hassan (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Steven Hassan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There is a conflict of interest in the criticism section of this article. A member removed an RS for reasons other than Wikipedia policies. The citation is a university professor with a Ph.D and one of that RS's papers was cited. He is claiming it is coming from a fringe group. COI occurs because he simply does not like the group because it does not coincide with his opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by John196920022001 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-04T00:11:24

Which editor do you think has a conflict of interest, and what do you think the conflict is? Bear in mind that not every content dispute is a COI. Merely holding an opinion about the subject of an article does not in itself a COI either. –Henning Makholm 03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A conflict of opinions, not a WP:COI. — Athænara ✉ 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scruggs Katrina Group (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Scruggs Katrina Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) created by Scruggs Katrina Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - perhaps not quite db-spam, because the Scruggs Katrina Group is notable, but needs serious cleanup and NPOVing. Full disclosure: I've written articles critical of the Scruggs Katrina Group.[11], [12], [13] The related Rigsby Sisters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) looks suspicious also. -- TedFrank 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Obvious corporate vanity. It needs to disappear. So tagged. MER-C 08:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for having a commercial username. MER-C 11:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Rkeditor

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

Bumped into this user's contributions via Laetare Sunday, and noticed that all their edits consist of adding links to things on http://www.raisingkids.co.uk - maybe I'm making 2+2 = 5, but I reckon rkeditor = Raising Kids editor. I think this is being done with good intentions, never-the-less I've left a gentle warning (and a welcome message) on their talkpage, suggesting that in future they might first add the links on article talkpages to allow neutral editors to assess them. A few more pairs of eyes watching thier future contributions wouldn't go amiss. David Underdown 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this. {{spam3}} would be the next stop, as this is obvious spamming. MER-C 08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This editor made a delayed but cooperative response to MER-C's message, and does seem to be taking it to heart. They asked on Talk:Autism whether they could add their link at Autism. I replied there that their proposed link goes to a discussion forum, therefore is disapproved by WP:EL. EdJohnston 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to raisingkids.co.uk placed in the Fulla article (redundant); left in place the linked interview at Tanya Byron which seemed worthwhile. EdJohnston 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rkeditor stopped spamming links as of February 21. — Athænara ✉ 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CampusJ (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

CampusJ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - article created by Steveniweiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) whose name is the same as the editor-in-chief of the CampusJ website/newspaper. ju66l3r 23:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Obvious corporate vanity, so tagged. MER-C 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The article survived Afd and is developing normally. — Athænara ✉ 05:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cofftea (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

3 things...

1. Cofftea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is made-up rubbish.
2. The Cofftea section in Yuanyang (drink) shouldn't be there, as I explained at Talk:Yuanyang (drink)
3. Am I being overly paranoid to think WP:COI prevents me deleting Cofftea?

Angela. 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1) I don't know if it is entirely made-up rubbish, but it certainly looks like something that would snowball through an AfD for lack of sourceable notability. 3) Which conflict of interest do you have? None is obvious, even after skimming your user page. If you have nothing specific to disclose, I'd be more worried about the lack of an unambiguously applicable CSD; why not just prod it? –Henning Makholm 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My possible COI is explained here. The article is on Wikia, as a semi-parody, so it could come across that I want it deleted here so people can only read it at Wikia, but I don't regard things people make up about Cofftea as encyclopedic. Everyone who ever mixed coffee and tea thinks they invented it, which is exactly what the author of Wikipedia's cofftea article is claiming. Angela. 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't prod internet memes, unfortunately, as the tag won't stick. MER-C 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cofftea isn't an internet meme. Angela. 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can at least try (so done). For a freshly created page I agree that it would be futile, but this one is a month old, and its creator has no contributions since then. –Henning Makholm 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Make it disappear, as it is practically speediable. MER-C 03:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article should be deleted. BTW I have tried dunking a tea bag in a cup of coffee. I don't recommend it. :-) Steve Dufour 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. — Athænara ✉ 05:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vintagekits (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• User:Vintagekits is engaged in spamming by placing PRODs on everything related to the British peerage or Honours recipients as "non-notable" or "nn?" or "nn??". This is abusive mass spamming on a massive scale, and it is directly related to the user's pro-PIRA bias.

See below a partial list:

• 19:14, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Arbuthnot, 3rd Baronet
• 19:13, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Arbuthnot-Lane, 2nd Baronet
• 19:12, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Frederick Arthur
• 19:11, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Lubbock, 3rd Baron Avebury
• 19:09, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Lubbock, 2nd Baron Avebury
• 19:08, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Bernard Waley-Cohen
• 19:07, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Ian Frank Bowater
• 19:05, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) David Brewer
• 19:02, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir David Baird, 3rd Baronet
• 19:02, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Alexander Baird, 1st Baronet
• 19:01, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Barber, 1st Baronet
• 18:59, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gilbert Barling
• 18:58, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Thomas Erasmus Barlow
• 18:57, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Thomas Barrett-Lennard, 2nd Baronet
• 18:54, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Henry Benyon
• 18:31, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gladys Hartman
• 18:30, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Maureen Brennan
• 18:29, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gillian Pugh
• 18:27, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Daphne Purves
• 18:26, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Una Pope-Hennessy

O'Donoghue 23:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While bad-faith prodding is indeed disruptive, I find it difficult to see what it can have to do with a real-world CoI in this case. If you're sure that this is the correct noticeboard, could you explain more? –Henning Makholm 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a cross post from WP:ANI#User:Vintagekits.27s bad faith PRODing .26 spamming. Let's discuss it over there. MER-C 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: That section now in WP:ANI Archive 213. — Athænara ✉ 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farm Sanctuary and Gene Baur

Articles

• Farm Sanctuary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Gene Baur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Users involved

• GingerGin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• MichaelBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Brooklyn5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• FarmSanctuary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Sieveking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Vladivostock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Winchester1962 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• ApisMeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.245.131.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 70.109.119.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)*
• 12.214.99.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 70.18.107.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 67.101.76.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 70.109.125.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 66.74.212.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)*
• 70.18.106.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• NYMuckraker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Zachetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Explanation

This is a sock/meat puppet army organized by the organization Farm Sanctuary.

GingerGins's involvement is someone else's hunch that was sent to me in private e-mail. I do not necessarily include her but she is a mostly single purpose account on the same issues and she appeared under suspicious timing. It is entirely reasonable on circumstantial evidence that she may be editing independent of the FarmSanctuary socks, but still has her own socks and is doing the same edits the Farm Sanctuary socks.

Two of the IP addresses are directly related to GingerGin: 70.109.119.191, 66.74.212.163. These accounts made fairly silly edits to her talk page, then went on to repeat a revert performed by GingerGin (who admits to revert counting to game 3RR).

user:FarmSanctuary used to have a user page stating they worked for Farm Sanctuary. user:Brooklyn5 used {{Db-owner}} on the user pages for the FarmSanctuary user and admitted it was a role account for the organization. While having their userpages deleted, they asked to have their username changed, so they were intent on returning.

This morning user:Winchester1962, user:Sieveking, and user:Vladivostock showed up to edit the Farm Sanctuary/Gene Baur pages. SieveKing created a userpage and claims to have been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, with the first contribution as this morning. Similarly, Vladivostock removed a Welcome template from the talk page insisting he has been here for three years, first edit this morning. All three of the accounts engaged in the same edits: removing SOURCED negative information from the Gene Baur/Farm Sanctuary articles.

The rest of the IP addresses are simply doing the same exact edits as User:FarmSanctuary, etc. Removing sourced negative information, often within minutes of the named users.

An older account, User:ApisMeli, was probably a young intern/volunteer at the organization several months ago and isn't involved in the latest edit war. It would be interesting if it shows up again.

SchmuckyTheCat 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can verify a unique editing habit of User:Winchester1962 and User:Sieveking that proves it is the same as User:FarmSanctuary SchmuckyTheCat 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered filing a request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser? --Iamunknown 05:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Though the circumstantial evidence here is overwhelming. It is legit that User:FarmSanctuary needed a new name, but to morph into two is not. SchmuckyTheCat 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:SchmuckyTheCat posted this issue at WP:ANI. He's using the list of sockpuppets displayed here as a reference for that report. In response, User:Isotope23 protected both Farm Sanctuary and Gene Baur here and indicated that a full review would occur. I assume he's taking charge of that, and that all we need to do on this noticeboard is to keep the issue open until the list of socks no longer needs to be displayed. See SchuckyTheCat's Checkuser request.EdJohnston 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser still pending... MER-C 10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I take issue with Schmukythecat's accusations that I am a sockpuppet and a meatpuppet. I am one user and am not employed by any of the organizations that I take interest in editing. I can explain the peculiarities I am accused of. The funny little notes and whatnot that were added by an IP address onto my homepage were me trying to explore how Wikipedia works. Since I am NOT a sock puppet, I wanted to see how I am notified when another user leaves me a message, so I left myself a message without logging in. Also, I one time made an edit but forgot to sign in, and that's why there is an edit with an IP that was removed by me and then the same edit was returned with my username.

On the other hand, Schmuckythecat has admitted on his personal web page that he is against all things related to PETA and animal rights, and that he would rather support the group Center for Consumer Freedom than an animal rights group. He also has pictures taken directly from CCF's website that disparages animal groups posted on his webpage. He is believed to be paid by this group to continually monitor anything related to animal rights and to add negative publicity and defamation. He actually may be getting served with a lawsuit in the near future. It is he, therefore, that is biased and has an agenda. He certainly puts a lot of energy into trying to get rid of anyone who takes issue with any of the biased edits that he makes; it is unnatural. Why would aperson be doing this unless they had a hidden agenda? I suggest that he be permanently blocked from editing cites such as Foie Gras, Farm Sanctuary, PETA, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and anything else that the Center for Consumer Freedom has an active campaign agains. GingerGin 23:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Checkuser request declined with suggestion to refile with appropriate code and diffs. --Iamunknown 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peniel Pentecostal Church (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Peniel Pentecostal Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 82.153.51.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - user keeps removing material critical of the Peniel Church, and checking IP suggests the user is from the church. Mauls 00:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is it also possible to check Tell The Thruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) to see if there is a connection? Mauls 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed. Absolutely. As for Tell The Thruth (talk · contribs), we need a checkuser for that and we're not likely to get one yet. MER-C 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the article could do with some references, so tagged. MER-C 04:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Article now fairly comprehensively referenced (two references still required). Tag removed. Mauls 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of spin going on here because I fixed the article after it was marked for speedy deletion do to the fact that much of the content was removed for being overly critical and now the opposite is true with all the critical links being removed and replaced with pro-Reid sites.--JEF 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

82.153.51.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (ie Peniel Church) just reverted again, twice, adding promo and removing ref'd criticism. Reported to WP:ANI. Tearlach 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And blocked for 24 hours. I hope this clue-by-four works. MER-C 07:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell The Thruth (talk · contribs) seems set on removing critical material, 09:05 UTC 6 March 2007, 10:08 UTC 6 March 2007, 10:12 UTC 6 March 2007, and again blanking the talk page 10:13 UTC 6 March 2007. Given that this involves living people in the shape of Bishop Reid, is this really the right venue? Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WP:BLP is more the place for it. It's a bit Catch-22: unreferenced is unnacceptable, but the hostile tone of UK press coverage makes supplying references, even citation for uncontroversial background, look like a hatchet job. OTOH repeated page-blanking isn't acceptable conduct. Cluebat time anyhow: User:Tell The Thruth just hit three reverts today. Tearlach 13:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And there's the fourth. I wouldn't bother with 3RR yet, as I have issued a final warning and we can get the block with less bureaucracy. MER-C 11:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again for cause: blanked the article talk page as soon as the first block expired. — Athænara ✉ 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington University (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• George Washington University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 161.253.31.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 161.253.25.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are continually adding a section advertising the GW College Dems. In one case [14] they used "we" to describe the group, and the only edits both have made are to that page. The section has been removed numerous times by different editors AW 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• This activity described gradually ceased not long after the report here. — Athænara ✉ 11:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilles SF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I came across two blatant copyvios contributed by this editor today, both dealing with actors, so I had a look through his contributions. The edits are largely the addition of links to actor bios, either official sites or a couple of unofficial ones. Based on a randomish sample, the official sites all seem to be created by one Gilles Nuytens. The other sites seem to be run by one Gilles Nuytens. I may be leaping to conclusions, but I think there may be a conflict of interest here. The potential for COI was already mentioned to Gilles SF some days ago. Perhaps a more robust approach would help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely looks COI. Gilles SF's contribution history [15] is largely linkspamming to interviews at www.thescifiworld.net, which whois shows to belong to Gilles Nuytens. Tearlach 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You have your work cut out for you. Placed {{spam3}} on spammer's talk page. MER-C 08:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Working from the user's contribs, I removed fourteen (14). Eight (8) had been removed before I got there. — Athænara ✉ 09:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say bin it and leave it to other policies. I might have said that some of these links have merit, and if other editors want them included, that'd be fine - but Gilles SF has thrown a tantrum that suggests he'll never get how Wikipedia works. See User talk:Gilles SF#Response:. Tearlach 00:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RateItAll (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• RateItAll (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Could I get a third, or fourth, or etc pair of eyes on this. I've been keeping an eye best I can on this article RateItAll which is going through some serious clean up as there are some PoV issues, and reliable source issues that need cleaned up. In my process of checking sources, I found this mentioned in the official blog of the site Blog Entry where the person who's been heavily working on the article says "Go for it. Sign up with Wikipedia and sing the praises of the RIA!" and yet claimed on the articles talk page he was the most neutral person around. Anyway, some additional feedback would be appreciated as I'm keeping an eye on a lot of articles right now.--Crossmr 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We may still need more eyes on this. The main editor has again been shown to be encouraged by and recognized by the creator of the site, and he's failed to not only respond to questions about that, but fails to respond to any questions and just plugs ahead with edits, which include re-adding material which was removed for failing several policies.--Crossmr 06:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually we definitely need some additional eyes on this. Even when presented with the evidence of his being too close, self promoting and having a financial stake in it, he flat out denies any of it is "evidence". Talk:RateItAll#Conflict_of_Interest.--Crossmr 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the original posting at www2.blogger.com that was used to encourage editing of this WP article:

Guys, GenghisTheHun is starting an entry for RateItAll in Wikipedia. Anybody who wants to contribute can do so here. I'm going to stay out of it, as I am so clearly biased, but anybody needing historical or factual data can feel free to ask me. Please be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines, and be respectful of the site's volunteers.

This was posted by a member of that site named lawrence who might be the Lawrence Coburn who is the founder and CEO of the site.The wording of this announcement doesn't sound too bad, and I note that the recent edits by User:GenghisTheHun appear to be reasonable. Anyone who wishes may put in a word or two on Talk:RateItAll, since GenghisTheHun specifically asked how COI is interpreted on Wikipedia. Note that this article survived an AfD on 15 February. While the article could be better, it does have some reliable sources, and there were a number of additional sources found during the AfD that have not yet been added to the article. The recent edit history of the article seems fairly collegial, and the nominator of this COI, Crossmr (talk · contribs), removed two of the maintenance tags from the article on 2 March, suggesting that some of his concerns are being addressed. But Crossmr has argued (above) that GenghisTheHun is restoring material to the article that's contrary to our policies. I didn't look closely enough to have an opinion on that. EdJohnston 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That material has since been removed and I think its staying out this time. The problem is if you look at that same blog post, we have an issue with GenghisTheHun misrepresenting himself. On the Rateitall talk page he says and I am about as neutral as one may get. However in response to the Blog post which the creator made, Genghisthehun says Sign up with Wikipedia and sing the praises of the RIA!. I'll admit I've only been here a year, but I'm pretty sure I've seen people more neutral than that. In addition to that his profile was added to the article at one point, by an IP which he's admitted as himself. I'd have been willing to let it go as an honest mistake if he hadn't just made about a dozen edits to the article under his username, then signed out and added his profile to the article as his IP. These are only minor warning signs on their own, but I feel the situation has been exacerbated by the fact that the creator of the website chose to participate in the AfD after stating he wasn't going to get involved, and Genghis has been shown to be a top ranked user of the site, and the creator has subsequently recognized him again for the work he's doing on the article. To me this puts him in a position of closeness to the site. This is only further worsened by the fact that the site does revenue sharing with its members based on their contributions and other factors. Any of these individually might not be that bad, but all coming from one person it bothers me.--Crossmr 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the COI rules are not 100% precise, I'd be willing to accept GenhisTheHun's contributions if the end result is a good article that our readers find informative. At present there doesn't seem to be any criticism included in the article. I wonder if anyone knows of any negative information that could be fairly included. If Genghis were removing negative information that would be a red flag. EdJohnston 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They're not precise no. However I think we need to realize that he is closer to the subject than probably any other editor outside of the creator of the website. At least from our point of view and what evidence we have. He's not even willing to acknowledge that all of those things put together could even be reasonably construed as the possibility of a conflict of interest. As far as criticism goes, it was placed in the article but I removed it simply because it was unsourced opinion, and seemed to consist mostly of original research. What arose was that I removed that content with explanation and during a several edit session he restored it without a single comment as to why (it was actually restored during the addition of other material). He seems to avoid communication unless it serves him at that moment. When the npov tag was put on the article he made the claim he was completely neutral, I countered that, and 2 weeks later another individual countered it as well with new evidence, but he wouldn't respond to either comment, until now because I raised it again in response to his wanting the maintenance tags removed from the article. Since this was first raised on February 10th and only now he responds to it with complete and utter denial that it might even be a possibility. I question the above with an editor who seems willing to just edit away with no real response to communication. He once again only communicated once it was nominated for AfD. Its a whole bunch of little things which are all piling up.--Crossmr 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as when the article was in trouble and up for AfD, when Genghisthehun is in trouble for a possible conflict of interest issue, the creator comes running to his aid [We should include the fact that whenever the article or he gets in trouble now, the creator of the website shows up to try and save the day. I think that demonstrates a clear closeness to the subject [16]. To me this clearly demonstrates a closeness beyond what is normal to the subject.--Crossmr 14:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• GenghisTheHun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 164.154.206.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 24.111.136.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Lawrencecoburn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Kamylienne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Userlinks: easier to track with them than without. — Athænara ✉ 10:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

IP info results: Unlikely. Two different ISPs, both from Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Probably some fans of the site. MER-C 11:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two specific edits:

• 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC) "Bear with me, I am learing [sic] how to do this" (164.154.206.114 - perhaps GenghisTheHun forgot to log back in after his edit five minutes earlier)
• 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC) "You gotta bear with me, as I am working hard to figure it all out." (24.111.136.227)

It wasn't a sockpuppet report, I merely listed them to aid examination of the pump-up-the-site edits as originally reported by Crossmr. — Æ. ✉ 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing reads like enthusiastic hype on a free webhosting site, not an encyclopedia article. Strike what I wrote before I turned around and pruned the article instead of complaining. Experienced NPOV editors: please compare previous hype and present permastub. — Athænara ✉ 10:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Schwarz (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Steve Dufour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - WP:COI#Close relationships, Steve Dufour has been attempting to have the article deleted as a favor to Barbara Schwarz. I have tried to explain why he should not vote in or initiate action to have the article removed but is still welcome to provide his POV in discussion, with no success. //Anynobody 08:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Please check this article out for possible CoI problems. I am one of the problem people since I am a friend of Barbara. Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)"

"It seems that the article will soon be nominated for deletion. Steve Dufour 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)"

Did you notice the above posting (which I have merged into this one)? MER-C 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did notice, and sent a message to Steve_Dufour. Since Steve_Dufour is who I came here to discuss, I felt it would be rude to edit or change the request he made. Just so I know in the future, what should I have done? (I don't mean that to sound like a smart-ass answer, I really want to know what the protocol is for this situation.)Anynobody 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to listen to Anynobody's advice if he gave the same advice to people who have a personal dislike for Barbara, or who have interests in the article which have nothing to do with her or to Wikipedia. Steve Dufour 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour If any of them wanted to put information in that was both embarrassing and irrelevant I would certainly oppose it. Anynobody 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - WP:COI#Close relationships, WP:COI#Campaigning. Justanother has a highly sensitive POV regarding what he finds offensive or negative regarding the CoS, and he spends a large percentage of his time editing articles related to Scientology. Barbara Schwarz is a Scientologist ejected from the organization. She appears to suffer the type of mental illness that the CoS says either doesn't exist or they can cure. This issue is not addressed in the article itself, however and I believe the mere possibility of anyone making such a connection motivates his desire to delete the article, which has been nominated 3 times already. As proof of his tendency to allow his POV to affect his editing here I submit this: User_talk:Justanother#WikiProject_updates showing his view of the erupting volcano depicted on the cover of Dianetics as offensive. Please note, I have no preference about the userbox in question at the link I've provided. In this case the editors involved found a compromise. I am pointing it out as an example of how inflexible he is about issues pertaining to the CoS, even going so far as to avoid explaining WHY he is offended by an image Scientology embraces as a Scientologist. Anynobody 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the truth again, Anynobody. Like you did here. I explained to Smee (and you, you were there and posted) my objection to the volcano and he knew exactly why I objected. See User talk:Justanother#WikiProject updates. That is all I have to say. The COI is a figment of your imagination not borne out by my article edits. This is not a personal attack. This is not uncivil. This is the truth for any other editor to check for themselves. --Justanother 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, could we please keep on topic here - try not to overspill disputes which may be somehow distantly related to the article but certainly do not seem to have much to do with conflicts of interest. Steve Dufour has declared his own COI, which is all well and fine, but I'm not quite sure what the request for this noticeboard actually is. Just "checking out" the article for other conflicts is awfully vague, especially when nothing is said about why Steve suspects that somebody else may have a COI and what it would be. –Henning Makholm 08:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if this sounds blunt, it is only meant to be clear on what I thought the reason for having a COI guideline was. People with a COI will have difficulty making neutral decisions about Notability/saliency, and have "...no rights as an advocate. You may even be cautioned or, in extreme cases, told to stay away from certain topics." per WP:COI. An editor shouldn't be able to nominate an article for deletion if he/she has a COI regarding that article. If they are allowed to, it's easy to imagine religions, corporations, and groups of people deleting content they find personally disagreeable. Anynobody 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but WP:COI wasn't intended to cover 'all' situations of biased editors - only ones where there's a close and specfic personal/business relationship. Out of sheer practicality, you can't weed out everyone with a strong view by WP:COI, such as (say) stopping Orangemen editing articles about the Pope. If there's no specific COI, you just have to invoke consensus, NPOV, civility, WP:3RR and all the other kinds of policies that heavily biased editors tend to breach. Tearlach 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, I'm not asking that anyone be blocked from editing or commenting. In your example (which I'm assuming addresses Justanother), I would not be asking that the Orangemen be stopped from editing the Pope. However if they nominated Pope for deletion, I'd argue that they may be looking at the subject as a Protestant rather than an editor (thus a personal COI). (I apologize, but I don't know much about Christian interintra-faith issues.)

In regard to Steve Dufour, he wants to delete the article because his friend, Barbara Schwarz (the subject of the article), asked him to. I'm not sure how much clearer the COI in his case could be. Anynobody 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The list below includes the present location, start/end dates, and the contributor of the first post in each of seven discussions in WP:BLP/N archives.

• Barbara Schwarz is the label on some.
  
• Mark Rathbun is the label on others.

1. (BS-1) - Archive 1 (September 3-16 2006) (Fred Bauder)
2. (MR-1) - Archive 4 (November 19 2006) (Steve Dufour)
3. (BS-2) - Archive 4 (November 21-28 2006) (Dufour)
4. (MR-2) - Archive 7 (December 27 2006 - January 2 2007) (Dufour)
5. (BS-3) - Archive 10 (February 14-27 2007) (BabyDweezil)
6. (MR-3) - Archive 10 (February 16-24 2007) (Dufour/Dweezil reports merged)*
7. (BS-4) - Archive 11 (March 2-10 2007) (Dufour)

Details of merged reports:*

First 12:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC) by Dufour.

Second 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC) by Dweezil.

Merger of first (still only one line) into second, 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Sample diff: four BS/MR sections on the noticeboard simultaneously.

I'm sure I am not the only volunteer on these noticeboards who sees eerie reflections of the quasi-notorious activities which became the sole basis of one allegedly non-notable subject's notability. Whether technically analogous to vexatious litigation, frivolous litigation, barratry, abuse of process, Munchausen syndrome, or simply what I am tempted to characterise as utterly clueless antics, they abuse what a high court calls the certiorari process.

The archived threads illustrate what the determined pursuit of filling up noticeboards leaves in its wake. It is a waste of time, space and energy. — Athænara ✉ 13:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"eerie reflections", etc. I like that (smile). --Justanother 15:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Major whoops. I thought that User:Athaenara was making a witticism with the above psychobabble but I see here that she takes herself seriously. Apparently a nascent policy to be named Assume Mental Illness. --Justanother 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I did something against the rules. I feel that the article on Barbara and the mention of her in Rathbun's article (although the second has been much improved) is a violation of WP policies concerning living persons. I have felt this since Barbara first brought the article to my attention. I don't know what else I could have done to bring what I feel is a problem to the attention of the WP community other than post my concerns on the BLP noticeboard. Steve Dufour 17:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is some recent evidence of JA being POV and possibly irrational on the AfD of Barbara Schwarz. The gist is that I wanted to post reasons for neutral editors to consider not voting for deletion. Justanother thought that they belong in a "prominent position" in the middle of the voting section. He took the issue to WP:ANI, where errors we both made were pointed out (I should have listed my points below the nomination but above the voting). The basic logic of our arguments I think reflects our respective "frame of mind": I want neutral editors to know both sides near the top of the page. Justanother wants neutral editors to know his side, then (hopefully) see the information I added in the midst of the votes. Would a person without a COI have a problem with another editor listing counter points beneath theirs in an open forum? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)#Justanother why don't you want editors to see both sides of this discussion? Anynobody 06:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of selective enforcement of guidelines when they suit his purpose as proof of a possible COI. Justanother really, would you listen if others said you might have a biased POV? (To the COI board: Unless I'm wrong, in which case I assure you I'll listen.) Anynobody 11:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this, and considering this from last week appears to be evidence of a double standard. Anynobody 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I present an actual statement of COI on Justanother's part: [17] Anynobody 06:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Barbara Schwarz article should have been speedy deleted as soon as it was first started, in my opinion. Steve Dufour 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand Steve Dufour you feel that way, not to sound harsh, but you've mentioned that pretty much from the start as a favor to Barbara Schwarz. That is why I've placed your username on this noticeboard. Seriously, if we left the decision up to friends and families there would be few accurate biographies on here. I've said it from the beginning, I don't doubt your abilities as an editor in general. Your willingness to act at the behest of a personal request, is unfortunately improper. Anynobody 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Should people who have a personal dislike for an article's subject also hold off editing it? Steve Dufour 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, I would advise that any edits be discussed on the talk page first in such a situation of course. People who don't "like" an article may still have insight to offer, but because they don't "like" the article they shouldn't be able to put it up for deletion. Anynobody 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The AfD issue has been resolved, so any action now would be counterproductive. I was hoping for action to be taken while it was open, but now any action might be perceived as punishment so I nominate this entry be archived. To spare those who don't care, my comments will be the rest of the post.

My best case scenario was an admin making a visible post indicating the fact that the nominator may have done so as a result of a WP:COI. Participants would have been aware of the possible conflict and could choose to use or ignore the information. I suppose I assumed it was understood that I was not advocating the removal of the AfD once the community had begun to participate. I thought that if indeed the AfD was a COI the information should be known to all. Thanks Anynobody 07:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)