Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:30, 17 March 2008

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Asia Society Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:AvePoint User talk:Beran-jale Talk:Carbfix Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Connections Academy Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Fundbox Talk:Globe Life Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:Gregmark Records Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation Talk:JLL (company) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:List of sequence alignment software Talk:LPL Financial Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Oneok Talk:Operation Santa Claus Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pod Point Talk:Runner's World Talk:The Student Room Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Augusta Read Thomas

Possible autobiographies found by bot

User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Nick Schwellenbach

Resolved

– User hasn't editted in 2 weeks, tags in place. MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Schwellenbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - was created by a user named Schwellenbach

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.144.3 (talk • contribs) 28 February 2008

I believe the subject is borderline notable. Though he created the article himself, he appears not to like the current version, since he tried to blank it, though his change was reverted. The article is at present tagged for notability, which seems correct. A thorough search might bring forth new references to show his notability, though that has not been done yet. Anyone who wants to propose an AfD is of course free to do so. I suggest this be closed as a COI item, since the article is reasonably neutral and very short, and it is appropriately tagged for its remaining issues. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the current version is nearly identical [1] to the version this fellow started, except the current version lists the subject as deceased. So its either actually him disagreeing with his life-status or a relative/fan. Maybe a COI tag to the user's page. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Left a uw-coi for the editor, and put {{Notable Wikipedian}} at Talk:Nick Schwellenbach as warning of the possible autobiography. EdJohnston (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise architecture

Articles:

Enterprise architect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Enterprise architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zachman framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Zachman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(perhaps others)

Single-purpose accounts

Metaframe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Nov 2007 - Feb 2008)
Lockezachman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Jan-Feb 2008)
Len Morrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
Phogg2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
Ron Gaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
Brandy Downs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
Greg Zorne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
Tom Corn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
MatthewFordKern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (July 2007)
Mkernatmkerndotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (March 2008)
(perhaps others)

Metaframe self-identified as Stan Locke, managing director of Zachman Framework Associates (note similarity in Lockezachman username).

COI edits, which for some reason included removing references and templates, were brought to my attention on my talk page by Ronz; he will probably have more to add here. — Athaenara ✉ 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither John Zachman or Stan Locke is Lockezachman and we detest the comments being entered as ours but in our initial protest of this userid Ronz pointed out there was nothing we could do to stop the use of this ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StanLocke (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions

--Ronz (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lockezachman claims to "represent a group of about 60" [2]. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else think it's time to semi-protect these articles, given all these new accounts joining in? --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise architecture is protected because of the edit-warring there. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing the Zachman Framework article for the past couple of weeks in an effort to clear up its problems and clear the tags. A few others have made some contributions, but they have been constructive in my opinion. I don't think that article needs to be protected at this stage.

Phogg2 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz: I have only just noticed that you restored important material on the Zachman Framework that users LockeZachman and Len Morrow had deleted for no reason that I could tell. Thank you. --Phogg2 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might add User talk:Tom Corn to the list, he contacted me after I semi protected Enterprise Architect to complain about the Wrong Version I believe. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This tag-team edit-warring is getting tiresome. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, an editor named User:Metaframe, who is probably the same person as User:Lockezachman, made a very sensible contribution over at Data modeling#Data model, including a new image of the Zachman model. It is at Enterprise architecture, Zachman framework and Enterprise architect that he seems uninterested in paying any attention to our policies. Athaenara left a warning over at User talk:Lockezachman that included a big picture of a stop sign. Apparently this editor feels that only those references that are approved by his company should appear in Wikipedia. (We are not allowed to entertain any opposing points of view). Since he doesn't own Wikipedia, I'm not sure how he expects to make this happen. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lockezachman continues to revert out the TOGAF reference. I just left him a blatant vandalism warning. Would welcome some advice on how best to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to consider an initial block for Lockezachman. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be grounds for a block on a particular editor, but while we're still meditating on that option, I see there is movement over at Talk:Zachman framework. A couple of editors have been trying to remove the POV issues with the article. Phogg2 appears knowledgable in this area and (though he is still included in the COI list above) he has made some useful edits. Ronz has removed the notability tag from Zachman framework in response to the edits by Phogg2 and Nickmalik. I'm still hoping that someone can improve Enterprise architecture, which is really the parent article for this whole area. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that the recent progress is a sign that this is coming to a resolution. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StanLocke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just edited Athaenara's comment [3]
--Hu12 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to StanLocke (talk · contribs) to try to get his user name clarified. If Lockezachman (talk · contribs) is someone else, then maybe we can get that name changed. It is logical that the real Stan Locke should be the person who logged in earlier as User:Metaframe. The latter had already complained to Ronz on 4 February about the situation with the names. In effect the misbehavior of Lockezachman (deleting references) appeared to emanate from the real Stan Locke. Per WP:U,

You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name

This might justify getting Lockezachman to change their name. At the same time we'd persuade Stan to use just a single login to avoid confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TStolper1W

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills (result: redirect to Hydrino theory)

Hydrino theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TStolper1W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written what is essentially a vanity (i.e. self)-published biography of Randell Mills, an entrepreneur working in an area of unconventional physics. There is a legitimate question of whether there is a WP:COI generated by promoting the target of his work. In his defense, he claims that he has published the book on Amazon free from royalties and claims no other financial ties to Mills or his company, Blacklight Power. He has been asked to refrain from contributing to Hydrino theory, the main page on Mills' work, but shows no interest in stopping. Is there a case to prevent him from contributing at all based on this history? I'd appreciate some expert opinion on this. Ronnotel (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: Stolper is running a single-purpose account - he has only edited regarding Mills. Stolper was blocked once for edit warring on hydrino theory, and also continues to push his own personal POV on the article. Stolper's POV is in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus, which makes the edit warring and COI problems somewhat worse. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: awhile back, I restricted TStolper1W (talk · contribs) from editing the article Randell Mills, requesting that he limit himself to making suggestions on the talk page given his evident COI and related issues. However, now the Randell Mills article has been merged/redirected to hydrino theory, where TStolper1W is editing, and rather heavily at that. One option is to extend the sanction I placed on the Randell Mills article to hydrino theory now that the Mills article has been redirected there. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear (at least to me) that User:TStolper1W has a COI when contributing to either the original article Randell Mills or to the article where it now redirects, Hydrino theory. MastCell banned Stolper from directly editing the Randell Mills article here, and his notice to Stolper can still be seen on the latter's Talk page at User talk:TStolper1W#Notice. If editors who have a COI respond combatively to suggestions from regular editors that they be cautious, this inclines us to limit their editing to the article's Talk page, which is exactly the remedy that MastCell has established in this case. After perusing Stolper's talk page, and noting his approach when he receives comments and suggestions about his COI, I believe the situation fully justifies extending his ban at Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory. Ronnotel already notified him here about the WP:COIN report, but if he does choose to offer comment, we should listen carefully to what he has to say. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Provided Tom respects WP basic editing protocols I see no reason not to allow him to try to influence debate on the talk page. However, I would also like to hear more from Tom on this matter. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My paperback book isn't a biography of Mills. It's an extensively documented and footnoted study of the reception of his work, in historical and contemporary context. The paperback book is available from Amazon for $10.25 + shipping. At that price, there is no profit. Writing such a study and making it available is a credential, not a COI. Mills is a real and original scientist. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done: found a company, direct it himself for over 16 years, raise over $50 million for it, recruit and retain scientists and engineers with standard degrees and research backgrounds to work with him and for him, make presentations at scientific meetings, and publish dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. TStolper1W (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the discussion. You were invited to contribute here because an administrator, MastCell, is planning to extend your existing article ban on Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory as well. Your blanket defence of Mills's wonderful work doesn't give us much reason to take you seriously, since you didn't make any reference to obeying Wikipedia policies. Please explain how you plan to moderate your editing in the future so that you don't continue to deserve a ban from the Mills-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be far apart. Michaelbusch has been biased in the extreme against Mills from the word go, as one can see from what Michaelbusch has done and has written in the discussion elsewhere. In this section, he added a charge against me of running a single-purpose account (see above). It’s illogical to ask me to edit articles about which I know less in order to edit the article about which I know the most. As even Ronnotel conceded at the bottom of my User talk page, I know as much about that material as anyone (other than Mills himself). Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be very unneutral. TStolper1W (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TStolper, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this COI discussion. This is not about your views of Mills, or your mis-understanding of my enforcing Wikipedia's adherence to the scientific consensus. Here we are trying to determine if your block from editing of Randell Mills should be extended to hydrino theory, nothing more. As Ed noted, you are not helping yourself. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a COI to have studied, since 1991, the reception of Mills’ work, nor to have written and made available an extensively documented study of that reception. It’s a credential. The Wikipedia wasn’t founded to enforce orthodoxy. Enforcing orthodoxy by silencing other views stunts the progress of science and always has. Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be unneutral at best. TStolper1W (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that IS what wikipedia is suppose to do - we take the mainstream view on things using published sources - the "progress of science" is irrelevant to wikipedia. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do this: TStolper1 may comment freely on the Talk:Hydrino theory. However, he is limited to 0RR in editing the article hydrino theory. This means that he may make an edit (as proposed text), but if it is reverted for any reason, then he may not reinsert it, in any form. This is an alternative to a complete ban from editing the article which would allow TStolper1 to contribute text suggestions directly, but not to edit-war. Expertise is welcome, but where there is a clear and well-documented connection as exists here, that expertise should be used persuasively on the talk page rather than by editing (or edit-warring) on the article directly. I'll open this for comment before imposing it. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK to me. It does depend on him knowing how the 0RR works. I assume you'll be the one enforcing it so you'll be able to explain it if he winds up violating the ban due to misunderstanding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a WP:1RR would give him enough leeway to avoid being blocked out of unfamiliarity yet have the same practical effect of preventing him from engaging in edit warring. Zero reverts seems akin to a topic ban. Ronnotel (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, what is the connection to which you currently object? TStolper1W (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I like the idea of your proposal above, but I'm afraid Stolpher has considered it license to add bollocks back to the article - which I have just reverted. Please see hydrino theory's page history. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again yesterday evening (revert by Athaenara). Michaelbusch (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell has updated TStolper1W's article ban to a 1RR on Hydrino theory here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his editing history, Stolper will likely not change his editing habits with a 1RR/24 h ban - in the past week he has logged on three times, blanket-reverted to one version of his unacceptable content, accused the editors that removed it previously (three different editors) of having a personal grudge against Mills, and then gone away for roughly two days. Unless something stricter than 1RR/24 h is implemented, this will presumably continue. I may be overly cynical, but Stolper has demonstrated persistence. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, I hope that you will examine the revision history of the Hydrino theory article, as well as the version that results from my editing, before accepting Michaelbusch’s interpretations. He has been leading and encouraging the attack upon Mills in the Wikipedia ever since I became aware of that attack (at the beginning of November 2007), and leading and encouraging the attack upon me ever since I began editing the article about Randell Mills (now deleted) and the article about his work (Hydrino theory), at the beginning of December 2007. Furthermore, Michaelbusch has shown himself to be biased in the extreme against Mills. Here is how Michaelbusch put it on 13 December 2007 in my talk page (his emphasis): “Understand this: Mills is a pseudoscientist and either a fool or a con man - that is the neutral evaluation.” If Michaelbusch thinks that evaluation is either neutral or right, then we are hopelessly far apart. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done, including the publication of dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. TStolper1W (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby invoke WP:DENY and request that Stolper be blocked completely from editing. This entire sad drama needs to end. Wikipedia does not cater to the whims of individual editors, especially when those include denials of the scientific consensus. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Wikipedia:Deny recognition essay doesn't really apply here, and the "solution" requested regarding a content dispute would be quite draconian. — Athaenara ✉ 09:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to lose patience here, but here is the logic: 1. Stolper has made no contributions to Wikipedia except for adding large quantities of POV and nonsensical material to the hydrino theory article (let that include the Randell Mills page that was combined). 2. Stolper refuses to accept repeated removal of his additions and explanations from many editors, nor has he modified his conduct or respected the bans. 3. His stated reason for doing this is that editors who have removed his content are quote 'Mills' opponents' - despite most of them first hearing of Mills when they saw the page. So, we can ask: what is Stolper's motivation for continuing his disruptive edits? I suggest he has been unsuccessful in promoting his views elsewhere and sees Wikipedia as a venue where he can push them on people without their being able to entirely ignore him. Thus I cite WP:DENY and propose a complete block (under the rules regarding long-term abuse of editing rights). Michaelbusch (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Cause article may need attention again

→ See also: COI/N archive 8 (two sections) and COI/N archive 14.

Article: Common Cause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User Dbarnold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single-purpose account user Dbarnold1 expanded the article four-fold today. Earlier discussions of COI edits to this article are in more than one COI/N archive; the difference this time is that quite a few references to independent sources (in addition to several citations of the organization's own website) were added. I'm posting here to draw the attention of impartial editors to it again. — Athaenara ✉ 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been in the Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities since 2004 (diff). User Dbarnold1 removed it today (diff). I invited discussion on Talk:Common Cause#Question about removal of category. — Athaenara ✉ 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student volunteer for this organization. However, I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest that would require me to withdraw from editing this article. I volunteer for their media and democracy department, which I made sure to not comment on as to avoid bias. I also made sure to cite credible sources for each statement made, pulling only from the organization's website for the mission statement, membership/funding data, and only two references to issues. — Dbarnold1 (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A well-known organization like Common Cause that is active in public issues should be heavily covered in the press. We prefer to reflect what outsiders say about an organization rather than what the organization says about itself, unless the facts involved are quite simple and uncontroversial. Someone who works in the media department of Common Cause should have access to lots of press clippings, I would assume. The current opening of the article sounds promotional, and we don't usually include multi-sentence direct quotes of somebody's mission statement as in:

Common Cause’s mission is: “To strengthen public participation and faith in our institutions of self-government; to ensure that government and political processes serve the general interest, rather than special interests; to curb the excessive influence of money on government decisions and elections; to promote fair elections and high ethical standards for government officials; and to protect the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans

It would be OK to address some of those topics in our article, but we should obtain reasonably neutral and balanced press sources for the quality and extent of Common Cause's work in each area. We should not just report Common Cause's own opinion on how well everything turned out. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've taken this article off my watch list, where it had been since the first COI/N discussion nearly a year ago. — Athaenara ✉ 13:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling back to before Dbarnold1's 29 February edits is a possibility. However the new material is not without interest so rewriting would be better, if anyone has time to do it. Dbarnold has not edited the article since he was notified of the COI, and has made no Wiki edits at all since 3 March. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:CCHRInternational removing content from Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Resolved

– Article now looks OK; the COI-affected editor has been indef blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Commission on Human Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CCHRInternational (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Also adding poor content, probably copied from CCHR materials. John Nevard (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex.muller blocked the account indefinitely 3 days ago. — Athaenara ✉ 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion about myself

Resolved

– Voluntary self-report (which is good). Nobody has any concerns. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been accused of having a conflict of interest. Since I develop real estate on the island of Bonaire, and used to own a hotel there, it has been suggested that I should not have made this edit. By extension, I would think that my edits to the Natalee Holloway article would be called into question as well. I think that that is on the level of claiming that someone from Boston can't edit an article about Kitty Genovese, but I am airing the accusation here so that I can see the consensus.Kww (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the deletion of the reference to Holloway from the Aruba article, I see no conflict of interest there - I believe that there is no need to mention her in the body of the article (see Missing white woman syndrome).

For the Holloway article itself, most of your edits look fine, although I'm not so sure about this change. Why delete a link to a news article from a point in the article where a citation was explicitly requested? - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic, I guess. The citation needed flag seemed to be on the concept that there was coverage on Aruba (which really seems to be kind of a pointy flag in the first place), not on the fact that Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers.Kww (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. To me, the sentence says both 1) there was coverage on Aruba; and 2) Aruba has Dutch, Papiamentu, and English newspapers. Since this is an example of such local coverage (although Amigoe is based in Curaçao, Aruba still appears to be within the paper's circulation area) I think it is worth inclusion. Apart from that, I saw no other problems with your conduct, unless anyone who disagrees can provide a diff that proves the contrary. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm here, but that you for being careful. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArborBooks

Resolved

– User warned and articles going through deletion process Fritzpoll (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArborBooks (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA responsible for Oasis Entertainment (along with FeareygroupPR (talk · contribs)) and Derrick Ashong. The latter has had speedy declined under db-bio, and there is a potential notability argument, but in present form the article is pretty much vanispamcruftisement, and the Oasis article isn't a lot better. --Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why Oasis Entertainment isn't being speedied for recreation of deleted material - the deletion was by AfD for lack of reliable references, and all the references in the "new" version are just self-written press releases. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have noted also that some of the referenced press releases are written by an author called "Arbor Books". Am tagging the user's page with a COI tag, and think that should resolve this problem for now. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Saldivar

Resolved

– The article's promotional tone has been fixed, and the COI edits have stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A self-penned article that has been tagged for various things since Feb 2008. User:Jsnyc79 continually removes the tags, the main one being lack of references for which he doesn't seem inclined to provide. There is also a smattering of peacock terms. It's debatable as to whether this article should go to AfD but I'd be grateful for other eyes on it first. WebHamster 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up this article, formatted the references and reduced the promotional tone. Can others look at it and decide if the tags can be removed? If the article creator reverts the improvement, we might consider other measures. Since the article is neutral now and is quite short, I don't see the need to keep a COI tag on the front. Perhaps the 'Notable Wikipedian' banner is enough warning of possible autobiography, and it goes on the Talk page. References seem to show just enough notability to have an article on him. Your opinion is welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wcfirm and Channing Tatum

Channing Tatum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See WP:AN#Second opinion for spammer (User:Wcfirm, Channing Tatum). Wcfirm (talk · contribs) has spent the last year here doing almost nothing but squeezing mentions of his own site into the article for actor Channing Tatum. He (she?) is now claiming his site is official (despite being a blogspot.com site) and therefore is more appropriate - but an entire paragraph?! Thread at WP:AN and recent WP:AN3 report have led to a week-long block. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled for it and found another site channing-tatum.com that claims that the blogspot site is the official site. It could well be, because blogspot is easy to mantain and Google gives good search engine ranking to its own domain. Now a days the upcoming actors and musicians use free Web platforms like blogspot, facebook, and myspace to promote themselves. Igor Berger (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laquishe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

MaxSem blocked Wcfirm for a week at 05:54, 6 March 2008 UTC. At 06:31 UTC, another single-purpose account, Laquishe, began editing. Same? — Athaenara ✉ 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

channingtatumunwrapped.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
channing-tatum.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

--Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say Laquishe is a sock. That account has been indefblocked and Wcfirm's block has been doubled to two weeks. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not an admin, I would say that his block needs to be extended again, as he continued to sock puppet even after he was warned not to. Here is an edit by his new blocked sockpuppet to my userpage. Daedalus (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. A month now although I don't expect it will end there. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Pharmaceuticals

Resolved

– COI SPA blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Pharmaceuticals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Millenniumpharmaceuticals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I rescued this article from deletion, because the company is clearly notable, but User Millenniumpharmaceuticals keeps insisting on changing the article into a piece of marketing blurb rather than an encyclopedia article. My patience is running out, and I'm sure I will end up being uncivil if I carry on trying to sort this out, so could someone please help out? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have soft-blocked the user for having a promotional user name. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Iga A.

Resolved

– Article was deleted as per Afd consensus. — Athaenara ✉ 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iga A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems that a person or persons believing to be in contact with or running a site about Eve Wyrwal have been editing and/or vandalizing this page with conflicting information. They have not cited a source, but have alluded to a website that has questionable credibility in their edit summary. A portion of the information they edit is conflicting when checked against her published word in Nuts Magazine. Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have the wrong link. that lijnk goes to a polis model named Iga. Smith Jones (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page history, you will see that there have been several Eve Wyrwal and Iga A. page moves, with the pages alternately serving as redirects to each other ... — Athaenara ✉ 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is part of the problem, Iga A is just one of her nicknames, the usage of Eve Wyrwal is more wide spread. The page should be Eve Wyrwal. Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an infobox that notes if a woman has natural breasts? --Fredrick day (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You learn new things every day on this Noticeboard! Can anyone figure out the history of Iga A., which seems to involve an OTRS complaint? It appears that the administrator John Reaves had to intervene to impose move protection on one of the articles. Someone in the edit history is complaining about FlieGerFaUstMe262 adding incorrect information, but I have no idea who is right. An edit like this one should only be done with consensus. Various IP editors have been indignantly reverting the changes by FlieGerFaUstMe262. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly an easier way of handling this: is this Eva/Eve/Iga notable enough for inclusion per Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are many un-notable women in that category. I would say it is "the" un-notable category, and when weighed against others in that category I would say yes, notable. The complaining editor threatened to "take over the wiki" if I did not comply with his point of view. Then after claimed he filed a ticket. My case is that they have not cited a source, even an un-credible source. When they did imply a source, asking anyone who would disagree to contact an admin at what appears to be a fan site; one of the many fan sites with incorrect and conflicting information. The information I keep reverting to is information from a well know magazine that is publishing words from her mouth. Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too complicated. I've passed it to AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Record I have been correcting the article. The website refered to is the official site for Iga Wyrwal, currently under development. FlieGerFaUstMe262 has cited nuts as his source, for the americans amongst us this is akin to somone saying "It must be true i read it in The Enquirer". These Lads Mags are notorious for making things up. The daily Star for example will change her age every time she is on page 3. My Source is Iga Herself. I can provide concrete proof of this but i'm not prepared to publish it on a public forum, (i have although sent it as an attachemt to the OTRS Complaint) If anyone can email me then i will do so. As for the name, Before coming to the UK Iga used her real name, The Daily Star used the name Eva & Eve without her consent, as they decided that this would be easier for people to pronouce this as you can see causes much confusion. For the Record She would prefer to be refered to as IGA or IGA A. All Iga & myself want is for the correct information to be displayed. Whilst i understand the difficulty you have in verifying information you must understand the sheer annoyance of somone trying to change incorrect information about themselves only to have it reverted DigitalWebDev (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wall

A user editing under name Otherbrothergideon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be the father of the rapper Paul Wall and is changing the birth name and date of the biographical article contrary to what reliable sources have cited. I have tried finding whatever claims that "Otherbrothergideon" has put up, and so far no reliable source relays them. Thus, I have warned the editor about the "conflict of interest". Chances are that this user may be an impersonator. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did the right thing. Given he's been at this over a year and seems persistent, I might point him towards OTRS which can better evaluate his identity, etc. MBisanz ^talk 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murdo MacDonald-Bayne

Murdo MacDonald-Bayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stumbled on this after a posting to the external links guidelines talk page. It seems there is a disagreement about external links on this page that may be fueled by conflicts of interest by (I think) all currently involved parties. More eyeballs and comments from established editors could be useful. -- SiobhanHansa 10:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable lack of sources too: all I can find are bios on a handful of tribute/promotional sites. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman

This biographical article on a Vancouver illustrator is almost exclusively the product of Poeticbent (talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses tracing back to the Vancouver Public Library. In the course of an ongoing exchange with Poeticbent concerning copyright and verifiability issues, I came across a “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” on Richard Tylman’s website. This list matches those originating with Poeticbent. My queries to the user as to whether he and Tylman might be one and the same [4][5] have gone unanswered. To be fair, Poeticbent has asked that I email him concerning this issue. I prefer discussing Wikipedia matters within the pages of the encyclopedia itself and have written as much. Thus far, no email exchange has taken place. I am concerned by the presence of references which either fail to support associated statements or – supported only by Tylman’s writing on his website – do not meet the verifiability policy. Poetricbent has removed my citation requests without explanation. I am particularly troubled by a new source which was added to Tylman's site, then linked to the article shortly after I questioned the lack of sources for the associated claim. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, where they have experience of what counts as acceptably sourced from an artist's own site and what demands external sourcing. That said, Poeticbent comes across strongly as wikilawyering on the matter of inclusion. If a detail is unsourced, or there's a discrepancy between what different sources say, it's well within policy to remove it pending verification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject seems notable as verified by independent sources. I see no bias or self-promotion; if a subject is willing to provide additional information (such as the document uploaded above) the better for our project. With regards to copyright, if the artist wants text (images, etc.) from his website to be used on Wikipedia, he should license them under a compatible free license. PS. Personally I oppose anonymity, but it should be noted it is accepted within our current rules. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject seems notable as verified by independent sources

Actually I'd like to see some - and in fact some general proof of this guy's notability (we all set up mimeographed mags when we were at uni, and anyone can self-publish poetry). We're placing far too much reliance on material on this artists's own site. I could set up a site saying I'm Lord of the Universe, but I hope you'd need more than that as verification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, with all due respect, I have never once addressed the issue of notability - not here, nor in the now lengthy ongoing discussion. My concern is what I perceive to be a conflict of interest, hence my report on this noticeboard. Given the history and content of this now twelve day old discussion, I think the time has come for me to be a little more blunt. Although Poeticbent refers to Tylman as "the subject", to Tylman's writings as "his Narrative", and has made statements such as "I hope you’re not suggesting that the subject might have attempted to misinform the reader?", I have come to the conclusion that Poeticbent and Tylman are one and the same. How else to explain the “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” featured on the Richard Tylman website?. And so, this whole matter grew from my defense of Tyman's copywritten material when he, in fact, was the person who introduced it to the article. That said, the issue of copyright was laid to rest with my rewrite of the material in question. This same edit, introduced several citation requests for reasons I outlined on the discussion page. All these citation requests were removed without explanation by Poeticbent. While I respect your opinion concerning the document uploaded on Tyman's website, then linked by an anonymous user to the Richard Tylman article (after I'd raised concerns as to citations), I remain troubled by the sequence of events. I must add that the document in question did not match that described by Poeticbent; it was not a "First Prize award for Illustration" he received, but an Award of Excellence presented to a team of which Tylman was a member. I have corrected this error. It is for reasons such as this that verifiability is so very important... it is for reasons such as these that the now removed citation requests were placed. Whether bias, self-promotion or not, I find myself wondering why it is that a seemingly minor 17 year-old award is accorded such significance, why 22 year-old ads run in magazines are deemed worthy of mention, and why a long, wholly unsourced list of corporations for whom Tylman has provided artwork must be kept intact. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was never my intention to misinform or create false impressions. Selected DYKed articles I wrote for Wikipedia are listed at http://richardtylman.atspace.com/index.html with a link to my User page. Everything is self-explanatory. Please try to “walk a mile in my shoes”. I’m interested in what agreeable solution can be found to end the edit-war and reclaim all that energy invested in bad karma. Originally, I provided reference to webpage about professor Strumiłło and his art because he does not have an article yet. I removed that link later along with his commentary, because no independent sources requested by Victoriagirl are available. Yet, Victoriagirl reinstated her request for confirmation. Why? Piotrus already said in his edit that new ref would be unnecessary because the remaining information is noncontroversial.

The same can be said about the citation request for “the most prominent young professional artists” statement. What's wrong with the source already given? It includes minute detail about the state-owned publisher fully supporting the claim. If this is just the matter of a word for word accuracy, your input would be appreciated. There are editors who express their thanks on Victoriagirl’s Talk page for her contributions to biographies of Canadians. I’d love to be able to do the same since I’m already impressed with how much research she’s done for this one article out of many. However, it takes two to tango. There’s no need to belittle national graphic arts competition. Graphex offers two types of awards: an Award of Excellence and an Award of Merit in 21 separate categories. [6] I won the top one in one of them in 1991 not because I was a part of a team, but because I paint. What documentation “error” was there in the article? By the same token, I’d like to suggest to User:Gordonofcartoon to please do a more thorough research on the concept of self publishing under communism. That sort of illegal activity used to be called Samizdat, but I was not a part of it. --Poeticbent talk 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve nothing more to add on the subject of one’s identity, the issue of addressing oneself in the third person, referencing one’s work as that of another, or the fact that a good deal of time as been wasted defending copyright from a user who, in the end, turned out to be the copyright holder.

Noting that the plea to "walk a mile in my shoes" links to the "Writing for the enemy" essay, I hasten to write that I in no way consider the subject my enemy. However, I do recognize the allusions to vandalism, bad faith, and a repeated suggestion [7][8] that my request for clarification as to the identity of a user somehow counters talk page guidelines (when it doesn’t).

That said, I accept the above as something of a breakthrough and do hope that it might lead to something of a collaborative process. So, in that spirit, allow me, for a third time[9][10], to address my issues with the two citation requests mentioned by the subject.

”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”. This statement, added by the subject on 28 February referenced a link which makes no mention of Richard Tylman’s name. It may have been the subject’s intention to simply provide a reference to Andrzej Strumiłło himself, but it appeared and was read otherwise. While I appreciate that Piotrus may feel the statement is not controversial, I point out that this is not a valid reason for simply removing a citation request. I look forward to the thoughts of others on this matter.
”He received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts (ASP) and was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” The reference provided, a translation from a catalogue found on the artist’s website, does not support the claim that the subject “received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts”, nor does it support the assertion that he “was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” In fact, the quotation features no mention of Richard Tylman at all.

It was not my intention to belittle the Graphex award. I continue to find it odd that no independent source providing information on the 1991 award has yet been found. It is for this reason that I used the word “minor”. My apologies.

I believe my use of the word “error” in reference to the original description of said award to be appropriate. The subject had described the award thus: “He received First Prize award for Illustration at the 1991 Graphex competition…” In fact the subject is not a “First Prize award”, but an “Award of Excellence”. While I don’t doubt that the subject won the award for his illustration, it would appear that it was shared by several others. Minor distinctions, perhaps, but I would argue that it is for reasons such as these that verifiable sources are so important. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Victoriagirl, please note that there were few issues until they were created in this discussion (how could have the copyright holder attacked his own copyright??). A little more good faith in the future can go long way. We have all agreed that this is a notable person and there is no indication of any self-promotion (indeed, the editor in question surely deserves an apology for some heavy handing of this situation). The issues you raise above regard noncontroversial borderline issues. WP:V is all nice and good but if the person in question clarifies something noncontroversial (ex. year of births, etc.) that is not easily found elsewhere it is rather safe to assume they are correct.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piorrus, you write that there were few issues until they were created in this discussion. Though I fail to see the relevance, I point out that the issues that have been raised here, whether by myself or others, all made their debut at Richard Tylman discussion page.

This issue began with an edit in which, amongst other things, I removed material under copyright lifted from Richard Tyman's own website. As such, I unknowingly entered into a prolonged debate in which I was defending said material with Poeticbent who, as it turns out, is Richard Tylman himself. You ask "how could have the copyright holder attacked his own copyright?", to which I must respond: how was I to know that Poeticbent and Richard Tylman were one and the same? In our exchange Mr Tylman refers to himself as "the subject", his work "his Narrative", chose not to answer my queries concerning his identity (even when I made it clear that my reason for asking concerned copyright), and chose not address the issue in private email (though I welcomed him to do so).

I write, with all due respect, that your comment concerning good faith has left me shaking my head. I have made no insinuations, no allusions, no suggestions; in fact, I allowed a good deal of time to elapse before deciding to write of my conclusion that Poeticbent and the subject are the same person.

We have not agreed that the subject is a notable person; indeed, I've never addressed the matter. Again, my report filed here concerns what I perceive to be a conflict of interest. I respect your opinion that the statements l've queried (”He received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts (ASP) and was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists” and ”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”) are not controversial; however, I hold my opinion that verifiable sources should be provided, particularly as the latter concerns a living person. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A minor addendum to my last comment: Piorrus, I've just noticed that you write we have agreed that there is "no indication of any self-promotion". In fact, I have made no such statement. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Arrow

Resolved

Order of the Arrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editors and a number of administrators who are also members of the Order of the Arrow are violating conflict of interest policies by prohibiting verifiable OA “secrets” from being included in the Order of the Arrow entry. To get around disputes on policy they have created a unilateral concensus that so-called "safeguarded" OA literature and information is off limits for inclusion in the article. however, such a concensus should not be allowed to stand since it a) was arrived at by a group that self-identifies as OA members b) that OA membership carries with it an oath not to reveal this "safeguarded" information c) creates a defacto censorship of the Order of the Arrow entry. Ahoalton1 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying and agree why the circumstances as described might create the appearance of collusion. But I fail to see how that can be extended to assume that a COI exists. I see no harm in allowing members of the Order of the Arrow to continue contributing to that page. If verifiable and notable information is being kept of the page (please cite diffs), then that might reasonably be a matter for an WP:RFC. Ronnotel (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A COI exists because the editors are under obligation by the Order of the Arrow to keep certain information secret. They take an oath affirming as much. While I have no objection to their not revealing such information themselves, it becomes a conflict of interest when they enforce this "safeguarding" on the wikipedia community at large. They have literally reached a consensus to censor and entire body of verifiable information.--Ahoalton1 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide diffs that support your claims of censorship of well-sourced information then it would be easier to establish that something inappropriate is going on. However, I'm still not sure this is a COI issue. I think it might be more appropriate at WP:AN/I. The more evidence you have, the easier time you will have in getting someone to intervene. Ronnotel (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related cases:
- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-11 Order of the Arrow
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ahoalton

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was opened by a indefinitely blocked disruptive sockpuppet. Dreadstar † 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the list of socks continues to grow: [11]. Dreadstar † 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with closure. See also an ANI thread about the submitter of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous User 66.182.15.218 Widely Posting Commerical Links and Content

Resolved

– Unclear if this was a COI or spamming. Either way the IP has been blocked for three months for disruption and the spam links have been removed. Euryalus (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.182.15.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is posting widespread content and links which look like ads for the company ZAP (motor company). He/she has ignored my polite requests to stop posting this commercial content, as well as my more recent, firmer requests. Please see Plug-in hybrid for examples, but this editors recent commercial postings have been widespread on many electric vehicle-related sites. Please help. Thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is in danger of contravening 3RR e.g. in Motorcycle by re-inserting a link that was removed. IMHO user is just a vandal. --TimTay (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked (3 months). — Athaenara ✉ 03:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems resolved to me. Can anyone label this issue as resolved, or is that up to an admin? Fbagatelleblack (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We invite you, we beg you to resolve things! At the top of the report, add:

{{Resolved | Reason why you think it's resolved. ~~~~ }}.

If anyone disagrees with you later they can undo the resolution easily enough by removing the template. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like spamming than a COI but either way the three-month block and reversion of the unhelpful edits would suggest the issue is resolved. Euryalus (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H. Paul Shuch and User:Drseti

H. Paul Shuch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a scientist and engineer (and singer) who has made 86% of the edits to his own article, mostly as User:Drseti. Of 164 edits to H. Paul Shuch, 118 (72%) are by Drseti and another 23 edits (14%) appear to be him as IP addresses (see contributions by user here). The article makes a few claims that seem to indicate borderline scientific/engnineering notability, but has only four references (two to Shuch's own work and one to the introduction to a book by a close student and friend of his, that he also contributed to).

Drseti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Single Purpose Account that also started Dr. SETI, which is now a redirect to H. Paul Shuch. I left {{uw-coi}} and notices on WP:Autobiography and WP:SPA on Drseti's talk page and will add a link here next. I would also appreciate input on Shuch's notability (should the article exist at all?) as it seems borderline to me. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:Drseti made 6 more COI edits to H. Paul Shuch after COI and other warnings, with no reply to these concerns here, on talk pages, or even in edit summaries. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi

Resolved

– Editor warned, edits have stopped. --Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New iraqijm (talk · contribs) has been entering text describing "Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi" in the strangest places, often deleting valid contents. His entry is often long, and starts out something like this:

"Aamir Jalal Al Mosawi, MD, PhD is the most distinguished Iraqi physician during the previous 3 centuries...."

I would just revert the whole thing, but thought I should bring it to your attention first, and gain some input from others.--Endroit (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a {{welcomeg}} and {{uw-coi}} tag to his talk page and a {{uw-v2}} and reverted what had not been taken care of already. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for a very expert handling. I wanted to be very careful not to bite the newcomer, but didn't know how to approach it. Those good faith templates are very nice, and I'll learn to use those in the future.--Endroit (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Taxpayers Union

National Taxpayers Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - NTUwikiproject (talk · contribs) appears to be editing from the organization itself. See also 70.90.81.61 (talk · contribs), which is almost undoubtedly NTUwikiproject given the timing of their edits. WHOIS confirms that 70.90.81.61 is used by the National Taxpayers Union. NTUwikiproject continues to edit the article without discussion despite two COI notices on his talk page. · jersyko talk 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No edits after second notice. No anon IPs either, so maybe they got the message. MBisanz ^talk 08:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PowerBasic Conflict Of Interest

Article

PowerBASIC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Single purpose accounts

67.17.204.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.100.238.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Entry for PowerBasic reads like glossy corporate brochure. It contains all of the highlights and none of the pitfalls of the product. It is the work of the owner who resists any and all attempts to edit his work counter to guidelines that state clearly state "You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organisations in which you hold a vested interest."

I have tried to add a couple of simple paragraphs to provide verifiable information to provide a more complete understanding of the product.

My addition, has been deleted five times by the owner of PowerBasic and is a clear case corporate vanity

"...I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation." -Brad Patrick

User:BradPatrick

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Deleting this content is by definition Tendentious.

"Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view."

My addition is conservative in its tone and respectful in its nature, truthful and verifiable.

This is what I Added: "Adherence to the strict "No Vaporware" policy, practically translates into "No Announcements" of future features leaving an otherwise sound product in the unknown category for developers looking for a compiler capable of embracing future needs.

The PowerBASIC compiler exhibits some features that diverge from mainstream compilers, including the use of the FPU for unsigned 32bit Integer calculations as acknowledged by the owner, Bob Zale. PowerBASIC COM integration is limited, but third party libraries exist to facilitate a more complete implementation. Jose Roca Forum

The User Forums are designed as "User to User" Forums and comrpise a significant body of imformation and support network for new users. Little, if any, official support is provided. PowerBASIC strictly enforces a policy requiring forum users to use their full real name when posting. PowerBASIC staff are very sensitive to criticism. Users are frequently banned for challenging PowerBASIC philosophy or criticizing the product and threads are deleted by staff. This situation is especially relevant for new users who may suddenly find themselves without access to any real support."

Citations: The first paragraph is self evident. There are simply no announcements defended under the guise of "No Vaporware"

Using the FPU for unsigned Integer calculations is acknowledged by the owner, Mr Zale here

My assertion: "PowerBASIC COM integration is limited" is discussed fully here

"PB returns DISP_E_EXCEPTION. This highlights a very serious shortcoming with PB-automation, and is why PB-automation can be a nightmare to work it."

I state: "Little, if any, official support is provided". This can be easily verified by looking at any category of the user forum for posts by powerbasic staff going back at least 5 years. Mr Zale also states: "It's not possible to include a free lifetime consulting service.... This is simply not something we can do free of charge based upon upgrade prices under $100. We'd like you to get the assistance as inexpensively as possible, and I really hope you can make a connection here. However, if all else fails, we have always offered paid technical assistance for "in-depth" problems of this nature. Feel free to contact us at your convenience if that is of interest to you."

"PowerBASIC strictly enforces a policy requiring forum users to use their full real name when posting" As stated directly on the User Forum signup: "Forum Rules To post, you must register with your full, real name (both first and last names). No handles or abbreviations are allowed. ... Profanity, rude, or disparaging comments (about PowerBASIC or others) is strictly prohibited... The owners of PowerBASIC Peer Support Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."

I assert PowerBASIC staff are very sensitive to criticism and users are frequently banned. From Mr Zale himself: 'Bob Zale, Administrator 'posted June 11, 2004 04:21 AM Actually, suspension was for a very short period of time... enough to "cool off"... certainly not permanent. Long ago, he was offered reinstatement upon agreement to follow forum rules. Regards, Bob Zale PowerBASIC Inc.

Another example

I further state: "threads are deleted" This thread was deleted, Because a PB Staff member, Dave Navvaro states: "we will have a compiler for Linux some time this year"

The original thread is here It should be noted that despite the alleged "No Vaporware" Policy, a Linux compiler has never materialized.

This thread was also deleted, because it pointed out the unsigned integer inconsitency in the compiler. "I've had more than one experience while converting C to PB in which PB's DWORDs have created results that don't match the results of the same operations employing unsigned integers when coded in C. " The thread is still available here Any casual developer can verify this in seconds, but if you do not know it's there you are likely to waste hours looking for a non-existent bug.

My Last sentence is self evident.

I also added a link to a very important resource for PowerBasic users, Jose Roca Forum This has also been deleted. The site contains a large amount of very useful content, much more so than the sites sanctioned by the owner, but also contains threads like the one linked above that point out the issues with the compiler.

I was advised that my comments must meet verifiability policy. While I agree that in general "Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable" Some however, are edited by reliable organizations, and therefore may possibly be justified as exceptions. I can't imagine any stronger verification than statements from PB staff and the owner himself, on the official PowerBasic website.

I would like to see this content on Wikipedia to reflect a balanced representation as intended by the five pillars.

I would appreciate any feedback

RealWorldExperience (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Gaylord

Fitness4fun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008)
76.227.3.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2008)
65.208.164.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2007)
75.4.8.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2006)

"Mitch & I keep having to update this information. Why does anyone change it?"

Also, the article reads like an ad for Gaylord's commercial website and his wife's as well.63.202.124.213 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits in response to this notice have just been reverted with the following explanation: "Mitch & Valentina Gaylord updated this page. Please stop changing it."63.202.124.213 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a {{uw-coi}} notice for the main account, Fitness4fun, with an invitation to participate here. Barek left a COI notice for 76.227.3.120 (talk · contribs), the most recent IP editor. Gaylord, as an Olympic medalist, is notable enough to deserve an article. As of this exact moment, the article looks OK to me. We'll need to reason with the COI-affected editors if they won't stop beautifying. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on CAMERA sourced to CAMERA's office

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.158.119.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.91.135.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gni has been edit-warring on the CAMERA article quite heavily lately. Gni's reverts against consensus resulted in a 3RR block. Gni also edited under IP 67.158.119.138, which ARIN shows as belonging to Camera CTC-CAMERA. Gni acknowledged editing under that IP here. Gni has also edited the CAMERA article under the IP 24.91.135.162, a Boston IP (CAMERA HQ is in Boston). Upon returning from the 3RR block, Gni began a round of contentious edits on the Joseph Massad article, attempting to again insert the CAMERA position.

CAMERA/this editor seem to have a clear conflict of interest on on the CAMERA article. A review of other edits by Gni show an effort to often contentiously insert CAMERA reports into those articles and the CAMERA POV in general, e.g., here, here, here, here, here (a CAMERA associate), etc.

Beyond the apparent serious COI, this editor, working on behalf of CAMERA, has been fairly disruptive. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of note as well is that CAMERA's senior research analyst in named Gilead Ini, who is based in Boston. The user name GNI, of course, is comprised of the first + last two letters of his name. This would be quite a coincidence. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Working terriers

Single-purpose account:

Working terriers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NationalTerriersClub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PuppetMasterKnls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rascal43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles:

American Pit Bull Terrier‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Old English Terrier‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user edits pages about terrier breeds of dog using multiple user names. We have had a disagreement about his citation of the web site www.nationalterriersclub.com which I believe he owns as well as his non-neutral tone in changes he makes to articles. He appears to either be plagiarizing articles from the site www.nationalterriersclub.com or claiming that source material from the site is his own, such as photographs as can be seen here: Old_English_Terrier. His edits to the article on the Old English Terrier appear to have been copied word from word from this page: Old English Terrier along with the photographs. Other users have had disagreements with him about content on that article as you can see in the discussion page here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier. On that discussion page other users also complain about his edit warring and editing under multiple user names as you can see here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier#Sockpuppets. I think the tone and content of the edits made by the four users listed are similar enough that they could come from the same person.

In the discussion page on the article for the American Pit Bull Terrier he admitted having the ability to modify the content on www.nationalterriersclub.com as you can see here: Talk:American_Pit_Bull_Terrier. You will also see on that discussion page that another user has raised concerns about his being a COI and posted to the Reliable Sources Notice Board about the National Terrier Club here: Wikipedia:RS/N#National_Terriers_Club_LLC.3F. I suspect that he is actually the owner of National Terrier Club LLC to whom that domain is registered and that he is editing articles to promote his dog registry which he references as a source liberally in every article he touches. Dablyputs (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrex

Pyrex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As a representative of World Kitchen I am asking for an experienced Wiki-editor’s help to correct a number of errors, inaccuracies and incomplete information on the entries for Pyrex, soda-lime glass, and borosilicate glass. Given the damaging edits on these pages, I believed a COIN posting was warranted.

The Pyrex entry is incomplete.

The Pyrex entry focuses almost exclusively on a debate over whether the product is made from a borosilicate vs. soda-lime glass formulation. Pyrex® glass bakeware is nearly a century old and currently is used in 80% of American households. I suggest the Pyrex products website as a starting point for information on the brand.

Today the Pyrex trademark is actually used on a wide range of products in addition to glass bakeware and laboratory products. For example, metal muffin pans, cake pans and cookie sheets are all included among the Pyrex branded products. The trademark is used to refer to products with many different glass formulations and even some products which contain no glass at all.

The formulation of Pyrex glass bakeware did not change with the acquisition of the relevant consumer products business by World Kitchen.

Pyrex glass bakeware was composed of borosilicate glass when it was first introduced in 1915. However, by 1946, and possibly earlier, Corning Incorporated (named Corning Glass Works then) was making bakeware from a soda-lime composition that is heat tempered for additional strength. There was no change of the formulation of Pyrex bakeware in 1998 when World Kitchen acquired the relevant business.

The “safety issues” section of the Pyrex article contains numerous false and damaging claims.

The focus on the borosilicate vs. soda lime issue appears to be spurred in large part by ConsumerAffairs.com, a website that is affiliated with at least one law firm representing plaintiffs in product liability lawsuits. ConsumerAffairs.com has been criticized as being biased.

Most if not all glass bakeware products and food service glassware manufactured and sold in the United States today is made from soda-lime glass. The Pyrex article, as well as the associated soda-lime and borosilicate articles and talk pages, confuses tempered soda-lime glass and un-tempered soda-lime glass. Tempered soda-lime glass is able to withstand a wide range of heat changes and is the glass used in Pyrex bakeware. It is more resistant to mechanical breakage (e.g. dropping) and is more environmentally friendly to produce than borosilicate.

Since 1998 World Kitchen has manufactured over 369 million pieces of Pyrex glass products. There has never been a recall of Pyrex glass bakeware. The Consumer Product Safety Commisson’s database of injuries for 2006 reported no instances of injury resulting from any brand of glass bakeware allegedly spontaneously shattering. Given the hundreds of millions of pieces of Pyrex glass bakeware in American households, there should be a far greater number of complaints if the accusations made in this article were true.

When World Kitchen looks into the few reports it receives of safety issues with Pyrex glass bakeware, the company finds the reports largely fall into three categories. In some cases, complainants do not provide glass pieces that can be tested to determine if the broken bakeware is even a Pyrex brand product (and what the cause of breakage might be). In other cases, when World Kitchen tests the returned glass sample, analysis reveals that the product is not a Pyrex brand product. In other cases, we are able to determine the bakeware has been used in ways it is clearly not intended to be used, according to the Safety & Usage Instructions provided with the product. (e.g., placing the dish under the broiler).

STATS.org has written a number of pieces on the science behind this issue. These entries, as well as this link to the Pyrex products website are good starting points for someone interested in editing these pages:

Pyrex, Soda Lime, Borosilicate, and the Environment

Does Pyrex “Explode” Because the Manufacturer Changed the Mix? CBS Chicago’s Epic Investigation Continues

Pyrex-O-Mania Continues on CBS Chicago

CBS Sweeps Week Shocker: Glass Can Break!

I am concerned that speculation and unsupported anecdotal statements and reports are being posted as fact in this entry and, as a result, are migrating to wider discussion. In the case of safety issues, this is particularly damaging. For these reasons, we ask that both the inaccuracies and misleading statements outlined above as well as the picture of what is alleged, but not substantiated, to be a broken Pyrex dish be removed.--Bryan.glancy (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share some of the concerns just mentioned, and I left a note over at Talk:Pyrex inviting those editors to participate in this discussion. Negative information about the safety of Pyrex glassware that has no reliable sources ought to be removed, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better discussed at Talk:Pyrex as there's no real need for noticeboard discussions unless Mr. Glancy attempts to edit the page directly. I see the issue being one primarily of WP:PROVEIT and WP:V - cull the claims unjustified by reliable sources, write the page based on reliable sources and discuss on the talk page. Mr. Glancy's assistance in providing reliable sources in this regard would be invaluable. WLU (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlson Wagonlit Travel

Jmarinovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Linked-In says Jerome Marinovic is Carlson's Global e-Media Director. This user is reverting to a version of the Carlson Wagonlit Travel with lines like "CWT is dedicated to helping companies of all sizes, government institutions and non-government organizations, optimize their travel program and provide best-in-class service and assistance to travelers. By leveraging the talents and know-how of its people and providing leading-edge technology, CWT helps clients around the world drive savings while enhancing service and security." Warned for both WP:SPAM and WP:COI. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 450: / Line 450: @@
 Beyond the apparent serious COI, this editor, working on behalf of CAMERA, has been fairly disruptive. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] ([[User talk:Boodlesthecat|talk]]) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
+:Of note as well is that CAMERA's senior research analyst in named [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E5D71430F933A05755C0A9609C8B63 Gilead Ini,] who is based in Boston. The user name GNI, of course, is comprised of the first + last two letters of his name. This would be quite a coincidence. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] ([[User talk:Boodlesthecat|talk]]) 18:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 == User:Working terriers ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards