Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 4

Suhaylsaadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Suhayl Saadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I found this page while looking through WP:DEAD. The page history reveals a red-flag conflict of interest, i.e. the most active writer of the article is also the subject of the article. Normally I nominate such things on Afd, but I think he's notable enough to survive Afd. One possibility is to revert to the situation before he got involved, but that's really not as good: [1]. I would appreciate notification on my talk page to any comment made here. // YechielMan 04:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though this article appears largely written by its subject, it is not such a terrible article, and his work appears notable, judging from the prizes. The next step might be for someone to carefully look through all the online references to see if they appear correctly cited and to be sure he deserves his apparent reputation. The article itself has no critical comment, but it refrains from the advertising and promotional language that is sometimes seen when the subject is the author. EdJohnston 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message for the creator, User:Suhaylsaadi, indicating that this article may be proposed for deletion unless references are added, per WP:RS. Please add your comments here if you disagree with this approach. Even better, go visit the article and add the missing references yourself, if you have the patience to do so. EdJohnston 22:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on it for a few hours yesterday—see what you think of it now. By the way, the bio subject has not edited it since October 2006. — Athænara ✉ 08:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's much better now. EdJohnston 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#Poweroid
• Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Refusal to cooperate
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names archive link
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 2#Image:Voice-over-IP.png

Poweroid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used [2], but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 [3], I feel I'm in over my head.

Possible coi because:

• poweroid.com redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/poweroid/
• poweroid.co.uk redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/
• bestpricecomputers.co.uk is the same company
• experienced-people.co.uk appears to be run by the same admin

I've removed links from the following articles, all added by Poweroid:

External links to bestpricecomputers:

• Business performance management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Content management system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Customer Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Program management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Records manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Supply chain management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Intranet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

External links to experienced-people:

• Confidentiality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) removed [4]
• Non-disclosure agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Salary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Webmaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm guessing there are many more considering how long he's been editing. --Ronz 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, surprisingly. See Special:Linksearch/*.bestpricecomputers.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/*.experienced-people.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/*.poweroid.com and Special:Linksearch/*.poweroid.co.uk. MER-C 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those searches don't appear to work. I just found another bestpricecomputers link in Intranet. --Ronz 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ Linksearch syntax corrected by A. B. at 01:04, April 12, 2007 (UTC).

Whoa! Whoa! I'm in the middle of something but give me a few seconds and I'll comment in full. Poweroid 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first, on the user name: It's not a random word, it's a word that's clearly associated with Best Price Computers Ltd, at bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. In fact, there are thousands of pages in a Google search for that word ALL of which would lead you back to that company site. Poweroid is the only brand that company sells. And nobody can mistake that I'm associated with that company/do work for it. I intentionally use that user name here and I openly log in with that Poweroid name to edit. Have been doing it for years. I don't believe I've ever added a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk.

I have edited, proofed or otherwise worked on over 50 sites in the last few years some of which are/were owned by that company or by other companies. Those sites include pcnineoneone.com (which has plenty of links from Wikipeddia, many from before I ever joined), graphic.org etc., etc. (I'll try and compile a full list if anyone's interested). I've often taken content from a site I'm familiar with and added it to a Wikipedia article with due acknowledgement to the source - whether I ever worked on that source site or not.

I believe I made a useful contribution yesterday to Web site, with a note in the Talk page prior to attempting further improvements. I notice that Ronz has removed a reference link to the experienced-people site on the article. Whatever s/he believes about the authority of the experienced-people site Yahoo claims that there are almost 3,000 other places that link to it, so obviously there are some, like abcnews.com who link to a particular article there, who think it's worth linking to. I notice also that the content from that source site is still on Web site though the reference was removed. Just as with VoIP. VoIP happens to use an image and content from one of the source sites. I notice that the image is still in use here though the link to the site was removed.

I've edited probably thousands of articles in Wikipedia ranging from hundreds on Indian cities to articles ranging from pregnancy/medical to business management to foodstuffs/recipes, most of which I've found no reason to add links on. I admit I may not have read every single word of the rules here but if it is forbidden to ever quote from a site I've worked on in the past it will reduce my output considerably (as it would cut out a large chunk of topics I am familiar with) but I'm happy to comply. Poweroid 14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so far I've only removed the links, because they don't meet WP:SOURCE or WP:EL, and some come across as WP:SPAM. I've kept the other content, assuming it can be verified from other sources if necessary. As for the potential coi issues, I'm deferring to this noticeboard. --Ronz 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am observer and i don't understand : who is Ronz , i have look the ronz's contribution to WIKIPEDIA and (always removed) please can you say me what he has realy build? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.11.145.92 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) and —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.118.211 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with my edits, take them to the appropriate venue. This discussion concerns the conflict of interest issues with Poweroid's edits. --Ronz 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at Yahoo's Site Explorer [5] for incoming links to www.experienced-people.co.uk doesn't suggest much merit. Looks to me like one of those non-sites that provide token content, but primarily exist as vehicle for Google ads and affiliate schemes. Tearlach 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 2,700 links to that site according to your Yahoo listing. I haven't examined them all but the first page itself shows links from sites I'm familiar with, like problogger, and about.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.89.250 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. The issue here is COI. --Ronz 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Poweroid seems not to have added his links normally to be avoided to articles in the past month—am I missing something? — Athænara ✉ 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just the one that he admits to above. [6]. He's been completely upfront here about his actions, though. It might be useful for him to provide the list of sites that he mentions above. He's not contending that the links are inappropriate. It appears that he often edits as an ip, but not in any way that violates WP:SOCK that I can see, other than maybe to avoid a few spam warnings. Other than that, I think the situation is fine as long as he no longer continues to add such links to articles. --Ronz 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly. But, like I said, I'll put a list together for anyone here who's researching me in relation to this CoI claim. Please tell me how and where I can provide it. Poweroid 11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent — Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest (emphasis added.) Particularly in light of your defence of your contributions as a good faith editor, it is inappropriate to suggest that other editors should do the cleanup after you've spammed Wikipedia with your clients' links. — Athænara ✉ 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames issue as well: "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement." — Æ. ✉ 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. — Athænara ✉ 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result was allow: policy against company/product names as usernames had not yet been implemented when the user registered.

In re conflict of interest, links, clients: It would be helpful if someone higher up the administrative chain can answer the user in re a list of clients whose links the user has added to the encyclopedia ("Please tell me how and where I can provide it") if that is the most straightforward way to clear this up. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the RFCN include that this case is starting to smart of desperation and that WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cascadia suggests something is just not right about the RfC and that it seems you're just looking at ANY (his emphasis) way to deal with a conflict. On your own talk page Shenme has trouble believing the "problem" is at all as serious as presented.

Yes, let's find a straightforward way to clear this up. Poweroid 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, he's added links to:

• poweroid-video-editing.co.uk (18 October 2004) [7]
• bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk (14 August 2006) [8]

--Ronz 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages kinda like the type Shenme thought looked perfectly OK (see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_performance_management on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names page). Poweroid 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you said yourself that you didn't think you made a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. It turns out you did in August and December of last year. Also, you've linked to a site that has your username in it, something you should have brought up when this COI was started. --Ronz 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Poweroid admits to coi regarding choosing the name. An RfC/N resulted in allowing the username because it predates the prohibition on such names. --Ronz 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Poweroid appears to have choosen his username after introducing links to poweroid-video-editing.co.uk as 213.235.36.175 (talk · contribs). 213.235.36.175 has only a few edits total, from 6 September 2004 to 18:11, 15 October 2004. This editor introduced links to bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk in the same manner that Poweroid has done. Four minutes after 213.235.36.175's last edit, Poweroid begins editing for the first time in the same articles as 213.235.36.175. --Ronz 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restatement of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy as it applies here.

"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… Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest.^[1] Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

1. ^ These include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid by said organizations to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image." (emphasis added.)

From the introduction at the top of the policy page. — Athænara ✉ 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The user has selectively cited other editors' views and mis-characterised as "desperation" other editors' attempts to address the user's conflict of interest reasonably. S/he was advised on how to change the username and expressed a willingness to comply a week ago and yet has not followed through since then. All of this combined with repeatedly downplaying the obvious conflict of interest makes it increasingly difficult to assume the user's good faith. — Athænara ✉ 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, my username issue has already been discussed. It's already on record as associated with a particular company and their sites. And you/Athaenara subjected it to an RFCN which failed.

Athaenara, I'm glad you bought up the neutral encyclopedia issue as you'll find that that's exactly what my edits are - including the ones you claim as CoI. Your special concerns of organization conflicts of interest and editors paid to edit Wikipeidia are irrelevant unless you are making an allegation that I've been paid to edit Wiki articles.

Please provide examples of the selective citing and mis-characterisation of other editors' attempts you accuse me of as I don't believe there have been any at all.

Re my user name: You will note that I do not have to change it. I was not compelled to change it. I was not requested to do it. I was not even asked to consider it. My name is 100% OK. I did however volunteer to change my name. So I'll do it when I want. That I haven't had the time to do it within the last week is nobody's business and, with the greatest of respect, isn't yours either. That I haven't put on top most priority something I volunteered to do is, you argue, grounds to dismiss presumption of my good faith? What was that about misrepresentation and mischaracterisation again?

Is this really about a CoI anymore? Poweroid 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the RfCN failed, doesnt mean that we should ignore other evidence relevant to your COI here when it concerns your name. --Ronz 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over this page and the talk page of User:Poweroid and some of his contributions.By his own admission, he has worked for the company (www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk and related sites) which holds the trademark on Poweroid (his current user name), so it seems clear there is a conflict of interest on his adding links to at least those company websites.

The debate about his username, and whether a list of his clients should be provided and how, do not take away from the fact that this editor has added links to (see above) and images from [9] company websites with which he has a professional relationship in clear violation of WP:COI. This is not passing judgment on the links and images in question either, but it is a conflict of interest for Poweroid to add them to Wikipedia.

If he feels these are valid links and images he should suggest them for inclusion on the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question for other, more neutral editors to decide. He is also, I believe, obligated to remove such edits he has made in the past until they can be decided on by other editors. The problem may be larger than this (the client list issue) but that in no way should obscure the fact that there is already a substantial COI problem here. This is no single purpose account for purposes of linkspam. However, he seems to be doing little to resolve and much to obscure and perhaps obstruct the solution of his COI problem. Hope this helps and apologize if I got the gender wrong, Ruhrfisch 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of today, searches for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk returns 17 matches. This is after both Tearlach and myself have removed many others. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 60 articles, mostly around December 2006. Additionally, I've requested Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to techbooksforfree.com and dogtraininghq.com. --Ronz 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three of those left (one to an image, two on talk pages)—I removed fourteen of them. — Athænara ✉ 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a US Government PD image and put it in the Voice over IP article as it was clearer in thumbnail than the COI image here (which is now orphaned), so we are down to only two COI links on talk pages for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk. Ruhrfisch 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, better quality and public domain. That obsoletes the COI image, now listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 2. — Æ. ✉ 04:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think all the questionable links have been removed from articles at this point. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 80 articles, mostly around December 2006. I've also asked Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to pregnancyetc.com and bringingupbaby.com. I'm estimating that between November'06 and January'07 Poweroid added over 50 links to 50 different articles, all links where there's a clear coi, and most in violation of WP:ATT as well. --Ronz 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay: I recommend the excellent Wikipedia:Search engine optimization essay to all editors and particularly to users with conflict of interest issues who are tempted, like the subject of this report, to linkspam the encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is still going on and hasn't resulted in a ban/closure?

I notice that Athaenara makes no comments on the issue of his misrepresentation of the username issue to suggest lack of good faith on my part. He could have at least apologised for maligning me. :(

When digging out who made what links in 2004 please at least be diligent enough to check what the policy was at that time and whether I violated it. In fact, from what I can see there wasn't even a CoI page at that time, just a vanity page.

I maintain there is a lot of FUD, embarrasment at "losing" the RfCN, and a campaign to smear me here. I've no doubt now who is going to pour over exact versions of the CoI page on every day I made an edit. Like other pages in a wiki, the CoI page changes over time. Unlike some here I have better things to do than to keep track of every minutae in the small print and how it changes on a daily basis. Ignorantia juris non excusat? Get a life, guys, this is a Wiki, not the Supreme Court but who would think it from the way some of you make a full time profession of mastering the small print rules? I did not come here to spam, I made hundreds/thousands of useful contributions, I added links where I thought they would be useful to readers, and, bar the odd exception, most of my edits didn't even involve adding links. I've made numerous efforts to cooperate but that doesn't seem to be (refactored personal attack) enough.

Does it usually take so long for discussions on CoI claims? Or just ones that aren't clearcut? Poweroid 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For neutral point of view editors: please see also "Refusal to cooperate" section of this noticeboard's talk page. — Athænara ✉ 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also a discussion of Poweroid at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Poweroid, including a list of 19 IP addresses that are also believed to be him. Fortunately I didn't notice any uses of IP addresses after January 07. Has anyone carefully determined the date of the last spam link he added, or if he has stopped? This editor's frankness should be commended, but others who have been notified of similar problems have voluntarily gone back and removed the inappropriate links, while this editor still seems to believe they are appropriate. EdJohnston 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he stopped. The last spam edit he made was the one that started this report, his edit on March 6, [10], where he twice added an experienced-people.co.uk link as a reference. He did not indicate he added any links in his edit summary, and made two successive edits afterward to the same article - a pattern that he usually uses when adding external links.

Note that he's never responded to the concern that the links he's added as references do not meet WP:SOURCE.

Finally, because he's never provided a list of the 30-50 websited that he's said he's done work for, we have no way of knowing for sure that there aren't more than have been found so far, nor when they were last added. --Ronz 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to link-spam, most of the time we don't worry so much about blocks and bans. If someone persists in adding links despite our rules and in spite of our requests, we just list their domains at m:Talk:Spam blacklist for inclusion in the m:Spam blacklist. That blacklist covers all Wikimedia Foundation projects in all languages; additionally several hundred other users of MediaWiki software also use our blacklist. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 80.247.87.235 (talk · contribs) May-Sep'06 rstrd experienced-people to Creative accounting, etc
• 80.247.88.109 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Market risk etc
• 80.247.88.200 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Customer service and Cartography and Map
• 80.247.89.111 (talk · contribs) Nov '06 added dogtraininghq.com to Crate (pet), Housebreaking, etc
• 80.247.89.250 (talk · contribs) Mar '06 appears to be Poweroid - didnt add any ELs
• 80.247.90.6 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Disk array and Business continuity planning
• 80.247.90.129 (talk · contribs) Jan '07 added bestpricecomputers to Supply chain
• 80.247.91.198 (talk · contribs) Nov-Dec'06 ? dogtraininghq.com
• 80.247.92.112 (talk · contribs) Nov '06 added bestpricecomputers to Product Manager, etc
• 80.247.92.227 (talk · contribs) Jan '07 added bestpricecomputers to Process management
• 80.247.92.229 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestprice...ltd.uk to Ultra-Mobile PC, LG XNOTE, Toughbook, etc; added bestpricecomputers to Overclocking
• 80.247.93.129 (talk · contribs) Aug '06 added techbooksforfree to Computer networking
• 80.247.93.186 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Systemic risk, Depreciation, etc
• 80.247.94.110 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Relationship marketing and Asset
• 80.247.94.180 (talk · contribs) Nov '06 added bestpricecomputers to Fixed assets management and Acadian Asset Management
• 80.247.94.172 (talk · contribs) Jan '07 added bestpricecomputers to Voice over IP; added bestprice...ltd.uk to Multiprocessing
• 80.247.94.208 (talk · contribs) Dec-Jan'07 added bestpricecomputers to OpenDocument and Decision support system
• 80.247.95.21 (talk · contribs) Dec '07 added bestpricecomputers to Intranet strategies
• 80.247.95.57 (talk · contribs) Oct-Nov'06 added experienced-people to Business broker and Emergency management (added allaboutiq to Inventive step and non-obviousness), added bestpricecomputers to Dashboard (interface)

(Added list above from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#Poweroid.) — Athaenara 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The River Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Appears to have been primarily created by two or three editors.

• Michael.m.winters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - By his own admission is friends with band members. Have told him previously should consider whether it is appropriate to edit the article and at least declare his interest in things such as votes for deletion. But he appears to have either ignored me or didn't read my message (which unfortunately I didn't post to his talk page) Talk:Main Page/Archive 90#Notability & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The River Company (2nd nomination).

• Garyleeweinrib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be primarily interested in this article. He/she may just be a fan but I doubt he/she's this guy Geddy Lee so I suspect Garyleeweinrib is not his or her real name (see below too). Also, this account first appeared during the first vote.

• Anon 141.164.90.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 141.164.90.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a friend of Michael.m.winters as he or she was editing the article at the same time. Don't think this is Michael.m.winters as he appears to use a different IP [11] but it may be Garyleeweinrib, there was one instance when with several edits from 141.164 and followed by an edit from Garyleeweinrib.

I originally felt the band was not noteable, no longer so sure. But someone should advise these people to consider COI & if they still feel it is okay to edit the article, at least declare any potential COI in any voting. Probably be best if this comes from someone besides me, in case either of them read my earlier message. N.B. Michael.m.winters did mention his potential COI in the first vote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The River Company

203.109.240.93 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP evidence:  Unlikely. IPs resolve to a university in New Orleans. MER-C 08:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Warrens (talk · contribs) - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Close relationships
• Warrens (talk · contribs)
• Clintology (talk · contribs)
• Debuskjt (talk · contribs)
• ElJefe_04 (talk · contribs)
• Tsetna (talk · contribs)
  

have been, as part of an apparent rotating crew/mob which has in the past included others, been "protecting" this article against any critical content, however cited. I gave up trying to improve this article about a year ago, and no matter how hard myself or others tried to comply with endless demands for more sources, criticism of sources (based on criteria that cannot currently be met for even the information they currently have posted), and the ignoring and/or removal of sources surreptitiously, in order to then later remove the content as uncited.

Going back to look at the status of the article, I now note that there is a lot of fluff information (site redesigns?) that is of no real public interest, and the site has been completely reverted to a promotional piece/advertisement. Apparent attempt by other editors to flesh out and balance the article have been met with constant reversions. The editors protecting the article appear to consist of Ars Technica's writers, staff, and users. Conflicts of interest have been pointed out many times, and summarily ignored. -- 216.227.57.119 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly amazing, the amount of non-information in that article. As said above, whatever's the point of a list of the past colour schemes of a website [12]? Tearlach 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like the article should be deleted as non-notable. Its only citations are from the Internet. But what do I know about such things? :-) Steve Dufour 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it doesn't seem to come close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability (web) to me. Anyone want to do the duty Nil Einne 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I am having very bad luck with the deletion thing. :-) Steve Dufour 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{importance}}. This deletionist can't be bothered listing either. MER-C 12:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have afd'd it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ars Technica. delldot talk 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry delldot, I should have warned you. Altho I'm probably what you would call a geek I'd barely heard of ArsTechica and the article didn't appear to establish it's notability so I recommended someone AFD it. When I visited the talk page, I read some stuff like the Alexa rating which suggested to me it probably did meet web even if the article didn't establish that at all so I gave a buckup suggestion in the talk page Nil Einne 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look further at the history of the article; it does need work. I'm interested in what could be being said that you've managed to form a mob of Arsians, who usually only swarm in cases of online-humor. The writers have appologized, if she wants something more slandering others is not a good way to go about it, if that's what is being done. It's been cited in some newspaper articles. Deleting it is inappropriate at this time. htom 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I moved the comment about the IPDemocracy incident to a different section of the page because it had no business being in the leader of the article. Imo, it still has no business being in the "NewsDesk" section. Its proper place is either in a "trivia" or "criticism" section further down the page, in keeping with similar criticism points in other articles. At no time did I remove it from the page or otherwise attempt to quash this particular criticism. In any case, isn't it more than a little hypocritical for an anonymous user to assert the existence of a "rotating crew/mob" conspiracy of covert, Ars Technica staffers, whose purpose is apparently to hide criticism of the site? I would think that at the very least such a person should provide some kind of identity and actually research their subject before throwing around such accusations, otherwise this just sounds like a case of paranoia. -- Hux 10:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC) [PS Other than posting to their forums, I am in no way affiliated with Ars Technica.][reply]

This is unbelievable. Looking up the username Hux on Ars Openforum shows that he is a subscriber and has posted over 21,000 times to the forums. That would indicate just a slight conflict of interest, as he is obviously a fan of the site.--216.227.57.119 11:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I am apparently the subject of a COI notice on an article that I haven't edited in quite a while... but nobody bothered to tell me. Hmpfh. Here's the deal, folks: This anon user who opened this COI was repeatedly attempting to make edits like this, where they were trying to add criticism of the entire web site by posting to (I kid you not) comments in a blog post. Through that time period, a series of users appeared whose only purpose was to push almost precisely the same content into the article. Here, have a look at these contributation histories that are remarkably: Dave-G. Tatsuma. Gallifr3y. El jefe04. Kristi ski. There are others, too, but that should be a sufficient example of what was being dealt with 8-12 months ago. The key here is that the person... ahem, excuse me, "people" who were pushing this information into the article were not providing any published, reliable sources as is expected of all content in Wikipedia, especially critical commentary. Squabbling in Internet forums is hardly encyclopediac material, anyhow... the whole thing just smells like sour grapes from someone whose attempt at adding their opinions to the article didn't get their way. -/- Warren 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warrens is apparently another subscriber, but with *only* 7700 posts in the forums. Surely no COI there. Meanwhile, he accuses me of sockpuppetting, which I am sure some Wikipedia Admin can settle once and for all. I have not edited the Ars article since sometime last summer, as I gave up. References were removed due to being sourced from a "blog", despite the fact that all other references were sourced from the same place. El_Jefe, as I remember, reverted my edits not a few times, so I don't see why I would be him, and Kristi_Ski has a username, which I never have had. Somehow, though, I am supposed to be all of these other people, because some of us felt the criticisms were sourced. Never mind the fact that different people edited criticisms in (for example, I had never heard of the IP Democracy thing till reading it here). The COI is easy to see, as far as I am concerned. 1. All of the people who removed criticisms which were sourced in the same manner as the rest of the article are very active members, or writers, or staff at Ars. 2. They spent a lot of time working together to demand more sources (i.e. when referencing forum activity, one was required to use a reference other than the forum contents themselves - try finding a book by a reputable author/publisher on the Ars Forums). 3. Research Wikipedia rules in order to use them without regard to their intent, (i.e. accuse editors of sockpuppeting and trying to force 3RR situations, in which they did not succeed) and citing Wiki rules like WP:NOR, when the entire article was technically OR to begin with (all citations come from Ars). If their intent was to improve the article, they wouldn't have spent so much time worrying about site redesigns, removing the separate criticism section (which was an early compromise which improved the readability of the article), etc. And for the record, as I posted in the AFD segment, I wasn't looking for deletion, though if these people can't be reasonable about not swarming the article to protect the reputation of the site (which is only damaged by this behavior), then I would rather it not exist, as it has no value to an Encyclopedia as it exists now.--216.227.57.119 11:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of people showing up out of nowhere, one after the other, and editing one encyclopedia article to promulgate a very precise, nearly-identical set of changes, isn't suspicious? Riiiight.

Look, we have an important goal here at Wikipedia, and that's to produce a high-quality encyclopedia. We do this through proper Wikipedia:Attribution -- this is the policy. It's NOT OPTIONAL. You (and I) do not have any choice in the matter. I honestly don't care if you're concerned that you can't cite web forums; the attribution policy is quite clear that postings on message boards are largely not acceptable.

People take interest in working on articles because they have an interest in the subject. I own every Massive Attack album and have seen them in concert; does this mean it's a conflict of interest for me to work on articles about the band, or perhaps to demand that people adding information to those articles provide sources for claims? No, of course not. I use Windows Vista and participated in the beta program so that I could learn more; does that disqualify me from writing about it? Again, no. I've been reading Ars Technica since 1999 and have participated in the forums since 2002. As above, there's no particular issue with me or others writing about it. If Robert Del Naja, Steve Ballmer or John Siracusa showed up and started editing Wikipedia articles that cast their products in a favourable light, that'd be a clear WP:COI violation, and I'd be dead set against it. But is it really a conflict of interest for someone who's well-versed in a subject to demand the kind of quality of sources that Wikipedia expects? No it's not, and that's the reality you have to face here. I'm not going to defend the quality of the Ars Technica article, because it's not nearly as good as it could be, but I'm not going to let the quality of the encyclopedia lowered by single-purpose whiners whose only purpose is to discredit a subject. -/- Warren 12:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to pick and choose what is a valid source based on the content of the information. I and others sourced information from Ars, and it was removed, citing NOR rules, and citing the rules that forums and websites aren't valid sources. Meanwhile, the entire article is about a forum/website, and all the information contained in the article was sourced in the same manner. Despite your attempt to distance yourself from the site, you obviously have a deep, protectionist connection. I began reading Ars in 1999, and it still sits on by bookmarks bar. Granted, it doesn't get as much attention as my Slashdot link (which has a criticism section cited much the same as the Ars article had). Does that make me a disgruntled ex-forum user? Also, I removed no content, even about the site redesigns, unless it was accidental. And I spent many hours locating citations for the edits of others (difficult since I was not familiar with many of the topics) only to have them removed as not being valid (i.e. forum activity could not be used to cite activity in a forum). In fact, I wasn't even aware of your presence editing the article, as I had given up and not even looked at it in something like 6 months. Only when I went back, and found how atrocious it had become, and looked at discussion, did I see you joining with some of the others in the rotation. I found it amazing that there was no conflict of interest rule at Wikipedia, so I did a little searching, and lo and behold, there was. But, according to you, Clintology can remove whatever information he likes. Single-purpose whiners? How about balanced individuals who don't mind documenting, rather than promoting.--216.227.57.119 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"when the entire article was technically OR to begin with (all citations come from Ars)." How is Ars Technica itself not a source for an article about it? It is a primary source. Your lack of understanding there seems absolutely baffling. And considering you named me by name as ""protecting" this article against any critical content, however cited," I find it pretty much a waste of my time considering anything you have to say on the issue. If you would accuse me of that you obviously haven't actually tracked the progress of the page, since there is criticism I fought to uphold and it's documented clearly in the edit history of the page and in the Talk page archives. In fact, the day before you actually made this COI entry I re-worked criticism back into the article to prevent it being shunted into a "trivia" section.

As I posted on Ars concerning this issue: "I'm sorry, but [the Ars Technica] article stagnated because it was consistently vandalized by a disgruntled ex-forum user hiding behind sock puppet/IP accounts every time someone tried to add real meat to the article. The ensuing reversion wars continuously removed legitimate edits that were never added back, included many of my own. And for someone to hide behind an anonymous IP and accuse me of causing the problem just pisses me off. Color me increasingly jaded." - Debuskjt 14:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it always comes down to the accusation of being a sock puppet/disgruntled ex-forum user. I was not the originator for many of the criticisms. I did restore some, after some demanded citations and I researched what was removed to see if it was cite-able. I guess it is easier to attack someone by the fact that they use their internet address as an identifier, rather than defend the removal of sourced information. It takes only a few minutes to register for a Wikipedia account. How does that make my edits more valid. Especially considering the length of time during which I tried to improve the article, and the amount of times I was accused of being a "masked marauder". And for the record, and to be fair to you, you did appear to be more reasonable than others protecting the article (one instance particularly springs to mind, I could dig it up if you please).--216.227.57.119 20:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm specifically referring to El_Jefe and the horde of single purpose accounts/IP accounts that consistently re-added the exact same content in direct violation of Wiki policy and gutted out anything that was useful about Ars's notoriety when I speak about vandalism. But since you basically accused me of being a paid meat puppet in your COI entry, I don't know how you can expect me to, in turn, view you in good faith. You can't lash out at me claiming COI and not disclose your own past association with Ars without expecting to draw some criticism. - Debuskjt 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was apparently mistaken about the source of your frustration; However, I object to your blanket accusation that the accounts trying to balance the article were "single purpose accounts". Such as TomServo3000? Dave-G? I've now read El_Jefe's discussion page. It looks like he was responding to your comments, but you and Warrens failed to refute his comments regarding the sourced material. He apparently is under the impression that Warrens is not connected with Ars ("I only make a few suggestions to them re: MS products") when in fact he is a very active user of their forums.

You also seem to have this impression that in order to have a Conflict of Interest, you must have a financial interest in the subject. If you read the COI article, you will see that this is not the case. If you claim that you have no association with Ars, then that will make you the only editor that was removing sourced criticism who can validly make that claim. In any case, I wasn't looking to start a huge argument in the COI section. Interested parties can look at the edit history, and the discussion history, and see the results for themselves. Demands for citations, then one citation per item was not enough to prove a trend, so more citations were provided. Then the citations weren't valid because they came straight from the horse's mouth. Then it was basically "Let's vote on it, and consensus rules", with a few Ars members who had way more time than I did to do the back and forth. Maybe the reason why some of those editors look like single purpose to you is that the article scares them away from editing anything else, for fear of more of the same crap. I know that I, despite having read literally thousands of articles, have not bothered since working so much on the Ars article (with the exception of spelling corrections). Anyway, I'm worn out again, so now I go back to reading, and if the article gets better editing, without the COI, great. If not, I guess I've wasted my time again. Oh, well. BTW, regarding disclosing my relation to Ars, why would I do that if I valued my forum account, etc. Not that it technically matters, as I am just a lurker, but considering the behavior here, I'd have to be retarded to "out myself".--216.227.57.119 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the afd nom. About the above, have you all considered going through the steps of dispute resolution? delldot talk 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't see a clear case of Conflict of Interest here. This is not a case of an established editor whose sensible efforts were overrun by a host of COI partisans. The complaining party (the one who entered this as a COI, 216.227.57.119 (talk · contribs)) appears to be a single-purpose account who has never edited outside this noticeboard and the matching AfD. He has no user page and no Talk page. Since Conflict of Interest investigations always address the identities of the participants as being a key factor, it is fishy to complain about COI and then hide every detail of your own status or previous role in the debate. How do we know that you yourself have no COI? While the issues raised have some interest, they are more properly addressed in the article's Talk page. I suggest that this COI be closed, and that in the future we consider not taking postings from single-purpose accounts except where the COI is egregious and obvious to anyone. EdJohnston 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to enlighten you of the edits I made, the 205.231 belong to me, as do the 216.227s. I never removed any real information from the article (i.e. anything that wasn't vandalism) and really only tried to restore removed criticisms that were sourced properly or could be sourced properly. When I finished citing a block of stuff (painstaking until I used Google, rather than forum search) from Ars, I was told that one citation does not make a trend, and that more examples would be needed. So I cited more examples (again, thank you Google). Then, though they did not mention it before, and I was not an experienced editor, so I did not no, they said that forum posts/websites could not be used as a citation. That is ridiculous; what else do you cite when referencing a forum? Apparently, they found this difficult as well, since after I left, they (after having it out with another editor trying to improve the article) had to compromise by removing real information as well (since it was cited in the same fashion, apparently). I just read this today on the Talk page. So, while some punk may have earlier removed info to vandalize, these people have done it to save the Ars Technica article from having a criticism section, similar to Slashdot's.

Almost every editor who removed criticism (possibly excepting Debusjkt, though who knows) is a very active member in the Ars Community, and that most certainly falls under Close Relationships. I have used Ars Forums, and have for years, with only a few posts in technical sections. I most certainly will not disclose my forum id, as it is obvious that the Ars Community is monitoring all Ars related articles, going through great measures to protect it from anything that may be construed as negative (recently, apparently ownership was negative, and the fact that it had revenue, or used ads to make money). As for IP based editors not being able to issue a COI, would it help if I signed up for an account, edited a few other articles first, and then point out the blatantly obvious COI? Consider the argument, not the source.--216.227.57.119 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of the current article and earlier versions such as this one (which reveals deep confusion about the difference between an encyclopedia and a webspace provider) illustrates how very much worse it has been than it is. That said, the COI/N report was made here in good faith and the article does need the attention which the report attracted to it. — Athænara ✉ 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had been improved since that point, and while it still needed work at this point (my last edit?), it was at least close to the quality of the Slashdot article, IMO. Of course, I gave up trying at that point, as I was too busy with life, and had wasted too much time with it already.--216.227.57.119 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No slur was intended against the good faith of the editor who submitted this complaint. It's just not a 'well-formed COI posting' (in my opinion) if an editor who previously worked on an article comes forward to complain about specific others while not allowing his own work to be scrutinized. If their edit histories are to be studied, then his history *on the article* should be available as well. I welcome your recent clarification as to the IPs you used to edit the Ars Technica article, and think this is now a 'well-formed COI complaint', though I trust the complaint has approximately run its course, and can be closed soon. EdJohnston 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lest there be any confusion, I've been a member of Ars Technica for a very long time. htom 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No activity here in five days, I'm guessing this is done? -/- Warren 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you are right. — Athænara ✉ 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bullock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Created by user JimmyBullock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so smacks of self created vanity article, even if it is detailed. --Blowdart 13:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded. MER-C 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Grand L. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I don't think there's a serious problem here, but I did want to give folks the heads up that the writer of the article, User:37Celcius, is the subject's wife. She also wrote an article about herself, Sharon Dahlonega Raiford Bush, with the username User:Sharon Dahlonega. She has said that she's able to remain objective and has agreed to source everything well, and the articles do seem to me to be factual and notable. So again, I don't see a big problem, but I just wanted to mention it here so we could get some more eyes on the articles. delldot talk 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wish all COI articles were as NPOV as these, just telling who they are, what they've done, and stopping there. — Athænara ✉ 07:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And are well sourced. I think it's safe to let this one slide. MER-C 07:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take those images out; they're not licensed properly at all. She certainly doesn't have the right to license any of them as CC-ShareAlike because she's not the creator of any of them. fethers 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No image copyright warning notices, which usually appear within minutes or hours after an image with a copyright/licensing issue is uploaded, have been posted to the uploader's page. Why not just return the images to the article and let the image oversight process do its own job? — Athænara ✉ 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cave Clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Members of the Cave Clan continue to edit this page and blank out "controversial" content -- i.e. things within the controversy section, which had sources. They have been warned numerous times, and my attempts at a neutral article have only gotten me threatened and accused of sock puppetry. I've opened a Cabal case but no one has volunteered to mediate, and another editor pointed me here. // hibou 21:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an eye-opener to compare the May 2004 stub with what it had become by the time this report was posted. — Athænara ✉ 10:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that Web design company is adding articles for clients.

• Richard Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article on person born in 1620, has link to Web design firm at bottom // or
• Stephanie MacLennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hypnotherapist, credits of site list Richard P Chapman Ltd // or
• James Holderness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Landscape Designer, Site create by Site create by Richard p chapman // or
• Exalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Disabig page added mention of air Taix company. Site create by Richard p chapman // or
• Richardpchapman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Edits to above articles and some normal edits to Pet Shop Boys //SimonLyall 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• James Holderness - speedy, no assertion of notability.
• Stephanie MacLennan - speedy, no concrete assertion of notability in all that vanity.
• Richard Chapman - reverted, was not a disambiguation page.
• Exalt - removed, company fails WP:CORP. We don't need an article on it. MER-C 06:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Richard Chapman responds, here. Richardpchapman 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Richardpchapman[reply]

• List of Iberian Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A user is trying to promote the fringe theory that Christopher Columbus and Miguel de Cervantes were hidden Sephardic Jews by adding them to lists such as List of Sephardic Jews and List of Iberian Jews. I already once removed them from List of Sephardic Jews stating that you cannot treat fringe theories as facts, but can only report them in articles about those theories...such as Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. User REFUSES to move the theories to their allocated article and instead maneuvers them from list to list, adding them as facts, using fringe theory references not supported by the mainstream. I already told the user, who apparently forgets to sign in sometimes, that they are violating WP:Fringe theories guidelines. Instead they go as far as to warn me: [13] and continue to advertise the theory as fact. I would ask for an endorsement of a version page protection, but am unsure if those exist. I believe this is an instance of a conflict of interest given the user is trying to promote theories over others. If it is not, please move it to the correct noticeboard. Mehmeda 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem editor who made the edits cited by Mehmeda is Newport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Someone should have a discussion with him about reliable sources. I fear that this issue is headed toward WP:AN unless we can engage Newport in a conversation. In the block log, some administrators speculate that Newport is a sock puppet of RachelBrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Because of the past history, this is the type of issue that often receives support at WP:AN. However we should first develop a credible case on this page and someone should have a talk with Newport. Not certain that this is even a COI, but I'm willing to listen to arguments. Newport does seem to engage other editors on talk pages, but is very single-minded. EdJohnston 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a problem involving WP:COI, though it sounds like a problem involving WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Have you tried getting assistance through the various dispute resolution steps? Vassyana 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering the dispute resolution advocacy or third party options, but I'm doubtful if there's even a dispute to be resolved, since that would require two valid arguments, and there's no support for passing off fringe theories as fact on the other side except to satisfy someone's POV or to promote the fringe theory. I'll do it anyway just to see if there *IS* something I'm not understanding unless you can recommend something more appropriate for this specific case. Plus I'm not educated on how the advocacy method works. Mehmeda 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this gets re-directed to a dispute resolution forum, you should still collect diffs to back up your point. The aggressive edits regarding Columbus and Cervantes sound like the strongest part of your case. Can you provide the diffs here, and the pointers to the non-reliable sources that were offered? It's clear that there is a dispute (you versus User:Newport), and page protection is unlikely to be granted when the edits being questioned are due to just one user. If editors in addition to Newport are involved, you should mention that too. EdJohnston 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's probably not that black and white. You can find rather scholarly information that global warming isn't happening, that the Flynn effect is plain wrong, that the theory of Special Relativity is flawed, that Jesus Christ was married, that the Universe is not expanding forever, that George Reeves was murdered ...but you can't write them off as fact, you can only write "about" them in articles about such theories via WP:Fringe theories, such as Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth." The origin of Columbus and Cervantes have many legit minority views, but you can't edit Christopher Columbus and change the header to "a Catalan navigator" "an Italian navigator" "a Jewish navigator" despite there being scholarly references providing evidence for each one of these because each is a theory, one of many, none confirmed beyond a doubt. By adding both of these characters TO lists of Sephardic Jews, it is a direct promotion of that fringe theory, and inherently non-neutral. As for diffs, they're pretty much all collected in the recent changes of List of Iberian Jews. This edit war was not very long, as I don't like to edit war; this is one reason I was hoping dispute resolution wasn't necessary. It may be a conflict of interest in the sense of advertisement. It appears to be a very small centalized edit war as of now, but I think there were others reverting on List of Sephardic Jews, not present now. What do you think? Mehmeda 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand 'conflict of interest in the sense of advertisement.' What do you think is being advertised? EdJohnston 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be here; there is no conflict of interest here on Newport's part that I can see. I cannot understand why this is not a matter for mediation; if Mehmeda feels that he has a grievance, I am happy to mediate or assist him in contacting the Mediation Cabal. Both he and Newport are conscientious editors for whom I have great respect, and I would like this settled as soon as possible. This is not the first time that Mehmeda has argued with Newport, but Newport has always supplied meticulous references. He needs no advice on reliable sources.--Runcorn 14:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To EdJohnston: By advertisement I meant promotion, sorry for the confusion. I don't know if COI is the appropriate place for this but I saw the issue as a promotion of ideologies, so it was the closest I could find. To Runcorn: I always saw Mediation as a resort if the edit war was completely out of hand and involving many parties, but it is not anywhere near that yet. And even if we did need Mediation, the concern wouldn't be about reliable sources. For example, Michio Kaku and John Bernard Kennedy are perfectly reliable sources on the feasibility of time travel, but because they believe it to be possible, while many other researchers don't, doesn't mean we can write off that time travel is fact on wikipedia. This is a case of fringe theories and minority views, which would merit an explanation and not a debate. This definitely isn't about anyone giving unreliable sources, as EdJohnston assumed, and I don't think anybody needs a lecture about reliable sources, though I wouldn't go as far as to say Newport has always supplied meticulous references (he's added a few wikipedia mirrors as references to List of German Jews before). If there is an explanation to be made, it's about how to treat theories neutrally without promoting them to truth. And even if we were to go to Mediation (which I don't see what the debate would even be about), to be honest, I wouldn't be that comfortable with Runcorn as the mediator given he has somewhat added to the problem:[14]. Nothing personal of course, I just think a completely fresh third-party mediator, possibly from the mediation committee, would be better. But of course, thank you very much to Runcorn for the offer and the attempts to help. I think a third-party DR is the best course of action now. Mehmeda 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the problem? By citing the Encyclopaedia Britannica? If Mehmeda refuses to place credence in what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says, how are we ever going to come to a sensible resolution?--Runcorn 19:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You took this the wrong way and I regret now mentioning this. Like I said before, we're not concerned with the reliability of sources. Plenty of fringe theories and minority views are well reliable. Encyclopedia Britannica writes "it has been claimed that he was a converted Jew." This isn't the same thing as "he was a Sephardic Jew." For the purposes of claims and investigations on Columbus we have Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Britannica was accurate in saying that claims exist, but Britannica never substantiated the claim as truth. That's the big difference. Mehmeda 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this should not be here as there is no conflict of interest on my part. Obviously, this is a case for mediation, and Mehmeda should have asked for this. Other editors and I have had disagreements with Mehmeda, for example his unilateral attempt to rename "List of German Jews" to "List of Jews from Germany", but this is the first time that he has escalated a disagreement in this way. I am ready and willing to participate in mediation. However, since Mehmeda makes unfounded allegations against me I shall respond to those.

I did not originally add Cervantes to any list. On the List of Iberian Jews, Cervantes was added here [15]. A user (subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry) kept deleting him and several different users restored him. Eventually, as a compromise with the user who kept deleting him, Cervantes and Columbus were moved to a sub-list; they were later moved back to the main list, and the sub-list deleted, as a tidying-up exercise. This is all quite clear from the history.

I added neither of them to List of Sephardic Jews (it was Mibelz, and if this is a serious compaint rather than an attempt to harass me, why was he not cited) [16], nor have I manoeuvred them from list to list. The theory that Columbus was Jewish is scarcely a fringe theory, [[Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "it has been claimed that he was a converted Jew". The eminent historian Cecil Roth states in Encyclopaedia Judaica: "The mystery regarding Columbus' origins is largely the outcome of his own mendacity: and as a result it is equally impossible to exclude or to confirm the hypothesis that he was descended from a Jewish or ex-Jewish family."

As for Cervantes, the Encyclopaedia Judaica cites three references that say that he was Jewish:

• D. Aubier, Don Quichotte, Prophète d'Israël? (1966; Sp. tr. completely revised, Don Quijote, profeta y cabalista [1981])
• A. Castro, Cervantes y los casticismos españoles (1966); D. Aubier, Don Quichotte, Prophète d'Israël? (1966; Sp. tr. completely revised, Don Quijote, profeta y cabalista [1981])
• L. Rodríguez, Don Miguel, judío de Cervantes (1978); idem, in: Magen/Escudo, 2. época, 73 (oct./dic., 1989), 29-39

Fringe theories unworthy of mentioning on Wikipedia are rarely given such credence by leading encyclopaedias.

Where have I cited Wikipedia mirrors?

As Mibelz added the names to the Sephardic list, he may well have more evidence. The best that can be said is that the case is not proved, and should be flagged as dubious. This was clear when these names were on the sub-list and it is unfortunate that the caveats were lost when they were moved back, but they can easily be restored.

The allegation of sockpuppetry against me is an irrelevance; it was dealt with over a year ago, and I was unblocked. RachelBrown never edited that list.-Newport 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a serious complaint and I escalated it to here because I didn't want to edit war with you. Shame on me for that. Look, you clearly took this way too personally and nobody is harassing you. I'm suprised you're jumping on me for "unilateraly moving" the List of German Jews when I ended up leaving it to your desired version in the end seeing as there was resistance. Yes, Mibelz added the names to List of Sephardic Jews but Mibelz isn't the one restoring them on List of Iberian Jews or List of Sephardic Jews. If he was, then he would be the one responding here. Fringe theories are any theories that are not held as mainstream truth, they don't have to be held by a tiny dismissive minority. I've already given a few examples of some above (global warming stance, time travel, etc). Each can be referenced by reliable researchers. The three citations you provided above are three of many that claim Cervantes had converso origin. But the truth is: "The thesis of Cervantes, the converso, has yet to gain a wide following among Cervantes scholars" -- Cervantes and His Postmodern Constituencies -by Anne J. Cruz. So it is still a fringe theory. There are also many different writings that Columbus was of some nationality or background, but why are you assuming the Jewish theory is the correct one when even the researcher you cite, Cecilia Roth, wrote that there's no way to confirm or deny that theory? If you weren't substantiating it as true, then you would take my advice and put this information on Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. This fringe theory is NOT unworthy of mentioning but we just have allocated articles for exactly where it should be mentioned. Much of it is already mentioned there anyway. That's all I'm saying. Mehmeda 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of having to move these already progressive conversations anywhere, can we just request someone from Third Opinion or Advocacy to comment here? Or, if necessary, we can copy and paste this into a Mediation Case, but to be totally honest, I don't know how those work or if they would even help. We need new perspectives on this. Mehmeda 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just clarify - what makes something cited by the Encyclopaedia Britannica a fringe theory as opposed to a legitimate minority opinion? And why is Anne J. Cruz so much more reliable than the otther sources? As I said, there were at one point clear caveats on these entries which have, unfortunately been lost - let's restore them and have done with it.--Newport 21:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica writes that a claim exists. That's a fact. It does exist. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't write that the claim is true. This is a legitimate minority opinion, which fringe theories can be. It's legitimate but you can't treat it like it's true. Every citation writes it as simply a possibility, and not a fact. You can find detractors from this theory quickly (just online in seconds I found, [17], [18], [19]). Nevermind the dozens of publications that can be found with different theories on their origins. The information you speak of, by the way, is probably still in the history of List of Iberian Jews if you want to get it. Mehmeda 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can't say only Anne J. Cruz is claiming the debate is still on. "The question of Cervantes’ converso lineage has been extensively debated since Américo Castro first elaborated the hypothesis in Cervantes y los casticis-mos españoles (Madrid: Alfaguara, 1966)" ([20] By the way, this is the same as one of the links above) and "speculation continues to this day on Cervantes's possible converso background." ([21]) It's just not an agreed fact. I have to go now, but we can continue this tomorrow. There's no edit war going on so we're in no rush. Mehmeda 21:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sooner this goes to mediation the better.--Runcorn 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the caveats. Case closed.--Runcorn 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop responding here as Ed and Runcorn are right and this probably isn't a case of Conflict of Interest. I wish there was a FringeTheory/MinorityView type noticeboard. This would fit there. Instead, I'll just write a few questions on TALK:List of Iberian Jews. So for whoever is interested, it's on there now. Mehmeda 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Silverlabrador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely for vandalizing Labrador Retriever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and their IP address has been range blocked for a while as well (the previous report on WP:ANI by FT2 is here).

Although they have discontinued attempting to change other people edits directly, they do still fill the talk page with claims that "anti-silver elitists" are oppressing "legitimate" silver breeders, that they have papers saying their dog's registered color is "silver," and so on. Their most recent argument is that the Labrador Retriever Club, which is the labrador parent organization for the American Kennel Club, is just a "club" even though they have continuously tried to use the AKC in their arguments. They have never provided any proof for their claims.

I probably shouldn't have continued replying to this person, though I did mention COI twice. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early today, another user,

• 7raptor7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to delete the info and add back the false information. Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 17:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this one (probably the same user) had gotten a clue and stopped by now, but no: still active with bombastic and threatening edit summaries. — Æ. ✉ 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this qualify for a checkuser? "Silverlabrador" was blocked indefinitely, and that person has already shown their IP address changes or can be changed often- if this person is the same, would it constitute as evading a block or similar? Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would constitute exactly that: evading a block. — Æ. ✉ 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 65.73.71.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = 7raptor7. — Æ. ✉ 01:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two contributors Jossi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have made a solemn promise during initiation not to reveal these meditation techniques. They say that the article violates WP:NOT for being an instruction manual because they include descriptions of the meditiation techniques that they deem as instructions. RFC has been filed and yielded supportive reactions for inclusions of the descriptions, but Momento keeps reverting. Andries 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have not reverted that article, rather made comments in talk presenting my viewpoint in this matter. So, please be accurate, if you could. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I write that? Where are my comments inaccurate? Andries 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also forget to mention that you have edit-warred in this article consistently. Just in the last 100 edits you reverted 7 times. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you keep on making the same arguments in spite of several reactions on the RFC contradicting your support for exclusion. Andries 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? As long as I have not edited the disputed material, I can make whatever comments that could be useful to the editors that are actively editing it. I have asked at least two of the RfC respondents to attempt to edit that specific section, See: diff and diff≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your support for removal of well-sourced relevant material is disruptive. Andries 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that my comments in talk are disruptive, you can then file a complaint at WP:ANI. My comments are all there in the history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best webpage at the present for this dispute. Andries 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I just find it very peculiar that you believe that engaging other editors in civil discussions, and asking non-involved editors to assist in bridging a content dispute is disruptive. Very peculiar, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give an analogy. When I support removing in the entry George W. Bush the statement that he is the president of the USA and ask other contributors civilly to re-write that statement then it is still disruptive. Andries 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting ident) While Momento (talk · contribs) and Jossi (talk · contribs) may have a favourable view of the subject, both have been courteous and flexible during my experience there as a third party. Jossi invited me to try and craft a compromise version after I responded to the RFC.[22] I provided my first draft of a suggested compromise to provide a description of the techniques while addressing the WP:NOT concerns, stored in a user subpage to avoid edit warring on the article.[23] Jossi expressed his support for this version.[24] Momento also endorsed the compromise, with a small reservation.[25] I made a minor edit to address that concern.[26] I feel that Momento and Jossi have both shown a willingness to be flexible on this issue. Additionally, Memento even pointed out that while practitioners are prohibited from revealing the techniques, they are not required to stop others from doing so.[27] On a final note, Andries (talk · contribs) has been sanctioned by ArbCom for his behaviour in pushing an "anti-Guru" POV recently. (Please reference here and here.) This should be considered when reviewing complaints by Andries on relevent topics. Vassyana 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no good reason to remove sourced material because the article has never violated WP:NOT ("instruction manual") and even never came close to violating WP:NOT. Andries 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As I said in Talk:Techniques of Knowledge#Comment from outside editors, I think that User:Momento has interpreted WP:NOT far more stringently than is usual, and wanted to reject as "instructions" some text that is nowhere near as instructional as many other articles that have never caused dispute on these grounds. Tearlach 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is not designed for content disputes. These are better addressed in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it does concern here when such disputes might impinge on conflict of interest - in this case, the possibility that a religious/contractual obligation might be influencing some editors' wish to exclude some information. Personally, I don't care either way if some religious group gets naked and worships turnips - but I do care if they try to to hide that information via WP:NOT by falsely hyping the idea that a description is "instructions" on how to do so. Tearlach 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Damone (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The greatest entertainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps replacing article content w/ copyvio material from band's MySpace page] after repeated warnings. (See Talk:Damone (band)#Conflict of interest edits.) User claims to represent the band (user page), speak for the record label (article edit history), and be a member of the band (WP email to me). Shows no awareness of or interest in WP copyright or COI policies, despite attempts to get them to review them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many things wrong with the article and with the situation. I sorted through a dozen or more templates and ended up choosing {{primarysources}}, {{copypaste}}, {{inappropriate tone}}, {{inappropriate person}}, and {{Essay-entry}} for starters. — Athænara ✉ 11:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the most important thing which allowed me to fix the problems instantly. Placed {{uw-copyright4}} on user's talk page. MER-C 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great fix. I didn't forget it. I didn't even think of it. — Æ. ✉ 12:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 88.77.84.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added it all back. — Æ. ✉ 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sign of our copyvio guys since 17 March, will close by end of the month if this remains to be true. MER-C 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formerthings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- editor adding links to Biblical site formerthings.com. --TedFrank 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Linksearch/formerthings.com. Reverted all the spam user added. MER-C 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jarrad Larmand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This was created and primarily edited by an account, Snatchingthepiano (Talk | Contribs), which has done nothing else on Wikipedia. There's no certainty that this is an autobiography, but it's possible.

Proposed for deletion as non-notable: no newspaper or book hits, handful of Google hits suggesting he's a non-notable student. Tearlach 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Deadline reached - it can be deleted now. Tearlach 10:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• David Westerfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm here, because I don't know where else to turn to. In a nutshell this user is simply problematic and his disruption to the David Westerfield article has got to stop. He contributes to no other article. He is constantly wanting edits that favor David Westerfield and his defense. The article has over 20 references even though the case was finished 4 years ago. He's been involved in the article since March 2006. I am constantly in revert wars with him. His new argument now is that this man did not have child pornography even though a jury convicted him on it. He strongly disagrees with it and wants to push that in the article. He wants the pornography section to include "allege" or "apparently" in describing the ages of the females depicted in Westerfield's images. He is never satisfied with the article. Currently I am trying to get the article unprotected. It has been protected 4 times by 4 different administrators. Please somebody intervene and cut his ability to edit the article. For I believe it is the only way for the article to have some peace. Fighting for Justice 06:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am constantly in revert wars with him

For which you were both blocked recently. [28] Unless 196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) is David Westerfield or someone with a personal/business involvement, biased editing doesn't come under conflict of interest. Tearlach 15:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that he IS David Westerfield's lawyer or a knows one of them. He certainly talks like one, is able to spout out dates of testimony and who made them. He can recite the numbers of the state exhibits. He can also be a relative of Westerfields', although he denies it and I'm sure he's fully aware that he won't edit the article should he admit such a thing. He is on a crusade to vindicate this guy and is using the article as a soapbox. If it doesn't fall under conflict of interest, then what does it fall under? It's gotta fall under something. Look at his contributions it is all about David Westerfield. He is here to abuse wikipedia not help it. If he wanted to help wikipedia he would contribute to other articles. Something has to be done with him. He has monopolized the article for a full year now, and all indications show he is going continue. This is highly unfair to people who do genuinely want to contribute. Fighting for Justice 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely, South African IP. However, that there is no RDNS sends up a red flag, which prevents this from being completely unrelated. MER-C 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange. Because I put the IP in here and the search indicates the IP comes from Los Angeles. Fighting for Justice 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends which whois you ask (I think it's one of those funny addresses that throw the system because they were allocated before the regional registries were formed). But that's by-the-by: "strongly suspect" isn't proof, and the problem with this article isn't provable COI but the edit war and the lack of emotionally uninvolved editors to enforce NPOV (hint: active hostility toward DW is just as much bias as active sympathy). Tearlach 15:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just what do you suggest should be done with 196.15.168.40? He's hijacked the article for a full year now, with no signs that he is going to stop. I would gladly leave the article alone so long as he does too. I guarantee if I left the article 196 would turn it into a sympathy article for DW. Fighting for Justice 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, the IP is likely to be an Open proxy. Listed on WP:OP. MER-C 06:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, does that mean he can be blocked? He's been doing nothing but abusing wikipedia. Using it to defend a convicted child-murderer. Fighting for Justice 06:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three (longer) unresolved discussions of the same problem in WP:BLP/N archives 2, 4 and 7. — Athænara ✉ 07:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but what do you want me to do? 196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) continually believes he is right and everyone is wrong. He's abused wikipedia because it's been a soapbox for him. He's always rehashing the same arguments. Fighting for Justice 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for five years as an open proxy. MER-C 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how is the blighter still posting? Tearlach 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The post was made in the early morning. The block occurred in the afternoon. Fighting for Justice 02:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Directnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A COI-obvious name created the article.
• 206.111.164.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Constantly 'tweaking' the page (with improperly formatted wikilinks etc) and other spam contributions made by Directnet user (cf. 19-inch rack) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was speedy-deleted as a G11 (spam) by User:W.marsh on 28 March. This follows a previous speedy deletion on 9 March. If the article is re-created yet again, someone should submit the user's name at WP:AIV. EdJohnston 19:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Commission (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) producing various unsourced articles about some football supporters club. Tearlach 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done via speedy delete as NN. Tearlach 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clouds Blur the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by BabyDweezil, an uncritical supporter of the individuals and groups criticized in this report, which I wrote. The same user, BabyDweezil, has a long history of personal attacks and repeated POV edits that demonstrate a clear conflict of interest. Some of the material being added is simply false, and based on the marginal and frequently distorted writings by members of a political cult similar to (and at one point connected to) the Lyndon LaRouche cult. Among the other pages subject to this type of editing by BabyDweezil are Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party, Social Therapy, International Workers Party. I understand that it is appropriate that critical opinions about the report Clouds Blur the Rainbow be included on its entry page, but what is happening here is wildly POV, unbalanced, and sometimes just false. It is time to consider banning BabyDweezil from editing any pages related to this cult, just as some pro-LaRouche editors have been banned for being unbable to abide by basic Wikipedia guidelines.--Cberlet 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chip, basic Wikicourtesy would dictate that you notify me of this noticeboard posting rather than (or at least in addition to) obliquely canvassing surefire supporters of the action.

That said, I challenge Cberlet or anyone else to point to anything in the above articles that is "wildly POV, unbalanced, or false." The fact is, these often contentious articles have been collaborative efforts between editors with different viewpoints, and the results have been a relative semblance of balance. It seems, historically, that Cberlet files protests such as this one precisely at those moments when his own demonstrably minority POV on the above subjects ceases to dominate. I won't waste the space here to document the reality of his POV being decidedly a minority one (not to mention likewise demonstrably riddled with bias and unprofessional research methodology) but would be happy to if needed. Nor do the claims of someone who consistently refers to editors with a different opinion than his own minority one as "cult apologists" "totalitarians" and "Orwellian sanitizers" and worse need a response re: "personal attacks."

The irony of Cberlet's posting this cannot go uncommented upon. Chip Berlet has been for a quarter century a paid propagandist for Political Research Associates, a thoroughly partisan organization that largely devotes itself to issuing attack reports against groups that do not fit its particular view of of the world, be they on the right or in some instances, as with those above, on the left. PRA specializes in labeling and guilt by association (as evidenced above by Berlet's Larouche-baiting, based on a brief relationship Newman had with the long since noxious Larouche 30 years ago). The notion that a paid partisan like Chip Berlet should remain able to run roughshod over countless articles with which he has a true conflict of interest AND attempt to ban(!!) points of view contrary to his own is simply too absurd to comment on beyond simply stating it. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with Chip, or Dennis King or others with clear COI's from being involved, in fact I welcome their input and--them being long-time spooks and all--value the resources they have filed away. Over and out-- BabyDweezil 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BabyDweezil has been indefinitely blocked. Tearlach 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties in this dispute have COI and this matter should be handled accordingly. Yakuman 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article vanity created by user MapText (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User responded to my original db-spam on the discussion page with an admission they are the company adding themselves. --Blowdart 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy Miah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was up for proposed deletion due to lack of sources. User:Andymiah, apparently the subject of the article, added large blocks of text detailing career accomplishments and expected future publications. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re-edited the article, removing a great deal of puffery. I have also explained to the ed. the need for 3rd party sources. DGG 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Warnborough College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Warnborough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 80.229.135.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The users above (or single user as may be the case) have shown a suspiciously keen interest in making sure Warnborough College's reputation is not harmed on Wikipedia.

Warnborough's user page talks in the first person as a representative of Warnborough College, and the IP 80.229.135.241 resolves to warnb0r0.plus.com (as do IPs 80.229.135.240 through 80.229.135.243). That IP is also shown as having made constructive edits to information about Warnborough College on Warnborough's user page. Indeed, my guess is that this IP has been static since at least Nov 14, 2004 when this user began to leave strongly opinionated comments about education (and never any other subject). To my knowledge, only corporate or educational IPs remain so static.

Paging through each user's history will reveal a rich tradition of blanking unfavorable comments regarding Warnborough College and engaging in spirited debate (rightly or wrongly) involving Warnborough College's reputation. You will also find numerous warnings on the talk pages for misbehavior on the Warnborough College page.

In short, I am suggesting that the users above may either be the same person or work together at Warnborough College, creating a strong conflict of interest when editing the article on Warnborough College or any other articles on education as has already been shown. --67.188.0.96 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed User:Warnborough, admits to it on his user page.
 Inconclusive on the IPs - 80.229.135.240/30 - no technical evidence found despite the suggestive RDNS. Google search turns up nothing, site is password protected. Belongs to a UK ISP. MER-C 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we request a checkuser to confirm that User:Warnborough and User:80.229.135.241 are one in the same? This may be helpful, as I can see this user earning himself an indefinite block at the rate he's going. --67.188.0.96 19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. MER-C 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued COI edits by user:Warnborough

• Warnborough (talk · contribs) continues to make improper edits to the Warnborough College page and responds to my allegations against
• 80.229.135.241 (talk · contribs) as if they were directed at him. This leaves me with little doubt that they are the same person. Regardless, user:Warnborough shows a clear conflict of interest on Warnborough College and by being a major contributor, calls the validity of the article into question. I am recommending that both users be indefinitely blocked from editing the Warnborough College article. Also, since this person insists on altering other users' comments on the talk page, despite the "last warning" on his talk page for doing exactly that, it may be neccessary to indefinitely block them from the talk page as well.

I want to be clear that I have no particular interest in Warnborough College, but the initial changes became known to me while watching the "recent changes" page. It is unfortunate that this user who might otherwise have valuable contributions to this article cannot control himself and edit within the Wikipedia guidelines and manual of style. --67.188.0.96 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he's been blocked for one week due to refactoring other's comments on talk pages. There is more to simple COI issues as I see. At this point, I suggest going above COI notice boards and issuing a request for comment on him instead once he returns to disrupt. --w^{L<speak·check>} 07:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Warnborough College still needs work, because it ought to say more about the school's lack of accreditation. A Google search for 'Warnborough College' turns up numerous unflattering results in the first page, some coming from the New York Times, none of them mentioned in the article. EdJohnston 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I haven't done any such research so far. My concerns so far have only involved these users' behavior: Warnborough (talk · contribs) and 80.229.135.241 (talk · contribs). Care to make some even-handed contributions to that article regarding accreditation? --67.188.0.96 10:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done as of five minutes ago. — Athænara ✉ 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• Beer rating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by Jalstromer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Beeradvocate.com owner Jason Alström), who has also left a message on my talk page about how "Beeradvocate has a few enemies... Beeradvocate should have its own page, we are not just a beer ratings website but a consumer group for beer.... there is a small group that are acting up now." //Orange Mike 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've nominated the article for speedy. Perhaps we should also investigate whether these editors are acting in concert. It seems that they may be competitors, sharing an article. How odd. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• Articles authored by SEO experts: Could someone please investigate the article behind this discussion? Thanks in advance. Feel free to reformat properly. --SpamWatcher 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. In fact, someone got Jimbowned because of this. The article got prodded. MER-C 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think MER-C is pointing out that Jimbo took action action against User:MyWikiBiz for doing a similar thing. After many adventures, MyWikiBiz is now banned from editing Wikipedia. The GMI article is indeed a problem, it reads like an advertisement. (I edited the heading above to use the 'coiwatch' template). The COI noticeboard ought to deal vigorously with this kind of issue. The GMI company appears to be notable enough to satisfy WP:CORP. So the next step is probably to edit the article to remove marketing fluff. If the conflicted editor objects, we could take it from there. EdJohnston 04:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "Is it okay for SEO experts to build wikipedia ads for their employers?" is No.

• Irishlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the SPA behind this one. Note: the {{prod}} was removed four days later. — Athænara ✉ 17:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{prod}} was removed by the editor who originally applied it, so his concerns were satisfied. There are a few things that need fixing here. One is the lead sentence, "GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.) develops integrated global market intelligence solutions for both market research firms and corporate market research departments." This ought to be converted from jargon into regular English. There's also many lists of offices and departments that are surely not notable for a 300-person company. Finally we should figure out if they develop software or not; in the fog of buzzwords the answer to that is not clear. EdJohnston 22:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per [29] I have nuked it. We simply cannot have advertorial written by SEOs masquerading as articles, WP:CSD#G11 applies. If anyone cares enough to write a neutral profile then they should feel free, but this was not one. It was a classic PR piece. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• David Ewing Duncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is an autobiography copied verbatim from the user's own site. However, there is no copyright notice on that page, so it isn't clear whether this is a copyvio. The article asserts notability, and has sources, but needs a rewrite. I've tagged it with the COI template. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All work, once generated, is copyright. There is no requirement to assert copyright on a work; it is automatically granted on the creator whether they want it or not. It can't even be disclaimed; just freely licensed or put into the public domain (also a free licence in effect). So if something is copied from somewhere else, it is a copyright violation until given a free licence.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, db-copyvio has been applied to the article. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

The HSMP article was hopelessly out of date when I re-wrote it to bring it up to date with current immigration law. HSMP is a points based method of UK immigration. A link was placed to an online assessment tool (HSMP points calculator) - this is based at my website and was the first to be updated when the new rules were announced, with many sites not updating their information for a month or longer. Using this requires no registration or personal details whatsoever. Some, and I mean only some, of the people that use this assessment tool will ask my company for an assessment, but we do not charge for this.

Access to the assessment tool, by way of the link previously placed, should be considered entirely relevant to the article and of use to those reading the article. I always ensure that this is kept up to date with changes in immigration law, therefore the link will continue to be correct and of use. This link is persistently being removed on the basis that there is an alleged conflict of interest. It appears that if a link was placed to anyone elses assessment tool then that would be ok, but as I wrote the article I should not have any link, regardless of how relevant or useful this is. The person removing the link would appear not to object to a link to an assessment tool but appears to strongly object to the link on the basis that it goes to an assessment tool on my site.

I would like someone to arbitrate on this and revert the article to include the link to the HSMP points calculator. My feeling is that this is a link which should be viewed as being relevant and useful and one that would be placed in any other circumstances. Spooky69 09:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the link to the article's talk page. Leave it there and let other readers decide whether to replace it at the article. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Miller (architect).

• William Miller (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Sole contribution of the subject of this autobiography, user Bill miller jervis bay (talk · contribs). — Athænara ✉ 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been nominated for AfD, but it really looks like a speedy candidate. I have also left a welcomespam message on the user's page. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left one on User talk:Davidewingduncan. User talk:Bill miller jervis bay is still a redlink as of this timestamp. — Athænara ✉ 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article, almost entirely the creation of Korotkikh, cites four published papers, all authored by, er, V. Korotkikh. I strongly suspect non-notability and CoI, but I'd appreciate some help on where to take this from here. Philip Trueman 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've {{prod}}'d it for a few reasons. IMHO that's a first step... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reverted other acts of self-promotion of this editor. [30] [31] — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've learned a lot from that. Philip Trueman 10:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]