From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Inthelionsden

Appears to be working for the Neovia/Neteller corporation. Claims "User monitors and commentates on financial services and payments industry in the real world." but all edits are to Neovia, only one to another payment service, to make this [1] potentially COI edit to a major rival of Neovia/Neteller. Edits such as:

[2] are part of a series that have resulted in the current article, which, absurdly, now reads:

"As Internet use expanded during the 2000s, the United States government sought to prohibit online gambling by its citizens. As part of this prohibition the U.S. Department of Justice reached agreements with several companies[25] that it believed had provided advertising and payment services to offshore gambling companies including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Paypal[26] and Neteller (now part of Neovia Financial). Each of these companies reached a financial settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and ceased offering these services to U.S. residents. Neteller reached its agreement with the US government in July 2007[27] and had the complaint against it by the U.S. Department of Justice dismissed in the summer of 2009[28]."

ignoring the fact that, per [3]

"The British money transfer firm NETeller has pulled out of the United States gambling market Thursday, after two of the groups founders were arrested in the US earlier this week. They face up to 20 years in jail if convicted.

NETeller was the largest company of its kind processing billions of dollars in American gambling transactions every year. The closure to US gamblers will cost the company over 65% of its business. Trading on the London Stock Exchange has been frozen.

"

the company's shares were suspended for six months [4] and US customers funds were likewise in limbo for that period, and none of the other companies (MSFT et al) lost even 0.65% of their revenues, let alone 65%.

Here's another blatant COI series of edits:

[5]

The user's IP is in Calgary, location of a Neovia office.

There are also some COI edits made from a British Airways lounge in the UK (Neovia office location), IPs 163.166.137.10, 163.166.135.45, 163.166.135.44, on multiple days: it would seem likely that they are also User:Inthelionsden, given that they are clearly made by a Neovia user travelling on business, and the edits fit together. Sumbuddi ( talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Craightever: likely paid editing

Resolved
 – Craightever and socks deleted, pages nuked. Brandon ( talk) 03:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing some requests for paid editing from elance dot com has led me to Craightever ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has recently created some articles coinciding with elance job offers. The first article synchs up with the paid editing request at this link, which was posted by a user called Nitel with the description "Need someone to post a wikipedia page for our company. Content will be provided. Individual must understand wiki markup and understand disambiguation procedures."

The last two articles were likely a result of this job offer. The job offer was rewarded to the same Elance account that the Nitel posting was awarded to, and the offer was in the field of sports betting. All of the articles appeared slightly after the job bidding ended so I doubt this is a coincidence.

I sent the last two articles to a batch AfD ( here), yet I'm not sure what to do about the first since notability is borderline. So far I have tagged it with a COI tag but have not nominated it for deletion. I'm posting here to advertise the situation and ask if there's anything else that should be done. Them From Space 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the 2nd and 3rd for speedy deletion as they don't make any assertion of notability, AfD seems pretty unnecessary. I agree that it does seem likely that your assumptions about paid editing are probably true. Smartse ( talk) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
With regards to the first whether they are notable or not depends on whether the awards they've received constitute "significant coverage" as required by WP:CORP. Personally I would say that they don't - looking at the references they don't really say any other than that the company exists, this is the most significant coverage but it looks suspicously like a press release to me. I'd say that this one probably does need to go to AfD though. Smartse ( talk) 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that while paid editing is certainly in opposition to our COI guidelines, there is no consensus to blatantly forbid it (though there are proposals for such policy). I've put a proposed deletion tag on the Nitel article, it asserts notability so it's ineligible for A7, but since it doesn't prove it (and I can't find coverage that does it) I'm proposing it for deletion. -- Atama 頭 23:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to add, I did delete the others, they're classic A7 candidates as they don't even try to say why the companies are notable. -- Atama 頭 23:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's our "friend" Tayzen again... see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Desiphral/Archive. MER-C 09:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF but certainly looks like COI

See [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bernoulli%27s_principle&action=historysubmit&diff=329627043&oldid=329458733 where a used called chansonh has just added a whole load of material on the work of and linking to publications by H Chanson. Not got time to sort through now. -- BozMo talk 09:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That may or may not be a problem. The guidelines have a specific provision for experts who cite themselves in articles. If not done excessively, this isn't a problem. In fact, it can be incredibly helpful, because who knows better how and when to appropriately cite information on a topic than an expert on that topic. That doesn't mean that the conflict of interest should be ignored, because it's possible that the person is trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, but you have to weigh that against the benefit of the material being added.
Having said that, I do have some concerns. This person has claimed to be Chanson himself, so I'm not concerned about outing as he's already identified himself. This editor has made hundreds of edits to Wikipedia, for more than 2 years, but I have trouble seeing any edits that don't in some way promote his work outside of Wikipedia. I have to say that definitely makes me uneasy, but since these additions do seem to improve Wikipedia and there are no examples of actual disruption, I think that we should consider his editing a net positive until it does cause more of a problem. -- Atama 頭 00:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Inthelionsden

Appears to be working for the Neovia/Neteller corporation. Claims "User monitors and commentates on financial services and payments industry in the real world." but all edits are to Neovia, only one to another payment service, to make this [6] potentially COI edit to a major rival of Neovia/Neteller. Edits such as:

[7] are part of a series that have resulted in the current article, which, absurdly, now reads:

"As Internet use expanded during the 2000s, the United States government sought to prohibit online gambling by its citizens. As part of this prohibition the U.S. Department of Justice reached agreements with several companies[25] that it believed had provided advertising and payment services to offshore gambling companies including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Paypal[26] and Neteller (now part of Neovia Financial). Each of these companies reached a financial settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and ceased offering these services to U.S. residents. Neteller reached its agreement with the US government in July 2007[27] and had the complaint against it by the U.S. Department of Justice dismissed in the summer of 2009[28]."

ignoring the fact that, per [8]

"The British money transfer firm NETeller has pulled out of the United States gambling market Thursday, after two of the groups founders were arrested in the US earlier this week. They face up to 20 years in jail if convicted.

NETeller was the largest company of its kind processing billions of dollars in American gambling transactions every year. The closure to US gamblers will cost the company over 65% of its business. Trading on the London Stock Exchange has been frozen.

"

the company's shares were suspended for six months [9] and US customers funds were likewise in limbo for that period, and none of the other companies (MSFT et al) lost even 0.65% of their revenues, let alone 65%.

Here's another blatant COI series of edits:

[10]

The user's IP is in Calgary, location of a Neovia office.

There are also some COI edits made from a British Airways lounge in the UK (Neovia office location), IPs 163.166.137.10, 163.166.135.45, 163.166.135.44, on multiple days: it would seem likely that they are also User:Inthelionsden, given that they are clearly made by a Neovia user travelling on business, and the edits fit together. Sumbuddi ( talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Surge control

While the article itself may have value (with a rewrite), it is single authored by an engineering group who included a link for solving this problem on the page. I came across this while on a new page patrol. I have deleted the link, but I don't know how to handle the page itself.

Vulture19 ( talk) 01:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So far so good on catching it and with any corporate nonsense on it completely gone it's not going to harm anyone. COI troubles gone! Victory! *Poof* Unfortunately, we both know that's not quite enough to keep it in the encyclopedia.

It seems the resident help machine Atama picked up on this and had at it a bit already. This message board can only help you to a certain degree since the focus in the conflict of interest is the focus, but we can work on point of view as well to go a bit more. The more it looks like a really glorified and extended definition of pretty normal things we all know of, and again this probably comes from the corporate aspect. What's happened is that the name of the article and its contents are two different things. The names wants an event described, but the body is scrambled things. Since you can't say "Surge control typical applications" without attempting to flood someone, this has to go. Other things like a definition aren't bad though. Plenty of freedom. The sections being named what they are were part of the company's sales pitch, basically, so they're the POV problem. Fixed and you're probably out of our scope here. Good and bad! ...General ideas after? Same as any other article:

  • Just edit it? With the title and components split and impossible to make an article off of, you could just start over and only talk about the idea of water surging.
  • Rename after adjustments? The current article name was bent around their company product I think, so "hydraulic surge" or "water surge" might be better? Making this priority would require making this specific method of water control particularly notable versus... I don't know. Not my field. If this name is alright, Surge control (water) might be needed since there are other types.
  • Merge it? Surge tank looks particularly appealing and this could be a second section of it that has the more modern technologies. Some of what's already here might be able to go straight there since a tank is a physical object just like the things here.
  • Redirect? Water control could (big maybe, though) work, but it's a redirect to Flood control currently, which doesn't relate to this per say, but it could be un-redirected. This wold be the easy way out.
  • Deletion process? Noooo! You were right at the start; with this to start with that would be a waste to try something that hopefully should be declined anyway.

Up to you, you know this! No ownership of articles of course, but if there hasn't been an attempt at a major revamp or direction show or mentioned on the talk page, so it's free game for now, hm? Attack the point of sections, add or remove as you think you need, or just have one and make it a stub? Really tons of options here. The idea of a surge of water is actually pretty broad and it seems this has accidentally been handed to you in case you want to express yourself(?). :) Good luck. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit at a loss also with this, I did some really simple cleanup in the article but that was just a start. I agree that throwing it out completely would be a shame but I don't know if it has much of a chance as an article. A Google search indicates that "surge control" applies to water pressure and electricity, in fact surgecontrol.com is a web site for electronic surge suppressors, so even the idea of the article seems flawed. Of the ideas proposed by Datheisen, I think merging to surge tank has the most promise as it would improve an already existing article.
Just an FYI, as to the original COI complaints, A little insignificant left a very helpful note about COI on Youngengineering's talk page. I've been debating whether or not their user page should be deleted per G11, but it's borderline so I left it alone. All of their problematic edits outside of their user page have been reverted in one way or another (including this deleted article) so I don't think much needs to be done about the editor unless they start making more promotional edits (in which case they should probably be blocked). -- Atama 頭 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I was somewhat... irked about the user page as well but did nothing, since everything time I do or do not CSD a userpage for gross violations if moved to the mainspace I seem to get scolded... for marking or not marking. Yet another reason why "userspace immunity" really needs to be decided at some point, or did I miss the memo? Agree that the user account itself is fine as long as they don't try anything like this again or put their company link on any related page, at which point a soft block for username might come up too, I'd think? If the company proper has no article and edits are normal and constructive it's not a direct attempt at promotion, I suppose. ...And yeah, the article just needs some kind of focus or angle of attack. There's nothing harmful of it with the corporate tidbits taken off, as the poster wisely did. Hey, the user might even fill in what I thought was an unusually low amount of content on flood control articles! ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that any details on controlling electrical surges should be added to the Surge arrestor page. Surge control can be used for flood prevention measures (though a disambiguation hat note might be good). filceolaire ( talk) 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-complicated, with different terms used either way, and then you engineering people have to come and confuse me with "arrestor"? *sobs* ...But fair enough, if this space is "free". Oh, industrial level, hmm... alright, I see you logic on this. Surge protection currently redirects to Surge protector, covering the sissy home versions that arrestors eat for breakfast, but perhaps turn 'protection' to a disambiguation to any of the three? ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Pegasus Publishing

Resolved
 – User blocked for username violation, AfD closed as delete Netalarm talk 07:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The article has been deleted and I have reported the user name to WP:UAA. –  ukexpat ( talk) 21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

John Baumann and similar

Spam for John Baumann as a motivational speaker, maybe just a vanity article if we AGF, regardless this looks like a single purpose account. 2 says you, says two 20:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Matter of "userspace immunity" yet to be seen I guess. It's per admin to decide what to do, so by all means, someone have at it! I'd put a noindex on it as a most generic form of hiding it harmlessly in a way the user would probably never even see would probably do, but I'm really, really not going to edit in another's userspace like that, nor should anyone sans admins. Actually noindex would theoretically be my pick so it can rest in peace safe from any wandering souls from the outside. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have notified Jbahama of this discussion. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's a single-purpose account, which isn't always a bad thing. In this case it hasn't been all that helpful, and only seems to be promoting this one person (who may or may not be the editor also) but the articles are deleted and all that's left is a relatively same page in user subspace. I'd say leave it alone unless the editor tries to recreate the article without addressing the original complaints of promotion. -- Atama 頭 17:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Marketing director of Waldron Mercy Academy

I have sent the article to Afd. Grade schools are generally not notable and I don't think that one award is sufficient here. The notable alumni don't impart their notability to the school either. –  ukexpat ( talk) 21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
It's very likely that the AfD is going to close as a keep, and if so I would suggest that someone help Trish out with the article. Wikipedia is wary of editors with conflicts of interest, and Trish is a marketing person which sets off extra alarm bells, but since she seems to be sincere and has been open about her COI, I would recommend extending her some courtesy and a good faith assumption unless given reason not to. (Engaging in edit wars to maintain copyright violations, promotional material, or not responding to requests for discussion would be examples of misbehavior that might ban her to the talk page.) -- Atama 頭 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indie Movies

The one common thread I see here is that every film was released on DVD by Maverick Entertainment Group and has an external link to that company's web site. I'm guessing that the editor is promoting them. -- Atama 頭 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I also note that there may be copyvios on some of these articles. I'll review that later and I might delete some per G11 speedy. -- Atama 頭 00:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sports Agents Promoting Themselves and Their Clients

There are a series of editors and pages which may pose an undisclosed COI involving some sports agents/attorneys and their cleints. The involved SPA editors are:

The recreated Don West, Jr., and the new articles Sean A. Pittman and William David Cornwell all read like advertisements and I have nominated them for deletion on December 1. There are also associated redirect pages. Please help. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

All three articles were deleted through AfDs on December 9. Racepacket ( talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The COIs seem to be there, but these look like mostly drive-by editors. The best course of action is to clean up their messes.
  • As mentioned, the Don West, Sean Pittman, and William Cornwell articles are all deleted now as non-notable promotional articles.
  • I've looked over the Garrett Johnson article and fixed a small formatting error as well as removing information about Don West (which was completely inappropriate to include). The article itself seems to merit inclusion though, as the athlete won the 2006 NCAA Indoor and Outdoor Shot Put Championship.
  • The Shaun Cody article has already had the mention of Don West removed.
  • The Warrick Dunn Foundation article is now a redirect to a more notable article.
  • Cedrick Hardman played for the NFL for 13 years and certainly merits inclusion per WP:ATHLETE so that article is fine.
I think that everything has been taken care of, for now, with this issue. -- Atama 頭 17:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:OpenAccessforScience

Creating articles about E-Century Publishing Corporation, a company dedicated to, guess what, "open access for science". Creates spamlinks to e-Century and its publications, articles about its publications, etc. Can't quite block the name as a spamusename, but close. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This might be the same person as E-century. That editor was blocked only for username issues, and it was a softblock, so there's no sockpuppetry involved if they're the same (and the template on their talk page actually asked them to make a new account). The article for the publishing company doesn't seem to be notable, and I almost speedily-deleted it for lacking any claims to notability but thought twice about it. I can't find any credible coverage of it and might just propose it for deletion. It was deleted in the past for being unambiguous advertising, but this version of the article isn't as promotional. The articles about its journals are also questionable. -- Atama 頭 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:MolexConnectors

Users:

User:MolexConnectors is making press release caliber edits to Molex connector and Molex. These have been reverted by other editors and User:MolexConnectors keeps restoring them. Identical edits were previously made by 63.87.3.6 , an IP address at Molex Incorporated. Compare these edits: [15] and [16].

This user is also removing any mention of competing products. [17]

I left a message on User talk:MolexConnectors.

-- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 06:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nihonjoe sliced like a ninja and blocked the editor before I had a chance to. This is probably resolved unless they start socking in which case that should be reported either here or at sockpuppet investigations. -- Atama 頭 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Novelos

Resolved
 – The articles are deleted and Bixbyte, as an IP, declared at the AfD that he would "contribute [his] scientific knowledge elsewhere". -- Atama 頭 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User

Articles

These instances of soapboxing are also troubling. [18], [19], [20]  7  00:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Although the editor has denied affiliation with the company, I find it hard to believe considering the wealth of evidence you've presented. I can't imagine any reason why an unaffiliated person would carry on such a campaign to advocate this company. -- Atama 頭 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
More COI evidence here. I find no independent source to establish notability for the company or the products but don't want to appear to be stalking the user (they just keep coming back to my talk page!). Would hope that if the COI is confirmed we can take the appropriate measures on the articles. Smells kind of like paid editing to me.  7  03:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah. "I'm not affiliated with the company, but if you want I can have the CEO of the company back me up..." My biggest concern is the copyright infringement, however. That is far more serious than any COI allegations. Looking at the most recently deleted version of the Novelos Therapeutics article, I see that it is a word-for-word copy of the current version. Which means that if one can be deleted as a copyvio, the current one should be. My problem is that I can't find what is a copyvio aside from "Approved for use in Russia and administered to over 10,000 patients" which is lifted from this, but that alone isn't enough to delete the whole article. If yourself or Will Beback can remember the basis for the previous copyvio deletion, then this can be deleted or at least blanked pending Bixbyte's claim that the rights to the material can be donated. If that can't be provided, and copyright infringement is proven, I'd recommend blocking him until he agrees to no longer violate WP:COPYVIO. -- Atama 頭 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

( ←) I tagged it back in May - and when Dank deleted fortunately he included what I had tagged it with [21]. Not sure if that was the same for the Oct deletion. However now the articles are so short that they may be close paraphrases but I'm unable to find any exact long-string copyvios.  7  07:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok - the Novelos main article may not be copyvio, but the other two sure have problems. I've tagged both, but would appreciate if someone can take a look. Both of the were partly (not completely) copied from non-free sites which I have tagged, and one of them was also beefed-up with cut/paste from Inosine and an experimental drug definition apparently to make it look longer.  7  07:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This guy has even spammed the health blogs of the N.Y. Times with Novelos promotion. I've blocked him as a SOA block. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged Novelos Therapeutics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for A7 speedy deletion - many companies own drug rights, but that alone does not make them notable. –  ukexpat ( talk) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I support Orange Mike's block, and was leaning toward that myself anyway. I don't think those articles have any place in Wikipedia, as they're clearly promotional, at least in intent, and certainly have copyright issues. I'll delete the copyvios but I'll hold off and let another admin decide on the A7. -- Atama 頭 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Clear case of Advertisement masquerading as articles.
Support block-- Hu12 ( talk) 20:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all for cleaning up his mess.  7  05:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The A7 tag was removed from Novelos Therapeutics by another editor, as I thought it might be. I myself was unsure whether it met the criteria which was why I let it be. You might want to propose it for deletion, I doubt anyone would object to it at this point. -- Atama 頭 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Still don't understand why it was declined. In any event it's at Afd here - might as well get some consensus on the ultimate deletion. –  ukexpat ( talk) 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: HERMIONE project. Please AGF.

Abigail / Hermione p ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came up front to WP:ANI and said:

I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to post an article about HERMIONE - an EU-funded deep-sea research project, which is looking at "hotspots" (submarine canyons, cold-water coral reefs, seamounts, mud volcanoes etc., which have higher than "background" levels of biodiversity) around the seas of Europe. We have a website (www.eu-hermione.net), and what we would like to post on Wikipedia is more information about these ecosystems, and what research is being carried out.

Because the name "HERMIONE" was on an auto-blacklist, she could not create an article so titled; but it now exists at " Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas", and has redirects like " HERMIONE project". It appears straightforward, is of legitimate scientific interest, and offers no financial opportunities; and, as you see, the author has not concealed her own participation. Is this still a COI problem? Or just a case of our getting a well-informed editor? The article is currently tagged {{ COI}}; is this necessary? Will it always be? Or can we have a "full disclosure" on the talkpage and leave the article header unmarred? — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are still COI concerns because of the editors involvement with the topic of the article. However, you can suggest that they post thoughts and suggestions for the article on the article's talk page. As long as reliable sources can be found to show the notability of the project, there shouldn't be any problem keeping the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that the COI tag, like most tags, is used to indicate that there is a problem to be fixed or a dispute to be resolved. It's not meant to serve as a permanent mark on the article. Such a tag should be accompanied by a specific complaint on the talk page of the article. Also note that the tag itself says that some cleanup might be necessary in the article due to COI edits. If such cleanup is unnecessary then the tag is also unnecessary.
I've always suggested tolerance for people who have a COI who otherwise show no signs of disruption. WP:COI discourages all COI editing, but doesn't suggest taking action until "editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability". If the editor wants to avoid any appearance of impropriety, however, following Nihonjoe's advice would be a very good way to do so. -- Atama 頭 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the editor who added the COI tag. I added it because it appeared that one of the primary authors of the article was intimately involved in the project. However, given the disclosure given on the talk page, and the suggestion that the editor in question refrain from editing the article directly, I would have no objection to the tag being removed. RadManCF ( talk) 23:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Events overtook us: Burpelson AFB was bold. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Maaske

Resolved
 – Article deleted. –  ukexpat ( talk) 21:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have tagged it for speedy deletion per CSD A7. It's also clearly an advert and G11'able too. –  ukexpat ( talk) 21:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Pedantic tangential note: It would not be an autobiography unless it was about himself. – Henning Makholm ( talk) 00:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

School District Editing

Resolved
 – User blocked as role account and edit reverted Smartse ( talk) 22:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hjuhsdwebmaster ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have added some peacock language to Hanford Joint Union High School District (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Possible COI. Tckma ( talk) 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Modelo QA

The user's been blocked and I've removed lots of promotional info from the Grupo Modelo article, it may need a little more tidying. Smartse ( talk) 22:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that JTeddy777 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) actually added most of the corporate crap here. I'll replace the refs they removed. Smartse ( talk) 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Modelo QA has only been blocked until it chooses a new username, at which point the COI issue would return. I can't help but wonder if JTeddy777 is a sock puppet, especially since both Modelo QA and JTeddy777 both made the same edits to the Grupo Modelo article on Spanish Wikipedia [22]. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 07:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
That might well be the case but unless they return and edit the article again there isn't really a problem as the article has been tidied up after their editing. I'll keep an eye on the article for a while and open a SPI if it seems necessary. Smartse ( talk) 12:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Ecsss1

Resolved
 – Editor blocked as role account and edits reverted Smartse ( talk) 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a blatant role account so I've reported it to WP:UAA. Smartse ( talk) 22:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I give up. The name didn't seem a problem and I usually see names like that get sent here. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 22:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The edits had already been reverted and they where blatantly spamming for Ecsss, so UAA seemed like the only thing left to do. Thanks for posting though. Smartse ( talk) 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor making POV deletions

Resolved
 – POV problem rather than a COI Smartse ( talk) 12:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the CoI noticeboards. POV is not CoI. – Henning Makholm ( talk) 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
He is making these POV deletions because of a CoI. Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Then please identify the conflicting interest. It needs to be more than just the abstract wish to see one's own opinions being shared by Wikipedia readers. – Henning Makholm ( talk) 00:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal." Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, this user isn't just sharing an opinion, but removing a sourced view without providing any sources to the opposite effect because it conflicts with a personal belief about racial and cultural purity. Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A religious conflict of interest might be a pastor editing an article about his church, but not for a Catholic editing an article about Catholicism. I agree with Henning Makholm, this is a POV problem, not a COI problem. The day that Wikipedia starts discriminating people based on race, gender, religion, or ethnicity is the day I stop volunteering here. -- Atama 頭 07:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no COI when editing articles about your own religion, if there is a POV problem please post to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard instead. Smartse ( talk) 12:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for directing me to the POV board. I am sorry if I came across as meaning that people shouldn't edit articles relating to their religion, I just mean that it should not get in the way. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Recyclingforhealth

A couple of days left before the proposed deletion expires. If the page is deleted then this could probably be considered resolved. -- Atama 頭 19:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Janisian

User:Janisian has (occasionally) edited Janis Ian, in one case removing the adjective "allegedly" attached to allegations that Janis Ian made in her autobiography. I've templated the user (uw-auto); what further should be done? -- Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the editor is Janis, or just a fan who chose her name as a username, this is a single-purpose account who has been responsible for violating our WP:NPOV policy by inserting fluff and peacock language into the article. They've had a total of 3 edits to Wikipedia, and everything has been reverted so far, so the "damage" is minimal. I think that there's nothing to be done unless they increase the activity. If that happens, and they continue to edit in the same manner as before, I'd suggest first requesting that they restrict their contributions to the talk page of the article per WP:COI. If they can't do that, I'd then attempt to find consensus for a topic ban from the article space to enforce the COI guideline, and if after all that they breach the ban, block as warranted. But for now, probably not much that needs to be done beyond your very appropriate warning. -- Atama 頭 19:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kirk Lewellen

Kirk has openly admitted the COI at Monterey Boats, and seems sincerely apologetic about their COI editing. That article really needs some cleanup too, it's borderline G11 but salvageable. -- Atama 頭 00:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Rapturous

Also, seems to edit from 68.106.148.116 (probably not logged in rather than socking). I reverted an edit from the IP and the Rapturous chimed in on my talk page. Rehevkor ✉ 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Since 11 December I see that Rapturous has ten edits marked 'Undo' which suggests: (a) he added his own link, (b) someone removed it, (c) he reverted the removal. (Example here). The addition of links without respect for consensus should draw our attention, when the editor seems to be promoting a site which carries his own work. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
A message was left on my talk page from an RPGfan staff member regarding this: Rehevkor ✉ 16:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Greetings,

By Wikipedia's definition, Rapturous' edits would be considered a conflict of interest.

Rapturous (Bob) joined the staff as a contributing reviews editor (often used as either a trial or "guest" status for new editors), only a few weeks ago.

He had approached our staff about various ideas for improvement. It was noted that RPGFan is often sourced on pages for videogames, but that our scores were never listed. Bob thought it would be useful to also have the scores in the "scores" page.

After adding scores to a number of pages, Wiki community members (including Rehevkor) asked him to refrain his work and claimed it as "spamming." There seemed to be a scuffle, but in the end, I believe Bob (aka Rapturous) has conceded his position after becoming more fully educated as the conflict of interest policy.

I myself had known about this policy. For example, the wiki page for RPGFan (which is currently flagged for deletion, and I leave that decision to you as active contributors to Wikipedia) has entirely outdated information about our site. I believe the page was first put together by a third party. In the past I have had many people contact me and ask if I could "verify our business status or eligibility." I would be happy to further explain this to lend to the credibility and verifiability of RPGFan as a source of game news and reviews. But anyway, that main page about RPGFan has a bunch of false/out-of-date information. The only thing that precluded me from editing it was the knowledge that I myself write for the site.

I did not make the connection when Bob made his request that adding our scores to game pages may equate to "advertising." Our scores are added to GameRankings routinely, without any effort from our staff.

In any case, Bob stopped making edits after some learning was done, and after he talked with Rehevkor and the RPGFan Staff. You shouldn't expect any problems from him or anyone at RPGFan. We are happy to cooperate. We want to help get (and keep) credible information about videogames on Wikipedia, but we do not want to pose a conflict of interest or "advertise" our site.

My request is that Rapturous not have his account banned or have any disciplinary action taken. He made an honest mistake and this shouldn't be a problem from here on out. Furthermore, I would be very happy to have a discussion with Rehevkor and others about how RPGFan can meet Wikipedia's requirements, particularly when we *are* the sole source of good information (see, in particular, niche/import graphic adventures such as the Memories Off series). Sometimes there's no "higher authority" than us, but we've done our research. I have some questions about the philosophy of credibility and verifiability, but I want to help present the site in a way that allows it to be linked by Wikipedia without there being any question as to its validity.

And, if RPGFan simply does not meet those requirements, I will gladly provide a full list of pages (and sections of pages) that ought to simply be wiped from Wikipedia because Wikipedia's standards will never cater to such niche levels of information about particular games (or, for example, a game's soundtrack).

Tonelico00 ( talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Tonelico00, I hope that you are correct that this will no longer be a problem. I'll say that what Rapturous has been doing is a perfect example of why we have a COI guideline in the first place, and it's possible that if the behavior does continue that they may be blocked for violating WP:SPAM. -- Atama 頭 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Since the credibility of the reviews given at the RPGFan website has been questioned, and since Tonelico00 is connected with the site, I suggested to him that he contribute at WP:Articles for deletion/RPGFan and answer some of the questions that have been raised. If there was any evidence that people in the field respect those game reviews, we might become more tolerant of the links to the site. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:WikiEditIrd

Only edits articles about Irdeto and its various divisions, acquisitions. Not sure whether the name should be blocked as a spamusername as well, but the COI is pretty stark. The pattern is of long standing, but he hasn't been templated very often about it. -- Orange Mike | Talk 01:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If we can find evidence that this is actually being used as a role account, then we could block it as such. As it is I think the editor appears to be an SPA who has made a number of mistakes and might have a COI. My gut says they probably are affiliated with Irdeto. -- Atama 頭 21:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

More likely paid editing: User:Lamoxlamae

User

Articles

It looks like I've found another case of paid editing. The creation of these related articles synchs up with this posting on getafreelancer dot com, contracted from an account "wisdomgame" to an account "lamoxlamae" on 11/20. The articles appeared 6-10 days later in a manner very similiar to that described in the posting. Since paid editing is a touchy subject I think it's worthwhile to bring it up here for discussion and to log the case in the record books.

I've only tagged the articles for coi, but none of the articles appear notable so I think AfD is the next place to head, unless there is significant objection to that here or a better idea on how to handle the situation. Them From Space 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Terrific ... I just added them to my watch list. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and put these up in separate AfDs. Them From Space 04:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking over these and have found a fair bit of coverage, and im my opinion enough to satisfy WP:N, although the articles are way too long and detailed as they are. I've been thinking that the best solution might be to merge the games into the Playgen article, what do you think? Smartse ( talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any such discussion belongs here at this point, since there is an AfD open for each article. You might want to make your suggestions there. -- Atama 頭 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:IgniteTheMind

This editor added material to the article subliminal stimuli praising a particular movie as "categorically exploring" the subject matter. In posting to my talk page in defense of her/his additions' contents and tone, the phrase "Dr. Taylor was interviewed for our film" caught my eye. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the film being pushed (Programming the Nation) is created by writer/producer/director/editor Jeff Warrick of Ignite Productions LLC, whose YouTube handle seems to be Ignite the Mind. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


With all due respect to "Orangemike" - I don't see how using the term "categorically exploring" regarding a documentary film that is broken down into specific "chapters" or "sub-topics" on the subject is in any way related to "praising" the film. -- IgniteTheMind ( talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What about your pluralisation? Wikipedia accounts are tied to one person and one person only. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I use pluralization all the time (for example, I'll say "we" when I'm talking about the Wikipedia community). It's not in itself something I generally worry about. But the combination of factors here lead me to agree that there is a conflict of interest, note also that IgniteTheMind didn't even address the COI, but merely objected to the idea that the film was "praised". And I actually agree with them, I don't see the text as particularly promotional, but I still think that inserting that blurb about the film was meant to promote it simply by mentioning it. Reverting it was a good move. -- Atama 頭 19:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

StrategiCom

Several anon IP users have been adding back in previously removed promotional material and removing the advert tag. All are in the same city as this company and most have made no other edits. The company itself is in the "Brand Consulting" business. My attempts to engage the editors have failed. Given the nature of the edits I suspect these are employees of the company. Rees11 ( talk) 14:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. There are a number of SPAs working that article, not all anonymous. SCom09 is a pretty blatant example, and Nebulous09, Sitikchai, and Siesta 06 are either socks or related SPAs. The article was also created by an SPA. The article, essentially, appears to be a product of the company. The company does seem notable, however, so deleting the article would be inappropriate, but keeping the article neutral can be difficult I'm sure. I don't think there's quite enough consistent disruption to warrant semi-protection at this time, and to be honest not all of the edits are bad, these COI SPAs and IPs are adding some decent content alongside the promotional stuff. -- Atama 頭 17:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Butlerwhite & User:Butlerwhite/ThatSexShop

Resolved
 – Page deleted. -- Atama 頭 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Butlerwhite/ThatSexShop (  | [[Talk:User:Butlerwhite/ThatSexShop|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Considering that the spammy userspace draft -- sitting there since 24 Sept -- says that the shop is owned by one "Butler White", I'd say that the COI is clear. -- Calton | Talk 12:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an abandoned draft. Perhaps WP:MfD it? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I have created MfD. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jenn Brown

Jenn Brown (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi. It would be lovely if anybody who works COI issues wanted to add this article to their watchlists, because I think it's a trainwreck waiting to recur. It was listed at WP:CP for copyright problems, and in the course of cleaning it up I realized that the article has almost certainly been controlled since at least April 2009 by the subject or her agency, Berk Communications (see User talk:BerkCommunications; [26]). Mostly IP contributors have repeatedly pasted promotional material from her website and resisted efforts by outsiders to remove such encyclopedic text as "Brown has a carefree nature that entices viewers to follow her on her many bold and electrifying adventures." All of this has been wiped out by the copyvio cleanup, which removed the last 66 edits from the article (and I only added back content that seemed neutral and copyvio clear...which wasn't much), but this stealth advertising campaign had been conducted for months. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been properly sanitized. I wasn't sure what you were talking about until I looked at the deleted edits for the article (I'm glad I can do that kind of thing now). A definite problem, we have promotional conflicts of interest combined with a BLP and copyright violations. The promotional editing has been somewhat sporadic, with the latest occurring on December 4th, so it's difficult to justify protection at this point but if it resumes at a high volume then I'd recommend semiprotection (or do it myself). -- Atama 頭 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MondayMEDIA

MondayMEDIA (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article was created by somebody with the username mondaymedia ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Furthermore, he or she has been active in creating links towards that article, and also external links towards MondayMEDIA's website on a number of pages. Some of it seems excessively promotional to my novice eyes, but I would appreciate some feedback in this. Grayfell ( talk) 07:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely promotional. User is blocked for username problem. There are only a few external links left and they are possibly ok, so I left them. Please report if process continues. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the added links are ok, some are spam. I removed a few. If anyone wants to go through the user contribs and check the rest that would be a good thing. Rees11 ( talk) 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the suggestive user name, this user has (I think) admitted to having a COI here: User talk:Rees11 "I added information about two audio CDs of lectures given by Aldous Huxley that are ... licensed from the Vedanta Society ... my own 40 year association with the Vedanta Society ..." I will point him to the COI guidelines. Rees11 ( talk) 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since MondayMEDIA and JonMonday seem to be the same user (see User talk:Mondaymedia), and assuming JonMonday is Jon Monday, it looks like the user has also created an autobiography. Rees11 ( talk) 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

W. V. Grant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Earlier, an SPA Superedit09 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed quite a bit of negative information on the W. V. Grant article, including his arrested for tax evasion and a section of criticism. I reverted the removal of unsourced information, and commented on the talk page explaining. I also informed the editor about the conflict of interest policy, and advised him the best way to make changes on an article that you have a personal involvement with is to suggest them on the talk page, and gain consensus.

They've reverted [27], and responded. As per this edit [28], the editor admits they are with a company contacted by the subject to clean up their wikipedia article. Not only is the sourced tax evasion material gone, somehow the article doesn't even appear to be in the same font. I'm not even sure how that could happen.I'll be off and on wiki for the next few days, so I'm bringing it here for more eyes. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker ( talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just noticed their post on the talk page also contains a legal threat ("Legal action is prepared to be taken if this matter can not be resolved.") Since I set this off by reverting, if someone else would warn them, it would probably go over better. Dayewalker ( talk) 04:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I left a separate warning, as the material they were introducing was unreferenced and inappropriate (whether or not there was a COI issue). I have not addressed the matter of a legal threat. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I left an NLT message at User talk:Superedit09 and will notice any reply. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't fall to hard for the claims of their not understanding what was going on. It's a bit odd that they'd use the full syntax of [[ and | tweaks in order to customize their signature on the article talk page. Actually I thought it was a different user that had posted first before. Not impossible but still an uncommon thing. I also worked backwards and saw a few sock-looking accounts (50/50 shot I'd say) but since it might take a few hours I'll have to do it this evening. Socks, but not co-op edits even if proven, so resolvable. Want to add a general note for anyone browsing-- the IP that swooped in with edits on some talk pages of persons involved here I can't see related in any way to this matter. It and another IP at roughly the same time were snapping onto edits that would have been directly off the top of the recent changes log and the new user log, and there happened to accidentally be a few crosses at the time... both have been blocked since. ♪ daTheisen (talk)
Oh, and ask the legal matters be stricken? It is far more a rant than any pointed threat so it's not terribly concerning to run off to ANI. They have their final warning so it's an obvious reporting next time. Has anyone actually made an attempt to talk to the user? Their posts on the article talk page are detailed and well-written, but it needs to be stated before any possible sanctions are given that almost every word of them are 100% contrary to Wikipedia policy. Especially the assertion of placing "right" information being okay without source if they know it's "right", and that it trumps "wrong" things with an infinite number of references. Guidelines and every other fiber of being in Wikipedia makes WP:PROVEIT very clear and a nice summary of WP:N, V and RS at the same time. Really nasty sense of WP:OWN too, with argument made based on length of time spent on writing about the person. Since I wasn't there to watch it develop, I'll leave it to any of the editors involved to decide a next action. It's possible to make a balanced article with such accounts... if they're willing to be cooperative. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The standard action to clear legal threats has been taken; indefinite block until the threat is retracted. Until then this editor won't be causing any trouble under this account. -- Atama 頭 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Maple

Peter Maple (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article - largely advertising - is being edited by Maplep ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who claims to be the subject, KewQuorum ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is providing citations to a website of the same name and JamesPeters1980 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a single purpose account for this subject. Each have been warned about their conflict of interest, but continue to remove maintenance tags from the article, forming a false consensus on the talk page that, between them, they have solved the problems by providing links to blogs and LinkedIn and other unreliable sources. JamesPeters1980 ( talk · contribs) and KewQuorum ( talk · contribs) are pretty obviously the same user. ⬅ ⚠ Redvers dashing thru the snow ⚠ 14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm opening up a sockpuppet investigation. I believe that the three editors here are the same person (who is probably Peter Maple, per Maplep who self-identified). Using three accounts to create a false consensus is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. The Peter Maple article itself does not seem to meet our inclusion guidelines, and should probably be deleted. -- Atama 頭 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The case is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KewQuorum for anyone who wishes to comment. -- Atama 頭 21:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Indie Movies

No one had given them a COI warning or drawn their attention to this or the previous thread. As Atama stated before it is a pretty clear case of self promotion. I would urge Indie Movies to desist from creating more articles about these non-notable films that are all produced and sold by Maverick Entertainment Group. I'm going to have to warn them and if it continues they could be blocked. Smartse ( talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
My apologies. I've only just discovered there was a COI template just now. I'll make sure to use that in the future. I will admit that some of the films I am unsure about tagging, say, this one for example. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
He's readded Natasha (film) and now just did the same with Bad Reputation (film) (another one I'm unsure about) and still doesn't understand that maybe having most of his articles be submitted for deletion and being discussed here means something is wrong. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries about the lack of template, you should always notify someone if you post about them on a noticeboard though (Don't worry though as hardly anyone does, despite it being in the instructions at the top). I've checked the couple that I PRODed and none of them seemed to be notable as far as I could tell from a google news search. London Betty looks the same to be honest the number of google hits isn't the best indicator but there are only 3000 for ""london betty" film" so it doesn't look very notable. I've level 3 warned them as they've carried on despite being warned and being informed of this. Smartse ( talk) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that all the plot sections in the articles are copyvios of the webpages they reference too. Smartse ( talk) 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that too (mentioned in the last thread as well), but I couldn't be bothered to do anything about it like you have. When I first encountered this user, I once tagged an article as G12 but it got declined because the person who came along didn't think it worthwhile to delete it because of it. Since there is no speedy deletion criteria for non-notable films (there really needs to be), I've had to resort to prodding. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I sort of dropped the ball on this. I planned on checking the articles against web sites to see if I could identify copyright violations; my gut tells me that much of the content in those articles was lifted either from some fan/review site, or an official site related to the films. Smartse has verified that much the material in these articles has been copied, but I think the best solution is a mass AfD. These articles are clearly related, created/expanded by the same person(s), and share the same issues. One advantage of AfD over PROD or CSD is that it inhibits recreation in ways that the other deletion methods don't; either the original AfD result must be overturned in WP:DRV or the recreated articles must differ significantly from the deleted versions and/or address the issues brought forth in the AfD discussion. -- Atama 頭 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I've started three AfDs for the ones which had the prod removed and, just to be on the safe side, an SPI. (sighs) Should I start working on AfDing all of the others, prod or not? I'll do them, since I'm the original reporter. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw the SPI while I was filing one for a different user on this page (see Peter Maples above), but I don't think that will go anywhere. Editing with multiple accounts isn't disallowed on the encyclopedia, on its own (though disclosing alternate accounts is strongly encouraged), and editing without being logged in is definitely allowed (people do it all the time by accident). Sockpuppetry is only actionable when you can also show violations related to the sockpuppetry. (Using a sock to edit while your main account is blocked, casting multiple votes in an AfD, pretending to form consensus among multiple editors, etc.) -- Atama 頭 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

← I don't know... part of me thought that it was an attempt to cast suspicion off his main account. Right now, I'm either assuming bad faith or someone who doesn't pay attention that something is wrong with the pages, not sure which. Anyway, the first AfD has links to all the others now. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Addvisors

Resolved
 – Blocked for spam/username violations. -- Atama 頭 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Editors
Articles

User:Addvisors recently created the article Andrew Sasson about a Las Vegas nightclub entrepreneur (said article is now listed at WP:Articles for deletion/Andrew Sasson). While researching the subject to try to improve the article, I ran across Addvisors, whose website says they are "a Las Vegas SEO and Google Qualified Adwords agency, specializing in online marketing." The website also says that their client, "The Light Group" (Sasson's company) has hired them to "generate more website traffic to increase and attract new clientele seeking VIP nightclub services, reservations, private parties, and table service in Las Vegas."

The user has also recently edited The Harmon Hotel and Spa and CityCenter, two other projects of The Light Group and Sasson. Dori ❦ ( Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked as a spam username. The fact that they are hired to spam websites means that we can suspend good faith in their case. -- Atama 頭 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast work! Dori ❦ ( Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Super Hero Squad

Marvel Super Hero Squad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The7thCynic and his anonymous persona 71.199.246.246 have already been reported, and threatened with blacklisting, for his efforts to keep a message board he admins in the external links. After the page was protected, he went away, but now he's back again. Alowishous ( talk) 03:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Alowishous ( talk) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here a couple of months ago. In my opinion, whether or not there is a COI (its not immediately apparent) is irrelevant as the link is inappropriate per WP:ELNO. If someone consistently adds the same link after being warned then they could be blocked for spamming and the website could be blacklisted. Hopefully The7thCynic will realise that they can't add their link to the article and there won't be any further problems. Smartse ( talk) 11:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read the WP:ELNO in detail, i do not believe the link is at all inappropriate. Firstly, I suggest that nothing on there is listed as a hard-fast rule. In fact, it uses the word 'normally', as to imply possibly exceptions. And although it is a link to a forum, considering it DOES "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" AND "contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" (listed under Sites to Include) it should fall under that exception. Also consider - as I mentioned before but got misconstrewed as an attack - Wikis common sense:

"...Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter."

And under that, not only do I suggest the Hasbor Heroes link remain, but also the others that were removed as they are all VERY informative and offer much more up to date and detailed information that can be found here.

There was also an idea that a consenus was made - but I disagree. Those that added the various links back to the page throughout the months obviously considered them useful, even though they might never comment on the talk page. But if all it requires is a consensus to keep the link, I'm sure we can find more than enough people that believe the link(s) should stay.

I would ALSO like to add that it is apparent that the decision to remove the links was based off of a 'resolution' or 'compromise' to the above mentioned 'edit-war' rather than the enforcing of any rules. This 'resolution' was made here by Cameron Scott and conflicts with the rationalion given for the removal of the links.

On a side note, a while back the link was in question (and removed) because registration was required. Shortly afterwards, it was changed to NOT require registration and and the link was determined to be acceptable. Now, years later, after the so-called 'edit war' (which I was NOT a part of - as I only ever added links back, never removed any), apparently its not anymore.

Personally, it seems like a witchhunt OR power hungry editors whose answer to a resolution is the deletion of all.-- The7thCynic ( talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what the problems are here, The7thCynic.
  • Ignore All Rules is a critical part of Wikipedia, but misused often, and I believe you are misusing it now. It does not mean that the rules should just be ignored if they get in the way of something you want done. It means that the rules should be ignored if they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia, and/or they don't make sense in a particular case. Generally an appeal to IAR should be accompanied by a very persuasive argument as to why the rules should be ignored, while you've offered nothing except that your opinion is that the link (and others) are good, without anything to back that up.
  • You have a clear conflict of interest. Your personal opinion is naturally colored by the fact that you are associated with the site that you want to have linked.
  • Forums are very, very, very rarely linked to in any article. I understand that you probably don't have enough experience with various articles on Wikipedia, but it's an almost unheard of exception to allow a discussion forum as an external link. That is because as discussion forums, they offer almost nothing in terms of objective knowledge to an article subject. One of the very few exceptions I can think of would be in an article that is actually about a particularly notable forum, such as 4chan.
You are casually asking for people to make a rare exception to allow a link to a site where you have a clear conflict of interest, against prior discussion that agreed to not allow such, without any compelling reason to back up your request. I hope you see what the unlikelihood of that occurring might be. Also, attacking other editors ("power hungry editors") is more likely to result in sanctions against you, rather than to accomplish your goals, such confrontational attitudes are extremely counter-productive. -- Atama 頭 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to add 2 cents... putting the links back IS part of the edit war. There's already been lots of talk about how just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it's right. The links are good, but Wikipedia's not a directory or promotional tool. I can google about a dozen pages on super hero squad but that doesn't mean they should all be included. Look at the Spider-Man page and see that it's got 6 external links and 3 are to Marvel's own sites. There are many more sites out there that talk about Spider-Man, including major ones like Spider-Fan, but don't get included just because they're on topic. And continuing to say that everyone that disagrees with you is power hungry, on a witchhunt, stubborn or stupid doesn't help. It's not persecution, it's trying to apply a consistent standard over Wikipedia. Two cents. Alowishous ( talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets deal with one issue at a time.

  • COI - I can see where it may appear that there is a conflict, but I assure you there is none. We do not sell anything. We are not worried about members. We are a simply a resource, and specifically for the subject of this page. Some would even say the best resource. And we work with many that edit this article. We work hand in hand with the article as a database. All the links in question do. And unlike the Spider-Man reference, I would argue with Alowishous that you cannot just Google 'super hero squad' and get a dozen pages of useful information. In fact, we could say that information is sparse, thus making these links available even more crucial.
But back to the COI, I can see this is a clear point of contention for you - as it is your main emphasis throughout. But I can easily solve this matter by abandoning that the specific forum I'm associated with get added - though will continue to argue that the others be added back regardless. (Will THAT then be enough to move on from the concept of COI that has apparently clouded much of your opinion of me or for the principle I stand for?)
  • Ignore All Rules or Common Sense - The assumption here is that I only request an exception because it's something I want done - which is preposterous. (But I suppose that opinion is based on your belief that there's a COI.) The inclusion of the links IS SOLELY for the improvement of the article as they provide MORE information and sources than the actual article itself, and I have stated so above, as well as stated before. But you suggest that I haven't backed up that statement, so I will humor you:
Consider that almost NONE of this article is sourced. Well, not only do those sites provide pictures and specific details on each and every figure, including articulation and repack/repaint information, but all of the information on the upcoming waves (which are listed here) are all sourced, unlike the article - where it is often suggested to be rumored and falsely removed.
Is that enough?

On a similar note...

  • Forums being linked - In the same breath that it says forums should normally be avoided, it also mentions blogs and fansites. And yet I can show you dozens upon dozens of articles that include those - and probably rightfully so. This seems to me like picking and choosing. (And considering the moderating I am questioning here, it doesn't seem very fair to anyone.) But again, with so little information out about this toy line (even the official site is VERY incomplete in comparison to ANY of the links), these links are more than useful. (Is all that persuasive enough argument for common sense? Geeeeeeeez.)
  • Edit War - Alowishous, perhaps you missed the start of all of this. Recap: Someone was removing the Rumorbuster link, then another person would come back and add it while deleting the Hasbro Heroes link at the same time, and vice versa. I was not one of those people. Although i would re-add the link, as it was apparently (at that time) done maliciously. So no, adding the link back was NOT part of the Edit War in question. Then as I mentioned, Cameron Scott, suggested that the 'compromise' would be to delete both - but it was never under the premise that it was breaking a rule. Not being part of the original Edit War, and as an observer, I have a problem with that type of moderating.
Speaking of, I also would like to point out how interesting it is that both of you bothered to mention my "power hungry editors" comment (which FYI wasn't a specific attack on anyone, just my observation - but would at best fit the above mentioned moderating - which is not cool) but neglected to comment on the fact that this all started as the lame 'resolution' to an edit war. -- The7thCynic ( talk) 03:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
COI isn't limited to people who make money or who "want" members. The conflict is that you, who cannot be impartial, is saying your materials are the best or are more accurate, more whatever.

Your recap is incorrect and disingenous. The edit war you refer to doesn't happen in the way you suggest. You say that there was malicious removal of your links. That's not what happened.

[ [29]] User User:72.71.55.224 removed therumorbuster.com apparently in a fit of vandalism most of which has been undone.

[ [30]] user User:shsquad fan adds it back.

[ [31]] - user User:98.235.186.116 removes therumorbuster.com

[ [32]] - User:Tomson elite returns the site.

[ [33]] - user User:98.235.186.116 removes therumorbuster.com and replaces it with your site.

[ [34]] - your site is removed by user User:Arachnad

And from there, it looks like you triggered an autoreversion bot when you tried to readd the link as user User:71.199.246.246, and that's when this situation started getting noticed.

And when called upon to explain why 98.235.186.116 was continually removing therumorbuster.com link, [ [35]] he says nothing.

Then looking at User:98.235.186.116's history [ [36]] who was removing whose (whomever's?) link is obviously the other way around. "(I removed the Rumorbuster link because the site isn't working and if the Hasbro Heroes forum isn't allowed to be a link, the Rumorbuster shouldn't be allowed either)"

Interestingly enough, looking at posts on your site at that time, you can see another admin of your site named X-Fan discussing how the Rumorbuster link isn't working and should be taken out.

So now we have you insisting you're not part of the war, because you're only re-adding your link in, 98.235.186.116 removing their link and replacing it with your link, you claiming to not have a conflict of interest, 98.235.186.116 (who I would bet is this x-fan admin since he basically admits to removing the other site on your site) removing a link solely because if your site isn't included, neither should the other link.

If you had an issue with the link being removed, then the proper course of action was to then ask for reasons and talk it out. Instead you kept adding it, which resulted in more attention, and later you attempted to circumvent the 3RR by using your IP and your screen name when you continued adding it in.

Adding the link back, after it was removed as an inappropriate link, WAS the war, regardless of your view of how malicious you found the enforcement of the rules to be or how you characterize the removal of the links.

Your remaining arguments are without merit. You now say you'll abandon wanting your site back to avoid the conflict of interest. It doesn't work retroactively, so now saying that the Ignore All Rules or Common Sense arguments are preposterous because you don't have a COI is bafflingly illogical.

You claim that because links to fan pages exist on other Wikipedia sites, it's picking and choosing. Not every instance gets caught by editors. This is a big site. Same with speeders and the police. You can't just tell the officer that other people are speeding and so you shouldn't get a ticket. Saying "And considering the moderating I am questioning here, it doesn't seem very fair to anyone" is more proof of this flawed logic. You don't like the result, so it doesn't seem very fair to anyone.

And not all editors see things the same way. That's why there's consensus, and the editors that looked at it said your forum shouldn't belong.

User:Cameron Scott did not really offer scrubbing the links as a compromise, regardless of his wording, because none of the links had a right to belong. All three links fell under the same category of stuff to go. The "compromise" was to enforce the general rules. The compromise, if any, wasn't to satisfy you and the other sites by offering to split the baby as Solomon once offered, but to stop the edit war by getting rid of links that violated the rules in the first place.

Of course, now your argument is that Cameron Scott's resolution, by taking out that which did not belong, is lame. Nobody commented on why you called the editors power mad because it's irrelevant. You didn't like the result of enforcing the rules, therefore the moderating was "uncool" and the resolution was lame and the editors are power hungry.

And now Methinks the lady doeth protest too much. Alowishous ( talk) 17:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to address your comments:

I won't say your recap is disingenous as you said mine was (Which for the record, suggesting I'm lying is really no better than a reference to power hungry editors, is it?) - as I believe you just werent there from the beinginning - but it is still incorrect.

From the Super Hero Squad discussion page: In regards to deleting the Rumorbuster link - "Can we come up with some kind of peaceful resolution to this edit war? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt 98.235.186.116 but you just keep deleting this link...."( talk) 00:53, 24 October 2009

"More warring, still no talk." Tomson elite 14:04, 28 October 2009

So the warring in question, and even by your own examples, was with the back and forth removal of hasbro heroes and/or Rumorbuster link - not the removal of both.

Then from the COI noticeboard. :

"... User:98.235.186.116 was deleting one site, replacing it with (what is now known to be his) forum. Page was semi-protected for a while. Days pass, edit war continues, User:71.199.246.246 joins in....." Tomson elite ( talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009

"Scrub both forums (I've just done so) and blacklist if they persist." -- Cameron Scott 19:50, 28 October 2009
"Sounds like a good compromise..." Tomson elite 19:56, 28 October 2009

See the dates? Notice no comments abt the links breaking any rules? See how it was considered a 'compromise' rather than an enforcing? Hmmmmm.....

Now if you're suggesting that AFTER that 'compromise' was made, AFTER the original 'edit War', that my re-adding of the links was part of this NEW issue - then sure. Although I will say that at the time, I thought it was still part of the same foolishness as I was not totally aware of all these various pages of discussion or I would have commented. As proof to that, notice my edit on 20:16, 28 October 2009 where I commented "I even added Rumorbuster back. Stop the foolish editing."

I don't know who 98.235.186.116 is and whether it is or isn't X-Fan really has no bearing to me. Again, I think removing ANY of the links is silly as they are ALL useful to the article. But apparently the COI that you believe I have also sways how you view me in the original 'edit war'.

On another note, you insist its not picking and choosing when dozens of articles break said rule and attempt to mask it with an explaination of how editors can't catch everything. Very well. But it seems more rational that with the sheer number of articles Im referring to, that this particular article is just being targeted and denied the same sort of exception.

Regardless, its apparent that it's all come doen to consensus. And as I was informed Consensus can change.-- The7thCynic ( talk) 18:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be getting nowhere. He doesn't have to explicitly mention that all the sites don't belong when it's obvious and previously pointed out. I suggest that your recap was disingenuous because it was wrong, you know it, and the facts support it. You said something to indicate you or your forum was a martyr, that you were being deleted and replaced maliciously. You weren't, however, the other site was apparently. You say whether or not 98.235.186.116 is X-Fan has no bearing on you, but whether or not it is your co-admin on this forum does have bearing on the issue. Then it further hammers home the point of COI, and having one person do the "dirty work" so to speak so the other can have clean hands doesn't make the issue any better. You can characterize my pointing this out as an attack, and you have, but there's no positive spin on you fabricating a story.
You claim to not have been aware of the pages to discuss this, fine, but after consensus against your link, and no, we cannot just forget COI and you still refuse to acknowledge there is one, you then decided to come back and add it anyway, bringing up the same arguments that everyone was wrong. And now you make multiple attempts to "be clear" that once consensus has been reached the links will return.
There isn't an "exception" in place for external links in articles that aren't properly sanitized. There's no "mask" or explanation... it's common sense that not everything can be found all the time. Otherwise, your site would have stayed removed apparently some time ago. Just because now that this issue with this particular page has been identified, it's being closely watched does not mean that you're being persecuted (for doing something you shouldn't be doing) or that other pages have an exemption. It just means this is one problem everyone is aware of, and now can be stopped. Alowishous ( talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, i may have lost you, except for - "This seems to be getting nowhere."

Now to defend myself: "He doesn't have to explicitly mention that all the sites don't belong when it's obvious and previously pointed out."

I have no idea what youre referring to. I thought I laid it all out for you, apparently I didnt. It is YOU that does not understand the series of events that transpired, not me.

"I suggest that your recap was disingenuous because it was wrong, you know it"

And how is that different that calling me a liar?

"You said something to indicate you or your forum was a martyr, that you were being deleted and replaced maliciously."

Ive suggested that this particular article has been targeted, not any specific link. Why do you continue to insist that I have a particular bias against any other link when I have yet to show one, and in fact, have done the contrary in trying to get it added back various times?

"whether or not it is your co-admin on this forum does have bearing on the issue."

Sure he is, but that doesnt mean I agree, control, or was aware of any of his actions. As I pointed out before with my 10/28 edit and comment, I was against the removal of ANY of the links. I stand by that statement. They are ALL useful.

"having one person do the "dirty work" so to speak so the other can have clean hands"

FYI, this assumption is also extremely offensive.

"You can characterize my pointing this out as an attack, and you have, but there's no positive spin on you fabricating a story."

And it is an attack. But Im not sure what you mean with positive spin. There would be no point in me fabricating any story.

"we cannot just forget COI"

As far as I know, there hasnt been a COI even established. Only possibly by you, who originally placed the issue here in the first place.

"bringing up the same arguments that everyone was wrong."

Dont try and brush off all of my points as simply telling everyone they are wrong. That is far from what Ive done. Instead, why dont you try to reply with something more than strings of subtle attack, as these last recent points dont really add much to the discussions - nor do my responses - but I am instinctively compelled to defend myself. Geeeeez.

"And now you make multiple attempts to "be clear" that once consensus has been reached the links will return."

And? i thought that consensus was the main issue that was keeping them off as it has been thrown in my face numerous times.

"it's common sense that not everything can be found all the time."

As Ive already said, thats your take on it, not mine. For me, its common sense that for the number of rule breaks I see on Wiki on a regular basis, that this article is possibly under higher scrutiny than normal and definitely than necessary. We're talking links here. -- The7thCynic ( talk) 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The links don't belong. They violate WP:ELNO. Even the COI is really secondary to that. They are discussion forums, not places for reliable information. There's no benefit to a reader to direct them to a site like that. This is long-standing Wikipedia consensus, part of an official guideline, and there's no reasoning given to ignore it. You've said before you see blogs and fansites that don't belong... And that's true, I'm sure there are plenty of them in Wikipedia. They also should be removed, with rare exceptions. Just because you see a candy wrapper on a sidewalk, that doesn't mean that you have a right to litter there, it just means that somebody else has left a mess and nobody else has cleaned it up yet. -- Atama 頭 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Atama above, which is why I'm commenting at the talk page, and not this COI case. Whether or not there's COI is secondary, as the links don't belong regardless of the editor's connection. I would encourage any editor commenting here to also do so at the relevant talk page, as the discussion is oingoing there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker ( talk • contribs)
Very well - Ill keep the discussion over there. Thank you.-- The7thCynic ( talk) 20:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Action grrl

Action grrl appears to be a single purpose account promoting the work of action movie director J.A. Steel. It appears they may also have strayed into copyright violation with Denizen (2010 film). Can someone please take a look? I don't have the time to get involved in another issue at the moment. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I have a strong hunch as to the identity of the editor, but I care not to voice this to avoid outing them (her?). If my hunch is correct, there are some strong COI concerns with this editor, but absent any self-identification the best thing to do is assume that this is just a fan of Steel. The copyright concerns seem to have been addressed, and despite my initial impressions both the actress and the film seem to meet our notability guidelines. I'm not sure what is actionable, but the report itself is certainly warranted. -- Atama 頭 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The user has simply replaced one copyvio with another (see here) and is shining you on. Sorry, I just don't have the time to deal with slipperiness like this right now, but I will at least AfD the article. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the help making the articles better, the guidance on links and the references (the copyright issue). It is a team effort and I appreciate the professionalism! :)

I am a fan of JA Steel, JD Disalvatore, Dreya Weber (A Marine Story) and other strong women in Film.

I am grateful to be a part of Wikipedia and welcome the feedback. Action grrl ( talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've replied here, AG. I do have some suggestions to help you along at Wikipedia, take them or leave them as you like.
  • If you do have some personal connection to anyone or anything you're editing about, that is not forbidden. We don't have hard-and-fast rules that prevent you from doing so. We're only trying to identify such connections to be "on the lookout" for deliberate promotion (which I don't think you've done) or unintentional bias (which anyone can do without meaning to).
  • It's best to acknowledge such connections if you do have them. Doing so will help other editors know where you're coming from, and prevent people from assuming bad motives on your part if such connections are "revealed".
  • YOU ARE NOT COMPELLED TO GIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION. I don't want to make that look like "shouting" but I wanted to make it very clear. You don't have to tell anyone who you are, or give any personal information you aren't comfortable with. We have policies against people who try to dig up personal info about editors, and I always suggest that people think twice before they volunteer it. There are a lot of dangerous people on the Web, and Wikipedia certainly has its share. Risking your personal safety for an encyclopedia is definitely not worth it.
  • There are some indications that you might have a conflict of interest. Your edits are almost all related to JA Steel, her movies, and people associated with her movies (like Jessica Bair). That's not against the rules, or even discouraged; everyone is drawn to articles on subjects they're interested in (I know I am). But that still invites questions, if you can understand. In addition, you've stated on your user talk page that you actually spoke with J.A. Steel, which lends more weight to such suspicions. I only say this to explain why the COI concerns were raised in the first place, I don't see anything wrong with any of your edits myself.
  • You have a lot of enthusiasm for the subjects you write about. That's a good thing, Wikipedia needs people who want to create and expand articles. Just be sure to not let that enthusiasm go too far, be sure to listen to criticism and concerns from other editors, and remember that everything here is a collaboration (not a solo project) and you'll be fine.
If you ever have questions please let me know, thank you. (Oh yeah, you might want to check out one or more Wikiprojects, where you can either ask for or give help, such as WP:FILM, WP:LGBT, or WP:ACTOR.)-- Atama 頭 03:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Atama,
Thanks so much for the guidance and insight. I know most of the Lesbians in Hollywood that are in the entertainment industry. I've found that they are under-represented on Wikipedia, as they are in the film industry itself. I would like to continue to contribute edits and articles in this genre, that is indeed near and dear to my heart.
On my first article, I was criticized for not enough links coming into the article, so I tried to prevent that this time and apparently overdid it.
I have no intention to violate copyright, and edits are most helpful and welcome. It was my understanding that press releases are in public domain for adaptation in articles. Again, I welcome any input.
This has been quite an arduous experience, and I appreciate you taking the time to mentor me and collaborate in the spirit of Wikipedia.
Action grrl ( talk) 06:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Atama,
Learning from my recent experiences, I proposed two articles on my talk page to a gentleman (Chris) in Germany who offered to assist me navigate Wikipedia and write articles better.
There is no article on one of the most loved and award winning Lesbian movies of all time, The Gymnast, staring Dreya Weber, who did the choreography for the artist Pink! at a recent award ceremony. I've asked for his thoughts on how to craft an article about this beloved movie of our community. The Gymnast at IMDb.
I would also like to do an article on the award-winning filmmaker Alexandra Kondracke, who is directing the new Girltrash!: All Night Long film and was a writer/producer for The L Word. She has a long career in Hollywood, but no Wikipedia article. Alexandra Kondracke at IMDb.
I would appreciate your help and collaboration, as you have time.
I know both Dreya and Alexandra in Hollywood, and am grateful for your guidance.
Thanks,
Action grrl ( talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that J.A. Steel happens to be in "Girltrash: All Night Long". Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Very cool. Perhaps you can add it to her Filmography?
A nice gentlemen, Chris (クリス • フィッチュ), set up these two workshops for me to develop and grow:
User:Action grrl/workshop/The Gymnast
User:Action grrl/workshop/Alexandra Kondracke
You are most welcome to participate. It is clear I can learn a lot from your experience and expertise.
Thanks -- Action grrl ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You are most welcome! It would be fantastic if you could read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI and maybe think a bit about those guidelines! You seem to be saying that you know a lot of the people whose articles you are editing and those guidelines will come in handy for you! Looking forward to working with you again soon! Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, the links are very helpful. The Lesbian community in Hollywood is very small and all the gals know each other. It is the nature of living and working in an environment where you are a scant minority. Having experts like you and Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) provide oversight, suggestion, guidance and edits is much appreciated. I am committed to the WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI guidelines, and appreciate all who have reviewed and edited my contributions to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing you again in a workspace. This as been quite an experience. I will focus on the workspaces Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) created, for more practice in a safe and collaborative environment, where we can publish articles in concert. Action grrl ( talk) 18:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Head writer for BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP creating and editing articles related to the company

See User:Acuffrose. This relates to the articles Max Azria and Lubov Azria and also to the copyvio problems, although they are not a matter for this page. I'll notify the editor and then I'm off to bed. Dougweller ( talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this resolves the issue, but the articles have been deleted. -- Atama 頭 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Can you help me out with this? I will do whatever I need to do to keep the listing as neutral as possible and keep in line with Wikipedia standards. However now both articles have been deleted. This is particularly alarming for the Max Azria one-- his article has been up there for a long time and was not started by us. I simply updated the photo, fixed some formatting and added the list and descriptions of the brand encompassed by the BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP company. This brings his article in line with those of other, similar fashion personalities like Ralph Lauren, Tom Ford and Tommy Hilfiger. I don't understand why the article was full-on deleted like that. As for the one about Lubov Azria-- she is our creative director and a public personality in fashion just like Marc Jacobs or Phoebe Philo. She has become more public in the past 18 months, and there is very little information about her available publicly. Creating a page for her and updating the page for Max was done in response to press inquires. Please let me know what I need to do to get both pages back up. Thank you so much for your help! Acuffrose ( talk) 20:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The proper venue is WP:DRV, which is the deletion review board. Or you can talk to Orange Mike, the administrator who deleted the articles, to ask him why he did so and to ask how you could help prevent the articles from being deleted in the future if you were to recreate them. -- Atama 頭 20:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
An earlier version of the article on Max, who has a good case for notability, has been restored, with the COI edits of Acuffrose omitted. There is no case for separate notability for Lubov Aria, his wife. It should be noted for future reference that the article on Max has a bad history of COI editors, including User:Roseorchid, self-described as "assistant manager for Max Rave"; the IP 169.234.101.48; and User:BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP. -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Acuffrose: are you the editor who formerly edited as User:Roseorchid and described her/himself as "an assistant manager for Max Rave"? Are you the editor who formerly edited as User:BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP? -- Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and Global Warming

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.

Resolved
 – I'm closing this report. While I believe that there are multiple issues of concern surrounding the editing of global warming-related articles, the hyperventilations of an opinion journalist who, among other things, confuses WMC's 3RR patrolling with his global warming editing, are not a credible foundation for a complaint. I suggest that the proper route here would be to compile actual evidence (diffs) of behavior that is allegedly inappropriate and hold a request for comment to get feedback. Editors who are opposed to WMC's editing should use the wiki process to compile and review evidence, discard weak examples, and get feedback from the rest of the community on whether WMC's behavior crosses the line from being an expert in his field (which should be encouraged) to improperly controlling content and excluding other legitimate viewpoints. Thatcher 17:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been accused (author Lawrence Solomon) of a conflict of interest for global warming and of creating systematic bias in Wikipedia to the effect of minimizing the Medieval Warm Period (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to further an environmental agenda. The article states 5,428 articles could be involved.

For the record I have awarded WMC barnstars in 2006 for excellence in writing and maintaining science articles. I respect him. However, given the potential harm this should be treated seriously until demonstrated otherwise. - Roy Boy 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I found this written by William M. Connolley discussing Lawrence Solomon and Energy Probe. - Roy Boy 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He may have been so accused but the accusation is a ludicrous one. A conflict of interest means an incompatibility between the interests of an editor and those of developing a neutral, high quality encyclopaedia, and someone who is an expert in the field is certainly not thereby disqualified from helping improve articles - not even if they have known opinions. Making sure that the current state of climate science is accurately described is a service to the encyclopaedia, not something to be resisted. The limited extent to which William M. Connolley has a conflict of interest comes solely with matters related directly to the RealClimate blog at the time he was involved in it, and the British Antarctic Survey under similar restrictions. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Lectures on conflict of interest are rather rich coming from " Mr Blacketer", I think. I love SUV's ( talk) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the word you were looking for was not "rich" but "apposite". Yes, I too have been frivolously accused by a journalist with an agenda, of having a conflict of interest because I edit in a field I have professional and personal knowledge of. That means I am keen to defend others who have been similarly wrongly accused, even ones with whom some people believe me to have 'a history'. Merely being actively engaged within a field of human expertise and having known opinions about the subject, does not give an editor a conflict of interest. Editors only have conflicts of interest when they are directly, personally and currently involved in the immediate precise issue being written about. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the fact he is being paid by the Climate Research Unit to astroturf Wikipedia for the AGW POV pose a fiduciary conflict of interest with his role as editor here? I thought astroturfing was banned at Wikipedia? 97.94.189.111 ( talk) 08:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Since that hasn't happened no. Please don't abuse the word "fact" in future.© Geni 13:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No comment on the broader accusation, which I haven't looked at, but that Financial Post article is idiotic. It proceeds from the first principle that everything WMC does on Wikipedia is pushing a global warming-related agenda. The ~5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming. "Over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions." - most of them "ran afoul" of him by crossing the WP:3RR bright line on articles entirely unrelated to global warming. And so on. If there is a COI issue here, please present using actual evidence, rather than the kind of journalism that makes me embarrassed of my citizenship. Steve Smith ( talk) 00:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Striking analysis. On the point of "present using actual evidence" would take a significant amount of time; and could be interpreted as cabal protectionism. Being correctly deliberative may not be a luxury we can afford. - Roy Boy 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
A chain of comments here may relate to this issue. 69.9.27.168 ( talk) 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
To be scrupulously fair to Lawrence Solomon, the author of that piece, he is not a journalist but a writer and columnist and the piece in question is neither a news article nor investigative journalism, but an opinion column. This kind of writing sells papers, apparently. -- TS 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't. This is an author for the National Post nobody buys that crap. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The COI accusation was made off-wiki, in an op-ed. I don't think that it's of concern. When an editor makes an appeal as to how WMC is in specific violation of our WP:COI guideline, that's when I would be concerned. And as Sam Blacketer has alluded to, experts editing articles related to their fields of expertise are specifically given allowance in our guideline (even encouraged, as they should be) and only when there is a personal conflict should the COI be looked at (such as the blog mentioned). -- Atama 頭 00:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The Post article (actually, a blog entry) is ludicrous. It appears that the right-wing blogosphere has gotten to be dumber than usual lately with respect to WMC; there are more detailed rebuttals at Talk:William Connolley#Solomon op-ed and Talk:William Connolley#Conflict of Interest. There really isn't any credible, evidence-based claim being made anywhere. The climate skeptics echo chamber is probably going to be repeating this nonsense, so administrators watching William Connolley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be extra-vigilant for BLP problems over the next few weeks. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not completely certain as to why this is even being brought up. Are you suggesting that because someone seems to be drumming up a controversy (citing 5k+ edits with nothing to prove that those where problematic edits) that WMC should be barred from the article or subject? This board is for noting/discussing when editors may be directly involved with the subject of the article(s) they are editing. If that's what you're suggesting, please be more clear. Honestly, I can't believe we're even taking the time to address these articles. Like Steve Smith noted, the edits they cite are everything WMC has ever done on WP and assume they were all POV pushing edits. They even site his deletions as an admin, deleting speedy deletion articles which have nothing to do with global warming or his POV. What a waste of time. OlYeller Talktome 00:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Demonstrating how seriously we take alleged systematic bias is not a waste of time. A proper analysis should be done, and potential COI's on specific articles are possible. I sincerely hope such actions are unnecessary, but looking at the issue for a few minutes / hours and coming to a determination is a disservice to Wikipedia. - Roy Boy 01:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You haven't stated what you want the community to actually do. Are you volunteering to do this "proper analysis"? -- NeilN talk to me 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Royboy, I don't think that's going to happen. Nobody is going to go through WMC's entire edit history to dig up possible COI issues, nor should they. Especially not if the catalyst for this is some opinion piece on a web site. If you, or anyone else, has specific complaints then they should be made. Just like every noticeboard on Wikipedia, if there's a problem there should be diffs and specific examples to demonstrate the problem, not a general comment.
To completely contradict your original statement, I think this should not be treated seriously, not until demonstrated otherwise. -- Atama 頭 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Understood, but if Wikipedia can be pro-active in any way I believe it would be to our credit. Removing the Solomon article from the Talk:William Connolley article is likely myopic. I will follow up on that talk page. - Roy Boy 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The community can treat it seriously. As to an analysis I do not possess the tools to do that effectively / efficiently. We should provide more accurate numbers than those presented as a start. Perhaps even a "global warming" data dump of WMC edits may be appropriate? This would allow those who wish to contest COI edits to do so more quickly than standard Contrib scrolling. As issues are raised they can be addressed. - Roy Boy 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this sounds flippant (but then again, it is), but have you considered putting all of William's edits into a zip file, posting it on a Russian ftp server, and posting at climateaudit that "A miracle has happened"? Let the sceptics do all the cherry picking... -- TS 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Depends on the size of the zip file I suppose. Is there any way to do a decent filter of WMC edits within Wikipedia and/or with 3rd party tools / scripts? - Roy Boy 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Doable without such scripts. Do a search within article space only. Sort alphabetically by article name, then manually remove articles which clearly have naught to do with climate issues. 5000 edits takes you back to early 2007 -- which should furnish a sufficient sample to detect any problems. From the alpha list remaining, go through diffs sequentially (possibly examining edit summaries). Delete all which are clearly just vandalism reverts etc. Methodology is independent of who you are looking at, or what topics. Hope this helps. Collect ( talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, lots of us are programmers with tools for doing just that kind of filtering. But what would we be searching for, and could it be expressed in terms of textual search terms? I suspect not. It strikes me that if there were any significant outstanding conflict of interest it would have been detected in one or other of the arbitration cases in which William M. Connolley has made an appearance.
It really would help if we knew what we were supposed to be looking for. -- TS 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe a dump as Collect describes would be okay. Trying to be clever could be problematic. - Roy Boy 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Though we should keep obvious vandalism, as that shows the reality of maintaining contested subjects. - Roy Boy 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I hereby allege that RoyBoy has systematically attempted to bias over 16,000 Wikipedia articles related to atheism. He has deleted 129 pages, presumably because he didn't like their subjects. In total, he has blocked 611 editors who ran afoul of him; RoyBoy clearly disapproved of the arguments they made, and had them barred from contributing. ( Counts.) Since we need to demonstrate that we take all allegations of systemic bias seriously, please, can someone begin the witch hunt investigation? Or do I have to repost this message in a blog before we get started?
Honestly, that's the level of credibility and accuracy that Solomon's op-ed has. Solomon apparently didn't look at WMC's edits, he just pulled the numbers out of an edit counter and assumed that every article WMC edited, every page WMC deleted, and every editor that WMC blocked was somehow related to climate change and somehow an abuse of WMC's editing/admin privileges. I believe that we should take credible accusations of systemic bias seriously, and I believe that if Solomon had even bothered to present a patina, a bare gloss of evidence in support of his claims we might have something to discuss. However, taking this factually-challenged op-ed seriously wouldn't demonstrate anything beyond that we're gullible idiots. RoyBoy, you're welcome to conduct your own investigation, but please don't bring this back to the community until you have something of substance. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree my call to action is hasty, but I'm hesitant to allow the weakness, and ironic COI, of the accusation to allow relegation of the issue to talk pages alone. Also, I hope this isn't hinged just on the op-ed, but on any appearance of COI within the larger context of Climategate. If too much a reach, fine. But let it be said we looked at it in an official capacity and found it wanting. - Roy Boy 03:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Although any user is obviously free to satisfy themselves with their own investigation, accusations alone are just accusations. And the context is that the article is a wacky, paranoid opinion piece. It wouldn't surprise if its author were one of wikipedia's fringe [blocked] pov-pushers in the area, doing some venting [though now I am acting like the author]. Wiki has an expert user who edits in his area. And he is/was an admin. Big deal. If the author finds actual and specific CoI evidence about WC and the Holy Elders of Realclimate, he can submit it or publish it. Otherwise he shouldn't be allowed to waste our time like this. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 01:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like assist the author, and anyone else, to find any COI. It could lead to a streamlined procedure to respond appropriately to future accusations of note. - Roy Boy 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
William Connolley has a close relationship with Michael Mann. William Connolley is removing information from Michael Mann's article that is potentially unsightful for Michael Mann. William Connolley has a COI with regards to this article per WP:COI specifically This section. I am sure it would be easy to find many more given his history. Arzel ( talk) 04:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to respond to genuine concerns about COI from sensible editors. I think RB made a mistake by basing this report on the LS piece, which (as plenty of people have noted above) is not to be taken seriously. My response is to make fun of it [37] ( [38] is recycled LS so gets mocked too). However, I don't think RB was unreasonable in raising these concerns, so if anyone other than the trolls and the WoT's has anything to say, I'll respond William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Investigating conflicts in Scientific opinion on climate change

This COI investigation should be taken seriously. I investigated this editor in relation to a NPOV dispute with regards to Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change for which he created. (Note: I have suffered two blocks (my only ones) and other confirmed harassment in attempting to work with this editor.) Here are my concerns.

  1. SPECIFICALLY: The editor holds the Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change mission and interests clearly above those of WP:5.
  2. The editor declared conflicted interest here [39] during an ArbCom run.
  3. The editor aggressively first denies and then aggressively negates attempts to reach a NPOV. [40]
  4. The COI may extend to other editors acting in cohesion for a conflicted mission counter to a NPOV. [41]
  5. In addition, the editor may also be held accountable [42] for WP:BLP issues in List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming upon further archive investigation.

I have diffs from archived talk history in Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change to offer. Before proceeding (or taking abuse for conducting an investigation) does anyone else share these concerns to broaden the investigation scope? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 03:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5, You have also first had a couple of polite warnings for borderline harrassing him, to be balanced and fair, and it did look like you started your type of harrassment long before the retaliatory complaints. It does look like an unsubstantiated witchhunt by you of him to me.-- BozMo talk 06:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not apparent how WMC's edits relate to the links which you have presented. I note that you have been blocked twice by other admins for your poor conduct ( [43]), but WMC has apparently not used his admin tools. The links you have presented are confusing, at best. In #2, where you declare that WMC has indicated a conflict of interest, he apparently only states that he 'care[s] about' the issue of global warming. I presume that the same could be said for you. I've got better things to do than to try to parse the remainder of your compaint; can you provide a few diffs which clearly demonstrate the problem, or are you just grinding your own particular axe? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 05:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Can those accusing WMC provide some examples of the parts of our COI guideline that have been broken? As far as I can see he is an expert in a particular field which is to be encouraged: "However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." If there is a problem it would seem to be a POV problem rather than a COI. Smartse ( talk) 12:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Well this part covers it i believe

There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. 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.

WMC has ties to both realclimate and hadley cru. The conflict of interest is his work is in proving agw, therefore when he edits an article to remove anything which may cast doubt on it is a conflict of interest.

See here for an examle please. [ [44]] mark nutley ( talk) 12:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding. By that criterion, 97.4% of active climate scientists have a COI [45]. The desire to fairly represent a field of science is not a COI, it's a very desirable trait for Wikipedia. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 12:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a desirable trait to remove any hint of criticism from an article, and i do not see how removal of any "bad news or dissenting opinion" is fairly representing this field of science. But surly WMC`s neutrality is called into question here, how can he show a neutral pov when he works in the climate change industry? I`m afraid his bias shows through in his edits, and this is not good for WP. mark nutley ( talk) 12:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

he works in the climate change industry?. I don't. What makes you think you have a clue? William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you or have you not worked at hadley cru? Whom is your current employer? Do you have links do realclimate?

Perhaps "works for" is not the right term, perhaps has worked for would suffice. mark nutley ( talk) 13:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if he does or did "work in the climate change industry" (whatever that is) he can still edit articles related to climate change. There is nothing in our COI guideline that forbids him from doing so. If you can provide diffs to show that the COI has actually been a problem (i.e. not being neutral) then there may be a problem. Personally it seems pretty clear that improving wikipedia is more important than advancing outside interests. Since WP:COI states "Where advancing outside interests are more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." it suggests that this is not a problem. Smartse ( talk) 13:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that it's evident from reading Connolley's bio that his career reputation and credibility is founded, at least in significant part, on Global Warming's credibility, especially on the IPCC's statement on climate change. Connelley's continued behavior at trying to minimize skeptical opinions in the global warming articles, adding criticism to global warming skeptic's BLPs, and attempts to control the POV in the global warming articles shows that this COI and POV are preventing him from complying with WP:NPOV. I suggest a topic band, interpreted broadly. Cla68 ( talk) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
What's a 'topic band'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love SUV's ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a rubber band, preferably wrapped around the fingers of editors who are tempted to promote off-wiki swiftboating. -- ChrisO ( talk) 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean the POV that insists that science-based articles be based on current scientific consensus? -- NeilN talk to me 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, WMC should not be allowed to work on articles related to climate change, as he has worked with scientists and respected experts in the field. By a similar token, professional football players should avoid writing about sports, and professors of economics should steer clear of articles on monetary policy. The only people who should write our articles in contentious areas are individuals with minority viewpoints, personal axes to grind, and Randy from Boise. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: Did I receive a second to proceed? I want to be clear and balanced with space for the editor to answer the specific issues. I appreciate the comments ... however, what will be most relevant at this stage, are the editor's answer. I can wait for folks to continue before presenting the evidence. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not from me ZP5. From what I've seen, you've taken your recent run in with WMC personally and therefore are most likely unable to participate in this conversation without bias. If you think you have something to provide proof that WMC has a conflict of interest with Wiki when editing the mentioned articles, I suggest pointing someone else to them and letting them sort things out. I'd also like to add, this will not be the place to reply about how personally or not you have taken the spat between you and WMC. OlYeller Talktome 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Connolley's contributions to Wikipedia

The title of Solomon's article claims that Connolley edited 5,428 'unique' articles. It is claimed above that "5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming". Neither of these claims seem to be correct (although I am not sure what 'unique article' means). I crudely and painfully calculated Connolley's edits by using the Wikipedia function that lists article edits. Connolley has made a total of 13,045 article edits since he joined in 2003. Many of these edits are to the same article. Counting the 'unique' edits (by my definition, meaning that all edits to the same article count only as one edit), he has edited 1701 articles. The majority of these are global warming articles. Moreover, the edits to non global-warming articles are usually singletons. To global warming articles, he returns many times. For example, the article "1960s in heavy metal music" he edits once. The article 'An Inconvenient Truth', 72 times. (And the article about himself, 23 times).

On whether Connolley has a conflict of interest, I don't see that being a climate scientist should rule him out. Clearly experts should be welcome in a project like Wikipedia. But is he is politically rather than scientifically motivated? His membership of the UK Green Party, which is not renowned for its scientific view of things (I should know), suggests the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love SUV's ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the articles he has edited on my talk page. I am unable to persuade the Wikipedia editor to present this nicely comma-separated table in the way that a spreadsheet would see it. Can anyone help me please? I love SUV's ( talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your analytical skills may be valuable, but why not use the tools we have? This shows 39,321 edits to 5,440 pages, 2029 users blocked, 510 pages deleted. Note how closely those match the numbers used by Solomon (5,428, "more than 500", "more than 2000"). Apparently, Solomon assumes "page" = "article". That once more shows his dedication to careful research and fact-checking. And your opinion on the UK Green Party aside, WMC's opinion on global warming and climate change agrees with the vast majority of researchers and has the support of all the major Academies of Science. WP:AGF applies. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read what I said. I clearly said that Solomon's claim was wrong. But the claim made above that "The ~5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming." is also very wrong. Looking at his individual edit (and not the 'tool' referred to above, which merely summarises edits) it is clear that the vast majority of Connolley's edits are to GW articles.
Subtle distinction. Neither the majority of pages nor the majority of articles are in climate-related fields. The majority of edits are (or at least it seems so by eyeballing). But nobody claimed otherwise, so your argument is a strawman. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
"His membership of the UK Green Party, which is not renowned for its scientific view of things (I should know)..."
Do I take it that you have come here to declare your conflict of interest with respect to the Green Party? -- TS 16:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
On the Green Party, I was a member a long time ago. That's how I know about its 'scientific' view of things. I love SUV's ( talk) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (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.

WHDT and WHDT

WHDT (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:WHDT, who claims to be WHDT's "Chief Engineer", keeps reverting to a highly dubious version of the article that claims, for example, that WHDT is broadcasting a signal (FCC reports as well as OR show it isn't), and that it is carried by (or recently that it has been ordered to be carried by, implying it is, with nothing showing it isn't) Dish Network. I'm not the only user who is seeing these claims as problematic, and User:WHDT has been told the COI nature of the edits are problematic. There has been one, short, exchange on the Talk: page but User:WHDT's responses both avoided the central specific issue (evidence that WHDT is actually on the air) and were, as with his reverts, "somewhat discourteous".

I'm sure User:WHDT has useful information he or she could add to the article, but at this point it appears, to me at any rate, that commercially WHDT has a fairly large interest in disguising the fact the channel doesn't broadcast an ATSC channel at this time in at least one of the areas it has a license, and is abusing Wikipedia to maintain this fiction.

At this point I'm giving up, I'm walking away from the article as I find monitoring and reverting extremely tedious and a waste of my time, but I'd appreciate someone who actually has the power to force WHDT to read the guidelines and stick to them could actually do so. 66.149.58.8 ( talk) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the username to WP:UAA as it looks like it is either a role account or someone claiming to be linked to WHDT. I agree that their edits are definitely of concern, thanks for posting. Smartse ( talk) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
They're been blocked because of their username, so the problem is slightly fixed but I guess that they will probably return with a different username. I'm not sure what else there is to do now as the article has already been fixed up by 66.149.58.8. I guess we wait and see, hoping that they will take note that their edits were inappropriate. Smartse ( talk) 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this. I do think the user could probably be a constructive participant (and has made some constructive edits in the past) so I'm not overly happy with having to bring this up. -- 66.149.58.8 ( talk) 18:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately while I said I'd walk away I made the mistake of checking the page again this evening, and he's back under a new nick doing the same stuff. Like I said, I'm going to try to walk away from this (I'm not going to sit here reverting his claims over and over again), but if someone could explain the WP:COI policy to him in a way he'll understand then I think it would be a good idea. I'm not sure what to do to fix the page, beyond possibly argue for its deletion. WHDT has one noteable aspect, it was supposedly the US's first commercial digital station, but otherwise it really hasn't done much of note and would normally be a footnote in, say, an article about the history of digital television in the US. -- 66.149.58.8 ( talk) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The new name is "Marksteiner", and the owner of the station is "Günter Marksteiner". The aggressive behavior of the editor as well as aggressive language on the talk page of the article are both very troubling. The article itself probably merits inclusion per WP:BCAST whether or not it was the first commercial digital station in the US. -- Atama 頭 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Marksteiner ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also been blocked, I've asked the admin to check whether this was right as WHDT was told they could edit using a different username when they were blocked. Having done a bit of searching it does seem possible that the information in the article at present is incorrect. There is a NYT article and another article that have both been published this year that mention the channel. This would contradict the current version which states that they have been off air for two years. If this is correct then it makes it more reasonable as to why Marksteiner and WHDT made the edits that they did. I'm not entirely certain what action to take now though! Smartse ( talk) 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed the NYT article is actually from 2001 despite gnews saying it is published today! Smartse ( talk) 12:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

Kripalu Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was originally an advertisement, IMO, and an interested editor fixed much of that. However, now it is slanted oddly: simple non-profit organization replaced with long negative-slant explanation... 2008 revenue being hammered into sentence 1, news that profits are off, news that staff are being cut, news that pay to executives is going up, news of scandals, award for "best spa" removed as minor and old. Editor appears intimately familiar with nicknames of staff, other detailed workings. I am withdrawing from the article, again, but I fear other eyes are needed on it as there have been fairly grave wp:BLP issues, and I don't feel I can contribute usefully at this time. One editor in a previous wp:NPOVN section I started disagreed with my interpretation of events, by the way, saying the article was reasonably neutral/balanced.- Sinneed 16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this here, and I totally understand withdrawing from the article. Looking at the history of the article, and Calamitybrook's talk page, I see a long, drawn-out dispute between you two. The editor has had a turbulent past, judging from their talk page, and their continued involvement with the article should be questioned. Some of the arguments made by Calamitybrook on the article's talk page are troubling, such as the suggestion that notability should be based on how nice the center looks in the landscape(?!). -- Atama 頭 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I regard conflicts of interest as unethical. Editor says it's because I "appear intimately familiar with staff nicknames;" what he means is the yogic titles of president and vice president, as listed prominently on company's Web page.
I have no personal or professional interest in the topic of article. To suggest otherwise, because I "know staff nicknames" and have done research, is simply inaccurate.
For so simple and brief an article, there are many citations concerning "detailed workings," most of which are available on line.
On talk page, plz note that a different ed. recently suggested that the article had too positive a slant, while a third ed found it neutral. What ever. Question here is Conflict of Interest.
A 160,0000 sq-ft building in the woods indeed affects a landscape enshrined in Amer Lit. by N. Hawthorne, E. Wharton et al. and now part of a federal forest reserve. This "troubling argument" however, is not part of article.
Award for "Best Spa" from "Self Magazine" is 10 years old and not the Nobel Prize. I replaced with note that center is subject of many travel articles in general interest newspapers, magazines. Not sure how best to cite this easily verified fact.

Calamitybrook ( talk) 16:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to address each of your points individually. What you regard a conflict of interest to be is irrelevant, when we talk about them we're talking specifically about the guideline at WP:COI. That may differ from some outside definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest, or yours, but you should familiarize yourself with that guideline if you haven't yet.
You're either grossly misinformed or being deliberately disingenuous in your statement about staff nicknames. John Carter previously mentioned that you referred to people as nicknames like "Gurudev", which is not even close to the "yogic titles of president or vice president". This misstatement of facts is troubling.
Whether or not the argument about notability is or is not part of the article isn't relevant. You offered it as evidence of notability, dismissing the usual argument that significant coverage in independent reliable sources should be used to determine notability. I can accept that people have different opinions of what should constitute notability, but is troubling when combined with other concerns about your editing behavior at the article.
You replaced a verified, sourced statement for an award with a vague, unsupported weasel word statement (if you don't know what weasel words are, don't be offended, just see the link). You use a Google search result as a reference for that, even though that is never acceptable as a reliable source.
Overall, I think you've been damaging this article a piece at a time, violating numerous policies and guidelines in the process, and in defiance of editors who have been trying to tell you what you're doing wrong. Really, I think it's best for you to avoid the article entirely. -- Atama 頭 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

COI allegation not supported

But this is a discussion of conflict of interest allegation...
So-called evidence of conflict of interest is entirely limited to statement that I am "intimately familiar with staff nicknames" and other "inner workings."
There are about 400 staff. Nicknames could be "Jack" "Jill" etc. Don't know whether any have nicknames, nor is reason provided that I do.
Two executives (exclusively) have their yogic names posted on company Web site.
This yoga practice is apparently analogous to that of of Catholic monks and nuns, who take new names when they reach some stage in their religious careers. "Mother Teresa" for example, is not a "nickname" as should be reasonably obvious (though she was originally named Agnesë Bojaxhiu).
There is nothing "intimate" about my familiarity with topic. However, I didn't object when the names were removed.
All "inner workings" described in article are derived from verfiable online sources, through which I gained non-intimate familiarity, which of course, suggests non COI.
Since the COI tag is transparently unsupported, unsupportable and simply FALSE, I've properly removed it.
Quantified improvements
Here is article before I contributed [ [46]] when there were six sources and ten footnotes -- (and text was mostly all just culled, wholesale, from "company" Web site).
Currently has about 20 sources, about 30 footnotes, and is of necessity therefore more balanced and somewhat more detailed. All of these additions, were added by myself. One or two are debatable, though not challenged as of now. Most of added sources are major newspapers, or government sources.
The easily verifiable fact that Kripalu over time, has been subject of sustained (though almost entirely superficial) coverage in national travel press, includes, supercedes and legitimately replaces a single reference to a decade-old magazine item, a so-called award, by Self Magazine editors, which in isolation, is obsolete and not a particularly significant bit of information.
Yes I removed a footnote regarding Self Magazine editors' award, and I accept that my general reference to much wider google news search results may be imperfect verification of coverage, but a complete bibliography of these many, various and mostly rather trivial "happy talk" articles would seem excessive for such an innocuous and simple observation.
Thanks for useful input about my various policy violations and my damage to article. Sinneed has repeatedly made constructive suggestions that I must be banned from Wikipedia, because I focus on his nearly endless accusations this regard, rather than content of article.
Yet he has comparatively little to say on content, focusing significantly on my "conflict of interest."
I've nearly tripled available reliable sourcing and vastly improved the thing -- while his posting seem quantitatively much more personally focused (without sourcing, evidence or shred of acceptable reasoning) on me.
As there is less and less I can do to improve article, so will probably in some degree, take your advise and make fewer edits and add few additional sources to what is simply, NOT a very complex topic.

Calamitybrook ( talk) 22:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX)

Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - New editor Cbrownsyed ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding large amounts of unwikified text to Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX), which, when put into Google come out as being from here. I have reverted. When challenged, the editor replied The text entered is from the Proposal for the Green Pennant awards, of which I am the co-author with Kevin Lacy and Lionel Gregory. No images were included. I have warned about CoI issues, but this could use extra eyes as the unwikified text is not really suitable for Wikipedia. ⇦ REDVERS ⇨ 15:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Luke

User:Rick206/Dynamic Language

Rick206 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - While seeking feedback for his work in progress, it was brought to Rick's attention that he had the same name as the Vice President of the company. This in turn sparked interest in a possible COI. Rick posted on my talk page and asked for help on the matter, and I came here to seek some more opinions in hopes that this matter is resolved peacefully and without bias. Airplaneman talk 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith, and if they claim to not be the same Rick as the VP of the company, I suppose that he isn't. Although as a resident of the greater Seattle area myself, I know that 206 happens to be the area code for Seattle, so the chosen username still screams COI to me; also, the personal way in which the article is written suggests an employee of the company or a person otherwise affiliated. I'm glad that the editor is communicative and shows a willingness to comply with our policies and guidelines, but the company just doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion in the first place. My suggestion to Rick is that if he is interested in editing Wikipedia that he find some other way to contribute. Someone who is communicative, polite, and has decent writing skills is a very welcome addition to the project and there are millions of articles that can use his help. -- Atama 頭 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I remember this. I was involved in trying to protect it when the last user came along, but we all just gave up in the end, nobody able to help out (I could have Wikified it, but I didn't see the point if the rest of it couldn't be fixed and would therefore be deleted anyway). -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 03:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

JeffSharlet and The Fellowship (Christian organization)

Could someone look into the edits of JeffSharlet ( talk · contribs) at The Fellowship (Christian organization). If the account is accurately named, he's the author of the book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, which is used heavily as a source for that article. The issue here is the heavy reliance of that source on the article, often by him directly, in such a way that makes it look as though he is promoting his own book and his own viewpoint at that article, to the exclusion of all other sources. He removes references to any source which differs from his own conclusions, or is critical of them, see this edit for an example of removing references to works not his own. There are also several other SPA accounts that work on that article which rely heavily on Sharlet's book exclusively, often misrepresenting it in ways that overextend Sharlet's conclusions with regard to the association of political figures with the group. Something needs to be looked at here. -- Jayron 32 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This is quite a tricky case. It appears that the main issue with it is that JeffSharlet has been arguing about whether or not an article that comments about his book on this organisation should be included in the source. The edit that Jayron32 has linked to seems to be the only problematic edit however and he has edited the talk page more so than the main article. That said taking a quick look it does seem as though an article in Newsweek should be included in the article and if it comments on a major source used in the article then the views may be necessary to meet achieve a NPOV. I noticed that he has argued it is an opinion piece and should therefore not be included but this is not a valid argument as long as the article makes it clear that it is an opinion piece and not fact. I'm not willing to agree that he removes any sources which disagree with him though, considering only one such edit has been made.
On a side is there not a system through WP:OTRS by which people can prove that they are in fact the person that their username suggests they are? If this is the case then JeffSharlet really needs to demonstrate this is the case. Smartse ( talk) 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It also appears user 24.61.42.123 is Jeff Sharlet not logged in, judging by his comment removing the Newsweek article again. He has made some additions to the Fellowship page and his own page on wikipedia. 74.248.102.8 ( talk) 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Myki

Resolved
 – User has been indef blocked

I (along with other editors, such as User:HiLo48) are concerned about User:Myki-insiders edits to myki. His username obviously links him to Myki and the user has never attempted to claim they are not afiliated with Myki, OneLink, Connex_Melbourne, Metro Trains Melbourne or the Victorian State Government. As another user pointed out here and here they're edits seem to be a little POV and they are quick to "reword" (read remove) any obvious criticism. Being such a controversial and 'angry public' kind of project, I think sporadic editing is best by someone who seemingly works for the subject of the article. — Deon talk 13:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Particularly alarming diffs include this one. — Deon talk 14:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: User has been indef blocked (per username) - hopefully they don't just start editing under another username. — Deon talk 04:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Springer (orca)

Hi everyone,

We could really use some community input on the Springer (orca) article. This article was stable until about three weeks ago when a large amount of content that I consider problematic was added to it, by a contributor with a conflict of interest. That contributor has apparently stopped editing, however at present the COI content is mostly still there and we need to deal with it somehow. At question are: processes for dealing with content added with COI, whether to revert to a version of the article that existed before the COI content was added, reliability of sources, due weight, and style issues. Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 08:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JohnBrocks and EKR

User:John Brocks created article EKR, the articles was clearly promotional with no refs, so I added G11 Speedy template. I check back later and the whole tag has been deleted no explanation by User:JohnBrocks. I reread the article found this phrase "Peter Leutner teamed up with John Brocks from RadioWorks and EKR re-launched at Easter, 2009 after several months of test transmissions." Coincidences are interesting, are they not? Weaponbb7 ( talk) 00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Nigelharris2001 created the article, not John Brocks. NG2K also removed the speedy deletion tag, which they aren't allowed to do (you can't remove the speedy deletion tag on an article if you are the article's creator, but just about anyone else can). Nigel Harris, by the way, is listed as one of the "presenters" of the radio station (either past or present).
I've gone ahead and deleted it. The article does seem overly promotional, and would require a substantial rewrite to fix it. -- Atama 頭 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait a Sock puppet? Weaponbb7 ( talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry. Assuming that these editors are the actual John Brocks and Nigel Harris mentioned in the article, since they are different people there's no sockpuppetry involved. -- Atama 頭 02:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Background
Articles
Accounts
-- Hu12 ( talk) 06:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Yehoishophot Oliver

Unresolved
 – Matter now proposed for arbitration.

User:Adamore

Seems to be using Wikipedia to promote an organization. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPA account with no other edits than to promote Action Against Hunger (actionagainsthunger.org). Mass reference spamming, and promotional additions over multiple articles (including linkspaming) and on the the main article. I've reverted it to a non COI/spam revision, however long that lasts. Believed to be Amador Gomez, technical director of Action Against Hunger. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Action_Against_Hunger_Spamming -- Hu12 ( talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The COI has pretty much been acknowledged, see here where they said, "I may not have written in a completely neutral language, ok, but that would be because this is a cause i care about." That's a perfect example of why we have a COI guideline in the first place. Now, they did later apologize for this behavior, and there have been sufficient warnings about spam that the issue should be pretty much resolved (COI confirmed, editor has been warned about behavior, editor apologized, further misbehavior will lead to a block). -- Atama 頭 22:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Martins and user:A.montenegro

user:A.montenegro has been appearing repeatedly over the past few weeks to do what appears to be a whitewash of the article Edgar Martins. Article before a.montenegro appeared: [47], A.montenegro's additions: [48] (trouble is mainly in section Digital Alteration Controversy"/The Ruins of the Second Gilded Age Portfolio Debate ). Because the user's additions were so non-neutral, I integrated the parts that could be kept and removed the rest: [49]. We've now gone back and forth from his/her version to mine (as seen on [50]).

Warnings have been left on his/her talk as well as the article talk, explaining what was wrong with the user's additions. Other users have expressed on the talk page their agreement with my perception of A.montenegro's version. Based on the user's talk page, which contains a bio of Edgar Martins, and the user's determination to add only favorable information to the article, it appears A.montenegro is someone strongly interested in the reputation of Edgar Martins. I'm not well-versed in what can be done here - can someone lend a hand? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This notice was copied here, since no immediate action was taken on the COI board (which is the nature of this board, it's not for "emergencies"). LessHeard vanU made some helpful comments regarding the editor's actions.
I'm not sure that there is a COI here. The editor has not outed him or herself as the article subject, and a quick Google search hasn't shown any connection to "A.montenegro" and Martins. It may or may not be them, but I'd rather not speculate or risk violating WP:OUTING. I'd actually suggest that absent any other on-wiki evidence that you refrain from accusing the editor of being Martins for that same reason.
The NPOV problems are obvious, and the COI is irrelevant to me because regardless of the actual identity of the editor such whitewashing is unacceptable. I don't care if the editor is Martins, his friend, or just some fan, but I would suggest that any further efforts to remove sourced information from the article without discussing matters with other editors should result in a temporary block of some kind. -- Atama 頭 22:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lbuser

Fairly advanced publicity/ad campaign for one company and its various products.

-- Calton | Talk 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Welcome to the future – why wouldn't people create twenty pages to promote their products? Would someone more experienced in these matters give an opinion on what should happen to the product pages? Redirect to main article or delete? Where is the guideline re stuff like MyProduct® (i.e. registered/trademark symbols)? If kept, should articles like OmniBand mention that a particular feature is patented? Should a reference to the patent be included (pretty obviously not, unless some feature of the patent is important)? Johnuniq ( talk) 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The individual product articles are pretty clearly spam, and I've tagged them. The rest of it is still a mess. The "®" symbol should not be used; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Rees11 ( talk) 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I am usually prepared to assume good faith, but quite frankly I don't buy the copyright claims on most of those images. They are clearly copyright images of the company or scans thereof and I see no evidence that the company has given permission for their use. –  ukexpat ( talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Lbuser claims to have created all those images, which would tend to reinforce the impression that he has a COI. It seems unlikely that someone not associated with the company would create what are essentially marketing materials. Rees11 ( talk) 04:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Freshchoicedak

Freshchoicedak ( talk · contribs) appears to be working for the Fresh Choice restaurant chain, judging from his username and edits that turned that article into a "fact sheet" about the company. May want a few more eyes to keep an eye on this article and user. NeoChaosX ( talk, edits) 06:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked this user on a username violation. I've watchlisted the article and will try to help keep an eye on it for new accounts and any problematic editing. Sarah 09:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New account is now reverting the article back to the fact sheet revision, Clarkkemp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). NeoChaosX ( talk, edits) 20:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the editor was username blocked, and encouraged to register under a new name. So this isn't block evasion. (Just thought I'd point that out.) I do agree with the COI concerns here, but I also have concerns with your handling of this issue as well. For example, there is currently an edit war not far from violating WP:3RR. The versions of the article being warred over are an unreferenced version, and a version that relies on unreliable sources. Also, Clarkkemp introduced a relevant and notable award that would be welcome in an article with absolutely no references, yet instead of including this the reference was removed with all other contributions. I'd really prefer that you actually talk with the editor about a compromise rather than revert everything they do, COI or not. -- Atama 頭 22:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Serin13 and FTP related articles

Serin13 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Serin13 is the creator and substantial contributor of Cerberus FTP Server. His contributions all revolve only around this product [51]. Material redacted per WP:OUTING.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Promethean: sorry, but part of the above was well into attempted WP:OUTING. Do you want to rephrase? Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Serin13 outed himself by choosing a username identical to the one used at the Cerberus FTP support forums. Digging deeper for personal info would certainly constitute outing, but the direct connection to the product was already made clear. Regardless, the article for the product has been deleted so this is something of a moot point now. -- Atama 頭 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The attempted outing lies in digging further beyond the shared username to identify a named real-world person. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 20:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I agree that it was very inappropriate to go that far. -- Atama 頭 20:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry: I had my wrist slapped for it way back, so tend to be cautious about that kind of thing... Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 20:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

California Southern Baptist Convention

Eugeneacurry created this page. As his user page makes clear he is a pastor in the California Southern Baptist Convention. I have alerted him to WP:COI but he maintains that it applies only to editing pages concerning his family, friends etc rather than the religious organisation that employs him, despite the policy clearly covering this. He also reverted an advertising tag I placed on the page as it contained the organisation's mailing address and phone number. Haldraper ( talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not an employee of the California Southern Baptist Convention. Haldraper is mistaken and is engaging in a bit of tit-for-tat here since I was instrumental in getting him blocked for three-revert violations on another article. Eugeneacurry ( talk) 16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we stick to the facts here rather than engage in mindreading as to my motivation which is irrelevant as to whether WP:COI has been breached?
Eugeneacurry created California Southern Baptist Convention and has edited it to remove contentious material, for e.g. an advertising tag.
Eugeneacurry's user page states: "Eugene A. Curry is currently the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Granada Hills in Los Angeles, CA." I suspect he is engaging in semantics here when he says "I am not an employee of the California Southern Baptist Convention". It may be they do not directly pay his wages, however he is a pastor of one of its churches and therefore has a close connection to the subject of the page he created and is editing. Haldraper ( talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
As a Baptist church in Southern California, is your church not a member of the CSBC? If so, there is a potential COI. -- Atama 頭 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
My legally independent church voluntarily associates with the California Southern Baptist Convention. We contribute money to it, not vice versa. To say the CSBC "employs" me is akin to saying the US government "employs" all American taxpayers, which is of course nonsense. I created the CSBC page 2.5 years ago when I was just beginning to work with Wikipedia ( other SBC state conventions already had articles) and I was unaware that including a physical address was considered inappropriate. The address has since been removed and I have not tried to restore it. If the solons of Wikipedia really think that the content of the article is inappropriate or that the CSBC doesn't meet notability standards (I consider both options unlikely) I'll not protest it's rewriting/deletion. Though I do find it interesting that apparently no one had a problem with the page in its 2.5 year history until Haldraper was blocked after I reported his 3RR violation. Eugeneacurry ( talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the kind of clarification that helps a lot on this board. You might have a bit of a COI but it's not a strong one. The article clearly has no POV issues so I've removed the COI tag (the tag isn't a black mark to stain the article forever, it only exists if there's something in the article that needs to be cleaned up). I do think that listing the physical address and telephone number of the organization is a bit much, you don't see that in articles because Wikipedia isn't a directory (phone numbers in particular are never listed). Such mistakes are pretty minor though, you haven't done anything wrong that I've seen. The removal of the advertising tag was completely appropriate, nothing at that article even approached what I'd consider promotional at the time, and I'm really confused as to why Haldraper would have added it. -- Atama 頭 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I have however added notability and unreferenced tags to California Southern Baptist Convention as it is not clear to me that the subject is notable and it clearly is unreferenced. –  ukexpat ( talk) 20:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article has posted allegations of judicial misconduct in his legal case and his own theory on climate change, none of which were sourced. I removed the content per WP:BLP violations regarding the judicial misconduct and WP:OR for the climate change item. Unfortunately, it appears that he feels that there is a conspiracy regarding the removal of such content and that I am a part of it. See his comments on the article talk page my my user talk page. I would like to request some assistance in educating this editor on Wikipedia's policies as I believe that he has not and will not pay attention to my notes to him. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have linked the relevant sections for his perusal. ArcAngel (talk) ( review) 00:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
As can be seen on his talk page, a number of people have attempted to reason with him. I'm worried this might be a lost cause. This editor seems to be assuming bad faith from everyone involved and is unwilling to be collegial, this will probably result either in his leaving Wikipedia in disgust due to what he perceives as abuse, or a block. This ANI report doesn't give me any more hope either. -- Atama 頭 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wifione and The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management has been mired in content disputes for years now, primarily because of editors ostensibly sympathetic to the institute looking to remove any negative information, and embellish positive information. Wifione's editing of The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management is tendentious and aimed at whitewashing negative information about the institute, in a manner that strongly suggests some sort of affiliation and therefore COI. The user's editing also goes against Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE#ADVOCATE. The user is not an SPA at first glance of his/her edit logs, but a careful perusal indicates that most of the edits have to do with IIPM or related entities, and are aimed at putting a positive spin on the article, and removing any negative information, by twisting wikipolicy, take this as an example or this or this or this edit which does not do what the editsummary says. The edits always seem like a PR exercise, to minimize the institute's criticism and to add questionable positive info.

Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has evaded the question. To be fair, user is not being a vandal or revert-warring. But given the obvious pro-IIPM bias, and in tune with COI guidelines, it would be nice if the user clarifies any COI situation, either confirming or denying it. Makrandjoshi ( talk) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Makrandjoshi, sorry for replying late. Let me assure you, there is no CoI. There is surely a content dispute on the pages in question - a look at the talk pages of the articles in question would be beneficial. When an article (like you have mentioned) contains too many negative issues, then attempting to reach an NPOV state by adding a balancing positive pov appears to be CoI. Just for information, when you were warned with a future block by an administrator for harassing me last month, the same point was told to you by the administrator here [52]. You were also warned by administrator here [53] how I am not a CoI case. The administrator also informed you how he is ready to give you more evidence of the same --- you did not take the same up.

However, given this new CoI template, I'll respond to the exact diffs you have given.

1. Your first diff [54] shows the talk page discussions.

I would wish to understand what part of the discussions did you find CoI? (You were absent from the discussions here, till two days back) I do believe discussions are the basis for making NPOV changes. Don't you?

2. Your second diff [55] leaves out four intermediate edits. I'll focus on the biggest change on that for benefit, which is, reducing a major part of the controversy section.

It'll be good if you look at discussions here [56] which occurred from 22nd Dec 2009 till 25th Dec 2009 (you were absent throughout the discussions) where, before undertaking the change, I even placed the paragraphs for other editors' comment.

3. Your third diff [57] shows me removing M.Peri's statement from the article as I have claimed it is a self published source. Your request at the Reliability noticeboard here [58] is clear evidence of the fact the source was not an open shut case.

4. Your fourth diff [59] shows how I removed information about IMI. Please see discussions here [60] to understand how that was done after discussions (you were absent again).

I'll request you in the future to treat content disputes the way they should be treated - like content disputes. Please don't harass a fellow editor continuously and so flagrantly. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 10:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, how does asking someone to clarify their COI harrassment? You have evaded the question in the past. Now that you have answered it, I'll take your word for it in good faith. And we can move on. Now about the links I provided and your responses to them. My first link was an example of your misinterpreting wiki policy. The discussions there show that apart from you, no one else thinks that using the word controversy is against policy. The second diff, all the intermediate edits were by you too, FYI. The difference speaks for itself in terms of how validly cited information critical of the institute has been removed in the course of "summarizing". About my third diff, if you read the RSN request, each and every person responding agreed that the article is WP:RS. And yet, you were removing it repeatedly despite other editors on the IIPM page asking you not to. The fourth diff, your edit summary said "moving to footnotes" or something, whereas you did no such thing. All these edits and numerous other edits by you at the IIPM page have been towards removing any information that is critical of the institute. You mention NPOV. Remember that when there is an NPOV dispute, the suggested path is adding VALIDLY CITED information about both points of view. Removing information under the name of NPOV is not right. I hope you will learn from your mistakes in the past and not remove validly cited information on questionable grounds. And finally, a very happy new year to you. :) Makrandjoshi ( talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:OUTING is the harassment policy. Asking someone if they are affiliated with an article subject shouldn't constitute outing, per se; it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and doesn't necessarily reveal undue personal information (a person can be affiliated with a company without being an employee, for example). Nobody is compelled to answer such a question, though, and repeatedly insisting on it could be considered harassment. Since Wifione denies having a conflict of interest it can be reasonable to assume that they are unaffiliated with IIPM. -- Atama 頭 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I, not Makrandjoshi, am the person who has asked Wifione more than once about possible association with IIPM. Wifione evaded the question, on three different talk pages, saying essentially "don't ask me that question" in each instance.
Such evasion strongly suggested a conflict of interest, especially after Wifione spent weeks of relentless and disruptive wikilawyering to remove each and every source containing negative information from the article, as well as inserting positive spin. Evasion, campaigning to remove negative information, and adding promotional information, paint a fairly clear profile of a person with a conflict of interest.
I will accept Wifione's denial of COI, but I also want to see a cessation of Wikilawyering on Wifione's part. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that this is a CoI forum, and given that both Makrandjoshi (yes, happy new year to you too :)) and Amatulic have accepted their parts in moving on with this CoI, I'll let sleeping dogs lie and move on myself. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Klar sagen

This user seems to be unusually keen on inserting references to the textbook

  • Herman, Gabor T. (2009), Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography: Image Reconstruction from Projections (2nd ed.), Springer, ISBN  978-1-85233-617-2

and other books by Gabor Herman into a variety of articles, without making any other substantive changes (aside from correcting the odd typo). Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused... Is "Klar Sagen" affiliated with the book in any way? Are they listed as a contributor to it, or affiliated with the publisher? If not, there shouldn't be any COI; having an interest in a subject is completely different than a conflict of interest. If this person is spamming, that's certainly a problem but this isn't the place to address that. -- Atama 頭 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Leca67 and Leca

Leca67 ( talk · contribs) was blocked last month on the 19th for having a promotional username. They requested an unblock in order to change their username, this was granted and the change made [61]. However, no edits have been made under the new username and the editor continues to edit Leca where he/she seems to have a clear COI. There are also some copyright issues reported to this editor's talk page. Dougweller ( talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A small correction; the request was made to change the username to Exclay67, but this request was put on hold because Dweller asked for a confirmation that the editor understood the COI guidelines (a reasonable request in my opinion).
A second block occurred, and an unblock request was declined by Daniel Case. After this, Juliancolton noted on the CHU page that Leca67 had been blocked since the request, leading Avraham to deny the username change request.
However, Daniel Case has recently accepted an ublock request, and told the editor to not edit again until the username change had occurred. Juliancolton has noted this on the CHU page.
That's where things stand now with this editor. They are admittedly having difficulties figuring out how to use Wikipedia, this includes creating and editing articles (the LECA article has been deleted twice), uploading images (almost 20 uploaded images have either been deleted or are pending a deletion discussion), and of course username changes. My impression is that this is an editor with good intentions but who keeps making one mistake after another. There could very well be a COI here on top of all of this. I'm not sure how things will end up. -- Atama 頭 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ogo

Thrill Girl ( talk · contribs): edits to Ogo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Zorbing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suggest a connection to this company [62]. Has been adding information to Ogo, which is a disambiguation page. Cassandra 73 ( talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that no one has gotten back to you here. I see User:Thrill Girl hasn't attempted to put the information back in since you posted this so I hope this might be over. Under no circumstances would that be considered appropriate especially given we have an article on a somewhat similar topic already. If it does happen again, could refer them to Sphereing though I'm weary of that since it'd be seemingly just advert info additions anyway. You've been in the right to revert her attempts to have it included, and your warnings to their talk page seem 100% justified to me, including the patience to use Uw-advert1 through 3. Checking your edit history quickly it seems we have very similar habits so I'm not at all surprised we're in agreement :) Thanks for the post, and again sorry on the timing. On a level 4 it's made pretty clear reporting to an incident board is next, so for all intents and purposes they're on an accidental but indefinite 1RR for any article their promo cruft is added to. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems she hasn't given up yet. [63] Is this justification for a block? The content has been toned down a bit but it's still promotional. (I'd only give a warning saying "you will be blocked next time" if that is what would happen!) Cassandra 73 ( talk) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I've already given such a warning. If she tries to promote Ogo again after this warning there's sufficient cause for at least a short block. Note that Thrill Girl isn't the first to try to promote this business, see Outdoor Gravity. -- Atama 頭 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Roland Sparkes

Roland Sparkes ( talk · contribs) has displayed a clear conflict of interest in writing a glorifying resume and then arguing for retention of "his article" Roland Sparkes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roland_Sparkes. breach of WP:OWN, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO applies here. inclusion of a Twitter comment as a reference to himself as excellent just shows the extent of this blatant conflict of interest. inclusion of editing of other WP pages as somehow worthy of inclusion of content demonstrates this also. LibStar ( talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought WP:AUTOBIO only applied if the person created the article? ArcAngel (talk) ( review) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Only one section of the guideline is about actually creating autobiographies, the rest of guideline involves participating in a biographical article about yourself (whether you created it or not). -- Atama 頭 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
given that Mr Sparkes built up the article into a glowing self testimonial, it really is an autobiography. the article creator may have a connection to Mr Sparkers. LibStar ( talk) 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Belmont, Sutton is worth a look too: excessive hype for his book and website. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

yes given that his book was just released on 21 December 2009 and a flurry of editing to direct people to his own WP site and excessive text on Belmont article sourced from his book...you have to wonder if this is too much of a coincidence or blatant new book promotion. LibStar ( talk) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Snowded and Spiral Dynamics

User:Snowded has been insisting at great length, and against talk page consensus, that Category:New Age be placed on the Spiral Dynamics article. Spiral Dynamics is a business management book and course series. [64] User:Snowded has cited no sources for the addition.

User:Snowded's user page links to his website. At his website, [67] he sells a series of courses on business management techniques. [68] He appears to be a potential competitor with Spiral Dynamics. It is possible that User:Snowded wants to paint his competitors in a certain light, and that s/he is using Wikipedia to do so. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I note without much surprise that user Goethean did not see fit to notify me of this posting.
  • The Spiral Dynamics article has been characterised as "New Age" for over a year and I was not involved in that original decision
  • On two occasions in six months Goethean has managed to get one other editor (in each case) to agree with his position that the category is inappropriate and on this basis he claims consensus and has edited warned in defiance of WP:BRD
  • I have said on both occasions that I do not think that the original Spiral Dynamics book and course series are new age, but that the assimilation by the Integral Movement is. More recently I have proposed changes to the article to reflect this which would allow the category to be removed and Goethean has refused to engage with any attempt at a compromise here
  • The only thing I have been doing at great length is to get Goethean to abide by WP:BRD and WP:AGF
  • My company is involved in the application of natural science to social systems and does not compete as far as I know in any way with Spiral Dynamics. Or if it does then any academic in Management Sciences (about 50% of my time) or any Management Consultant should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia.
  • I have always believed in transparency on WIkipedia so my page indicates my political and other beliefs along with a link to my company's web page, if I was playing the game suggested by Goethean then I would not have done this.
  • There appears to be a movement among supporters of the Integral Movement to remove any reference to New Age across a series of articles. This matches the doctrine of Ken WIlber that Integral has transcended New Age (a mean green meme to quote). This is a matter I am starting to look into, especially as pages on Integral tend to have a small number of editors who are part of that movement.
Goethean remains (I think) upset that I reversed his move of Integral Movement to Integral (philosophy). We had a similar position there, three editors heavily involved in the Integral Movement (some of them who publish books) making a decision that has NPOV aspects. I am pleased to say that the other editors on that page have taken a more open attitude and an a discussion is proceeding which will improve the article overall.
I think this is pre-emptive strike as I told him yesterday (the transparency principle again) that I was considering raising an ANI report about his refusal to engage in discussion. He would be better engaged in finding ways to resolve problems rather than insisting that 2 or 3 editors taking a position against 1 constitutes "consensus" without the need for discussion -- Snowded TALK 05:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I note without much surprise that user Goethean did not see fit to notify me of this posting.
Yes, well I knew that you were following my contributions rather enthusiastically. — goethean ॐ 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll make some comments as an outside observer (I don't really know either of you, nor have I had anything to do with the article in question).
  • It seems that Goethean was the one who removed the New Age category back in May, and the category has been around since August 2006. So Snowded does have a point (a technical one) about the fact that removing the category is a change that generally should be justified if anyone objects against it. Having said that, if there truly was a consensus reached that suggested that the category be removed, it should be removed. I don't see that there was a true "consensus", two people against one isn't much of a consensus. But the argument that there should be a source supporting the "New Age" claim is a valid one, and absent such a source I'd personally favor removing the category from the article.
  • All of that is immaterial to the COI complaint. Even if it was determined that Snowded has enough of a COI that editing the article should be discouraged, the guidelines specifically permit an editor with a COI to participate in the talk page of the article. That means that Snowded is free to argue for including the New Age category regardless, or to make any other argument on the talk page of the article.
  • I don't see that a COI actually exists. Possibly being a potential competitor is a far cry from actually being a competitor. It would be ludicrous to say that Snowded is not allowed to participate on any article where the subject creates business management books. That's like saying that a novelist can't edit articles about other novelists. I'm not saying there isn't a potential for a COI here, but it seems like a weak case for one.
  • Being open about your affiliations is commendable. It makes it much easier to assume good faith in an editor, and I'm glad that Snowded is candid about the web site. If Snowded edits an article about his company (I don't see that there is one) or starts linking to his web site in articles (as an external link or a reference, for example), at that point I'd be concerned about COI issues.
These are my opinions. Again, I do support Goethian's side on the New Age category issue (based on what I've read on the article's talk page) but I don't support the COI concerns. -- Atama 頭 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems a little unnecessary to be arguing about a category tag, when the entire article is so dubious; I wonder more about notability, and promotionalism. Perhaps the simplest solution is an AfD . DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Just starting with Google, looking at News, Books, and Scholar, I see that the term is widely-used in published sources. Wading through all that glut to see if it's relevant to the actual article subject is work, but there seems to be an indication that the subject is notable. Personally I wish it could be deleted away, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't very good justification. :) -- Atama 頭 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It might have been clearer if the article had actually had such sources, rather than be an expostulation of theory backed by very general references. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Adams (politician)

User has made several deletions of sourced information from his article. I have reverted, welcomed him and pointed him to WP:COI, WP:BESTCOI and WP:BLP/H, but I have to go offline now and some more eyes on the article might be useful. JohnCD ( talk) 22:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The name of this SPA is also suggestive of COI. Rees11 ( talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the Caassembly account for username violations (role account representing the California State Assembly) but it's only a softblock, they can create a new account or edit anonymously. I haven't looked at the original complaint yet. -- Atama 頭 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Another SPA suggestive of COI. Rees11 ( talk) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked that one too, for the same reason, under the same conditions. It's almost the same username. -- Atama 頭 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Iscream666

Editor blocked by Daniel Case.
Resolved
 – Editor blocked by Daniel Case. ArcAngel (talk) ( review) 22:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Iscream666 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has a name that is similar to the article I Scream Records. A {{uw1-coi}} warning was given, and I am also reporting the user here as it is a blatant COI instance. ArcAngel (talk) ( review) 03:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has only made minor edits, according to the edit history. Rees11 ( talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I believe it's still a COI. ArcAngel (talk) ( review) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
They are marked as minor in the log, but are actually major edits. I just made an edit myself and was quickly reverted by this user in spite of the COI warning you left, which he has not responded to. I think we need stronger efforts to engage this user. Rees11 ( talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I can look this over personally later, when I have more time, but other than marking major edits as minor and the COI/username issue, has there been actual disruption (like spam or edit wars)? I'm tempted to leave them a non-templated, personal message asking them to change their username (which is a clear violation of WP:ORGNAME) and if that is ignored, issue a softblock. But if they're disruptive I'm more inclined to do a hardblock (meaning that they can't just create a new account with an appropriate name, or edit anonymously). -- Atama 頭 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any warring in the edit log. Let's hold off on the hardblock and see if he'll engage on either his or the article's talk page. I've got the article watchlisted and will report here if it seems more action is needed. Meanwhile the article does need work if anyone feels inclined. Rees11 ( talk) 19:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reported the user name to WP:UAA as a spamname. –  ukexpat ( talk) 21:22, 7 January 2010 (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.

User:GivensMarineSurvival

Resolved
 – Indef blocked for spamming and username violations. -- Atama 頭 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Adrienne Cullen

and wrote a userspace draft User:Rebecca Van Buren/Peter cluskey of Adrienne Cullen's article about her husband. JohnCD ( talk) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • User:Jean-Claude Chaminade removed the COI tags from these articles and made some minor changes. I restored the tags. PDCook ( talk) 15:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ourwalks

Resolved
 – Editor indef blocked, article deleted. -- Atama 頭 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Leo airline

The conflict of interest is evident, however the article has been deleted and I've removed the "notable residents" entry made to Bovingdon. I've also given a welcoming template that discusses our COI guideline and informed them of this noticeboard report. -- Atama 頭 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting block for user GameFanatics with CoI

Resolved
 – I've blocked the editor for username violations and spamming. -- Atama 頭 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

GameFanatics ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User's first and only action was adding a spam link to theGameFanatics.com on Heavy Rain - Suggest indef block as I suspect the user has conflict of interest. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 09:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Kyle.Lindsay COI

Resolved
 – Drive-by promotional editor, article and all links to it are deleted. -- Atama 頭 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The big problem is spamming, really, since permission for using the material was given to OTRS, but the article was deleted as are all references to it, and the editor hasn't edited since November (in fact, his entire edit history took place on one day) so this seems resolved. -- Atama 頭 18:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wangobango

I think these are the articles. The first is up for deletion. Rees11 ( talk) 15:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This user name is suggestive of COI. Rees11 ( talk) 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm removed the proposed deletion tag from The Daddy. It was already deleted once through prod and restored, it is ineligible for proposed deletion now. I'm opening an AfD for all three articles instead. -- Atama 頭 19:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I've opened the AfD here. An AfD will be good because at least one editor has been tendentiously resisting deletion of one of the articles; removing speedy templates despite being the author of the page, and having it restored after prod. An AfD will allow the articles to be speedily deleted on recreation unless the authors address the problems raised in the AfD discussion (assuming it closes with a delete result). -- Atama 頭 19:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Note that the edits by this editor were regarding a completely different band named Moke to the one that the article was originally, and is currently about.-- Michig ( talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this editor was notified about the AFD of The Daddy as they don't appear to have ever edited it. The only contributions from this account were in July 2009, for which they received a warning and stopped.-- Michig ( talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a moot point now, but the Moke article was created by this editor whose name is also suggestive of a COI. -- Atama 頭 20:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This certainly isn't a classic case of COI self-promotion and there appear to be quite a lot of refs out there. We might be better off trying to advise the COI editors how they can comply with guidelines as it looks as though at least two of the bands are notable. 86.7.19.159 ( talk) 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC) ( Smartse)
The Moke (band) article hasn't been edited from this account since April 2008, so I don't see that this is going anywhere.-- Michig ( talk) 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Guennadi Kalinine

Resolved
 – COI is likely, but article deleted, no other contributions made. -- Atama 頭 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Le Merle and Alison Davis

Both are blatant COI violations. Evaluating the Alison Davis article, I think it doesn't merit our inclusion standards, and it has some severe POV problems, including unsupported claims about being named one of the most influential women in business for 4 years and being an "outstanding student". The other article on the other hand probably does merit inclusion based on a news search I've made, but even that is a bit iffy. -- Atama 頭 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oxjam

I'd like to get some more eyes on the Oxjam article. It appears to have been heavily influenced in the past by staff of Oxfam editing under the usernames:

Additionally, at least one IP editor:

directly resolves to an Oxfam GB host (grail1.oxfam.org.uk). I have refactored the article to a better form, and I believe the subject of the article should be included. However, the form that these three users keep changing it to is completely unacceptable, which is basically a press release. The page has been protected for now, but it would be nice if a few folks could watchlist it in the future to keep an eye out for abuse. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the contributions of the above users, especially the IP, looks like it should be reviewed for additional abuse. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I support the block, and the COI is pretty clear. I'll keep the article on my watchlist in case more trouble comes up. -- Atama 頭 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Iniva

I'd like to get some more eyes on the Iniva article. It appears to have been heavily influenced in the past by staff of Iniva editing under the username:

Additionally, at least one IP editor:

directly resolves to an Iniva host (mail.iniva.org). It would be nice if a few folks could work on it a bit and watchlist it in the future to keep an eye out for abuse. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The user is definitely an WP:SPA, and is now blocked, and the IP User has not edited since the block. I also tagged the article for notability since the links are all to directory based websites, and not to any real notable third-party source. If additional disruptive edits occur, a semi-protect may be a good idea. Tiggerjay ( talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

Kripalu Center (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Calamitybrook ( talk · contribs)

Previous discussion of COI here and editor behaviour here, and many warnings and cautions on the editor talk page.

Calamitybrook continues to remove article tags for sourcing, POV, COI, and has repeatedly restored a google search to support weasel-wording the intro. The article is very oddly slanted, as I see it.- Sinneed 18:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I will place a note about this on the article talk page. I will not notify the editor, editor has asked I not post on editor talk page.- Sinneed 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As you say, this has been discussed here before. Calamitybrook denies any COI, so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I don't think this is a subject for COI/N. It may be appropriate for some other noticeboard but I'm not sure which. Rees11 ( talk) 00:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

These two editors have been warring over the inclusion of the COI tag. I found it impossible to follow the article discussion because Calamitybrook uses non-standard indentation and I can't tell who said what, and Sinneed edits other people's remarks, moving whole sections around. But I don't see any evidence of COI and I think the tag should be removed. It would help if someone else could try to figure out what's going on here. Rees11 ( talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Petertripp & WCLX

  • Petertripp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Petertripp claims to own the radio station in question ( WCLX) [74]. After the article was vandalised the article repeatedly, a constructive part of the article (which described the bulk of the station's history) that the vandal had added was removed by Petertripp, due presumably to his dispute with the two radio hosts during that ten-year run [75]. I re-added a small part of it that could be referenced by a newspaper article [76] and he reverted me [77]. All throughout the edit history of WCLX edit summaries of "Station owner <action done>" can be found [78]. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. SMC ( talk) 08:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
My biggest concern is that the person who owns the radio station is acting like he owns the article; he doesn't. He's also incorrectly accusing people of vandalism, and attacking people in edit summaries. At this point, seeing the recent history of the article, I wouldn't be opposed to a topic ban from the article for the editor, unless he promises to no longer act as aggressive in his edits and edit summaries. His contributions haven't been exclusively to the WCLX article, he has edited other radio station articles, though admittedly his edits at those articles have also been somewhat disruptive. -- Atama 頭 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What's the procedure for initiating such action? Of course, if Petertripp were to leave the article (or at the very least, that part) free of his POV I'd be fine without him having any restrictions, but I don't think it's likely that he will just give in. SMC ( talk) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
He hasn't even been informed that this discussion is taking place. When you open a report on a noticeboard for someone, you should let them know (some boards like WP:ANI and WP:AN3 require it), so I'll leave him a note. A page ban should be done by opening a discussion in a public forum and open a discussion to see who would support such a ban, or see if there's a consensus for some other remedy. But before we go that far I'd like him to have a chance to discuss this himself, so we'll see if he follows the notice to this board. -- Atama 頭 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually did notify him here, but my placement of that notice mightn't have been very clear (beneath the COI template). SMC ( talk) 05:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You're right, my mistake. I think the placement was what made me miss it. Well, we'll see if he responds, or at least we'll see if he keeps with the problematic behavior. In case this goes stale I'll keep WCLX on my watchlist for awhile. -- Atama 頭 18:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley re Climategate article

This user is named in the emails at the heart of this controversy and has a documented close association with the scientists implicated. Request he be topic banned from this article and its talk, and not involve himself in editing disputes and allegations of article probation violations as he has done numerous times, always on one side of the debate. JPatterson ( talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of inappropriate behavior by William M. Connolley regarding the Climategate article? Unless he's actively causing trouble, there should be no need for a topic ban. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
See here, here, here, here for some examples of one-sided and disruptive editing (under the terms of article probationh, we're supposed to reach consensus before changes are made although that doesn't seem to apply to everyone). He also inserted himself into my case and in my view, unfairly recruited friendly admins that resulted in my being banned. (see discussion here. JPatterson ( talk) 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the links you posted, the third, is not an edit by William M. Connolley, but a revert of one of his edits (which happens to be the 4th link you list) by another editor. Two other links, the second and fourth, are both over a month old. The only recent edit, the first, was made during a content dispute between a variety of editors and was resolved when consensus was reached on the talk page, which is now archived at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident/Archive 19#Tree ring data is rubbish but so what?. None of these things indicate a problem with William M. Connolley's editing pattern, let alone one strong enough to justify some sort of topic ban. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This looks related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jpat34721 Topic Ban. Dougweller ( talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it does, and I have posted a note there linking to this discussion. Also notified William M. Connolley directly about this discussion. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've asked Jpat34721 what he hopes to achieve by forum shopping like this: to clarify, he has attacked the person who reported his conduct problems and both admins who discussed the report and topic banned him. -- TS 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I hope to achieve increased fairness in the process and improvement WP by promoting WP:NPOV JPatterson ( talk) 17:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You've listed some diffs above which you think show William M. Connolley engaging in disruptive conduct. Why not file a case on the probation enforcement page? It's Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement‎. -- TS 17:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Because the larger issue in my view is his clear conflict of interest here. Given the history of this user and this topic, and given that he's in the emails at the heart of the controversy, don't you agree that WP should avoid the appearance of impropriety at this point? How can you defend a person whose involved in a scandal, being allowed to spin the article on the scandal?? JPatterson ( talk) 18:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley has barely been participating in the article at all, and is more active on the talk page where many of the "issues" you have raised with his edits have been resolved through the achievement of consensus. He's not made any edits that lead me to believe that he is expressing any sort of control over the content, which is what you seem to be trying to convince everyone of. Unless you can come up with something substantive in its own right, continuing this pursuit could be viewed as harassment. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are we even talking about his contribs. There's nothing in [WP:COI] that says it's to be ignored if the user's edits meet with your approval. He's in the emails that are the subject of the article and has Close relationships with those implicated. How can that not be viewed as a conflict of interest? JPatterson ( talk) 18:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
We're talking about his contribs because that's what you're trying to use as evidence of improper behavior. Please keep in mind that WP:COI is a guideline and not a policy. Furthermore, the guideline only advises editors to exercise great caution when editing in a COI topic area; it does not forbid them from doing so. Now, I'm not saying that Dr. Connolley does not have a conflict of interest, I'm saying that he has done nothing to show that his conflict of interest has negatively impacted the encyclopedia. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh whatever. It's clear the wagons are circled and the fix is in. I'll disengage at this point JPatterson ( talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)"There's nothing in [WP:COI] that says it's to be ignored if the user's edits meet with your approval" - no, but it's also a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. It's not a ban from pages, it's a recommendation. And behaviour is very relevant - if you can write the perfect NPOV article about yourself, WP:COI doesn't forbid you to do so. It just advises (strongly) against it. This noticeboard has a role not because there's a COI per se, but rather, "for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention". Guettarda ( talk) 18:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed I mis-spelled the users name in the email search link above. Here is mentioned in more emails than I thought. JPatterson ( talk) 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

COI issues notwithstanding, I find nothing particularly disruptive in William M. Connolley's edits you linked above. Could you be more precise? -- Cyclopia talk 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Why COI aside, that's supposed to be the topic here. But to address your question, I'm glad you see nothing wrong with his edits because they are exactly what has gotten other users topic banned, editing without consensus. Given your view, perhaps you'll go to bat for me and get my ban reversed. JPatterson ( talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That is patently false. Other users have been topic banned for continued controversial editing without achieving consensus. Three edits in the course of a month, none of which were related, is not at all the same thing. Furthermore, as I have said before, William M. Connolley has been more active on the talk page in that time than in the article. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 18:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not about Global Warming, nor am I proposing a topic ban on that subject. This is about Climategate only and I'm only asking that he be prevented from contributing on that topic. Jpat34721|JPatterson]] ( talk) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And you have, at this point, failed to produce a substantive reason for us to do so. What you are very successfully doing is making this look like a personal vendetta, though. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
May I suggest to User:Jpat34721 that if you continue the way you are that you won't have to worry about one article ban because you are boxing administrators into a corner to have you blocked completely from editing. I would strongly suggest you just ride out the banned page and resume editing elsewhere. You are only hurting yourself with this continuing battle. Just a suggestion, -- CrohnieGal Talk 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
On what grounds? Attempting to use the process that's been laid out? There's a clear conflict of interest here and this is the proper place to report such concerns. Threats and intimidation for doing so seems a bit ham handed, wouldn't you agree? JPatterson ( talk) 18:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
On the grounds of WP:DE, WP:HA, and WP:AGF to name a few. You have forum shopped this issue, have been unable to provide substantive evidence of improper editing on the part of William M. Connolley, and continue to make what are looking more and more like bad-faith claims against him. Get back to your original point and show something that necessitates intervention or drop it. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The diffs provided fail to show disruption, and this whole report seems like retribution to me. I'm not going to say that there is no potential COI with WMC participating at the Climategate article, but even acknowledging that, you would have to show that his editing the article is actually causing a problem before anyone would be tempted to take action on it. I don't think you've done this. -- Atama 頭 18:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a conflict of interest presented. Being copied or mentioned in some harmless emails from years ago isn't a conflict. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From the closing of one the the emails:

Thanks,

Gavin Schmidt

on behalf of the RealClimate.org team: - Gavin Schmidt - Mike Mann - Eric Steig - William Connolley - Stefan Rahmstorf - Ray Bradley - Amy Clement - Rasmus Benestad - William Connolley - Caspar Ammann

Nope, nothing to see here , move along. JPatterson ( talk) 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
If you were discussing his COI on Realclimate that would be different, but that's not what you're discussing. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the COI with the Climategate scandal is weak at best, and would only be related to anything regarding Realclimate itself. -- Atama 頭 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of being tendentious, it should be pointed out for the benefit of the uninformed that RealClimate.org is a notable part of the controversy as is the email I referenced above. Without passing judgment on their merits, notable allegations have been made that the email shows that RC was initiated as a means of spinning Global Warming in order to sway public opinion and that Dr. Connolley's role was to use Wikipedia to the same ends. JPatterson ( talk) 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The above is neither well sourced, nor accurate. Stop digging. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The only connection RealClimate has to the hacking is that someone also hacked RealClimate and tried to lock the regular users out and use the site to dispense the stolen emails and other documents. -- TS 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we now close the thread as the thread starter is now abusing Wikipedia in order to propagate a conspiracy theory. -- TS 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to propagate anything. I was asked to provide further evidence of a COI. That evidence was discounted, so I explained why it is relevant. JPatterson ( talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been requested under threat of blockage to provide sources that support my assertions re notability above. Keeping in mind, that I have no opinion on their veracity, and that my only point here is that RC and Dr. Connolley are a notable part of the controversy, in a quick google search I found this and of course the allegations made here have received a lot of attention. Lest I be accused of escalating this, I would point out again that I offer these sources under threat of blockage. JPatterson ( talk) 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you've no opinion of the veracity of these very serious allegations, why are you propagating them? -- TS 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Because I was threatened with blockage if I didn't. The question isn't veracity, it's notability. JPatterson ( talk) 20:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, so you know the allegations that he has done what those pieces say he has done are provable, obvious lies, then, correct? Why then are you pushing allegations that he has a conflict of interest based on articles you know to be dishonest? Hipocrite ( talk) 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No opinion means no opinion. My opinion is irrelevant anyway. There's no getting around the fact that these references prove notability. JPatterson ( talk) 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You don't alledge that he's notable, you alledge he has a conflict of interest with respect to Climategate. To do this, apparently, you use two provably dishonest works. This seems somewhat odd to me. Hipocrite ( talk) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I did impress upon him to, TS, and thank you for doing so, JPatterson. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To claim that others have said William M. Connolly was involved in a sort-of conspiracy without referencing said others is tantamount to claiming a conspiracy yourself, which I would view as a personal attack. The merits of the pieces are unimportant, but the content is, in this light. Indeed someone has made the claim, which was JPatterson's point. It is not, however, relevant to the on-wiki evidence presented here by JPatterson. Ioeth ( talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can people please settle down? Looking over these two pieces -- I have no idea of their reliability -- I do not actually see any claim that Connolley's editing was discussed in the emails. They seem quite noticeably vague on this point: talking about what is in the emails, and then jumping to a much more general statement about what he was up to with his editing on Wikipedia (where, obviously, there are differing interpretations). It seems to me there is still only the connection to RealClimate. In this regard there seems to be a recognized conflict, and people seem to be saying that as long as the editing is not disruptive then it is not an issue. So, how about we talk about disruptive editing or we close the discussion? I don't see anything else coming out of this. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other ways to damage the encyclopedia besides disruptive editing. The bar for concerns such as I've raised here should be WP:NPOV. Dr. Connolley clearly has a vested interest in Climategate being downplayed, precisely the theme of most of his edits and talk page comments on the subject. He is demonstrably not POV neutral on this issue. Equally disturbing (and equally effective in POV pushing) is his chiming in at every opportunity to silence editors with whom he disagrees. In his recruitment message to the two admins WMC notes "Things are starting to back up at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement". True that, because one of his strong supporters brought sanction requests against 4 editors in one day. In my case, WMC's request that I be made an example of ("User:Jpat34721 is misbehaving here and needs sanctionning to remind him (and indeed others) that the rules really do exist and have teeth") was granted. I get a month, one other editor gets a day for the same offense, the other two closed as unactionable. Allegations of COI should be taken more seriously than has been demonstrated here where the overriding concern seems to be how best to shoot the messenger. JPatterson ( talk) 19:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No. No there isn't. If the encyclopedia is being damaged by any editing, that editing is by definition disruptive, whether it's straight vandalism, NPOV violations, or anything else that's harmful to an article. Again, diffs have been requested that might demonstrate this behavior. Otherwise we just have to take your word for it, and clearly you have a bias against the editor due to past conflicts. -- Atama 頭 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is WMC edit warring over the term Climategate, a term which he objects to because of its implication of scandal. Here he's reverting a well-sourced reference to a critical analysis of an CRU email with the edit summary "attempt to side-step the controversy by removing the second half entirely". Here he reverts a RS, setting himself up as the judge of what is "accurate and relevant". More edit warring here and here. Another revert of contrarian views here.With this rv he's pushing "the scandal is the hack" meme when clearly by that time, this aspect of the scandal was being all but ignored by the media. I could go on, but it's getting tedious. Dr. Connolley is always on one side of the issue, invariably tries to minimize the scandal, and almost exclusively reverts the work of others rather than contributing to the article himself. None of these edits goes beyond what happens there all the time. But the pattern shows a POV which given his COI should disqualify him from commenting further on this article. JPatterson ( talk) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have anything more recent than over a month ago? It looks like WMC voluntarily disengaged from editing that article long before you filed this COIN request; if he's not currently editing the article, what would any sanctions accomplish? I am generally not active in the whole climate change mess, but glancing through the article history of the article in question, I can't see where WMC has done anything wrong in the past month that would cause this thread to be started. Yeah, a month ago there was some questionable stuff. But he's stopped, so what now? I tried to figure out how to work with you at your ANI request, but at this point its beginning to look like you are grasping at straws; its beginning to look vexatious and I would highly recommend that you disengage from WMC for a bit, lest you get yourself blocked for being disruptive. You're the sole person who is finding a problem here. -- Jayron 32 22:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
They have disengaged, by way of an indefinite block that I've just placed on their account after reading this thread and researching the relevant contribution history. Jehochman Brrr 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm swimming against the tide here, but I agree that Mr. Connolley should have been banned from the Climategate article for COI. He has a vested interest in mitigating the fallout from that event and has edit warred in the past about it. That being said, since the climate change probation was enacted, he has been careful to toe the line. I suggest, therefore, that he be given a formal warning to be careful to keep his COI from interfering with consensus-development on the Climategate's talk page and leave it a that for now. Cla68 ( talk) 04:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with LPatterson. WMC's conflict of interest is obvious and his editing behavior continues to be one sided. WMC should not be allowed to edit in neither the main article nor the talk page, as his talk comments tend to pollute consensus in favor of his own biased POV. I'd also like to suggest that WMC do the honorable thing and refrain from any editing in the Climate Gate article at least until this is resolved. Sirwells ( talk) 04:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_39&oldid=1144711878"