Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 51

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Adam Leitman Bailey

Can someone more experienced look at this for me, an intern user:Internalb is editing the article in a promotional way along with five possible sockpuppets. TeapotgeorgeTalk 07:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Every single one of those editors has been blocked as a sockpuppet, the article is currently semi-protected to prevent new sockpuppets or IPs from arriving to continue the disruption, and cleanup of the article has begun, so I think this is resolved. -- Atama頭 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nationals Park

This IP made edits which were basically advertisements about the ballpark tours at Nationals Park [1]. The edit describes the tours as "the best" in Major League Baseball and links to information about tickets. I tried geolocating the IP and it locates to Washington DC (I put the coordinates in Google Earth and it went to the National Christmas Tree, which I somehow don't think is the case, but nonetheless it does go to DC which seems accurate). Seems to me like this is some Washington Nationals employee trying to advertise their tours. One more thing - the Nationals are on the road right now, meaning tours are the only thing going on at the ballpark. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, the COI is probable, but incidental. This is really just a spammer, and attempts to advertise should be reverted. If they had kept going I'd maybe block them briefly to get them to stop, but they only made a few edits over the course of an hour and I doubt we'll see them around again. -- Atama頭 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

KAYAK.com

Hi. Apologies in advance if this is not the right forum to bring this issue, but do appreciate any guidance you can provide on how to properly address my concerns. I am a KAYAK.com employee and have been monitoring the page and noticed that information on the page needs updating to reflect more accurate information now available in our S1 statement. Many news sources have been using our wiki page and reporting dated information that is no longer accurate. I wanted to be respectful to the community's COI values, so I posted a suggestions of factual updates I would make to the right hand summary info box on the entry's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kayak.com). However, there does not seem to be much if any editorial eyeballs on it. Is it possible to draw attention this page or make these changes myself?

I also would like to elaborate on KAYAK.com's revenue model and products in a more organized fashion on the main entry of the page, but wanted to find out the appropriate manner to proceed with all of this. Happy to elaborate or draw out all proposed changes in depth on request. Really appreciate your response and guidance.

Ehoa (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much ! I think it's OK for you to be be bold here and just make the changes, but if you get in a conflict just get administrator attention. Thanks. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 17:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to add a thank you for disclosing your connection to the subject and taking the initiative to bring the matter to this noticeboard. If you do run into conflicts, that will weigh heavily in your favor if anyone objects to the information you want to add. I will second the suggestion that you should feel free to take the bold step yourself to implement the changes, and if anyone does in fact object then invite them to discuss matters on the article's talk page. Either result would be progress. -- Atama頭 18:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pullman Memorial Universalist Church

Above user admits to being the current pastor of this church. The article in its current form is gigantic, weakly sourced, and full of inappropriate tone, NPOV violations and problematic assertions. I also suspect copyright violations, but haven't done the research yet. Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I left a message for the author on the talk page. It is huge which would usually suggest a copyright violation. Because the author was so forth-coming on the talk page, I'm going to try and help out as much as I can. My help may be misguided but it's refreshing to deal with a person with a COI who isn't combating the problem and seems to genuinely want to improve the product. OlYellerTalktome 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Nothing in the least misguided in what you're doing! Non-bitey, welcoming, but firm; just the way to do it. The pastor is forthright and straightforward; I just fear he(?) may be a little weak in understanding our rules about NPOV, sourcing and copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The editor's username is also against our policy (WP:ORGNAME) and I will recommend that they change it, but I don't think the matter even comes close to warranting a block in this case. -- Atama頭 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

David L. Gray

The aforementioned user created said articles. This blog entry appears on davidlgray.info under "A Commentary on the Spiritual Life with Yoseph Daviyd", and references Saudia Mills as a personal friend. going up a level, the blog top page says "Welcome to my blog on the spiritual life. Feel liberated to post comments and pass along what you like. I update the blog about three times a week and write new articles at my website http://www.davidlgray.info/ about twice a month. Enjoy your visit and please keep me in your prayers! For updates about the blog, articles, and etc., just follow me on Facebook and Twitter. Blessings and Shalom! David L. Gray, Yoseph M. Daviyd". Therefore, the article on Gray is self-authored COI, and the one on Mills is also COI. I have warned the user, but I also believe that prodding the articles for not meeting GNG might lead to recreation. A CSD and SALT, I think, would be in order. MSJapan (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Under what grounds would they be speedied? Neither one is unduly promotional (David L. Gray has some peacock language to clean up but even mentions his 6 year prison sentence), both articles do a credible job of asserting significance enough to avoid A7. We don't yet have speedy criteria for autobiographies or other articles created by people with a COI. If you feel that a proposed deletion will be contested, and still feel that the articles deserve deletion, your best (and probably only) bet is to take them to WP:AFD. At that point, if the discussions result in a decision to delete, recreations can be speedily deleted through G4 and salted if they are repeatedly recreated (though I don't see any reason to think they would be at this point). -- Atama頭 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
See, I would say A7 because they don't meet GNG. For example, Gray's article's sources are entirely from books written by Gray (some self-published) and "usage of personal knowledge" from the author, which is not acceptable. I have found a few mentions of Gray in Masonic circles, but he is no more noted than any other Masonic writer, most of whom don't meet GNG either. It's simply the nature of fraternal activities that they do not alone confer notability; otherwise we'd have Grand Masters who served for a year who were simple local businessmen having WP articles, and that just makes no sense.
Mills' one claim to notability might be the show appearance, but according to the show's article, she was eliminated the week she appeared, and was an extra in all the other films listed. So I don't think she makes it, honestly.
So basically, there's a person with personal enough knowledge about these people to be friends with one of them and host a blog on the site of the other, who has professional photos of them he claims as his own work, and is writing articles about people who don't meet the GNG. I'd also note that a Google Books hit basically says one is the other [2], and I therefore have a serious issue with this user trying to pretend he's not this person and claim that he's writing from an NPOV position. So aside from a deletion item, the COI needs to be dealt with as well. MSJapan (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A7 has nothing to do with GNG. As it states on the policy page:

"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines."

The emphasis and wikilink aren't mine, they are in the policy itself. Furthermore, the footnote for the A7 criterion states:

"It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article falls below the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied."

Again, the emphasis and linking are preserved from the policy. Now, the COI is another issue. The editor's actions seem to suggest an intention to promote these people, so they are worth a review. I'll invite the editor to comment at this board, which we normally recommend anyway. -- Atama頭 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we're going to get into semantics regarding CSD, so it's probably not an avenue worth pursuing. The below comments have shed some light on what is probably just a "series of unfortunate events", and at least the editor is willing to learn and be guided. I think we can make some headway, though I can't say at this juncture that that headway will lead to an article that meets GNG or the relevant specific notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ I am yosephdaviyd (a chosen handle for this wiki thing I wanted to do - sorry it is associated with my first file. I should have chosen barakobama I guess? How is one suppose to anonymous if their names are challenged?) - I am very new here. Had a discussion with MPJapan about the articles. I am in the process of adding citations right now, and removing what can't be cited in reliable sources. Before I untook my first wiki entries I research the COI and NPV and felt comfortable, even though I know the individuals that I am at the degree of friends with them to create a COI. As a Freemason I know 'Gray' the subject I write about - have read his books, was in his district were he worked, have listened to his lectures, but NOT friends other than facebook, but yes friends is a subjective word - though AGAIN I am comfortable to have a NPV there. Concerning 'Mill's', AGAIN, know of from High School, so I do have to remove the part about working in a factory - how esle would I know that than a Youtube video, but other than facebook, we are not friends as subjective as that word is. That she was on a reality show I thought she was notable. Same with Gray, author, speaker, television, radio, his work is cited by authors up and down that field. In closing, I am not so attached to any of these files that I will miss them, but they are my first and I am learning as I go - I appreciate your patience. This will help me in the future if I think it's worth the bother now. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs) 23:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ Moreover, I can't help who I write about adds an OPENSOURCE bio to their website. Who would do that anyway? Unless they don't care who edits it. I thought that was strange, but the guy must google himself daily. But that is the risk he takes, and it's does rise to the level of collusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs) 23:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

+++ Lastly, he is Yoseph M. Daviyd - my handle is yosephdaviyd - NO "M". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosesphdaviyd (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that you aren't Yoseph Daviyd? That you only picked the person's name because you liked it? If so, you should probably change it, per WP:REALNAME, "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." -- Atama頭 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I am neither David L. Gray (Yoseph M. Daviyd) or Saudia Mills or any other person I will write about. Joseph David in Hebrew is Yoseph or Yosef Daviyd that's all, and Joseph David is much related to my actual name. Do you recommend that I delete the account and register new?--Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My username currently is Yosesphdaviyd not yosephdaviyd - it's not the same if you actually look at it - there is 's' BEFORE the 'p'. --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, in my judgement I'd leave it up to you. I don't think it's close enough that you have to change it, you're right that it's not the same (I did miss that extra S as well, you're right). You might want to change it to avoid other people getting confused and assuming you are the same Daviyd mentioned on Gray's web site, but it's also possible that it won't ever come up again. If you really like the name, go ahead and keep it. You might want to consider putting a disclaimer on your user page to state that you aren't Yoseph M. Daviyd, but again I'll just leave it up to you.
To get back to the COI question, if you do know the two people in question (Gray and Mills) you might want to at least have caution when editing articles about them or mentioning them. Mills, in particular, if you know her from high school, you could be considered to possibly have a conflict of interest. All that really means is that you should try to avoid any appearance that you are promoting them, and if anyone has concerns about contributions related to them, give the concerns some due consideration. But we don't forbid your editing about them. There a few subjects I might have a weak COI with, my employer has an article and I've never touched it, and Blaze Starr is a distant relative of mine (she is a cousin of my deceased grandfather) and I choose to avoid such subjects just in case, but that's a personal choice. Anyway, MSJapan was the person who opened this conversation and so I'll wait for any other concerns to be raised. -- Atama頭 00:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A.K.O.O Clothing

Recently, Akoo Clothing Brand (talk · contribs) made a large addition to the article. I reverted the edit and the user was blocked because of their username. Today, a new account posted the exact same information to the article. It should be obvious but the user has a COI and they're more than just a fan (I can say more but don't want to out them). I'm somewhat busy with some other articles and was wondering if someone can help out. I think the user is earnestly attempting to improve the article and I have seen no reason to think that there will be problems. Their addition also seems to be very well formatted for a first time user so it shouldn't be too difficult to handle if you're new to COIs and want to help out. OlYellerTalktome 22:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No time to look into this further right this moment, but I'd like to point out that the creation of a new account is not only allowed, but in this case it is officially encouraged, because the previous block was only for the username and not for any behavioral problems. If the editor needs assistance later I'll see what I can do. -- Atama頭 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I'm not suggesting that there's a strong COI here; quite the contrary. If I had enough time, I'd help improve the article with the new editor but as I have a finite amount of time to edit and have promised myself to other areas, I don't' think it's responsible for me to promise/dedicate myself to helping in this situation. While the editor hasn't shown that he wants to do anything that's contrary to WP's goals, he works for the company and I think that attention should be paid to the changes made in the article. OlYellerTalktome 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebel Wilson

I added to the Rebel Wilson article the fact that she is endorsing Jenny Craig. This info was removed by an IP who signed their edit summary with the word "MANAGEMENT". I note that this IP has previously edited the page. Also, the fact that Wilson is Christian has been removed by another IP. It appears to me that Rebel Wilson and/or her management are exercising some type of editorial control over her biography. I request that my original edit stay in the article, but there is a more general problem here of conflict-of-interest, censorship and WP:OWN by the subject herself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to reinsert the material just yet, but I will suggest that the phrase "is overweight" is not necessary to the sentence you've added. If she's endorsing Jenny Craig, I think it's implied. Dayewalker (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not too precious about keeping the 'overweight' part - that's just to put the endorsement in context. However, I don't think that anything should be "implied" on Wikipedia. We either say it or we don't say it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Dealing with COI IPs is always hard. With registered accounts you can leave a note on the person's talk page, or invite them to discuss matters at the article's talk page, etc. With IPs, you can try to contact the IP directly but if it's dynamic it's like trying to call someone up who keeps changing their phone number on a daily basis. In this case, 76.169.139.43 has held steady for 4 days, but for two months prior they edited as 76.169.137.168. And I'm guessing from an IP geolocation and the nature of their edits, 99.66.155.198 and 198.228.215.124 are also from Rebel Wilson's management. (The other IPs I checked trace back to Australia, not LA as the management IPs do.) You might just have to deal with the IP edits on their own merits. I don't think the frequency of disruption on the user page warrants semi-protection, and the edits from other IPs on the page have been constructive. -- Atama頭 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I thought as well. I am frustrated by her management/her having such influence over her biography. Note that she probably has representation both in the US and Australia, and may well be editing herself. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Gihan Sami Soliman

This editor (and quite possibly the same as User:dove.eyes) has created an extensive autobiographical article that clearly contains a lot of material that is not NPOV. External links are repeatedly added within the article text to author's own websites. I have asked her repeatedly, in both edit summaries and via talk page messages, to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines on COI, autobiographies, reliable references, and external links. She continues to undo these changes and add the information and external links back to this and other articles that she is creating/editing that all represent a COI. The article is currently at AfD, but the author has so far chosen to continue these editing behaviors. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be using multiple accounts - 'dove.eye' is another one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be getting out of hand. The article was looking good despite not establishing notability until it was rightfully nominated for an AfD. Since then, the subject of the article has been adding in several links to self-published information that wouldn't establish notability. I've asked them on their talk page to discontinue editing so we'll see what happens. They claim to be an English consultant but their English doesn't seem great (that may just be their written English) so I'm not sure how much is getting through to them. OlYellerTalktome 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The editor has agreed to no longer edit the article. OlYellerTalktome 22:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, she resumed editing it again. Hmmmphh. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to post this here. I asked them to stop, they agreed, and have since ignored my messages here on their talk page. Last night she left a message on the talk page of the article about her. It seemed like she understood the guidelines then immediately started talking about supporting her cause. It's obviously a COI, that she's here with an agenda, and that she isn't going to stop editing the article even when asked to. On one hand, I suggest a block but on the other hand, the article is going to be deleted soon anyway. The real issue is with the related articles that she's editing at Ahmed Abdel Azeem and Port Said American School. I no longer see how a block can be avoided with such a blatant disregard for of WP:COI and the requests of other editors. OlYellerTalktome 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. She also added more external links to the article today, then claimed "she didn't know better." That is certainly not true. She had been warned MANY times about this, even at the beginning of this AfD. She cannot grasp the COI issues with this article and the others you mentioned. At this point, further disregard for Wikipedia policies should be treated like vandalism, IMHO. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 21:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
She's socking the AfD now. She mistakenly replied as another SPA user then tried to remove the comment after sinebot signed for her. I'm going to initiate an SPI. Lots of people have been jumping through hoops to help her with the article and understand WP policies and guidelines and I think this is way out of line. OlYellerTalktome 14:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
SPI can be found here. OlYellerTalktome 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The SPI has concluded and Doveye71 has been blocked for 48 hours and her socks have been indefinitely blocked. The article was deleted this morning at the conclusion of the AfD. I'm hoping this issue just goes away but I'll keep an eye on things. OlYellerTalktome 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Raj Reddy and User:Srinimisha

User:Srinimisha admitted that he is employed by Raj Reddy to edit Reddy's Wikipedia page. I have warned him multiple times, but he keeps introducing the same promotional, unsourced, material, removing maintenance templates, and refusing to discuss the problem. What should I do? --Muhandes (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 48 hours for edit warring, and given further warnings on promotion and conflict of interest. I will be willing to consider whether any further steps are needed if the problem continues. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Academia

Resolved
 – There seems to be consensus that the editing in question does not constitute a conflict of interest. MastCell Talk 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is a general article about insititutions concerned with acquiring and promulgating knowledge from ancient antiquity to present times. Miradre (talk · contribs) has suggested that, because he suspects Itsmejudith and me of being employed within academia, this creates a conflict of interest in editing this particular article. Was it appropriate for Miradre to raise such objections? Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an incorrect and false description. I have certainly not stated that academics cannot edit that article. Rather, I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group (compare COI for organizations) and/or their employer. Such as this well-sourced material User:Miradre/sandbox everything of which they want to exclude. (Obviously, I have no objections regarding academics editing their area of academic expertise.) Anyway, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing or made any complaint regarding this..Miradre (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Some diffs. [3][4] [5] [6] Edits of this kind create a toxic editing environment. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, I just raised this point for consideration and discussion, I have not stated that this definitively precludes editing (as I see it not all COI prevents editing) or made any complaint regarding this. I asked if there may be a WP:COI, not that there is one that prevents editing, as well as asked if you are an academic (obviously no issue at all if you are not).Miradre (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
What business is it of yours who my employer is? Your questions are obnoxious and prying. Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:COI (My bolding): "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty." Miradre (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom is fully aware who I am because of recent outing problems. You have made an incorrect assumption about me and my employer (if you were reading about my wikipedia account on Stormfront, the information there is wrong). As far as the message above goes, please read WP:DTTR. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I asked if you was an academic since, as I stated at the time, you describe yourself as a "professional pure mathematician". If you are not an academic, then obviously there is no possible COI regarding this for you.Miradre (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've told you that your double guessing about my employer is flawed. It is also against wikipedia policy. Some people would call anybody with a PhD an academic. Given that, don't you think it's about time to call an end to your failed attempt to WP:GAME the system? I'll give you two marks out of ten for determination with one mark subtracted for poor presentation. Class dismissed! Mathsci (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The suggestion implicit in "since you yourself are an academic, may there be a WP:COI here?"first diff above (that an academic may have a COI when editing Academia) is a total misunderstanding of WP:COI, or is an attempt to use any available technique in a disagreement. The text quoted above ending with "appreciate your honesty" is again misguided or indicative of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You misrepresent me. I have never claimed that simply editing the academia article is COI. Read above. Neither have I claimed that a COI would definitely prevent editing or made such a complaint. But at least a possible COI is useful to know for everyone involved and the policy encourages such a disclosure.Miradre (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
So when you suggest that an academic may have a WP:COI on the talk page of an article, you don't mean it? Again, there is a total misunderstanding of WP:COI, or a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Johnuniq (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no COI for most material in the Academia article. I have certainly not stated that academics cannot edit the Academia article at all. Rather, I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group (compare COI for organizations) and/or their employer. Such as this well-sourced material: User:Miradre/sandbox. Miradre (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No, there is no COI for an academic if they delete cherry-picked undue material from an article on academia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not "cherry-picked" and if it was then that is a reason for adding more balancing material but it is not a reason for deletion. If editing (and in particular completely deleting all the material) was a COI was the issue I wanted to discuss. Miradre (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it OK for academics to edit the article Academia? Someone has suggested that I have a conflict of interest because I am an academic. How about all the articles in the scope of WikiProject Universities? And membership of that WikiProject? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See the section above with exactly the same name.Miradre (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I shall see it. I have asked some further questions here. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just merged this section with the previous one. Hope this is OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Mathsci (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything that would properly be described as a conflict of interest here, as Wikipedia defines the term. Incidentally, one of the hallmarks of COI editing is "a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." In that light, does an extensive rehash of 21st-century American conservative criticisms of U.S. academia belong in a general article on academia? Shoehorning that material into the general article seems to suggest the sort of myopia alluded to in WP:COI. I mean, since we're here. MastCell Talk 19:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a notable debate in academic sources, major newspapers, and notable non-fiction books. Are you suggesting that these are not acceptable references for Wikipedia? Miradre (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Since we're here, I suggested early on that some of it could go into Higher education in the United States. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Before this moves further from the topic note that the issue is discussed here: Talk:Academia Miradre (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed this discussion, and first I want to point out -- whoever is bringing something to COIN, should ideally do a more diligent job of exposing what the debate is about. Please note that there has been very little input from uninvolved editors here; I'd suggest that simply including a diff in the initial posting (like this one, which shows the bulk of the content Miradre added) would make it much easier for others to weigh in.

On the content itself: it appears to me that this substantial content addition is going into the wrong article (though a summary or brief treatment of this topic may be appropriate to Academia); and that regardless of where it is added, it's a delicate subject that should ideally be discussed in some depth as the content is developed.

The accusation of a conflict of interest appears wholly without merit. Furthermore, this this by Miradre seems like an ill-advised step (see the warning at the top of this editing window about the harassment policy superseding the COI guideline). To make such a spurious accusation of COI strikes me as a deeply anti-collaborative step to take; better to address the merits of your fellow editors' arguments, than to question the legitimacy of their participation. I think this situation could benefit from some kind of intervention or informal mediation, but the COI noticeboard isn't the right venue. -Pete (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything I added is here User:Miradre/sandbox or here if you prefer a diff: [7]. This version is in all aspects a better version. Regarding WP:COI we obviously have it for a reason. I am pretty sure academics can have COI issues just like everyone else. If nothing else declaring a possible COI is encouraged. As already stated, I took up the issue for discussion. But I have never stated that this prevented anyone from editing or made any complaint.Miradre (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Miradre, you are responding here to accusations I did not make. My first paragraph, above, was not addressed to you, but to MathSci (the person who brought the complaint to COIN). I was merely making a practical suggestion to him/her, about setting up a discussion like this for more participation, not implicating anybody for failing to disclose anything. I've reread my post, and think I was pretty clear; your reaction seems out of proportion with what I said.
Regarding your last point, that you merely "took up the issue for discussion," I think Atama addresses it well below. In my view, there is nothing "mere" about "bringing it up" four times in rapid succession. -Pete (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
See below for 4 times accusation.Miradre (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
For Miradre, two things. First, does being an "academic" (which is such a broad term that it's almost meaningless as a label) mean that someone has a COI at the academia article? Essentially, is a person employed in a particular field considered to have a COI when editing an article about or related to that field? The answer to that question is an unambiguous no. This is very clearly covered in our conflict of interest guideline where it states, with no ambiguity, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." Aside from the official guideline, though, it would be absurd to suggest there could be. If Wikipedia actually discouraged professionals from editing articles that fall under their area of expertise, then Wikipedia would be a joke. You want to encourage experts when you can, as long as those experts are willing and able to follow our guidelines and policies in the process (since self-promotion or the advancement of pet theories, biases, or grudges are plausible for such persons). But again, it's not a COI to be a professional in the topic area and you should know that just by reading our guideline.
The other issue is whether or not we can ask people if they have a COI or have a particular employer. If you have a justification for suspecting that a person does, because of that person's actions or other on-wiki information, you most certainly are allowed to ask, respectfully. And if the person declines to answer, or gives an answer you don't like, you need to accept it. Asking it once is reasonable, asking 4 times is harassment. I hope you won't repeat that behavior any further. -- Atama頭 21:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." True, as I stated above. However, this is of course not the same as meaning that all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia. Regarding asking if Mathsci was an academic I think I did it only once.Miradre (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Then you think wrong. MathSci listed four diffs above. -Pete (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
First diff is not a reply to MathSci. Second and fourth are not questions. Only the third is question which I never repeated.Miradre (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
"However, this is of course not the same as meaning that all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia." That makes no sense to me, did that make sense to anyone else? That seems like a non sequitur to me, and seems to have nothing to do with conflicts of interest, or anything you have previously said on this board. You said, "I asked them to consider if there may be a COI when academics edit (and in particular want to completely delete) material that are criticisms and or otherwise may have negative implications for them as a group". That has nothing to do with whether or not "all academics are academic experts about the political views of the academia". And it doesn't matter if your statements are in the form of a question (this isn't Jeopardy!), just bringing up the fact that you suspect that a person has a COI on a talk page where the person is actively participating counts at least as an implicit question. And yes, there were 4 diffs there showing you doing exactly that. So all I'm saying on that matter is two things; drop it so that you can avoid sanctions for harassment (which I hope you've done by now) and as a general piece of advice, just ask someone and accept the answer or lack of an answer. -- Atama頭 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, the basic misunderstanding is that not all academics are academic experts about the academia. The rule you cited only applies to that area of expertise. To make it clearer, one of my sources implies that there may be massive discrimination against women, practising Christian, and conservative academics. This a potentially gigantic problems for the academic institutions (lawsuits and so on) that employ academics. Not to mention to the academics that may have been discriminated (or reversely gained unfairly). Academics are not free from potential COI regarding their employment or employers just because they are academics and have academic expertise in one particular academic area. I only asked once and I repeat that only took this matter up for discussion and never claimed that someone could not edit the article or made no complaint here. I do not plan to do so in the future. Hopefully this will finish the matter.Miradre (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
How is this in any way relevant to me? Here is the relevant sequence of diffs from Talk:Academia and here. [8][9] [10][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Miradre apparently felt justified in making these comments and inferences because of what was written on my user page. Once I had refused to comment, Miradre should have dropped it. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You opened a complaint here and expect me to not defend myself and explain my edits? You cite my explanations of my earlier edits on this page as evidence? Mathsci, for the last 4 days you done little except followed me around Wikipedia, including to articles you have never edited before, made complaints and reverted my edits, and made complaints to several different noticeboards. Stop the harassment. Miradre (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
"Academics are not free from potential COI regarding their employment or employers just because they are academics and have academic expertise in one particular academic area." Anyone, academic or not, would normally be considered to have a COI if they edit an article related to their employer. Editing related to their employment (i.e. the reason they are employed, as in their field) is not a COI. For example, if an MD made a change to the physician article that removed information from the "Physicians' own health" section that said that "doctors make the worst patients", that's not a COI. Any benefit that the MD could personally receive from such an action is so remote that the accusation of COI is pretty far-fetched. Nor do we consider zookeepers to have a COI at articles about zoos in general, unless the zookeeper was editing related to their particular zoo. I want to make sure you understand this, because your statements in the past at the very least suggest a far stricter standard for determining COI than our guidelines suggest, to the extent of bothering at least one editor through repeated insinuations. I know you didn't suggest any sanctions against Mathsci, and in turn I'm not suggesting any against you, but I would really like to make sure we're clear so that you can avoid similar unnecessary disputes in the future. -- Atama頭 00:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. As I said I raised the issue for discussion. Also for clarifying the situation. Thanks for clarifying.Miradre (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Mathsci, you opened the discussion, are you satisfied at this point? Miradre isn't going to pester you and I think the subject has been beaten up as much as it can be without getting repetitive. Multiple people in this thread (not just me) have confirmed that there shouldn't be any COI in regards to your edits to Academia so I'd say your question has been answered. -- Atama頭 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks. I had already prepared a response, so here is a slighty edited version. Miradre has already been warned by an adminstrator (Atama) to stop harrassing me. Another administrator (MastCell) has explained to Miradre that her claims of COI are without any merit. On WP:ANI, on ArbCom case pages or indeed anywhere on wikipedia, user conduct is subject to scrutiny. Miradre should take stock of what has been said here and move on. That includes ceasing to make bad faith statements about experienced editors in similar circumstances. Miradre's claims of COI prompted me and later Itsmejudith separately and indepedently to open queries at this noticeboard, which I later merged. We were the victims and Miradre would do well to remember that. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Strange as it may seem, I think everybody in this discussion is in agreement on the one point relevant to this noticeboard: there is no actionable COI. I agree that we should consider this matter closed. -Pete (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Requested edits

Can we get more editors watching Category:Requested edits please? There's some requests that have been sitting there for months... We ask them to use Template:Request edit and get them to jump through all these hoops and when they do and do their best to follow all our rules and their request just sits there without a response, I'm sure it must be very frustrating for them. I'm totally opposed to promotional editing, but I believe we should be as accommodating as possible when they do follow our guidelines to the letter. -- Ϫ 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like maybe someone work has been done today (not many requests left). I removed two that no longer applied but Product Red needs help. At least two editors have repeatedly requested edits and it looks like they've gone ahead and made a few. If anyone goes there to help, I ask that you not template the page with {{COI}}. The editors who have identified themselves as being "from" RED have been very forthcoming and requested changes be made several times so tagging the page now would be a slap in the face, in my opinion.
I never realized requests sometimes took so long to fulfill. I'll keep an eye on that category from now on. I'll try to work on the RED page when I get time but it might be a little while as I've promised my help to some other pages. OlYellerTalktome 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A publishing company seems to have own account

I came upon Stefan Tegenfalk while new page patrolling. It was a page about an author. It was originally written by Massolitpublishing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Quite obviously, I have concerns about a new editor/editors not understanding Wikipedia policy. I will leave a message on the user talk page after I finish writing this, but request assistance in dealing with this situation. --I dream of horses (T) @ 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. The user seems to be blocked, now. I dream of horses (T) @ 15:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Exhibition drill

User:Jkmarshall001 inserted the following text, among other things, into the listed articles; the text appears to be conflict of interest at worst, and promotional in nature at best: *John K. Marshall [16] developed and published a complete system (see both, The World Drill Association Adjudication Manual and Rule Book and Continuing Education for the Visual Adjudicator) for judging military drill competitions in 2009. The system can be used for all phases of a drill meet (XD, RD GC and honor guard), as of 2011 is currently used for some XD-only competitions including those hosted by the Exhibition Drill Competition Association [17]. This system was derived from Marshall's extensive work in judging, teaching and/or performing with sister pageantry arts (indoor color guard and percussion, marching band/drum corps and military drill teams) around the world for more than 20 years. While this system is new and not widely used, it is the standard when judging a visual-based performance. -199.173.225.33 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, you're not being ignored here, I read this before and looked at the editor's talk page and have some concerns but I won't be able to address anything now, if anyone else wants to jump on it feel free. -- Atama頭 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
So to follow up... Exhibition drill doesn't seem to have anything self-promotional from Marshall, his involvement at that article is primarily to try to redirect it. I did find that self-promotional material was added to the other two, and cleaned it out from Drill team (it was already removed from New Mexico Military Institute). I left the editor a notice about this noticeboard message and a warning about WP:COI and WP:SPAM. -- Atama頭 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter De Brouwer

This series of SPA edits replicates earlier COI edits made by SPA User:Asterysk and reverted after an earlier COI/N. Jokestress (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have taken this to WP:SPI but it's so obvious that it's not worth the effort. Per WP:DUCK these are the same people. Asterysk was reverted in their efforts to change the article, and made appeals to other editors for assistance, but kept receiving the same (correct) advice about following our policies and guidelines, and attempting to use the talk page to work out the dispute rather than repeatedly attempting to change the main page. And so Asterysk completely stopped editing, and Lavidat8 began editing the same article in the same manner, apparently to try to evade scrutiny, since the COI was established for Asterysk. Obviously that attempt was a failure. I've blocked Lavidat8 indefinitely, and blocked Asterysk for a week (I don't feel that these actions warrant an indefinite block). At the expiration of the week I hope that Asterysk begins taking the advice of other editors. -- Atama頭 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maynilad Water Services Inc

Resolved
 – See below. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

MWSI CC (talk · contribs), clearly a representative of the company, is repeatedly removing my coi template, despite a request not to do so. They have also made a large number of edits to the article which show a conflict of interest. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That article is a monumental spamfest and I have tagged it for deletion as such. I have also reported the user name to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It's also a copyvio and I tagged it as such. I'd like to add to the report that two other accounts (Wicko665 (talk · contribs) and Boogyboy1978 (talk · contribs)) edited the article and are most likely puppets of some variety. OlYellerTalktome 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Editor is blocked. Article was deleted. Unless they pop back up again, this issue seems to be solved. OlYellerTalktome 18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Joe Mantello and about 40 others

User adding WP:REFSPAM and internal links to BOMB Magazine. The material added typically describes an interview with the spammed article's subject and is cited to a BOMB article written by Jenefer Shute. User sometimes comes back later to add an external link as well. User page states they are an intern for BOMB. --CliffC (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Karen Gibson Roc

User is working on what appears to be an autobiography. I've added COI, REF and notability tags to the article which were removed. I probably should have taken it to talk but since it's a COI matter first and foremost I figured I'd get it here and I will bring up those issues on the talk page when this issue is dealt with (either by block or not, I'm not sure what COI protocol is) I also left COI info on her talk page. Noformation Talk 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

User is attempting to remove maintenance templates and add a discogs link for purchasing albums. They're currently on L3 warning for maintenance tag removal. Most disconcertingly, the last time the user removed the templates, they claimed that the issues had been solved when they obviously had not been (falsified an edit summary to remove a COI tag from their autobiography). OlYellerTalktome 18:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Issued a L4 warning. The editor made a statement in the last edit summary that, "Changes will no longer be made with this account, all changes have been made to adhere to the guidelines of wikipedia, all information included in this article are verifiable, therefore we have removed the alerts, thank you". I've replaced the BLPRefImprove template and Notability template until those issues can be addressed. I've also left the COI template on the article until the subject is no longer editing the page. OlYellerTalktome 18:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that half those templates were unwarranted.
When we're dealing with brand-new editors like this, it's sometimes useful to remember that WP:There is no deadline—not even for putting maintenance templates on an article. New editors often have a short attention span. We can slow and often stop edit warring over maintenance templates merely by waiting until the next day to restore them (and, of course, only restoring the ones that are still relevant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Eva Zeisel

Pretty obvious. I doubt this is actually Eva Zeisel (who is 104 years old), though it would be pretty cool if she's online (she is still designing.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the user to confirm whether or not they are indeed Eva Zeisel. – ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's pretty obvious that the user has a connection to the subject, but can you show me the user obviously hurting Wikipedia to promote an outside interest? That's necessary to have an actual COI violation. The couple of diffs I looked at show factual corrections, copyediting, and removing information about her current line (which is the opposite of promotional behavior). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ZenQuest Martial Arts Center

Although this article seems to be well written, the primary editor on it even admited to, "creating a page for my dojo." I'm not an expert on this sort of thing but the page seems to be violating the WP:NPOV, notability and advertising policies.(Justinsane15 (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

Some observations... First, you were correct to bring this matter to this noticeboard, this is a clear conflict of interest and there certainly have been problems with the article due to that COI as you stated. However, the article is also fairly well-written as you said. The article's creator self-disclosed the COI in the article's creation, which we encourage. The editor in question (3family6) is a prolific and experienced Wikipedia editor, with a number of acknowledgements and awards from his contributions. Ukexpat has made a good start in cleaning up some of the biggest problems with the article, though more attention is probably needed (I might have a stab at it myself). I've reminded 3family6 of our COI guideline and notified him of this noticeboard report. -- Atama頭 19:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if someone did go over the article. When it was reviewed there was some mention of promo-like material, and I fixed some of it, and Ukexpat did further work on it, I realize that there could easily be more COI problems. I am fully that my relationship with the subject makes it difficult to notice NPOV issues and the like (and I've noticed that I tend to promote whatever subject I'm doing on Wikipedia, no matter my affiliation), so I would actually appreciate it if the article was looked over.--3family6 (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I took a quick look, and I saw no major problems. You may have to deal with the occasional person who mistakenly believes that any page on a business that isn't packed with criticism and lists of lawsuits is "promotional", but I think you're in pretty good shape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, good. Thank you!--3family6 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Ebeling

The biography article appears to be mostly being edited by the article's subject. I'm not sure how much inappropriate stuff is in the text of the article, but the writings seem to be pretty radically over-linked. I'd rather avoid working directly on the article because it might be perceived as part of mainstream-vs-mainstream mainstream-vs-Austrian economist conflict. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a huge list of publications from the article per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The article suffers from the classic problem of autobiographies at the moment, where almost nothing is reliably sourced and is therefore unverifiable even if it is probably true. I can't search extensively at the moment to find sources, but unless some can be found to confirm what has been written, someone will need to severely trim back the article to make it compliant with our policy on biographies. SmartSE (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Miracle Mineral Supplement

One or both of these editors appears to be the author of a book on this subject - see the discussion on the article talk page. DataBishop has been heavily editing the article.Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DataBishop has repeatedly claimed to be Jim Humble who invented this cure all. Although they have edited the article they are quickly reverted as their edits are so clearly not NPOV, so there is no problem with the article. The talk pages of the users linked though are almost certainly problematic and IMO are not much to do with improving the project. Should we remove the interview style parts from the talk pages? SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that's partly my fault for "playing his game".. I have been investigating this scam for almost 2 years now and my personal opinion is that it is better to address his bullshot head on rather then to just delete it. Deleting it is just more ammunition to his "trying to silence me" conspiracy theory. I know in a lot, maybe even most cases, it won't matter if you delete it or not, the conspiracy nuts will believe it anyway, but if it makes a difference in even just a FEW cases, if we can show up Jim for the ignoramus scammer he is, then it's worth it, in my opinion. If however the consensus here is that the user talk pages are not a "battle ground" and should just be deleted, then I have no problem with that. Vespine (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Smartse that the DB's talk page is problematic. Even if his contributions to the article are reverted immediately, I still don't think he should be editing the article (MMS) at all. His additions are obviously opinion and not encyclopedic in any way. He treats the page like a blog not an encyclopedia page. Bialy Goethe (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

COI on astrology pages

Robertcurrey is an editor who identified himself as being the subject of this article: Robert Currey, see Talk. So off-wiki information can be considered for COI questions. I came across this Facebook page: [18] , where he is asking for "help" and for people who know their way around the WP rules. This suggests a COI, and sounds like a "righting a great wrong" type of mission. Robertcurrey was already mentioned in the context of a previous astrology banning in March: [19].
When I tagged the Robert Currey article recently, two editors who never worked on the page before came out to remove the tag without addressing the problems on the page. This were Zachariel and Aquirata, an editor who was also involved in the same March bannings. Just see recent history on Robert Currey
Zachariel is making edits which almost invariably bring in references to skyscript.co.uk website. You can try to count them in Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer), a page he edited extensively and is now awaiting peer review. On the Algol page, Robertcurrey and Zachariel took turns to revert my edits that brought the article back to normal format for an astronomy page, even after several other editors pointed out that keeping astrology and astronomy to separate articles is a community concensus. Zachariel refused to put the astrology of Algol in Stars in astrology, and tried to delete that article to further his aim. Same scenario with Ophiuchus, where Zachariel goes on bringing back astrology stuff , even after Ophiuchus (astrology) was voted a Keep (he tried to delete that article as well). Continuing reverts against community concensus, and not responding to common sense questions. See the recent history on Ophiuchus and on the Talk there. And all these edits bring in references to same site. No COI?
Robertcurrey, Zachariel are now very busy on Astrology, where they have been joined by Petersburg, another editor who was involved in the March bannings. It looks like a concerted effort. Can somebody have a look? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment – I have an interest in astrology (mainly historical), but not a conflict of interest. My subject-knowledge was declared when I started to contribute to the Astrology Talk pages discussions:
“BTW, so you know where I'm coming from - I have an interest in astrology. That interest is mainly in the history and divinatory branches of astrology. The suggestion of astrology being divinatory [in every expression] does not offend my interest in the slightest. But it is incorrect.”
This comment here gives as a clear an explanation as I am able to give as to why I do not have a COI, (for those who have not been able to witness the extent to which my contribution to WP has involved the supply of substantiating references, content with improved reliability, and frequent reminders of the need for consensus on edits based on verifiability through reliable sources).
Makesense64 has failed to inform you that he is the subject of an ongoing complaint on ANI involving, disruptive and tendentious editing, and his COI. The Skyscript site he mentions is notable as a web reservoir of hundreds of authorised articles that have been published in print elsewhere. (With regard to the Dennis Elwell biography, it is the only website which presents his material, including many of his well known articles published in other journals as well as a book-published interview with the subject). It is relevant that Makesense64 commenced his recent WP activity, after a 2-year hiatus, with a suggestion on the notability notice board that the site owner’s biography lacked notability, and that links or references to that site constituted spam. It later transpired this was two days after being banned from the forum of that site, and whilst he was engaging in a web-based hate campaign against the site owner who had banned him. Although presenting himself on WP as a sceptic, it is only western astrology/astrologers that he targets critically, having himself a notable commercial interest in Chinese astrology.
For the details, see the complaint discussed at length in on ANI. The other complaints he raises here have been discussed and answered there. (Robert Currey, incidentally, initiated that complaint saying: “his agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). His divisive style seeks to inflame edit war [20] and his frequent editing is disruptive and time-wasting to other editors [21]"
I was unaware of this complaint until just now, and assume the other editors are also uninformed (should they be?). I will make a note about this on the ANI complaint. Zac Δ talk 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The only issue where I see our WP:COI guideline being applicable is in Robert Currey editing his own biography (which is already a self-acknowledged COI). Any issues outside of that are beyond the scope of this noticeboard, so if you have any current issues with Robert's actions at his own biography, I'm sure people would be interested in hearing about them (saying "Just see recent history on Robert Currey" isn't sufficient to explain your concerns). If you're alleging that Zac or anyone else has a COI in regards to skyscript.co.uk (because they have a financial stake in the site, or are otherwise affiliated with it) you need to present clear evidence of this (without violating WP:OUTING), otherwise be aware of the bolded statement at the top of this noticeboard that states, "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you." If your concerns are unrelated to COI, considering that there is a very active thread on this topic already at WP:ANI, this request could be considered forum shopping. -- Atama頭 21:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
@Atama. Why is the scope of possible COI limited to Robert Currey editing his own biography?
He was warned for possible COI in astrology articles, as mentioned in the context of previous astrology bannings that I referred to.
He identifies himself as this editor who was not banned but warned, in a public facebook note where he is asking for "Help" in a group of astrologers. How does that rhyme with the WP policies? Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK? This is going to set an interesting precedent , if you ask me.
Only you are talking about possible financial stakes in skyscript.co.uk. I simply mention that most of Zac's edits that bring new sources, always seem to have references to the same dedicated astrology website. That's pointing out on-wiki activity isn't it? And once his reference is in, he is defending it with tooth and nail, as he did on Algol and now again on Ophiuchus, both being astronomy pages. If you were to check out all links to skyscript.co.uk on WP, then I guess you would find that more than half of them were added by the same editor Zac. That doesn't raise any red flags for possible COI?
My questions on WP:ANI were not addressed, so I took them here.
Have you seen Robert Currey and Zac address any of my questions? Where?
For example my questions about possible votestacking [22] were never addressed by Robert. Then the artificial "concensus" based on that straw poll was used in the complaint against me. Not bad.
With regards to the ANI complaint Robert filed against me. I now notice that the complaining party invited several editors of their own choice through [User:CycloneGU], who interestingly introduces himself on his User page as "I am a Virgo born in a year.." (probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology). Here you can see the names that were submitted for invitation [23]. Why was I not asked to submit a few names for invitation as well, just to keep it fair?
If I can also give a few names to have a look at this case, then I suggest User:Moreschi, who handled the previous problems on Astrology, which involved several of the names that have now returned to the same scene. He knows what kind of bans were given and whether they are still in effect.
I can also suggest User:DMacks, who has earlier removed Zacs constant rehashings of material related to an OUTING attempt that was deleted months ago, so he may remember something on that side of the story.
My tags on Robert Currey being quickly undone by first Zachariel and then Aquirata cannot be brushed away as meaningless. Both editors had never done anything on that article before, so it is pure coincidence? How did they know about the tags? No MEAT? Just see the page history since July 9th (there have only been 8 edits since, so you can easily see it without me bringing the diffs.)
Awaiting some answers... MakeSense64 (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I have contributed a mass of references and citations from primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, academic works and independently published popular works, as well as the ones from the site that is notable for its large reservoir of specialist articles that have been previously published in independent journals and books distributed by respected publishers. You are the one with the Skyscript hang-up, not me. Given the site owner’s statement that you were banned from this website just two days before you reinitiated your WP editing, and targetted her WP biography negatively whilst simultaneously engineering a hate campaign against her, for no other reason than because she banned you from the Skyscript forum for being a trouble-maker, I think it's clear to see where the issue of COI really lies. The ANI discussion covered all these points in full, and the editor CycloneGU, who I have had no other connection with ever, merely interceded to ensure that fair play was observed. You are foolish to keep trying to raise controversy again, and suspicions of plots (for what? improved verification of WP content?). It seems to me that you cannot help acting disruptively, and will never cease projecting onto other editors who are contributing positively, the dubious motives that underlie your own troublesome behaviour.Zac Δ talk 16:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Rewind noise. Hold on, let's back the train up here.
With regards to the ANI complaint Robert filed against me. I now notice that the complaining party invited several editors of their own choice through [User:CycloneGU], who interestingly introduces himself on his User page as "I am a Virgo born in a year.." (probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology).
Some points:
  1. I have not, to my knowledge, edited on a single astrology article. Yes, I say on my userpage that I am a Virgo, but that does not imply any sort of conflict of interest, merely that it's my astrological sign. Yes, I also say I'm a monkey, but that does not signify a conflict of interest, merely that it's my Zodiac sign. Nothing more, nothing less.
  2. When Zac first appeared at AN/I indicating he could provide some information, I encouraged him to go ahead and comment while myself having no clue what was going on or what he would reveal. This was the first time I have met Zac on the wiki and since my minor involvement we have not communicated, except him notifying me that you mentioned my name as a possible COI. Even look on my talk page, it's right there, nothing archived yet. He indicated he knew some people who might have been involved with the dispute; I asked him to give me names and I would give neutral notifications of the thread. I have been accused in the past of Wikicanvassing (with one user *LOL*) and didn't want him accused of trying to get people to side with him, so I offered to be tyhe neutral third party. I AM STILL NEUTRAL. One of these editors commented at AN/I that they weren't really involved, so I left another note apologizing if I was in error, and didn't keep up contact with the other five people. Further, other than maybe one or two additional comments at AN/I, I have not even LOOKED at the debate (which is now archived, incidentally).
  3. I have not taken a side in this discussion, and I find it ridiculous that you seem to think I have some perceived conflict of interest just because I state on my user page that I'm a Virgin Monkey (so to speak). This is merely looking to create a conflict where none exists, and tends to point out that you are the type of editor who thrives on conflict - not the type of editor we need on Wikipedia.
  4. I get the feeling also, from your comments, that you are implying that Zac and I are the same person. Go ahead. File an SPI. Prepare to have egg on your face.
I politely demand an apology for the accusation of a conflict of interest on a subject that has very little interest to me, either in profession or in editing patterns. CycloneGU (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Where do you see me accuse you as having a conflict of interest here? Your name was not added to the list, and my only comment about you was "(probably not the epitome of neutrality in a complaint about astrology)", which I think is a fair comment if somebody starts his user page by stating his star sign. Do you agree that I was not asked to suggest a few names as well? Which would only have been fair?
There are too many unanswered questions, and Zac is again not answering anything in his latest comment, just rehashing the same stuff for probably the 15th time. Does he actually know that continuing to repeat material that was removed according to OUTING policies is considered harassment?
Given all these irregularities, possible votestacking should be ruled out , and all I ask for is that some other admin also takes a look at this, not just the names that Zac gave you. Is that too much to ask? Let Atama answer my question, he is the only admin who has shown up for this case so far. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Why raise an issue if you don't intend to make any point of it? I notifed several parties at his request. That's all I did. I never saw such a request from you, so I couldn't exchange the favour. So why bring it up?
You will also note I am currently contacting an admin. regarding this per your request just now. CycloneGU (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think if you want to play an intermediary role, then you should always communicate directly with both sides. That clearly hasn't happened. I was supposed to notice Zac's request in between the long and repetitive rants he was giving there?
Fact is that you notified seven or more names that he suggested to you, without even asking if I was OK with them. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
He was bringing an AN/I case against you and asked in the discussion, "Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for me to contact these editors via their talk pages, and ask if they would be willing to comment here? I'm not sure whether this would be viewed as canvassing." I of course encouraged him to give me the names so he wouldn't be seen as canvassing in the event his memo came off as being slanted on his side (which would be canvassing). You never made any such request that I saw, so if I incorrectly presumed you had no one to invite then I apologize. However, all I did was notify people, I did not provide my own opinion. Even in my first comment I merely asked if "we can get in touch with Ms. Houlding (or the logs, etc.) to verify". CycloneGU (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. I just think you should be more carefully if you pick up a mediator role. Canvassing problems not only come from possibly writing a non-neutral message to invite other users, "posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" is also a potential problem, so if you just invite the names passed on to you by one of the parties in a complaint, then there can be a problem. Do you agree? Atama now says that I can also notify a few users of my choice, so I will do that.
BTW, you say, "I am still neutral" in capital letters, but this doesn't look like the remarks by a neutral editor to me: [24] MakeSense64 (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to note that since my comment to which you reply above, I have looked around and seen some pointy AfD nominations as well as your continued vendetta against anything related to astrology. TBH, I really don't give a damn about what happens as a result of this debate, but I am now taking the side that you are acting out of accordance with Wikipedia practices by nominating articles for deletion that should never even be introduced to that area. That is just POV pushing and I recommend you cease creating AfDs in the astrology category for this reason. Your vendetta against another Web site doesn't belong here, and if you can't put it aside, you need to stop editing. CycloneGU (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) So I'd like to address some questions posed to me earlier above by MakeSense64.

  1. Robert Currey shouldn't be warned about a COI at all astrology pages. COI doesn't work that way. A conflict of interest can't apply to a whole field of interest. In fact, our COI guideline specifically states, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." If someone warned Robert of a COI in the past on that matter, I believe that was a mistake. Now, that's not to say that Robert couldn't be warned about problematic behavior in general about astrology-related topics, that's what we have topic bans for. But that's different from having a COI.
  2. If Zac prefers Skyscript as a source, that doesn't in itself constitute a COI. We all have our favorite places to use as sources. As long as those sources follow WP:RS, it shouldn't be an issue. If there was any indication that Zac was personally involved with the site in any way, that would be a different story. From what Zac said above, the only COI I can see with the site is yours.
  3. If you feel that you had questions at ANI that weren't addressed, then they should be brought to an appropriate venue (including possibly another request at ANI), but this noticeboard is only for discussing COI-related issues. Please note that at the time I posted above (3 days ago) the ANI discussion was still active, and opening up another request at the same time at a different place for the same topic is at the very least frowned upon, and if it looks like you're just not accepting a decision in one venue and trying to find a favorable one in another, that could be considered forum shopping and is potentially sanctionable. (I'm not saying that's what you did but just know that it could be seen that way.)
  4. If you have specific questions for Zac and Robert that you feel haven't been addressed yet, ask them again here and I'll try to see that they get answered (even if you don't like the answers).
  5. If you're alleging canvassing from Robert for a straw poll, that should be addressed I agree, I don't see that it was when you had asked it before.
  6. I think it was obvious why you weren't asked to submit names for invitation to the ANI discussion, the complaint was about you after all. There's nothing unfair or inappropriate about that. ANI isn't like RfA or AfD or RfC where there is some kind of a vote or !vote being held, so if you're asking for people to back you up, there can't be any accusation of "votestacking". The only requirement at ANI is that you notify people who are being discussed, anyone else you choose to notify or not notify is up to the individual.
  7. If you want Moreschi to comment here, just ask him. There's nothing wrong with that, it might be helpful. The same with DMacks. It's up to them whether they have the time or desire to respond, of course.
  8. My guess about the tags being removed by Zac and Aquirata is that they were checking your contributions, and reverting edits they thought were problematic. There's nothing wrong with that, per WP:HOUNDING, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I do it myself for certain editors. If they were doing so just to cause distress for you, and no other reason, then that's considered harassment, but I don't see it that way.

I think those were all the questions posed to me before. -- Atama頭 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. I will await Robert's comments on the votestacking questions.
These questions I didn't see addressed yet:
* "Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK?"
* What about Zac's constant rehashing of materials related to outing attempt that was removed by admin months ago?
In reply to your comments:
As for Zac adding sources from his "favorite site". At what point does that turn into WP:PROMOTION ? Zac's earliest contributions to WP consisted mainly of adding external links to his "favorite site". He has continued doing so, and now ads them as references in articles, even though several other editors have pointed out that it is not a reliable source in most cases. I have removed a few of his edits where they are completely out of place, for example in astronomy articles.
So, Zac adding 20-30 such links is using a "favorite site", my removing a few of them is seen as COI. That looks like a nice set of double standards to me.
As for possible MEAT. Zac following my edits would not be a surprise. But where does Aquirata come from? I have never met him on any other page before, I only know this name because I saw it in the mentioned March bannings. So, how and why is he following my edit history?
As for this group of editors taking turns to revert my edits on Astrology, here is the latest example: [25]. A very reasonably edit if you ask me, but promptly reverted by User:Petersburg , who went on to add a long list of names, making it look like an exagerated testimonials section.
I will invite Moreschi, DMacks and also Acabashi, who worked on the Dennis Elwell article with Zac and me.
On a related note: Am I the only one who thinks that the WP bureaucracy looks more funny by the day?
On ANI there is the request not to go into side discussions, but when I take my own complaint to COIN, then I am getting warned about "forum shopping". That's a nice catch 22.
Problems like MEAT, COI, harassment and tendentious editing often go hand and hand. But when making a complaint on one noticeboard a rather typical answer is that something belongs elsewhere. If I can only complain on one forum, then how is this supposed to work?
Wouldn't it be much easier and time effective to have one noticeboard for all these complaints, and one for request for comments, and just ditch all these sub departments? Just my POV.
MakeSense64 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Makesense64 says in his post above: “Zac is again not answering anything in his latest comment, just rehashing the same stuff for probably the 15th time. Does he actually know that continuing to repeat material that was removed according to OUTING policies is considered harassment?”
So let me answer as clearly as I can, because my contribution history is self-evident, and I’m willing to explore any question (in fact I have done this many times but Makesense64 prefers to ignore my responses and direct attention away from them). Also, I am not repeating information removed by the OUTING policy – the removed material revealed Maksesnse64’s off-wiki identity and other information that I have not referred to. I have asked for clarification of this point before and no one has said that referring to the material that has been allowed to remain, or discussing how it points to Makesense64 having a COI himself, is breaking any kind of policy. If someone other than Makesense64 (who was responsible for removing a lot of the relevant discussion himself) suggests it is; then I will cease to refer to it. However, it is hard to see how it is not directly relevant since the entire basis of his complaint against me is that I have provided references that utilise a website which he alone has a problem with (and this information reveals the reason why).
My contribution history shows that my otherwise quiet account became activated with my first discussion page contribution on 2nd June this year, directly in response to Makesense64 giving me a ‘final warning’ for spamming because I placed three relevant links to this site on WP. I was taken aback by the hostility of his notice and explained that I had seen the tags asking for references in support of notability and had placed three links to published interviews with biography subjects that were published on that site. My explanation was given clearly there and on the talk page of the biography of the owner of the site: that web domain is a known and respected source of published articles and book extracts that are not readily available on the web elsewhere. (see also).
To verify that this is the simple fact of the matter, merely take a look at Google Books to see how many independently published books make use of that site in their own references and citations. Also note how it is also used as a reference by many works listed in Google scholar.
So we can be clear that this site is a suitable source for independent reference – and it is convenient to be able to check the content of the pre-published articles online.
I could not understand why Makesense64’s objected to references to that site, or accused me of having a COI from the start, when I asked him to agree that it was not spamming to add an external link to a website which was created by the biography subject – especially when the creation of that website is part of the reason for her notability.
So I consider it very relevant that a few days later the site owner gave a statement to explain how this 'objecting editor' (Makesense64) was someone she had banned from the forum of her website a few days earlier, for creating a nuisance in his astrologcal arguments. Also, that he was perpetuating a hate campaign against her and her website, on off-wiki websites, at the same time that he was arguing here that any link which went to her website from Wikipedia was spam. And that his first action on reactivating his dormant WP account was to target her biography with suggestions that it lacked notability.
There has never been any inappropriate use of that site from me, and I have nothing to gain from adding links to it. It is merely convenient because it reproduces articles published in other independently published sources, which are not available on the web elsewhere. The most substantial reference to the site was in the case of the Dennis Elwell biography that Makesense64 has mentioned above – and here only because the site included an interview and reproduced published articles which substantiated the commentary in his biography.
I have never argued in favour of retaining links to Skyscript where other sources could be used instead. Even when I have witnessed Makesense64 disingenuously trying to suggest that the site is not a reputable one – in which case I make the argument appropriately, without revealing my own knowledge of how he has his own personal vendetta against the owner of the site. In these situations I have also not revealed my own knowledge of how his vendetta is rooted in professional conflict which holds a financial interest for him, presenting another COI in the way that he champions Chinese astrology methods, whilst seeking to remove reference to (or retain misinformation about) western astrology. I can qualify that without revealing his off-wiki identity if it is appropriate to do so. I believe it is, since he has raised the issue of COI himself. Or I can submit it privately to arbitration if it sails too close to outing policy concerns.
I have nothing to gain professionally or financially by the contributions I make to Wikipedia. I was unaware of the astrology-content problems that needed correction until Makesense64 forced my attention towards them; and my motivation for contributing should be clear enough from the fact that my contributions have been positive ones, which have replaced a lot of unreliable information with clearer explanations attributed to reliable sources (as I said before: primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, academic works and independently published popular works, as well as the ones from the site that is notable for its large reservoir of specialist articles that have been previously published in independent journals and books distributed by respected publishers).
I too feel there is an apology owed to me from Makesense64, for suggesting that I spam, for suggesting that I have ulterior motives for providing the citations I provide, for suggesting that my arguments on the Algol and Ophiuchus pages were anything but legitimate, and for continually obstructing my well intentioned contributions to the extent that I even changed my user-name in the naive hope that it would free me from his ongoing harassment. If there is any reason for pursuing COI concerns here, the attention has to be returned to Makesense64 who has been criticized for being disruptive by many other editors – as the ANI complaint demonstrated. I am not aware of that being the case for any of the other editors mentioned. I also feel it is relevant that he has initiated four groundless complaints against me so far, and despite all the good reasons why I could initiate complaints against him, I haven't bothered to do that because I'm here to contribute and substantiate content not pursue these endlessly destructive, time-wasting, editor-discussions. I only spoke out to support the ANI complaint made against Makesense64 initiated by Robert Currey because there was such good grounds to do so. From everything I have witnessed of Robert Curry's contributions here they have never been anything but constructive, civil, fair, and seeking to ensure neutrality at all times. My experience with Makesense64's 'contributions' is the direct opposite to that. Zac Δ talk 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have not expressed my opinion formally before, but now am prepared to do so.
MakeSense64: Using your being banished from another web site to take out a personal vendetta against it on Wikipedia is unacceptable. It is considered disruptive editing and is grounds for being blocked, and even completely banned if it continues after that. Further, going around and harassing users innocent of any wrongdoing of having a conflict of interest is entirely unfounded; there has to be some gain by the material being used in the article for them to have a COI. Also, this account above and the information provided in it convincingly shows that you are in the wrong here; not Zac, not Robert, not anyone else here. This is your vendetta.
I'm not going to close this myself (like I might at AN/I right now), but rather will suggest for administrative review having MakeSense64 topic-banned from all astrology articles. Having such a vendetta tells me that MakeSense64 has a COI of the opposite type; he feels wronged by the site and wants to have his revenge. A topic ban seems appropriate. This seems to be another instance of a boomerang being thrown and not noticed on its return. CycloneGU (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
You know, Cyclone, I've seen the same people with basically the same dispute at a couple of boards now over the last two months, and I'm beginning to think that you're right. It's a big encyclopedia: there's no need for these people to keep butting heads, and I don't think they would be, except that one of them is trying to (ab)use Wikipedia to accomplish a goal unrelated to Wikipedia's goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have tried hard not to add fuel to this thread so far. The reason is that MakeSense64 repeats points and questions without acknowledging the answers already given. When he does this on talk pages, constructive editing becomes impossible for anyone but the most persistent of editors. Most editors simply give up out of exhaustion.
I have never recruited editors on Facebook and I have already answered this on the AN/I.[26] If anyone is recruiting, it is MakeSense64’s practice of tagging pages (approx 93 astrology sites between 9 June - 19 July). Yesterday, he put the biography of Julia Parker, author whose books (which include astrology) have sold over 2 million copies world-wide, up for deletion suggesting that her bio can be merged with her husband a well known author and broadcaster in his own right. Her husband, an established editor on Wikipedia has now been dragged into the debate. MakeSense64's objective appears to be wipe western (as opposed to Chinese) astrology off the face of Wikipedia, but his methods seem to provoke astrologers out of their apathy into active editing.
Though I have already addressed MakeSense64’s objection to the straw poll in full, it is hard to follow the discussion without lots of references. So I will list it point by point:
  1. First, this was a debate starting here with several huge threads effectively debating one word that had dragged on for one month and there were at least ten editors involved. Some dipped in for an odd comment and then disappeared.
  2. This discussion was unnecessarily drawn out because of MakeSense64’s intransigence and attempts to polarize the discussion [27] and tactic of making the same point over and over again even when it has been answered.[28]line 612 He showed no interest in dialogue or debate and has shown that he is prepared to endlessly block and revert change even if he is a minority of one.
  3. In order to move on with this impasse, I called a straw poll. I had no idea which way it would go but I like most editors wanted to end this endless debate.
  4. When an editor suggested that the 48 hour period of the Straw Poll was too short, out of courtesy I notified two editors who had long been involved in this page who had both clearly expressed views that were against my point of view and one who appeared to be favourable. One of whom had actually inserted in the original word that was the subject of the vote.
  5. MakeSense64 decided, for reasons we can only imagine, to abstain from the straw poll.
  6. The vote result was 5 in favour of the change and 1 against.
  7. When MakeSense64 discovered the results had gone against him, he promptly restarted the debate [29] as if nothing had happened. All the regular editors ignored his posts, but two new editors came in to reiterate the case that had already been made over the past month. Two days after the result had come through, MakeSense64 came up a new objection which was that I did not notify every contributor to the debate. I responded on the talk page “What MakeSense64 has either forgotten or omitted to mention was that on 09:49, 15 July 2011 I posted that "I have notified Kwami and Ocaasi who have been sympathetic to your views and Terrymacro who also contributed earlier on. " in my post on 15 July. No one objected to this at the time. I was quite open and even handed about this.”[30]
  8. There was no intent to deceive. If I was votestacking I was not effective since I actually invited more editors who were against my views than in favour. It was a courtesy to these editors who were involved in the issues.
The straw poll was to get a feeling of where the debate lay and the result reflected that editors of the page accepted that the superior case had been clearly made. It was a solution to a problem. MakeSense64 was clearly deeply unhappy with the result. A few days after the changes were made; he promptly undid them and after reversion the next day added new text that went diametrically against the consensus. His actions suggest that he has little or no respect for consensus and as in his other edits, he is intent on continually arguing until the result goes his way. I have already made the case for topic banning (astrology and astronomy) [[31]] as this will direct MakeSense64 into subjects where he may be less inclined to tendentious editing. Robert Currey talk 16:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
For MakeSense64, I have some answers for some questions posed.
  • "Where are the WP guidelines that explain to me how I can recruit editors on facebook to "Help" me? If this is how WP works then I have to start my own recruiting on facebook. Would that be OK?" - WP:CANVASSING is the only one that comes to mind that's anywhere near what you're looking for, well possibly WP:MEAT as well. But it depends on circumstances. If you're recruiting people to votestack, that's not allowed. If you're trying to bring people to help you win a dispute, either by having more people to perform reverts to prevent running afoul of WP:3RR, that's not allowed. If you're in the middle of, say, a content discussion, that's more of a grey area, and would be situational. But let's say that you're trying to improve an article, and you know some people who aren't yet on Wikipedia but might be knowledgeable about the subject, and you go to Facebook to ask them for assistance, why shouldn't that be allowed? So again, it depends on circumstances.
  • What about Zac's constant rehashing of materials related to outing attempt that was removed by admin months ago?" - Are the materials being rehashed a way of outing you, or were they peripheral to the outing attempt? If the former, that means that it's a repeat of the same harassing behavior and can't be allowed. If the latter, then there's no harm and bringing up outing is a red herring. I'm guessing here that you're referring to the repeated efforts to point out that you were banned from Skyscript. If you don't deny that claim (and I don't see that you have), and no other information is being presented that would serve to reveal your identity, then I think it's appropriate if people wish to discuss whether or not you might have a COI in matters relating to the site.
  • "As for Zac adding sources from his "favorite site". At what point does that turn into WP:PROMOTION ?" - Well, I guess the first question is, is there anything at WP:ELNO that would apply to those sources? Other than that, WP:REFSPAM applies, which specifically includes "the removal of multiple valid sources and statements in an article in favor of a single, typically questionable or low-value, web source". Aside from that, I don't see how it could be treated as spam.
  • "So, Zac adding 20-30 such links is using a "favorite site", my removing a few of them is seen as COI. That looks like a nice set of double standards to me." - It's not a matter of quantity. COI is determined by a person's affiliations. It would only be a double standard if Zac had a similar sort of history with the site that you do.
  • "But where does Aquirata come from? I have never met him on any other page before, I only know this name because I saw it in the mentioned March bannings. So, how and why is he following my edit history?" - Good question, I think only Aquirata could give an answer.
  • "Am I the only one who thinks that the WP bureaucracy looks more funny by the day?" - I assume you've never heard of Wikipedia Review if you think that might be the case. ;)
  • "On ANI there is the request not to go into side discussions, but when I take my own complaint to COIN, then I am getting warned about "forum shopping". That's a nice catch 22." - This wouldn't have been a side discussion. These matters would have been totally relevant to the discussion on ANI.
  • "Problems like MEAT, COI, harassment and tendentious editing often go hand and hand. But when making a complaint on one noticeboard a rather typical answer is that something belongs elsewhere. If I can only complain on one forum, then how is this supposed to work?" - You use multiple boards. For example, let's say you're having a problem at an article. Editor A keeps trying to replace all of the external links on the page to point to a malicious attack site. Editor B stubbornly disagrees with you about how the article's lead should be written and refuses to compromise. You open a thread on ANI saying that you're having problems with the article and asking for help. The likely result is that someone will warn or block Editor A for vandalism. But the problem with Editor B is a content dispute, and you'd be advised to try WP:3O or go to WP:DRN. Whenever you have multiple behavioral issues that require administrator assistance (for blocks, page protection, revision or page deletion, etc.) then ANI is a great place to try. If there's something specific, like a serial vandal or a copyright violation, then there are specific places to take the issue. Generally, if someone tells you that an issue is not appropriate for a particular board they should tell you where it would be appropriate. If all else fails you can take pretty much any problem to WP:DRN and they'll redirect you to the proper place without chastising you, that's one of the main reasons why that board was (recently) created.
  • "Wouldn't it be much easier and time effective to have one noticeboard for all these complaints, and one for request for comments, and just ditch all these sub departments? Just my POV." - The advantage of having more specialized boards is that there are people with particular interests who are more likely to frequent them. For example, I spend a lot of time at this board, and I think I've learned a lot about handling COI issues because I've seen so many. If COI issues were just lumped in with everything else at a place like ANI, that wouldn't be the case. Other boards, like WP:CCI, WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, WP:AN3, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and on and on, those boards are similar in that they are watched by particular groups of people who are very familiar with those kinds of issues. I think you get more accurate and quicker responses the way the boards are currently set up. However, the DRN board I've mentioned a couple of times already was recently created as a sort of consolidation place, and in fact may lead to the dissolution of both WP:WQA and WP:CNB. So you're not entirely alone in that line of thinking.
I apologize if my replies were too wordy here, I just wanted to give unambiguous answers as best I could. -- Atama頭 17:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the question of Skyscript links is the only basis of Makesense64's complaint against me, I have actually started to count the number of citations I have added to WP, working backwards through the list of article I have contributed to, which I keep on my user page.

Zodiac - 1 reference to Ptolemy’s Almagest / none to Skyscript.

Urania Trust - 6 independent references / none to Skyscript.

Stars in astrology - 5 independent references (3 primary source refs + 2 secondary source refs) / none to skyscript.

I note however that administrator Ihocoyc added SIX separate references to the Skyscript site from the content on that one page. Does he have a COI too?

Shelley von Strunckel - In response to the request for additional sources, I added 1 external link to the published interview on the Skyscript site – Makesense64 removed it as ‘spam’. (I think it should be reinstated)

Robert Hand - At the same time as the Shelley von Strunckel link I added one external reference to the personal interview published on Skyscript, and later added another to a book on the history of astrology which mentions him.

Ptolemy – 7 references in response to the ‘references needed’ request (4 to recently published academic works; 3 to primary source texts)/ none to Skyscript.

Ophiuchus - 1 Skyscript reference which substantiated a comment I added to that page.

Number - 1 academic reference in response to a ‘citation needed’ tag / none to Skyscript.

Mashallah ibn Athari - 1 ref to a primary source / none to Skyscript.

List of Astrological organizations - 8 reference links / none to skyscript

Do I need to continue this time-wasting exercise when it is clear that Makesense64 has cherry-picked one page which relied heavily on the Skyscript site's republication of previously published articles and book extracts to meet his demand that every single comment be substantiated? He has made groundless accusations against me, purely because of his own COI and personal vendetta against a site that has been used as a source of reference by many published books, scholarly texts and clearly neutral WP administrators.

Three editors have now suggested in this thread that the only solution to these long-running problems is a topic-ban that prohibits Makesense64 from causing further disruption on astrology and astronomy content and talk-pages (here, here, and here). I don't have a case to answer whereas Makesense64 very obviously does, so I want to add my own request for an administrator to action the proposed solution and bring this endless disruption to an end. Zac Δ talk 20:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins can't unilaterally ban anyone, but a ban proposal can be created to see if the community at large would support a ban. The best place to do so is WP:AN, WP:ANI often has ban proposals as well but usually they follow on the heels of an already existing discussion, in which first a person's actions are discussed before someone brings up the idea of a ban. I wouldn't recommend a ban on this page, since it has far fewer eyes than a page like the admins' noticeboard. If anyone does propose a ban, however, it should be made clear exactly why it is being done (with evidence) to convince people of the necessity. Linking to this discussion or other previous discussions may help as well. -- Atama頭 21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by MakeSense64

In response to latest answers by Atama.

  1. You say the recruiting of editors depends on the circumstances. The circumstances were pretty clear: Robert describes how six astrologers were banned and he is asking for "Help" how to get around the WP rules, asking people to contact him first. That's quite a difference with somebody simply encouraging others to improve WP outside of any specific context.
  2. With regards to the constant rehashing of old materials. The argument is being brought that I have not denied it. But WP:OUTING says that we should neither deny nor confirm the information. Constantly rehashing information from an attempted outing is considered harassment as far as I know. Zac's rehashing of that material has been deleted by admin before, so he was warned, and he once vandalized my user page with it (but he was already blocked before I could put a vandalism warning on his user talk). So?
  3. Robert Currey explains his straw poll. As for his first two points, I invite people to read the section in question [32] and count how many words I have spent there compared to some other editors. My comments are brief and I bring arguments on the table and ask questions. So, why am I being painted as the tendentious editor? Just because I disagreed with their opinion? Or because my questions made sense? There was no impasse, just about equal number of editors for and against the proposed change, so clearly no concensus to make the change.
  4. Robert's straw poll was questionable, not only because two involved editors in the discussion where not invited, but also because of this: [33] and [34]. I told him that I will be away for several days and back on Monday. So then he created the poll and was quick to close it after two days, because I could have voted after I came back. Now I only made a quick comment when I checked my emails in the morning. Convenient timing isn't it? You have five editors for and against, you wait till one is out of town and "forget" to invite two other opponents of the proposal, and then you predictably get a 5-to-1 "concensus". And next they argue as if that 5-to-1 concensus is set in stone forever, so any editor who questions it is then a tendentious editor.

A straw poll is not that important anyway, but it is a good example of what kind of tactics are going on. Then an ANI complaint was filed, but what was the "incident"? My not agreeing with them and asking questions about on-wiki stuff is an "incident" asking for a ban? My keeping large astrology sections out of astronomy articles is tendentious editing that requires a ban? Cleaning up astrology articles or tagging them should not be done? Interesting. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Maksesense64, would I have a need to ‘rehash’ the story, were it not for your imaginary complaints against me? When you pursue such accusations, you give me no alternative but to demonstrate how your complaint is devoid of reason and arises out of your own dubious agenda. You say that you are adhering to policy by choosing not to deny it, but although you have attempted to strike from the record the defense you originally gave, it is still showing on the Houlding talk-page underneath the ‘Show extended’ tag (09:45, 5 June 2011) – (you are not required to explain your activity; ... editors are not required to be neutral ..., and you claimed Houlding’s account was exaggerated and could not be verified, although she said that she was able and willing to verify every point with more evidence if necessary and to provide the two IP addresses logged on her forum to establish her story without any doubt). It seems to me that you have both used and abused the outing policy, since the “vandalism” attempt you refer to is the one and only time that I became proactive, and pointed out the double-standards by which you were publicly speculating the real-life identity of another editor, having taken all steps necessary to ensure that your own remained concealed (rightly in the latter case, but wrongly in the former case I objected to), as I still believe.
I can also say (because I was involved) that your account of the strawpoll is as fictitious as your complaint against me. You distort the reality of what has actually taken place, knowing that it is virtually impossible for outside editors to follow all the long, fragmented discussions that resulted from your disruptive attempts to regurgitate the issue over and over. There was a clear majority consensus to make the change and move on - no tactics, no plots, just an overwhelming desire to end a ridiculously protracted debate over the use of one word, so that editors were able to put the good time that was being squandered in pointless talk-page debates into improving the content of the main article and all of the spin-off articles that relate to it.
I have noted Atama’s latest comment and want to ask you this – are you prepared to accept that the accusations you have made here are hugely exagerrated, based on nagative speculation, and fundamentally groundless? Are you prepared to consider the apologies that have been requested for implying sinister collusions and wrongdoings where none have taken place? If you cannot do that would you at least accept the benefit of working within consensus with the aim of improving and substantiating astrology-related content; and would you therefore consider (just once in a while) the possibility of providing references yourself rather than making disruptive attacks on those that do, and repetitive pointy AdF requests for pages you don't like, some of whose problems would take you less time to rectify than the creation of the deletion request itself? Zac Δ talk 11:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
MakeSense64’s points are as before incomplete and selective. Anyone following this thread will see that all his points, apart from one (see answer below), have been answered in full. If any other editor feels it is necessary or required here, I will go into a full analysis to show exactly how.
MakeSense64 implies that I was tactical by initiating a straw poll when he “was out of town”. This is, of course, false. Had I been ‘tactical’ I might have started the poll after MakeSense64 had left, but I did not do this. He was fully aware of the deadline before he went away since he posted that he would return on Monday over 3 hours after the 48 hour deadline was posted and he raised no objection to the deadline at the time. And though he had the opportunity to vote on an issue he had been strongly advocating, he opted not to vote which he made clear in his post. So by presenting half the story once again, he pushes unfounded after-the-fact points that waste everyone’s time.
Lastly, MakeSense64 I have a request. Now that Zac has presented a solid reference [35] showing that one of Julia Parker’s 31 published books (by well-known publishers like Dorling Kindersley) sold over a million copies, can you withdraw your proposal that her bio page (up since 2005) is deleted? This will give editors time to insert references and it will show that you are willing to be constructive when the evidence shows that deletion would be an error. Robert Currey talk 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I would have already closed it (as I did this morning with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Council for Geocosmic Research), but there was a delete !vote. Thus it must run its course, I'm afraid, but if the delete !vote changes to keep eventually it might be speedy closable. I am going to recommend that MakeSense64 stop creating these pointy AfDs for the primary reason that he is not making sense. They are being created due to his reverse-COI caused by hios personal vendetta, and frankly, it's not our job to clean up after him. I want to see him forced to stop. CycloneGU (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Nominating an AfD is not equal to "deleting them". So the accusations are baseless. I have worked on some "trade unions" articles lately and doing a lot of cleanup. Now, some people could start thinking that I am in a vendetta against organized labor. But, I am not reponsible for other people's paranoia. One of the principles on WP is: don't take it personal.
Only a few things can happen when an article is put to AfD: 1) it gets deleted because it doesn't meet WP criteria. 2) It gets improved and reliable sources are added, and it is kept. 3) It gets merged with another article..
In all these cases WP improves. If some editors have a problem with that, then it actually confirms some strong bias or COI on their end.
On the vendetta theme: what if a group of astrologers is in a vendetta against everything/everybody skeptical about astrology, and bringing their "campaign" here? WP is not a soapbox, do you agree?
As for Julia Parker, one editor sticks to his delete vote, even after reviewing the million copies book that Robert refers to. We have to honor that editor's arguments too. All it shows is that my nominating that article was not unfair at all. Just let the community decide.
Why are you guys so worried about me nominating more astrology articles for AfD? Is it perhaps because you know that several of them would not make the cut to remain included in WP?
Independent editors who go through List of astrologers could easily nominate more AfD than I do, I have merely tagged most of them, and am repeatedly being criticized for doing so. These editors have no COI, really?
MakeSense64 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
National Council for Geocosmic Research could hardly be called a fair AfD nomination. As for the one with a delete !vote, notice it's still open. CycloneGU (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you thinking about an RFC/U, or AN for a topic ban? It looks likely to end up at AN either way, but a typical response to a pre-RFC/U request for a topic ban is to wonder why we haven't jumped through the RFC/U hoops first.
MakeSense, I strongly recommend that you stop nominating articles for deletion unless you actually want to end up with a WP:TOPICBAN for some obscure reason. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Even today MakeSense64 has continued to edit against consensus (claiming an imaginary consensus) to remove a point of astronomical clarification that suggestions of the western zodiac having 13 signs are misleading and inaccurate |. This is a pattern of his disruptive editing which seeks to prevent increased reliability of WP content when it relates to techniques used by western astrologers. He is not able to acknowledgement any element of disruptive editing or unreasonable approach towards this subject or other contributing editors, so I have gone ahead and initiated a proposal for a topic ban on AN |. I hope it will be supported because this has involved too much disruption for too many other editors for far too long. Zac Δ talk 02:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have further follow-up comments for MakeSense64.
  • What rules are Robert trying to get around?
  • Bringing up information that was initially brought up during an outing attempt is not the same as an outing attempt. It appears like you're trying to use our policy against revealing an editor's personal information in an attempt to suppress allegations that you have a COI. You can't do that as long as the outing itself isn't being done. As far as your COI, I think the cat's out of the bag at this point. I think that it has been fairly well-established that you have an antagonistic personal history with a site being used as a source at numerous pages, and that does constitute a COI. Also, take care in your accusations of vandalism, are you certain that what Zac said fits our definition? Too often people toss around the term "vandalism" as if it can apply to any edit that they dislike, and I hope you aren't doing the same.
  • As to how your editing is tendentious, that's up to those who make that claim. I cautioned you about being cautious about accusations (of vandalism) and the same applies to others. If you are accused of being tendentious, it's best that evidence shows how WP:TE applies to your edits, otherwise it's best to drop that label.
  • Straw polls are unofficial, unenforceable, and not recommended. This is made clear with our guideline. However, they're also allowed. So the poll itself wasn't problematic. As to the allegation that the poll was strategically timed to take place during your absence, I think that's a pretty harsh accusation and unsupported by the facts. As it happens, you even commented in the poll before the 48 hour conclusion. I see the accusation here as an attempt to fling mud at an opponent, and it's not worth your bringing it up.
I see a number of unsupported accusations here from MakeSense64, but I'm also not seeing how the "tendentious" label applies. I've dealt with such individuals before, and while MakeSense64 does bear some of the hallmarks (repeatedly bringing up the same points, trying to remove reliable sources, unsupported vandalism accusations) those are pretty mild. Most incidents of TE involve a person who is repeatedly edit-warring, even after being blocked, or not listening to other people at all. -- Atama頭 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Atama this is exactly what MakseSense64 is doing; but it happens so regularly it's impossible to document. A current example can be seen on the Ophiuchus page, where he took it upon himself to remove a small passage of text I had contributed which clarified how the definition of a zodiacal constellation is distinct from the defintion of a zodiacal sign. He removed it claiming that this was unwanted astrological content when in fact there was no astrological reference at all; merely a clarification of zodiac definition which was directly relevant to the confusion that this particular constellation suffers from. That began a protracted discussion which brought a RfC on 30 July - see here.
A new editor came in and worked with previous suggestions to create a definition that myself and other previous editors contributed towards. With all of those involved finding agreement in a collaborative process, after very close scrutiny of each word in the text, the content was returned to mainspace. The next morning, ignoring all the collaborative discussions that had taken place, he cut the 150 word passage down to 27 words, (which completely obscured the point being clarified) and stated in his edit summary "changed per talk". He was referring to the 'talk' that he then made himself, to simply repeat the same point he had made several times before, not the talk-page discussion that had taken place to obtain consensus before the change was made. Hence the whole thing starts all over again and new editors get involved to try to settle the matter by cutting out the parts he alone objects to. Last night I asked why consesnsus was being allowed to be ignored in this way, and asked if anyone objected to my reinstation of the content that four editors working from different perspectives had all agreed to. He alone has objected by repeating the same point he made in the first place, as if blind to all the discussion which has considered these points in depth already. This has been the regular effect of his input, which needs to be considered as a pattern of behaviour rather than through consideration of singular incidents. Another editor has made this point on the AN topic-ban proposal. Anyone can deal with this now and again, but when it is so regular, and so engineered towards pushing a biased POV, it becomes exhausting for the other editors involved. On other occasions I have removed pages I have contributed to from my watchlist, so I am not tempted to continue the defence of good content against his disruptive cuts, for the sake of my sanity. It surely means something when so many editors have spoken up to repeat the same complaint. Zac Δ talk 19:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Informer Technologies, Inc.

Please could I have some input/an extra pair of eyes on the contributions of VoiceWithoutFace? They seem to be here to promote/share info on Informer Technologies, Inc. and its products, but their request for feedback on one article seems to suggest they may be educable on how stuff works around here. Thanks. 88.104.47.107 (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Friedman

I stumbled upon Results-Based Accountability and noticed the signs of a COI. Page history shows that the page was edited by an account that shares the name of the person who allegedly invented "Results-Based Accountability". User has also edited other pages related to that person. Has added links to places where the products created by Mark Friedman can be purchased. I'd take care of it but I don't have time at the moment to run a comb through the account's edits and clean up the issues. OlYellerTalktome 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted "Results-Based Accountability". It was clearly just an ad for the author's work. I haven't looked into the other articles yet. -- Atama頭 20:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone already removed the references to Friedman's work at accountability. I also noticed that Friedman included a link to an advocacy page on his personal web site that has "Commercial Humidifiers are Dangerous!" in bold red letters at the top, as a reference for natural humidifier information at humidifier, which was clearly not an appropriate reference. As to Friedman's biography, that's a whole other issue, he seems notable enough with this article to get by WP:BIO so I think it's just a matter of making sure that the article is neutral and not unduly advertising his work. -- Atama頭 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Web Sheriff

Resolved

The user Agadant listed appears to be having issues with WP:OWN with respect to the article Web Sheriff. Please see the discussion at WP:NPOV for some of the discussion: [36] (e.g. "I was letting you edit ...")

Web Sheriff is a media representation company with many clients. When I tried to clean up some of the WP:LAUNDRY lists in the article I was quickly rebuffed by Agadant, and met with all manner of odd remarkes in lieu of discussion of the actual content issues:

  • [37] "This was all shocking ... It ia[sic] like vandalism."
  • [38] "Someone please help. This was under discussion and Aprock is deleting most of the article ..."
  • [39] "But today's quick actions on your part were uncalled for and out of order... I reacted as to a vandal"
  • [40] "The following was written after the quick deletions,and tagging were already done. NOTHING BEFORE"
  • [41] "It was more than that! It was a full scale assault on the article without any discussion, consensus and only your say so"
  • [42] "You make this seem very personal and contentious."
  • [43] "Sounds really personal on your part. I hate to think that but you have not been civil at all."

I'll note that while I have been WP:BOLD in the context of responding to the problems noted at WP:NPOV, I've also open up dialogue on the talk page and be entirely civil.

Looking at the edit history of Agadant [44], many of his top 100 edited articles relate to Van Morrison, one of Web Sheriff's clients. It may be that Agadant is an employee of Web Sheriff. Or maybe not, and is just claiming ownership of the article for some other reason.

Feedback, perspectives, and constructive advice invited.

aprock (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP: AGF, Aprock? Who do you rhink you are accusing me of being an employee or having a conflict of interest?. Van Morrison was not in fact a client of Web Sheriff when I started editing the Web Sheriff article. He is not touring or putting out albums. He must be in retirement. Only a past client and WS was very unpopular with Van Morrison fans for awhile. I have a right to edit on any article or articles I want. I am not employed at all now, by anyone, and lost my spouse and have been editing to focus my attention elsewhere. You appear to have a personal grudge against me or against Web Sheriff company. I am too upset to discuss the content right now! Your attack was swift, unannounced and devastating to me because I always work alone and have no cronies on here to take my part. I hope you feel vindicated for whatever has happened to make you bait me and accuse me in this manner. Agadant (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Will somebody please stop this all out attack on me and on the article by this one editor, who has no consensus to do these actions or make these accusations about me? I cannot be calm and participate in a discussion about content at this point. Agadant (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just come across this article (via NPOV board) and it certainly feels like it's being managed - I urge more uninvolved editors to head over there and get stuck in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that USER:Agadant has been exhibiting some ownership behaviors on this article, I am not aware of any information or reasons why he should be cited as having a conflict of interest. After observing the situation for several days, posting on the NPOV and having several interactions with Agadant it is my assessment that he is become overly attached to the Web Sheriff article over time, out of habit, and this attachment is being exacerbated now by some stressful personal issues he/she has. I am hopeful that now that several established editors are stepping in that he/she will hear the community and respond appropriately. I think we should take a firm but gentle approach with this, in consideration of his/her many good contributions to Wikipedia.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll double what Kbob said. This doesn't seem like a COI situation. I note that nothing suggests that Agadant is affiliated with Web Sheriff, so even if there are ownership or POV issues, those can be dealt with on their own. This has already received plenty of attention. -- Atama頭 19:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
just be to clear, I was talking about 'managed' in the WP:OWN sense rather than the COI sense (sorry about the confusion). --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agadant has made it clear that he has no relationship with Web Sheriff [45], and I for one trust that he is speaking honestly here. Could a clerk please close this when they get a chance? Thanks, aprock (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't have clerks on this humble noticeboard, just regular folks, so I'll slap a "resolved" tag on the top of this and let our robots file it away. -- Atama頭 22:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Morgantown, West Virginia

A brand new editor's (3TonCatInTheRoom) nearly sole edits to this article have been to add or reinsert non-notable "awards" to his hometown. He has been arguing obsessively with a disinterested, veteran editor — me — who removed some of these "awards". A second disinterested editor, User:Trekphiler, also removed some of these them, referring to them as as "puffery" (here).

After this new editor briefly edit-warred under his IP address and then as 3TonCatInTheRoom, I apprised him about the various options for conflict resolution. He initiated an RfC here. Now he says that if the RfC doesn't go his way, he's going to make his contentious edit regardless: "If this issue is not resolved when this Request for Comment is closed in 30 days I am going to have to add back the award...." (here).

I've since explained to him that if there's no consensus, the status quo remains and he can ask for mediation if he likes. But aside from that threat, the crux of the matter is a hometown person's insistence on adding an "award" to his hometown's Wikipedia page — even though two disinterested editors, with no hometown conflict of interest, either removed or did not re-add this puffery. This new editor appears to have no interest in, as they say, advancing the aims of Wikipedia. He simply appears to want to boost his hometown. Now that he says he wants to have his own way regardless of the RfC, I thought it prudent to ask an admin to intervene. Thank you for any help. Tenebrae (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For an editor to have a conflict of interest, they must have something to gain from editing in a particular way. In this case, I cannot see how it is at all possible 3TonCatInTheRoom (talk · contribs) can benefit from more awards being listed in the article and there is therefore no COI. Please discuss it at the RfC instead. SmartSE (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Austrian business cycle theory

Lawrencekhoo is a neoclassical/neo-keynesian economist by trade, which means there is a conflict of interest in his editing of Austrian economics articles. It should be noted that people who hold State subsidized academic potions in Keynesian based economics would lose their jobs if Austrian economic policy was followed through to its logical conclusion. Obviously this creates a large amount of animosity for the Austrian school by neoclassical economists such as Lawrencekhoo, which can be evidenced by his editing of the Austrian school pages.

BigK HeX is a libertarian socialist who also has a direct conflict of interest in the editing of Austrian economics articles. BigK has reverted edits without commentary when facts that don't fit his agenda are added to Austrian economics articles. The libertarian socialist viewpoint is in direct conflict with the Austrian school of economics.

While I have no issues with either of these users adding criticisms to Austrian economic pages, both users have recently reverted edits to the Austrian business cycle page without justification, when those edits added clarifying information that conflicted with their viewpoints.Michael.suede (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No: Being an academic expert is not a conflict of interest. Please go read the WP:COI guideline, paying careful attention to the parts that say experts are allowed to edit articles within their area of expertise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Specifically: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." -- Atama頭 00:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Kayokimura

I am concerned that Kayokimura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a conflict of interest. A very large portion of Kayokimura's edits are related to Samuel Sloan (chess player), including people Sloan has been in disputes with (Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, etc.), movies Sloan has appeared in (Bobby Fischer Against the World), and the Sloan page itself. Overall, xyr edits tend to make positive contributions about Sloan and negative contributions about his "opponents" (Sloan's been in a lot of lawsuits), and edit summaries (see the contribution list) like to label other editors in negative ways. Furthermore, Kayo Kimura is the real name of Sloan's wife (or ex-wife, I don't know if they're still married or not); thus, I assume the name was chosen to symbolize a close connection to the subject. I'm not saying that the editor is actually Kayo Kimura or Samuel Sloan, but, whoever it is, they seem to have a strong interest in pushing a particular view of Sloan and related entities. I have asked Kayokimura a few times if they are related to Sloan (see these two edits), but so far I haven't received a response despite xyr editing after the questions. However, since I'm an involved editor in several of these articles, I'm worried that my judgment is clouded, so I'm wondering if others see a similar pattern in xyr edits. As a final point, please note that Sloan himself previously edited Wikipedia as User:Sam Sloan (the talk page is clear that this was Sloan editing under his real name), and was eventually blocked indefinitely for off-site legal threats in 2008. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As an update, User: Orangemike blocked User:Kayokimura indefinitely for username issues, and explained on xyr talk that we always worry that someone using a real person's name may be an impersonator. Hopefully xe will follow up either there or via OTRS. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Desktop CYBER

Author of this article has more or less admitted that he is the author of this software, and is taking a proprietary attitude towards all articles relating to the CDC Cyber (oh, forgive me, the CDC CYBER; he gets angry if you don't put the "Cyber" in all-caps). Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The user has also apparently taken exception to having maintenance templates added to that article, to the point of removing them without comment, and severely questioning their reinstatement, calling such reinstatement "ignorant edits". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Also a clear WP:UN infringement. – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated Desktop Cyber for deletion. after searching for any third-party references to support notability. The only mentions of this product appear to be on sites with user-submitted content or copies of the WIkipedia article. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Blackvisionit

User Blackvisionit (talk), who sells floppy disk hardware emulators, has been editing Floppy disk hardware emulator with a clear COI, and rejecting all efforts to convince him to follow such core policies as WP:RS and WP:COI.

QUESTIONABLE ARTICLE EDITS:

Removed a mention of DATEX DSM, one of his competitors, calling it "removing vandalism": [46]

Removed another mention of it: [47]

Deleted mention of it again, this time along with another competing product: [48]

Removed unreferenced tag without addressing lack of references, twice: [49] [50]

Removed links to competitors IPCAS and RIOC. twice:[51] [52]

Removed a link to a company in Europe that sells the same product he sells: [53]

Called his competitors "frauds" using as evidence a youtube video he created himself, used fraud accusation to justify removal of material about competitors (multiple instances, diffs available on request)

TALK PAGE INTERACTIONS:

Warned about his obvious COI: [54]

A gentle reminder about COI policy: [55]

No response to the above except continued COI editing, so a more pointed reminder: [56]

His response ("I'm allowed to do whatever edit I like to whatever article"): [57]

Wikipedia Policies explained at length to him with direct quotes: [58] (Note: new content starts at line 103. Previous portion of Diff is just indentation changes)

Response was further COI editing of article.

USER TALK PAGE INTERACTIONS:

Warned about calling good-faith edits "vandalism": [59]

Warned about COI using Template:uw-coi : [60]

His response: [61]

Cautioned about personal attack directed at a specific editor: [62]

Response - further personal attacks: [63]

Warned about edit waring using Template:uw-3rr: [64]

Response - deleted warning without responding: [65]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Guymacon has started a personal attack/war against me. Unfortunately this is being done without taking care of checking provided and punctual answers to his questions. A lot of the previous sentences are wrong (really hard to assume good faith at this point...). Best thing would be to definitively close this discussion, since a wise user solved the question applying the best solution: external link section removal. To me it's all over and perfectly right.
  • referencing obviously not to the video itself, but to the internal links, photos, diffs... (anybody else found it clear and unanbiguous)
  • Sorry using the vandalism word in [1], meaning was 'false sentence added as promo'
  • [2] means exactly what it means: if you write to the support you'll never get an answer: defunct project
  • [3] IPCAS has been removed because it's not a manufacturer, only a reseller pretending to be a manufacturer
  • ... same matter: this user considers it the right thing to add links to people reselling (without support) a product already listed: QHSFD
  • [8] this user, clearly told that EMUFDD is being referred in an unique tech-page (resellers don't exist), goes on adding a wrong link (a corporate EMUFDD project page)
  • [12] this sentence is quoted here in an ambiguous/malicious way: it's a clear answer to a false statement. you're not allowed to edit here... - answer - this will never be true, since wikipedia allowes me and everybody else to edit any article.
  • [14] another ambiguous/malicious quoting: it's a closed interaction between two users that have already explained each other all what they felt necessary. After peace and clarification has been reached, quoting is extremely anti-wikilove.
  • [16] sounds perfectly right to me: (1) first take your time to check deeply all the provided tech-links and (2) THEN send me your opinions. (3) Provided links contain evidence that x == y, (4) you say that x != y, (5) ergo you didn't read the provided link.
  • [17] even though I'm not english mother-tongue - writing errors are more than certain - I don't remind of any written personal attack.
  • [20] user has been clearly told that there's no pending edit war. Discussion has been then automatically closed. Please a little more wikilove and let's close this time-consuming-nonsense.
Questioned article has already reached a clear, undisputed structure. What are we talking about? Blackvisionit (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: I have fully protected the article for 3 days to try to bring the edit warring to a halt. I did not pick a revision, choosing to just protect on the current version; I'm sure that this is the WP:WRONGVERSION for someone. Meanwhile, please continue the discussion here and the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The above, while a welcome move, only addresses the particular content dispute without addressing the fact that Blackvisionit refuses to even consider following the WP:COI guideline, which says "If you have a conflict of interest, then any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard." Yes, his edits have been mostly in the area of suppressing mention of his competitors, and yes, he has engaged in personal attacks, but those are minor issues. It is the violation of policy, and the refusal to even discuss whether he should follow the policy that concerns me. Guy Macon (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You may go on complaining a hundred times more, this will not turn your personal opinion into a true statement. I'm not going to discuss opinions, only facts/sources. I've provided a lot of sources that you still refuse to review, you didn't provide any RS. My edits are NPOV, without biasing, objective. Stop your attacks and let me stop replying; let other interested RfC editors review this page. Blackvisionit (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have not reviewed your sources because, even if your claims that your competitors are "frauds" are true, you still must follow WP:COI and suggest on the talk page that they be removed on that basis. It doesn't matter if they are Nazi Pedophile Spammers - you still are not allowed to remove material about them, because you as their competitor have a conflict of interest. As long as you reserve the right to remove the material yourself - for any reason, no matter how good -- you are in violation of WP:COI. Are you willing to commit to following WP:COI? In particular, are you now willing to obey the part that says "If you have a conflict of interest, then any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard"? Or do you continue to insist on the right to edit a page about floppy disk hardware emulators as you see fit even though you sell floppy disk hardware emulators for a living? It's a simple choice. Agree to follow the rules or refuse to follow the rules. Which do you choose? Agree to follow the rules and we are done. Guy Macon (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Final answer: (1) you've asked something (2) you've been replied (3) you refuse to check the reply (4) ergo no need to give you more answers. Other cooperating editors should be welcome. Wikilove policy suggests me now that ignoring Guy Macon until a change of mind is the best thing. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Guymacon, editing an article with a COI isn't actually against the rules--it's just strongly recommended against because when one has a COI, it's usually hard to tell the difference between what is neutral and what is in one's own best interests off-wiki. For instance, I agree that adding sources that are directly harmful to one's competitors is a clear case where a COI editor should get talk page approval first. Removing links to one's editors could be COI, if one removes only the competitors links and not one's own. Looking at that page now, every single EL there should come out, because in an article about a generic product type, we should never link to the pages of specific producers (for instance, Automobile doesn't link to Toyota or Ford's website). So, upon a quick glance, it does look like there is some editing that isn't meeting NPOV, though not necessarily everything; I'll try to look into this further in the next several days. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When another editor pointed the above out to me, I did a survey of ten topics I chose because they each have only a handful of manufactures. He was right, as are you. For example, no page on the general topic of aircraft lists external links to Boeing, Douglass and Airbus. Based upon that, I concluded that I was wrong to think the links belonged and announced my change of position on the talk page. This makes the specific complaint of removing material about competitors moot.
Alas the COI still exists. Now he is vigorously defending an unsourced claim that his product is faster than his competitor's products. (he originally said his product was "best" but changed it to "faster" when people objected) And of course if I dare to edit the page to reflect what is in the sources, he will instantly revert. I just want to make Wikipedia better. Dealing with someone who has another purpose - to establish that his product is superior and that his competitors are frauds - is difficult for me to deal with. Perhaps I am spoiled; editors working on engineering topics tend to be logical and cooperative. Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the above concerns, along with more recent behavior on Talk:Floppy disk hardware emulator, it is abundantly clear to me that Blackvisionit's COI is making it impossible for xyr to edit the article neutrally and without resorting to OR. As such, I have informed Blackvisionit that xe is no longer to edit the article directly (outside of basic typo cleanup), and instead make suggestions on the talk page. I have alwso informed xyr that xe needs to stop the disruptive editing on the talk page, including borderline personal attacks. Should the behavior not change, I will seek a block at a more formal forum. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Horticultural Channel

Looks an inappropriate username. Has also edited Sean James Cameron, while the article on the TV channel (executive producer and director Sean James Cameron) was started by User:Seanjamescameron. PamD (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a belated response, but the editor was blocked for the username violation. The best place for such reports is WP:UAA. -- Atama頭 19:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Harbottle & Lewis

This article was created in December 2009 by JuliaWeiss and many additions were made to it after that by the same user.

In July, 2011, the law firm came to the public attention because they had been given emails by News International relating to the phone hacking scandal, and wrote a letter which appeared to support NI's position that only one rogue reporter was involved, but when the emails were subsequently looked at by Lord McDonald, foerm head of the PPS, he said it was obvious to him within minutes that there was evidence of criminal activity. This information was then reported widely in the media.

In early July, an unregistered user added a sentence about their relationship with NI, and a link to Robert Peston's "smoking gun" article. I created a separate sub-section, added further information, and also included a link to the Wikipedia 'News International Phone Hacking scandal' Wikipedia article.

On the 29th July, JuliaWeiss added a 'slant' tag.

I contested this,and also pointed out that the current marketing executive of H&L is called Julia Weiss. Rd232 reduced the content of the NI section, removed the 'slant' tag and agreed that there was poeeibly a COI (conflict of interest) case.

Yesterday, JuliaWeiss added the 'slant' tag again, and also a 'POV' tage. He/she removed the tags two minutes later. He/she then removed all references to him/her on the discussion page.

I undid the changes on the 'Talk' page, as I believe it is relevant that the person making these changes may be an employee of H&L.

She deleted them again, saying "I have deleted references to myself (again) because there is no reason to have my name, and links to my professional profile plastered all over this post. It adds nothing. JuliaWeiss", thereby confirming that she is, indeed, a marketing executive for H&L.

Sometime later today, all the editings originally ascribed to JuliaWeiss have changed to Hanskew.

I suggest that anyone searching Wikipedia for information about "Harbottle and Lewis" would expect to see a reference to their relationship to NI. The information given is all supported by reliable references, and obviously, H&L are free to add anything whihc might contradict this. To suggest that including such information is biased, slanted, or non-neutral is nonsense and is an attempt by H&L to prevent the public from finding out about the matter. Epzcaw (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, Julia changed her username to Hanskew, probably for reasons of privacy. The COI is pretty evident, however, and a warning was left on her user talk page. She has not edited Wikipedia since, so we'll have to deal with this further if and when disruption begins again. -- Atama頭 20:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

BLPN

There's a discussion at BLPN that might benefit from the views of a couple of people who have actually read the COI guideline before. The situation is this:

An editor who is a professor of psychology, corrected several significant and verifiable errors in a BLP, at the direct request of the subject, who is a professor of psychology at another university. An admin reverted to the error-filled version and is claiming that the editor may never edit the articles of anyone in the same professional field, because a "conflict of interest" prohibits him from editing—even to correct serious errors—any articles about people he knows professionally.

The discussion, which identifies several separate issues, including false claims by an activist about the nature of the edits and whether individual admins can impose topic bans in defiance of the banning policy, is here, and to avoid fragmenting it, I'd really appreciate it if any comments were posted there rather than on this page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I greatly reduced your post per WP:CANVASS; you presented a biased viewpoint, advocating for a desired outcome. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
...And I just greatly unreduced it. It's one thing to warn someone about canvassing, it's yet another to refactor their comments (see WP:TPO which doesn't mention canvassing as a viable reason to edit another person's comments) and it's yet very much another matter to gut their comment to the extent that it's no longer useful (for example, deleting the link to the particular discussion, which I restored). -- Atama頭 21:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
My apologies to Whatamidoing for my violation of the integrity of the post, against TPO practice. I won't do that again! For the record, I examined the linked thread at BLP and determined that I agreed fully with Whatamidoing's position even though the original note with canvassing overtones prejudiced me the other direction. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That's the thing about a place like COIN: you get used to being able to trust that in the end your fellow editors will evaluate disputes on their merits, rather on the tone of the original posting. I think that my faith is justified.
Basically, I posted like I did because I didn't want you to look at that discussion without knowing that there were multiple issues in addition to COI (so much of the complicated discussion could be ignored, if you wanted to comment only on COI issues), and that I have strong views on the matter (which you would have been entirely free to disagree with, of course). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable name in article again plus original research

New User:Ebenezercore continues to insert the name of a child into a description of the Kinetic sculpture race started by the child's father, Hobart Brown. As a former Kinetic race organizer, I do not wish to correct this individual. At the time the race began, the child was of age to ride a tricycle and not old enough to be in school. The child, now adult, meets no notability criteria for wiki. The alleged middle name given is not listed in the citation, therefore meets original research criteria. The user was cautioned on 1st or 2nd of August 2011 and returned with a citation supporting only part of his edit. Googling the name inserted into the article and the username making the changes suggests it is the same individual, or one posing as the same, making the changes. Being too close to the situation myself, I request help from the wiki-community. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an unregistered user removed it, so all seems to be well at the moment. You might consider explaining your concerns on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

COI additions restored by another user

After Single purpose account User:Erinscime began spamming material she'd written to several articles, I reverted all instances and warned her. User:Andy Dingley restored the deleted comment, with the summary re-add Scime ref. Yes, I don't like the namechecking tone in this article and it's surely against WP:MOS - however it's already pervasive through the article, so re-work the whole lot together, if wished.) (Which reads to me as "the article already has COI, so let's continue to allow more COI additions.") I removed it again and cited WP:COI, which User:Andy Dingley promptly reverted again, suggesting I take it to ANI. I brought it here instead, as I don't see it as an ANI issue. Second opinions? OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jamie needs to lay off the WP:BITE and particularly the attacks on other editors. There are several problems with his actions here:
This "SPA account" is actually a new editor. An editor with a traceable real-world profile, one that indicates they're a worker in the field of these articles. This is exactly the sort of editor we should be encouraging, not driving away with this kind of reception.
Secondly, they didn't "spam" this link (read their contribs history, it's short). What they actually did was just what we ask such editors to do, to reduce the risk of COI issues - they noted the link on a relevant talk page first and asked another editor to consider adding this. I saw this (it's a field of professional interest to myself), read the link and considered it well worth adding, so I did so. This is how it's supposed to work. This is a valued addition by someone knowledgeable in the field, it's not spam.
I also added a note saying that their long-ish article might be relevant to other citations, which I hadn't had time to add myself. Unfortunately I worded this poorly - I should have clarified that I meant in this article, not other articles (I'd be happy to add it to other articles myself, but it does bring up the COI issue afresh, and that's best avoided). My fault here, if the editor saw my comment as an invitation to add it to other articles themself - to clarify, that's a good action on their part, but it's not an obviously good action.
This is the crux of why Jamie is reacting wrongly here - not everything added by an editor from outside the cabal is an attack to be resisted.
Couple of other points: the style of content strategy sucks. It sucked already, and it wants fixing. It name checks ref authors and it inlines quotes. This is just against WP:MOS and our usual conventions. It wants fixing when someone has time (that's not being wasted on Serious Admin Bizniz like this). However for a new editor adding a link to follow the page's current and obvious style is no crime. Nor do I think it was unreasonable to restore the new ref with much the same style, hence my comment.
Finally, I consider this to be a good ref to add. If anyone questions that (and that's a clearly GF issue of content matters), then that's a separate issue from this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Erin Scime is a real world expert on the topic, and should be encouraged to participate. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
If the article is already doing a lot of name-checking, then the new editor probably thought that was the house style and ought to be emulated.
As a general rule, I think it's most helpful when people to WP:PRESERVE and expand content, rather than reverting simply because the "wrong" person added it to the article. It's more work than hitting the WP:UNDO button, but if we only allowed "perfect" additions to be made, then we'd never get anything done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Sinclairindex spamming material related to Deborah Winters

Deborah Winters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) see this reversion before the BLPN posting Intercontinental Releasing Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sinclairindex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user SPA devoted to promoting Deborah Winters and Intercontinental Releasing Corporation. These often incredibility crufty and spamish. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not 100% an SPA but close enough (this and this don't seem to promote either subject, for example). I've looked over this editor's contributions, and many are questionable but most aren't that bad. I'm not 100% sure we're dealing with a COI, for example where a person has been paid to promote these entities, this could just be a really dedicated fan. Overall, I don't see that their edits are disruptive, I'd say they're more helpful than anything else. Maybe some specific examples of problematic behavior would help. -- Atama頭 17:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Setcom

User apparently affiliated with topic of article, inserting non-WP:NPOV material that turns the article into a marketing vehicle. User has been warned at least twice regarding the material being inserted, and once regarding the possible WP:COI. Username may also run afoul of WP:UN, but that's a topic for a different noticeboard. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Not only aren't they not a strong violation, they're often encouraged, because they simultaneously reveal an editor's affiliations and yet reinforce the idea that the account represents a person, not an individual. I've seen on multiple occasions where other editors actually suggest a username change along the lines of "Company-Bob" rather than just "Company". As to the behavior itself, I'll take a look, if this falls too far into WP:SPAM territory then warnings or a block might be warranted. -- Atama頭 17:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, so it looks like the article was basically created by, and maintained by people affiliated with the company (probably employees). It has zero references, the only external link is the company's web site. Is it actually notable? Maybe it's worth discussing deletion. -- Atama頭 18:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I'm posting this message here seeking a fair-minded editor to review the current article about DCI Group, a consulting firm based in Washington, DC, and on whose behalf I'm writing. I have made no direct edits to the live article (nor has any editor since 2010, nor has any real person since 2009) and have instead spent a few months researching and writing what I think would be a suitable replacement article that's both more accurate and complete and, to the best of my knowledge, faithfully adheres to Wikipedia content guidelines. I have posted this draft in my user space, specifically here: User:Willemite/DCI_Group.

Last week I posted a longer explanation about it on the article's discussion page, and today I added the article to two relevant WikiProjects, Companies and United States/District of Columbia. Explanations of content changes are there, and I would be more than happy to discuss the article and work toward seeing the current version replaced by something much closer to the one I've prepared.

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly looks to be an improvement - I will double check some facts and then update the article if the draft is accurate. If anyone else can take a look it would be helpful however. SmartSE (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User:ICJIA/Illinois criminal justice information authority

Currently userfied, possibly future article. Possibly a conflict of interest due to the username being an initialism for the userfied article. Tckma (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Username reported to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Michele Wallace Campanelli

Autobiographical article - massive problems with sourcing and referencing. Author continues to remove maintenance tags on the article without addressing the problems, even after warnings. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added Black Widow (American band) because the same problems exist: Campanelli (née Wallace) was a member of the band, is the primary contributor to the article, and continues to remove maintenance templates. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I've opened a sock puppet investigation - after the article was deleted (tagged by another editor), brand new account Firecracker461 appeared and recreated the article word for word. An amazing coincidence, donchathink? :) MikeWazowski (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It quacked and has been blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Caruso Affiliated

Can someone help a new editor out? Especially, note this edit. tedder (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed the editor to some affiliated policies/guidelines. I haven't looked at any of the edits other than to see that you've removed everything they've added. Have their edits constituted a COI? There's obviously a possibility of a COI but I haven't seen concrete evidence that there is a COI. I do sense the possibility of a copyvio, though. OlYellerTalktome 15:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Between the first version (that I reverted) and the subsequent pastes, I'm invoking WP:DUCK for a COI. And yes, POV issues. I smelled a copyvio but didn't find one by googling. Which means the author likely wrote all of that, which gives more weight to it being a COI. tedder (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
They've aknowledged the message I left on their talk page and said they're going to read through the pages. I'd like to assume good faith that the issue will be dealt with but it will probably take more work than that (something an admin will have to attend to). OlYellerTalktome 16:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just chopped out a bunch of spammy stuff about "Mr Caruso" and his political aspirations as it is clearly spammy and inappropriate for this article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
And the spamming continues, this time by new user User:Jackaroe1. Page protection requested. – ukexpat (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I put a 3 day semiprotection on the article. -- Atama頭 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Madduck/Martin Krafft

While searching for a WP policy, I stumbled upon this webpage where a person has blogged about an article that was created for them and their experience with WP (summary: he was unsatisfied with his article being deleted/redirected). The article, Martin Krafft, was first moved by the subject to his userspace and then was deleted after a short merge for deletion discussion which wasn't very thorough in my opinion, was submitted by the subject of the article, and never once mentions a single WP policy or guideline. Madduck hasn't edited the page for over two years and I would normally mark the page for deletion per WP:USERBIO, WP:STALEDRAFT, and/or point 2 of Wikipedia:Userfication#What_cannot_be_userfied but I think there should be a little more attention paid than normally would be. I can't find any discussion about the deletion of the article other than that is was PRODed.

I believe that the userpage either needs to be moved to mainspace or deleted. I bring this here because I believe that it might cause an issue on and off of WP with someone who describes themselves as a hacker. In the next few hours, I'm going to attempt to assess whether or not the subject is notable then move from there. If you are free now or would like to help verify notability, I'd be grateful for the help. OlYellerTalktome 14:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not that worried, I'm sure that many regular editors of Wikipedia can be considered "hackers" of one kind of another (I myself could be considered a hacker or at least could have been when I was younger). I'd just treat it like anything else, if it's not notable it probably can be deleted. It has sat on that user subpage untouched for more than 2 years, and user space isn't a place to permanently park articles about non-viable subjects. -- Atama頭 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It was deleted yesterday after I basically made up a CSD description because apparently PRODs can't be used on user pages. It was deleted as a G7 which doesn't really apply. I guess I don't care since the goal was achieved. OlYellerTalktome 12:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

chadwin patch, i just want to talk to my family

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 24.18.90.217 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Arent Fox

This user (which may be a commercian account of the law firm itself) appears to be removing material about an ongoing legal case against the law firm. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 11:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The source they are trying to remove is a blog, it's not as far as I can see a RS. Have reliable sources talked about this court case? if not, the information should be removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Not that I think this will solve the problem but the user is going to end up being blocked via UAA for a username violation. I'm guessing they'll pop back up under another name which might make the COI more difficult to spot. OlYellerTalktome 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The username has been blocked but they're attempting to ask for an unblock and help with the article. Cameron and Eastlaw, you might want to address the removal of content with them so they understand why it was removed. They seem to want what's best for everyone (WP and their company). OlYellerTalktome 13:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Two things; Arentfox is blocked for the username, and only the username, they are allowed (encouraged even) to create a new account with a username that follows WP:UNP if they wish to continue editing (or they can request an unblock with a username change request). Secondly, the editor has claimed to be satisfied with the article in its current state and has indicated that they are fine with staying blocked. -- Atama頭 08:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

User:Mathsci is accusing another editor for having a COI in an arbitration enforcement case.[66] This would seem to be a case of a subject-matter expert voicing an opinion. There are subject-matter experts from the opposite side also involved in the dispute (anthropologists). This accusation and note to "uninvolved administrators" would seem to be a case of "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you." Miradre (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Another frivolous request by Miradre. Memills has made it quite clear on wikipedia that he is an evolutionary psychologist. Evolutionary psychology is a controversial subject, so acting as an advocate for the subject would probably be considered a WP:COI. Miradre seems to be playing his favourite game of forum-shopping yet again. Groan. Mathsci (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This is just as incorrect as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting Mathsci of having a COI. Miradre (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(ce) Anthropology is not a controversial subject: it is a mainstream academic subject. No other person on wikipedia has ever suggested that either Slrubenstein or Maunus, both administrators and professional anthropologists, have any conflict of interest in editing articles like anthropology. On the other hand there have been previous discussions involving Memills on wikipedia noticeboards, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#Evolutionary Psychology, just to give a recent example. Mathsci (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you guys going to come to COIN and start an enormous thread every time you have a dispute over content? OlYellerTalktome 13:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This report is not about content-editing; it concerns a request at WP:AE. Miradre is yet again disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Another frivolous attempt to waste everbody's time. Groan. Mathsci (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, this is just as frivolous as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting Mathsci of having a COI. A clear case of attempting to gain the upper in hand in a dispute by COI accusations. Miradre (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Miradre you are misusing this noticeboard and the arguments you are presenting are like those of a small child. Please could you stop this? Thanks Mathsci (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks do not strengthen your case. Miradre (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
They don't do much for yours either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah. One of the involved editors in the AE case turn up. Of course, I have made no personal attack. Miradre (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Diffs: [67] [68] (for example). Evidently you can accuse others of pushing a POV, or of 'ideological bias', but that isn't a personal attack, eh? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Arguing that someone has POV on a subject is not the same as comparing someone to "a small child". Miradre (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The comment applied to your edits, which here hit an all-time low. Mathsci (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
How about if someone suggests that you are behaving like a small child for ideological reasons, Miradre? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
See WP:Civility: "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts". This certainly applies. Miradre (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) So the implied question, if you ignore the useless and time-wasting bickering, seems to be, "Is Mathsci correct in accusing someone of having a COI for editing in matters related to their profession?" The answer is no. Can we end the thread then? Nothing else that anyone has brought up is relevant to this board. -- Atama頭 08:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Claude E. Gagna

Can I get some fresh, independent eyes to look at this article? Back in May 2010, some students of Gagna were assigned to create an article about this college instructor.[69] Over the past day or so, there's been a flurry of activity by an account that apparently is Gagna himself editing the article.

The current text is ill-formatted and reads a lot closer to a résumé than an encyclopedia article. I think it could benefit by some extra eyes looking at it—and possibly some extra voices expressing the need to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I see really bad formatting (it makes me feel ill just looking at it) but is there actually a conflict of interest or just the danger of one? It looks like there's a lot included that really doesn't need to be (a line for a patent and then another line for the Japanese version) but I don't see any weasely language in a skim through. At this point, we made need to find an expert to help determine what should/shouldn't be included for sections like this. We should be able to figure out what awards and group memberships should/shouldn't be included on our own but help from an expert would help. Perhaps most importantly, has notability been established? I would guess so from the awards but as of right now, WP:GNG and WP:PROF don't appear to be satisfied. OlYellerTalktome 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Article speedily deleted as an advertisement. It was basically a resumé and advertising is what resumés do. – ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ctwomen

Ctwomen is a promotional only account with a conflict of interest. Joe Chill (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by Reaper Eternal for spamming with an invalid username. -- Atama頭 18:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Loki0115 and raw foodism

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lately, Loki0115 (talk · contribs) has been raising issues with the content of an article I authored as part of a course on human evolution titled Control of fire by early humans. His issues seem to stem from the fact that he disagrees with the writings of a particular evolutionary biologist who wrote on the subject, who doesn't have many proponents, but the discussion of his writings are still useful for the article. When I checked his contributions, I discovered that Loki0115 has been heavily editing articles concerning the raw foodism movement, which are:

It appears that he has reached some level of opposition on his beliefs on various talk pages, but my main issue is that he has been removing swaths of content that he does not agree with without adding sources to provide the contrary. I came here because I am fairly certain that his actions are not allowable and his most recent edits, along with his extensive editing history, show a clear agenda to push raw food consumption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That might be, but to show a conflict of interest, you would need to demonstrate that Loki0115 is connected closely to the subject (promoting themselves, a friend or relative, or an organization they are affiliated with). Or perhaps to show that they are being compensated in some way for the edits. Editing with a bias isn't a conflict of interest, those issues are handled by WP:BLPN. -- Atama頭 20:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
So I have to go to the biographies of living persons noticeboard to report biased eding? I looked at WP:FTN too, but that didn't look like the right place because this isn't a pseudoscience as far as I am aware.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
These articles aren't BLPs, and I cannot see a BLP issue here. BLP/N isn't the place to deal with this. I suggest that you try to engage with Loki0115 on his/her talk page - if nothing else can settle this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct might be the last resort, but we need to make clear what the problem is first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Meh. I meant to put WP:POVN, my mistake. We have too much freaking alphabet soup on this site, I tell you. :) But yes, that noticeboard is specifically for editors who are clearly demonstrating an inability to edit without bias. -- Atama頭 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
All right. I'll copy my initial post over to POVN then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised at the charges, a number of which are clearly inaccurate. But I will continue with this on the other page.Loki0115 (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Midtown Comics

hope i am doing this right. there is a gallery at Midtown Comics that only looks to be there to promote the institution. it is also almost entirely full of pictures by the same person, who admits he frequents the store and is friends with people who work there. the gallery seems to serve no informative purpose other than to promote the photographer and institution, in my opinion, but i am new here so maybe i am wrong. there's already talk on the talk page about it. cheers. NorthFarWest (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Has absolutely no encyclopaedic value at all - I've deleted it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

appreciate your fast response. have also noticed quite a few articles have the pictures in them like Tim Sale (artist) and Brian Michael Bendis have the same pictures, linking the page to Midtown Comics underneath the picture. not sure of wikipedia policy but does this count as advert? NorthFarWest (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of context, they are good headshots for their individual articles and the mention of Midtown links to the midtown article here rather than their website, so I say that was fine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

right some of them are nice shots and probably there are not better ones. looks like advertising to me but as long as hes not changing all the profile photos to his own seems cool. cheers. NorthFarWest (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that the user who uploaded and added most if not all of the images (Nightscream (talk · contribs)) is an admin. Obviously this doesn't make them immune to COIs but notifying them of this inquiry would be kind. I wouldn't say it's advertising but probably more of an excitement surrounding a topic. Regardless, I don't particularly see how it's actively going against WP's goals but doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic either (so I support the removal). OlYellerTalktome 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I give descriptive captions to all of my photos to when I add them to articles, regardless of where they were taken. Examples include the Brooklyn Book Festival, Big Apple Con, Barnes & Noble, or events in my hometown, and I gave these examples in a discussion on the Midtown Comics article talk page here. As I stated in that discussion, my intent in doing so is to provide information that is descriptive and explanatory, not promotional. It is neither my intent (nor do I believe that it is the effect) to "advertise" Midtown Comics any more than than it is to advertise any of these other locations or events. Nightscream (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any problems with either your conduct neither your photos - simply that particular bunching in that particularly article served no purpose, otherwise in the individual artist/writer articles they are good ads. Having said that, as I mentioned on the mid-town article, you might want to add one back that you think best indicates the activity of a signing as that would have value. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you or someone else perceived as more objective could do this? You can choose from the pics here. Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave O'Grady Music

I unblocked Daveogradymusic (talk · contribs) right after blocking because it was a real name, but if he resumes editing could someone make the appropriate COI interventions? Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The real person's account Daveogrady (talk · contribs) already exists (and appears to be the same person), so shouldn't Daveogradymusic (talk · contribs), which implies some sort of business using the individual's name, be re-blocked? – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's ask first, if only so we know whether we can block as a sock or for username purposes. Daniel Case (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The editor might also have lost control of the original account, because of lost password, etc. The old account hasn't edited for 2 1/2 years. -- Atama頭 01:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
He told me as much in an email. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Harold Baim

'Richard Jeffs' is the contact name on the Baim Films website. The user of that name has just responded to my tagging the article as needing cleanup and references by removing what seems to be reasonable and uncontroversial content, links and the tags themselves. I've rolled back, but a second opinion would be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I should have manually reverted with an edit summary; my bad; but the issue remains. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been reverted again, with an edit summary describing my edits as a "malicious attack on text". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the tags. I have no opinion thus far on the content so didn't fully revert Richard, but the issues being referenced in the tags are still problems. The COI is plausible here, and should be taken into consideration along with the ownership behavior; however since the article is almost completely unreferenced I don't think either of you can completely take the high road. Verifiability is the biggest problem that I can see, and if you are in a dispute between the two of you, it should be settled based on what can be backed up with reliable sources. If neither of you can provide them, then the article should probably be deleted. I'll let Richard know that this report has been filed, if he is interested in participating in this discussion constructively then perhaps we can at least begin to find a resolution. -- Atama頭 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Richard Jeffs just replaced the article with a short statement, " The collection is owned by Richard Jeffs who is not allowed to say what he wants to say here. Instead, please see www.baimfilms.com for information.". I've restored the last version I edited, with wikilinks and other standard improvements. I'm not sure why you're criticising me here; I tagged the article as needing references and further work. Also, "deletion is not cleanup" - we don't delete articles on cleary notable subjects just because they don't (yet) have references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not criticizing you. I'm just pointing out that in a content dispute, it generally falls to whoever has the best claim of verifiability as to what should go in the article, and since there are no references then it's hard for either of you to make a strong claim. However, blanking out the article is a huge no-no, and I'm giving the editor a final warning for that stunt. -- Atama頭 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Richard replied on his user page to my messages (I moved it to his user talk page). He clearly needs some guidance in how Wikipedia works. I left him a rather long message, basically trying as best I can to explain everything a person needs to know to edit an article without stepping on the toes of other editors. I'm not sure if he'll be accepting of it, for now he seems to be treating the article as "his" page and resents other people making changes to it, and I believe it's because he owns the rights to Haim's films, and has been restoring them, and considers himself the authority on them (and he very well may be). I don't think it's due to any ill intent on his part, he just doesn't get what Wikipedia is about; "as the owner of the films I am probably the only person who can write such an article". But we'll see, I haven't given up on him yet. -- Atama頭 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OUTeverywhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following a good faith AfD nomination, the only objector has made lots of edits that all appear one sided. This includes information that cannot be verified on the internet (thus already known, and at hand), and removal of critical text only. Additionally, when raising the AfD, the template was almost instantly removed, before I had a chance to save the discussion page, suggesting a close interest in this site. All of these things may indicate a very close association with the site, and a conflict of interest in the AfD. Teppic74 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, not a CoI issue. No evidence of CoI is provided. As explained in edit summaries the AfD template was removed, correctly, as bogus, and advice given as to how to list correctly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain where the lack of evidence is? Lots of edits all in favour of the website in question, and some containing very specific information that cannot be obtained or verified on the Internet. If this doesn't show evidence of a close relationship with the site, why not? As for the AfD, it was deleted 3 minutes after I saved the page. Teppic74 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Favoring a viewpoint doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. I haven't viewed the edits but unless you can show that Fae has a close connection to the subject, this is a content dispute and/or POV pushing at worst. Do you have any evidence that shows that Fae has a close connection to the subject of the article? Fae is an administrator and an OTRS team member and I don't think that accusing such a person of a conflict of interest with no actual evidence and without notifying them is out of line. OlYellerTalktome 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The claim that I have access to specific information is an interesting one, Teppic74 could you point out a diff where you think this is the case. I do have access to LexisNexis, this may be the source of your suspicion, but the newspapers are public records and I need no affiliation with the organization to look at them or any particular special knowledge to search out articles using keyword matches. Fæ (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned this in the discussion and was asked to bring it here instead. I am stating a concern based on behaviour with regard to this article. An administrator can still have a conflict of interest; I am just presenting a suspicion with the reasons for that. Teppic74 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I never said that an admin can't have a COI but you have presented zero evidence, not even a diff, of even POV pushing or any sort of activity that is against WP's goals. For there to be a COI, there must be evidence that Fae is showing that advancing outside interests is more important to him/her than advancing the aims of Wikipedia and that they have a close relationship with the subject (otherwise it's just POV pushing). You haven't provided any actual evidence of either so to me, it's like if I go to a cop and say, "Teppic is selling drugs out of his basement! Go search his house!" with providing zero evidence of that claim or telling you that I made such a claim.
All I can tell you is that it's doubtful that someone will help you if you provide no actual evidence (diffs) to support your claim. OlYellerTalktome 15:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I don't think I am conducting this properly, so please withdraw the claim and apologies to Fae. Teppic74 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll archive this discussion, if you were directed here then opening this report should not reflect poorly on you. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harold Baim

'Richard Jeffs' is the contact name on the Baim Films website. The user of that name has just responded to my tagging the article as needing cleanup and references by removing what seems to be reasonable and uncontroversial content, links and the tags themselves. I've rolled back, but a second opinion would be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I should have manually reverted with an edit summary; my bad; but the issue remains. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been reverted again, with an edit summary describing my edits as a "malicious attack on text". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the tags. I have no opinion thus far on the content so didn't fully revert Richard, but the issues being referenced in the tags are still problems. The COI is plausible here, and should be taken into consideration along with the ownership behavior; however since the article is almost completely unreferenced I don't think either of you can completely take the high road. Verifiability is the biggest problem that I can see, and if you are in a dispute between the two of you, it should be settled based on what can be backed up with reliable sources. If neither of you can provide them, then the article should probably be deleted. I'll let Richard know that this report has been filed, if he is interested in participating in this discussion constructively then perhaps we can at least begin to find a resolution. -- Atama頭 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Richard Jeffs just replaced the article with a short statement, " The collection is owned by Richard Jeffs who is not allowed to say what he wants to say here. Instead, please see www.baimfilms.com for information.". I've restored the last version I edited, with wikilinks and other standard improvements. I'm not sure why you're criticising me here; I tagged the article as needing references and further work. Also, "deletion is not cleanup" - we don't delete articles on cleary notable subjects just because they don't (yet) have references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not criticizing you. I'm just pointing out that in a content dispute, it generally falls to whoever has the best claim of verifiability as to what should go in the article, and since there are no references then it's hard for either of you to make a strong claim. However, blanking out the article is a huge no-no, and I'm giving the editor a final warning for that stunt. -- Atama頭 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Richard replied on his user page to my messages (I moved it to his user talk page). He clearly needs some guidance in how Wikipedia works. I left him a rather long message, basically trying as best I can to explain everything a person needs to know to edit an article without stepping on the toes of other editors. I'm not sure if he'll be accepting of it, for now he seems to be treating the article as "his" page and resents other people making changes to it, and I believe it's because he owns the rights to Haim's films, and has been restoring them, and considers himself the authority on them (and he very well may be). I don't think it's due to any ill intent on his part, he just doesn't get what Wikipedia is about; "as the owner of the films I am probably the only person who can write such an article". But we'll see, I haven't given up on him yet. -- Atama頭 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OUTeverywhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following a good faith AfD nomination, the only objector has made lots of edits that all appear one sided. This includes information that cannot be verified on the internet (thus already known, and at hand), and removal of critical text only. Additionally, when raising the AfD, the template was almost instantly removed, before I had a chance to save the discussion page, suggesting a close interest in this site. All of these things may indicate a very close association with the site, and a conflict of interest in the AfD. Teppic74 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, not a CoI issue. No evidence of CoI is provided. As explained in edit summaries the AfD template was removed, correctly, as bogus, and advice given as to how to list correctly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain where the lack of evidence is? Lots of edits all in favour of the website in question, and some containing very specific information that cannot be obtained or verified on the Internet. If this doesn't show evidence of a close relationship with the site, why not? As for the AfD, it was deleted 3 minutes after I saved the page. Teppic74 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Favoring a viewpoint doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. I haven't viewed the edits but unless you can show that Fae has a close connection to the subject, this is a content dispute and/or POV pushing at worst. Do you have any evidence that shows that Fae has a close connection to the subject of the article? Fae is an administrator and an OTRS team member and I don't think that accusing such a person of a conflict of interest with no actual evidence and without notifying them is out of line. OlYellerTalktome 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The claim that I have access to specific information is an interesting one, Teppic74 could you point out a diff where you think this is the case. I do have access to LexisNexis, this may be the source of your suspicion, but the newspapers are public records and I need no affiliation with the organization to look at them or any particular special knowledge to search out articles using keyword matches. Fæ (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned this in the discussion and was asked to bring it here instead. I am stating a concern based on behaviour with regard to this article. An administrator can still have a conflict of interest; I am just presenting a suspicion with the reasons for that. Teppic74 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I never said that an admin can't have a COI but you have presented zero evidence, not even a diff, of even POV pushing or any sort of activity that is against WP's goals. For there to be a COI, there must be evidence that Fae is showing that advancing outside interests is more important to him/her than advancing the aims of Wikipedia and that they have a close relationship with the subject (otherwise it's just POV pushing). You haven't provided any actual evidence of either so to me, it's like if I go to a cop and say, "Teppic is selling drugs out of his basement! Go search his house!" with providing zero evidence of that claim or telling you that I made such a claim.
All I can tell you is that it's doubtful that someone will help you if you provide no actual evidence (diffs) to support your claim. OlYellerTalktome 15:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I don't think I am conducting this properly, so please withdraw the claim and apologies to Fae. Teppic74 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll archive this discussion, if you were directed here then opening this report should not reflect poorly on you. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Craig Mitnick

Anonymous user changed the wording of the article to laud the subject. They claim that they were a broadcaster with CBS, hinting personal involvement. They now refuse to have these edits reversed. KJS77 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP has identified themselves as the subject of the article (see the edit summary). I've left a single issue notice template on their talk page about conflicts of interest. They have also violated 3RR. I expect a block to be coming soon. OlYellerTalktome 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've left an additional message to attempt to explain the situation and how to move forward. I'll keep an eye on the situation and report back if there's an issue I can't take care of. OlYellerTalktome 20:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. KJS77 17:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Swarcliffe

Follow-up from Talk:Swarcliffe and User talk:Harkey Lodger. Waterfox ~talk~ 14:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain the COI? It's not very clear at the moment. All I see is that you're accusing a well established editor of a COI, produced no real evidence, and failed to notify them of this report (which I will now do). OlYellerTalktome 14:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Adapted from User talk:Harkey Lodger: User:Andreasegde has added a link on the Swarcliffe page to the page Andrew Edge, an article to which he has made an inordinate number of contributions. When checking the refs by googling, Harkey found that the Utube account for "andreasegde" is the realm of Andrew Edge. Some refs on the Andrew Edge article point to his own blog and homepage. Harkey has only checked a few of the other refs but none, so far, prove his connections with the people he mentions, just that these people exist: of which I had no doubt anyway. Putting "Andrew Edge" into Wikipedia the search box reveals an unusual number of links in other articles. Harkey thinks this may be a case of an editor being in breach of WP:COI. He has edited his own biography without declaring his interest. — Waterfox ~talk~ 15:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The same editor has also made a lot of contributions to Drumsing, Savage Progress and Uropa Lula without declaring an interest.--Harkey (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The important thing to remember about WP:COI is that not only is declaring a close link to the subject(s) whose article's you're editing not required, unless you show that your goals are directly conflicting with the goals of WP, there is no COI (only the possibility of a COI). You've certainly shown an apparent close relationship but I still don't see any breach of WP:COI but I don't have an intimate knowledge of the edits like I'd bet you do. Some diffs that show how the user is directly promoting their own goals over WP would certainly make things clearer. OlYellerTalktome 16:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the mention of Edge in the Swarcliffe article: if you search Wikipedia for "Swarcliffe", he is the only person whose article is included in the 25 hits, so if that article passes notability it is reasonable for any editor to add a mention of him as a notable resident. There may be a COI with other articles. PamD (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is not with the Swarcliffe article in particular. I took this " Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." to mean what it says. Creating articles about a group/band/artist promotes their visibility instantly because of the way Wikipedia is used across the internet as a free source of content. I do not have an intimate knowledge of the user's edits. I came across this by coincidence, when I was checking an article that he had linked to a page I was editing. I think it shows the subjects of the articles in a bad light if they are seen to be in need of free publicity. However, so be it. --Harkey (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned Swarcliffe because that's the title of this COIN section, possibly inappropriately! I agree there may well be a lot of COI in other articles - and Chzz's research below is certainly very interesting, in terms of articles created etc. I'm not familiar enough with WP:RS in music to know whether those articles are well sourced, or pass notability. PamD (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have had a quick look, and I see a serious concern here. I checked just some of the links on Wikipedia to "Andrew Edge", and discovered that this user;
  • Created Savage Progress [70] Andrew Edge (drums/background vocals)
  • Added to Thompson Twins, Andrew Edge joined them on drums for about one year, but left because of the internal tension [71]
  • Created Drumsing, a duo of musicians featuring Andrew Edge [72]
  • Created Uropa Lula [73], a British pop group, consisting of David Lloyd (vocals and guitar), Allan Dias (bass guitar), Pete Fromm (keyboards), Andrew Edge (drums/percussion)
  • Added to Tom Bailey (musician), [74] Andrew Edge played drums with them for one year before Chris Bell joined
  • Added to Linz, [75] Living in Linz: [..] Andrew Edge (born in Leeds, England, 1956) musician.
I'm sure there's lots more; I only checked a few. I don't know if I have the time to trawl through all of this. It's going to be a bit messy, I'm afraid. :-(  Chzz  ►  19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
While editing under a conflict of interest certainly creates the appearance of impropriety, what is the substance of his additions to this articles? First of all, I don't think he's really hiding his real identity (Andreas Edge vs. Andrew Edge? Really? Does it take a rocket scientist to put THAT together?). Secondly, WP:COI doesn't outright ban editing articles, just that the additions need to be neutrally worded and otherwise obey Wikipedia policy. While I do note that the andreasedge account has hardly been a model citizen to this point, I think the WP:COI evidence provided above doesn't raise to the level of being damning in terms of an issue. I have minor concerns about a person who belonged to a band adding themselves to that article. It's a mild bit of vanity compared to the really eggregious WP:COI stuff we see all the time. Again, the COI is there, but I don't think this rises to the level of a bannable offense yet. Definately something to keep an eye on, but I'm not sure that (for this behavior) sanctions are in order. I would continue to encourage the Andreasedge account to be careful to avoid problems, but I still think we're in the "warn and watch" phase of this. I think we can go and clean up any unreliable sources, remove the worst of the fluff, and caution him to avoid edit warring over this. If edit warring over clean-up to these articles or WP:OWN becomes a major issue, sanctions can be considered. --Jayron32 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if the editor could at least acknowledge the COI issues here, and agree to best-practice; creation of some articles, above, is certainly a concern.  Chzz  ►  05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The editor in question has compiled a list of errors in the article on the talk page and asked me to help with the changes. Another editor has left Andreasedge a message that's something to the effect of "I have no intention of ever going through this list of errors". I'm busy today and probably won't be able to do any checking on the alleged issues until later tonight at the earliest. Is anyone else available to give this issue a look? OlYellerTalktome 11:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Equality Ride

I made several edits to the article to remove promotional material and improve neutrality. After I did so, Flowingfire (talk · contribs), whose edits are almost exclusively to the Equality Ride and consist of heavily promotional material, referred to the article as "our article" on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Equality_Ride&diff=prev&oldid=444515939 here]:

I approve of the revert that undid the damage done to this page by the user known as NYYankees. Over time, there has been a great deal of vandalism, and manufactured controversy that has caused people to attack the Equality Ride Wikipedia page. It has now been nominated for deletion twice, the page has been "blanked" several times over the years... And now, vandalism has been done by removing relevant content.

I expect this might be an ongoing problem for this page, but I just decided to fix it, replace some photos that were nominated for unjust deletion, and then comment here.

Quit vandalizing our page for political reasons. You may not like the gay rights movement or the young people showing up at your doorstep to call you out for your hateful practices, but leave the Wikipedia page alone.

Seems like a pretty clear conflict of interest - the user is an employee or otherwise affiliated with Soulforce or Equality Ride. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you are right. I will put the article on my watchlist to ride herd on NPOV which is the crux of COI. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


Response and Further Complaint: I am filing an official Conflict of Interest report against NYYahkees51, who I believe to be politically motivated to minimize the Equality Ride's Wikipedia page however he can. From all appearances, this user is reducing the quality of the Equality Ride page by removing relevant content, and would like to see it gone for political reasons.

Because he's a self-proclaimed creationist, pro-life Christian on his profile, NYYankees51 may have political issues with a gay rights group that visits & confronts anti-gay Christian institutions. I think this motivation is exemplified by his attempt to get the Equality Ride page deleted for almost no reason-- right after removing content.

I am not interested in seeing edits that reduce the quality of content. I'm not interested when someone says a well-written article isn't "neutral," because it's not accounting for the point of view of an anti-gay born-again Christian. Guess what? If all material about minorities had to be "neutral" against the leanings of people who hate them, then the KKK would be able to edit the articles on Judaism and say the holocaust was "questionable," because some say it never happened. This is ridiculous, and the Equality Ride article was written in a VERY neutral voice, given a neutrally-accepting perspective on LGBT rights. It has also been edited by many, many people over time.

Who wouldn't see it as neutral? Somebody who despises the gay rights movement, and demands gay people be referred to in a certain minimized or pejorative light. Sometimes a little "conflict of interest" is necessary to keep minority turf from being invaded by barbarians. If people with vested interest in diminishing the gay rights movement can freely edit articles about gay people, then I might as well go to all the minority pages and change them to fit the white perspective. That would be neutral right? No. Actually, it wouldn't be.

This issue MUST be dealt with by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people alone. Nobody else.

I request review by a specifically gay, lesbian, bi, or trans moderator who can resolve this conflict. Flowingfire (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

^I rest my case. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Enforcing "neutrality" from a hateful majority perspective against a minority isn't neutrality; it's imperialism. Have you ever read 20th century writings (like Feminism) about objectivity simply being a codified majority opinion? This is a gay rights activism page. It's going to be coming from that perspective, just as all articles will generally come from a perspective. You HAVE to take that community's experiences into account, and not incorporate majority bias as part of a "neutrality" argument. No neutrality exists, ever, because the person writing something always brings their attitude to the table. That said, the article was in good "neutral-voice" for what it was. Flowingfire (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An observation here. I see no reason to talk of "a hateful majority perspective". Being heterosexual doesn't equate with being homophobic. Regarding the article itself, I'll not comment, since I haven't read it as yet: maybe NYyankee51 is being 'imperialistic' (whatever that means in this context), or maybe not - that is no reason to assume that everyone who isn't LGBT is part of some oppressive regime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Heterosexual people are not what I'm talking about. Truly, most are in fact good, and not homophobic. I'm saying this particular person is not neutral on this matter, likely due to religious and political affiliations. He will not understand the gay experience, or be able to accurately gauge neutrality. In the same way, I, being white, will never understand the "black" experience and would be a little silly to try to claim neutrality arguments against an Afro-centric page from a (potentially racist) white perspective. Flowingfire (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but sadly, one can apply the same logic to say that only Ku Klux Klan members understand the 'Klan' experience, so only Klan members should edit articles about the Klan (I believe that someone actually tried to argue this once on Wikipedia). If you have specific concerns about NYyankee, then fine, tell us what they are. You are right of course that true 'neutrality' is impossible to achieve, but that is no reason to abandon the principle that by discussion and debate, it is possible to move towards it - this is one of the principles that Wikipedia is founded on - the belief that we can agree with people who are different than ourselves. It may be hopelessly idealistic (indeed, it probably is), but our efforts seem to result in something passably useful while we fail to achieve this utopian ideal. I'd say, having looked at the article in question, that I've seen far worse, and that it doesn't look like a hatchet-job cooked up by Christian Fundamentalists to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that moving toward agreement through dialogue is a good goal, and I hope we can do that overall. It's hard when the people presenting the most challenges to a minority group's page are very much invested in minimizing us. Remember: minimization is a form of oppression. You're right-- it's not a hatchet job as is... But, half the content has just been flagged for removal, and it would be a hatchet-job without tireless effort to keep it afloat. Yes, I agree that dialogue and discussion can always move toward a greater ideal of some form of neutrality, even if true philosophical neutrality is not possible.Flowingfire (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to be getting somewhere here. Regarding the content 'flagged for removal' this seems (at least on the face of it) to be because there are no citations provided, indicating where the content is derived from: Wikipedia isn't a provider of free space for pressure groups, regardless of the justness of their cause - instead it is an online encyclopaedia, with a commitment to writing articles based on externally-verifiable third-party reliable sources. I am quite sure that your particular cause has attracted enough attention for it to be possible to find this - and if it isn't, then sadly, the problem is with the world at large, and not with Wikipedia, and you are unlikely to change much by arguing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the potential sources are on copyrighted documentaries or were on television or print media. (Like The Advocate, Washington Post, ABC News, etc, etc, etc.) "History" is rarely written about current-events. Over time, "current" news sources from print media become archived for pay or unavailable. That said, removing 3/4 of the page will do no good. Also... please respect the role of a civil rights organization instead of calling it a "pressure group?" That's pejorative. I suppose you could call King's march a "pressure group" too though... Flowingfire (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I emphasize, and also re-iterate my very, very serious request for specific review by LGBT moderators. I might not be neutral, but neither is the primary bringer of this COI notice. Somebody neutral should just go around and look for relevant sources rather than letting the whole page be deleted. Most of them are pretty well archived in pay webs, if you know where you're looking. Flowingfire (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A reply to your first comment: If the potential sources are on print media, then they are exactly what we need - and being difficult to access is no reason to prevent them being cited. If they exist, and can be verified, they can be cited. As for the difference between a 'pressure group' and a 'civil rights organization', I personally believe that 'civil rights' only come about through 'group pressure' and changing economic circumstances, though I may be in a minority on this. And can you drop the endless martyrdom references please. I've heard them all before, and they do little to convince anyone of anything. If you believe in a cause, you should be able to argue it on its own merits, not by riding on the coattails of others. I've explained how Wikipedia works, I've explained what you need to do - so get searching for sources, rather than wasting time here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
And a reply to your second comment: We do not have 'moderators' on Wikipedia - this isn't an internet forum. It is an online encyclopaedia. Some contributors are administrators - and they have (at least in theory) no more right to determine article content than anyone else - they have additional powers to enforce policies arrived at by general consensus (again, hopeless utopianism, that doesn't actually work in practice, but on the way - probably by accident - helps make Wikipedia produce something vaguely useful). And we certainly don't have 'LGBT moderators' - I'm sure we have LGBT administators, but we don't hand out special powers to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. You'll have to convince us all, gay and straight, black and white, pro-chopping-the-blunt-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off or pro-chopping-the-pointy-end-of-a-boiled-egg-off of the merits of your arguments. That is how it works here. It is a pain, but it seems to work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. If references are at issue, I hope somebody with a lot of time is as passionate about this article as I've been. Maybe NYYankees51 will decide to provide some references or content. In fact, that would show a great deal of commitment to the article's success on his part! I hope he's not just out to make it disappear! Flowingfire (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


Note: "Flowingfire" appears to be an "Equality Rider" for the organization. I suggest that a COI is present (full cite might "out" the person, but is at soulforce.org and uses the name "flowingfire"). Cheers. The COI is found. Collect (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

FlowingFire is a single purpose account which primarily edits Equality Ride (ER) and Soulforce. Their edits are promotional in nature. They exhibit ownersip of ER. NYY presented FlowingFire's tacit admission of affiliaion with E.R. Collect has verified the affiliation. FlowingFire has presented nothing to dispute these findings. The COI is established.– Lionel (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot to take in here, so I'll try to address matters one thing at a time.
First of all, vandalism is one of those terms like hounding or even COI itself that are far too often misused and overused on Wikipedia. Vandalism does not mean that someone changes an article in a way you don't like, or even in a way that you think is harmful or disruptive. Vandalism only occurs when the editor is intentionally trying to damage Wikipedia. It's one of the dirtiest words on this site, and false accusations are poorly received.
That is only the first of the claims made by FlowingFire that I find deeply disturbing. There are many statements that bother me. The allegation that NYyankees51 has a COI because of professed personal beliefs. The allegation that anyone who objects to the neutrality of the article must despise the gay rights movement. A statement like, "Sometimes a little "conflict of interest" is necessary to keep minority turf from being invaded by barbarians." Or, "This issue MUST be dealt with by gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender people alone. Nobody else." A request for resolution by "a specifically gay, lesbian, bi, or trans moderator". A demand that the article has to come from a gay rights activist perspective only, followed by a general rejection of WP:NPOV.
In the face of all of that, the COI itself is almost irrelevant. I'll agree that the COI is fairly obvious, that the editor is affiliated with the organization. But more disturbing by far is the complete rejection of the core tenets of neutrality that Wikipedia is based upon. It's clear to me that FlowingFire is not here to improve Wikipedia, but to promote an activist agenda, this motivation is not only obvious but is practically being trumpeted. We call this soapboxing, and we quite regularly ban or block editors who engage in it. -- Atama頭 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_51&oldid=1144712175"