Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (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.

User:Terrymacro

• Terrymacro (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing.3F, where it has been suggested that this situation might be more profitably addressed here. JN466 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The user has two separate probably conflicts of interest: one regarding Prem Rawat and the other involving Astrological age. However the former is the more contentious issue. The editor in question was a senior national official in the Rawat movement, and more recently served as a director of a major facility owned by the movement. His current biography, which he's linkt to repeatedly, says that his "major passion in life is utlising the techniques of self-knowledge as revealed by Maharaji."[1] He insists that he does not have a conflict of interest when writing about the topic because the particular entity of which he was an officer no longer exists, and therefore he has no financial stake. This appears to be incorrect in a couple of respects. First, apparently the entity is still in existence, only its name has been legally changed from Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital.[2] Second, conflict of interest is not limited to ongoing financial involvement. He was among the early followers of Prem Rawat, he has been a member of the movement for at least 34 years, and he was a senior official in two separate organizations, most recently in the 1990s. The user has edited in issues directly related to his involvement, including commenting about the validity of a legal affidavit involving the organizations of which he'd been an officer and his colleagues.[3][4] At the time he made those remarks he had given no indication that he was even a member of the movement, much less a former senior official. This is exactly the kind of undisclosed conflict of interest that this guideline is intended to avoid. The editor asserts that he is only interested in neutral editing, but I have not seen any edits by him that do not support a "pro-Rawat" POV. I have requested that he disclose his COI, and that he follow this guideline on Prem Rawat-related articles. Does anyone feel that the user does not have a conflict of interest?   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

First the easier one: linking to self-published materials on Astrological age may have been inappropriate, if there was no wider talk page consensus to add the material, and/or the sources are not in line with WP:RS. If any of the editor's publications comply with WP:RS, he should be encouraged to put them on the talk page, disclose his being the author and await talk page consensus for adding them. If he did that, then there is no problem.

That he managed a facility for a faith group ten years ago is a less clear-cut case. WP:NPA says that affiliations should not be held up to invalidate another editor's views, regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not. Based on this principle, his faith being a minority faith should not weigh in our decision. Judging otherwise lays us open to charges of religious discrimination and stifling free speech ("the encyclopedia anyone can edit ... except members of religious minorities!"). So we have a situation where someone, ten years ago, held a (volunteer?) position in a particular faith group, and now wishes to contribute to WP articles on that faith group. I am not sure that is an automatic COI. JN466 08:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here is a recent LA Times article commenting on the free speech issues involved. JN466 08:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A COI is bad enough, but COI+POV=FUBAR. It seems like he's being dishonest, if he's editing to paint the subject in a positive light, had very strong ties at one time, and yet even now asserts his belief in the teachings while claiming that he can be neutral. That Scientology thing just goes to show that "religious tolerance" shouldn't be an issue; that ship has sailed. If this encyclopedia is going to be neutral it can't cave into every organization (religious or not) that wants an article to be more positive. Besides, that's a straw man argument, who in this issue is bringing that up? -- Atama^chat 08:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a fairly obvious principle that an editor's religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. should not per se be held against him. So saying that he "even now asserts his belief in the teachings" is about as relevant as saying that an editor "even now says he is gay". If there are specific problems with his editing in this topic area, that is another thing, but those have been merely asserted, rather than demonstrated. JN466 08:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with stating that you believe in something, as long as you aren't evangelizing. It's his direct involvement as a major player in the movement that presents the COI. If he was no longer a part of that movement any longer, that might ease the COI but his statements that he is still "passionate" about it help reinforce the issue. You're trying to change this issue into something it's not, nobody is attacking anyone for their beliefs. -- Atama^chat 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to Durova's comments below. I assure you it is quite normal for people who espouse a religion – any religion – to feel passionate about it. JN466 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, Prem Rawat doesn't espouse any religion, so Terry's religious beliefs are *still* not the issue here. Hiding his affiliation and editing a group of articles about someone he's had long relationship with, and pretending not to know about things he was actually involved with, are the issue here I think. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama said it was Terry's feeling "passionate" about his belief in Rawat's teaching that was the problem. I merely pointed out that passionate feelings are commonplace in the religious domain – people feel passionate about Jesus, Allah, sufis, gurus, scriptures, saints, whatever the case may be. Also, let's remember that the direct managerial involvement, such as people have alleged here, was 10 to 25 years ago. We might agree that "Joe Cardinal" in the Vatican has a COI; but does he still have a COI if he comes to Wikipedia ten years after he last held an official position, just because he still feels passionate about Jesus? I'd tend to say, No. JN466 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument still isn't about religious beliefs, so I can't agree with your reasoning in pursuing this line of defense. On the one hand, you are trying to link Terry's "belief in Rawat's teaching" with religion, and in the next sentence you dismiss the argument as a simple case of a manager 10-25 years ago. Which discussion do you want to have? Also, as you already know, Terry was running Rawat's 800 hectare conference center (Amaroo) in the 90's, that wasn't 25 years ago. And I have to wonder how do either of these arguments help explain Terry's "Hiding his affiliation and editing a group of articles about someone he's had long relationship with, and pretending not to know about things he was actually involved with" as I asked above? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Atama said it was Terry's feeling 'passionate' about his belief in Rawat's teaching that was the problem." That's just false. I said it was his connection to the organization that was the COI, and I cited the fact that he has drawn attention to the fact that he is still "passionate" about the teachings of the organization to be indicators that the COI isn't just something in the distant past. Please don't try to escalate things here by falsely misrepresenting other editors' comments and trying to derail discussion. Nobody cares about the specifics of Terrymacro's beliefs; heck, I don't even have enough familiarity with "Prem Rawat" to even have an opinion about it. -- Atama^chat 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If a guy had a secular management job in the Vatican ten years ago, and says he believes passionately in Jesus' redemption of mankind, and the power of prayer, then that constitutes a POV, but doesn't in my view constitute a declarable COI for every article on Catholicism. I see the present case as a fairly close analogy. JN466 20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If that person had posted links to his biography that said he was a devoted and passionate Catholic, I'd feel the same way. But again, it's not his Catholicism that would be a concern, it would be his connections to the Vatican. The only reason why I feel that Terrymacro's beliefs have anything at all to do with the issue is because I feel it weakens the case that his involvement was in the past and has nothing to do with any bias today. On the other hand, while I do feel that the COI is a concern, I disagree that it's strong enough that he should be banned from working on the articles in question, but just that the COI should be noted and taken into consideration when NPOV is questioned regarding his edits. If he was still director to this day, or was directly involved in another organization with similar affiliations I'd feel more strongly about it. -- Atama^chat 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama, does the potential for there having been a close working relationship established in the context of the initial COI, even one established some years ago, with one or more individuals who are currently under Wikipedia sanction, change your perspective of how the COI should be treated ? I'm not sure how, in the light of reticence on the part of those involved, evidence of this can easily be demonstrated, I'm just asking in principle about how such a potential relationship might affect any decision.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik, you too had close personal involvement in some of the same matters that Terrymacro was involved in, on the opposite side. JN466 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer Nik, I don't believe in guilt-by-association. If there was meatpuppetry involved, where it could be demonstrated that Terrymacro was doing things on behalf of people who were, say, topic-banned, or even getting advice on how to edit, that would be bad. But no, even if Terrymacro had a close relationship with those people years ago that wouldn't be any stronger. That's often one of the problems with establishing a conflict of interest, you either need an admission or a real "gotcha" to establish that there is one. -- Atama^chat 17:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What you have stated there, Atama, is as close to my view as makes no difference. JN466 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, given the findings against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, I request that you not involve yourself further in this dispute. As for Terrymacro, I think either an indefinite block or a topic ban may be required if the editor does not agree to steer clear of areas where they cannot edit neutrally. Have they been notified of this thread? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the Scientology arbcom case has to do with this discussion. As you brought it up, the findings "against me" in that case noted that 17) Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has made many constructive edits in the Scientology topic though this has been offset by edit-warring apparently to advance an agenda. The edit warring concerned the Rick Ross BLP, where I was too eager to retain a mass of sourced material that was unflattering to Mr Ross, a fact I acknowledged in the arbcom case and apologised for. I've been asked to stay away from articles about Mr Ross, which is fine by me, and am free to contribute to the Scientology topic area as before, unlike most other editors who took part in that arbitration – as you know, there were several dozen topic bans.
• However, if you want to bring up arbcom findings, I would have thought the Rawat cases are far more relevant. I have been a named party in both Rawat arbitrations, and am one of the few editors regularly active in that topic area to have been neither admonished or topic-banned in either arbitration, nor blocked under an arbitration remedy. You may contrast that to Will Beback (talk · contribs) and Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs), who are the editors asserting that Terrymacro (talk · contribs) has a COI. Both Will and Nik were admonished in the recent case; Will Beback (talk · contribs) has recently been blocked for edit-warring in the Rawat articles (albeit under exceptionally tough revert rules), and Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) has in the past received a one-month topic ban for edit-warring in the Rawat topic area. Perhaps you were not aware of this, but I think this information is rather more relevant.
• Looking at the substantive issues, the editor we are talking about may have operated a conference centre related to the movement.
  • Compare that, say, to the retired manager of a prominent Anglican conference facility who wishes to contribute to articles on the Anglican Church. Does he have a COI, because he ran an Anglican conference centre?
  • How about the retired manager of a Catholic boarding school. Does he have to declare a COI before his first edit to a Catholicism-related article? (I note not even the talk page of Catholic sex abuse cases has posts accusing editors of COI because they are Catholic.)
  • How about a lesbian who formerly ran a prominent lesbian and gay community centre in Los Angeles and wishes to contribute to LGBT articles. Does she have to declare a COI before her first edit to the LGBT topic area? While all straight people wishing to contribute to LGBT articles obviously don't have a COI, because they represent the majority?
• If you'd say that none of these editors has to declare a COI before editing Wikipedia, then what exactly is different about a former functionary in Rawat's movement? Where do you draw the line – Mormons are okay, but Jehovah's Witnesses aren't? What's the criterion? Whether Jehochman likes the group? The size of the faith group? The visibility of the position the person held? Or would you say that all ex-functionaries of mainstream movements do have a COI? Have there been precedents? Because whether you like it or not, we are very close to religious discrimination when we treat editors differently depending on their religious affiliation, seeing things as a COI for adherents of a minority group, yet treating them as editors' private affair when the faith group is more mainstream. WP:NPA tells us to treat mainstream and non-mainstream affiliations the same. As the blogger quoted in the above LA Times article asked, "Why let Christians edit articles on Christianity?"
• The criterion here should be evidence which demonstrates that this editor has edited non-neutrally, promotionally, clearly putting outside interests above the interest of the project. Yet you are prepared to dish out an indefinite block or topic ban simply based on religious affiliation and the assertion of non-neutral editing by editors who themselves have been reprimanded for their conduct in the relevant arbcom cases (not to mention that one of them has had off-site disputes with this faith group).
• To answer your question, Terrymacro was notified of this thread by Will. Regards, JN466 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To comment in general terms upon the most pertinent issue Jayen raises, yes I support handling COI issues that pertain to religions the same basis for all religions. Jayen seems to imply that new religions are being singled out. Mere adherence to a religion does not constitute conflict of interest. For example, the Joan of Arc vandal was banned for socking, disruption, misuse of sources, etc. but not for conflict of interest--since there was no evidence that he had any official connection to the organizational structure of the faith whose POV he was pushing. Durova²⁷³ 21:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Adding a quick thought here, though. Occasionally the argument does come up in discussion that strong belief in something itself constitutes a conflict of interest. I regard that as a misreading of the distinction between POV and COI, and in my observation that occasional mistake has crossed a broad number of subjects; it doesn't seem to divide down the line that Jayen draws. Although if that did indeed happen, such a thing would be problematic. Durova²⁷³ 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I think you're making a nice distinction that it would be well worth keeping in mind. I argued the way I did here because I just cannot imagine indef blocks and topic bans being suggested, absent any examination of editing behaviour, because someone ran an Anglican conference centre ten years ago. JN466 22:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In 2006 the site did ban an evangelical Christian who was trying to build a ministry through Wikipedia, and in 2007 the WikiScanner detected edits coming from the Vatican. The latter made news at that time, although I'm not aware of an continued problem in that regard. If evidence arose to that effect I'd pursue it. Yet within a discussion of conflict of interest, religion is only one minor specific case. Suppose a former executive of the mining industry were discovered to have been deprecating mention of adverse environmental and health effects of mining? Conflict of interest is the guideline over which Wikipedians have the least control: often, editors allow themselves to suppose that a nuance in the guideline wording or a local discussion can settle the matter. Really it's a real world concept. Durova²⁷³ 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• There is a world of difference between a run-of-the-mill follower of an huge and old religion and a high official in a small new religious movement. It is an incorrect analogy to say that Christians don't have a COI when editing articles concerning their church. "Joe Parishioner" may not have such a conflict, but "Cardinal Joe" would. Likewise, a low-level employee in a company may not have a conflict, but a senior executive almost certainly would. Further, Terrymacro hasn't confined himself to issues where his conflicts are minimal - he interjected himself in a discussion over the reliability of an affidavit concerning the exact organization that he helped lead and which involved people he knew very well. Did he reveal any of those connections? No, he presented himself as an uninvolved and impartial editor. That kind of deception is just what this guideline is meant to prevent. An even more general principle is that advocacy is not allowed. The editor has written in his current biography that his greatest passion is his devotion to the teachings of Prem Rawat. That's a wonderful thing for him, but that is not a suitable frame of mind for someone to make neutral edits to that topic in an encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points that may have been overlooked:

• Terry Macro recently proposed a new, neutral lede for the PR article which contained criticism of Rawat. [[5]] This does suggest that he is able to edit neutrally.
• With all due respect to Will Beback, I don't think he is the best person to comment on another editor's frame of mind. I have worked on two Rawat articles so far. It has been difficult in both cases due to what I consider to be Will's anti-Rawat POV pushing. The most recent violations of edit restrictions were the result of an edit to the lede by Will. See discussion of edit here [[6]]. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp, according to whom is Terrymacro's proposal neutral? To my view it is not neutral at all. If you would like to address my POV, then I suggest starting a new thread.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Address your POV in a new thread? That's certainly an option. Generally I think its better to try to work in a cooperative, rather than an adversarial way. Maybe I'm being naive. --Zanthorp (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This brief comment is to acknowledge that I am fully aware of the COI against me, and I have read all the above arguments for and against. I will be responding to the above ASAP. Terry Macro (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen also neglects to mention that there are more than 2 editors that feel TerryMacro has a confict of interest here. I have also commented about it on Terry's talkpage. I also find it more than a little too convenient that TerryMacro removed all the links from his talk page that linked him to Prem Rawat *3* minutes before editing on the Prem Rawat articles[7][8]. That may not prove a COI, but it sure as heck doesn't smack of a lot of honesty either... In my country, our politicians have a saying, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"...quack quack. :-) His blatant, and honestly, hard to believe, interpretation of the COI page here (which I corrected here) as well as his attitude after multiple editors have discussed the situation with him here would seem to indicate that he is not willing to do anything about this himself as he sees no COI. Regarding Zanthorp's claim that Terry created a neutral lede, 2 of eight editors thought so if you read the talk page here, coincidentally I'm sure, they were TerryMacro and Zanthorp.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not 8 editors, only 5, and the main issues discussed were chronology and Nik's point about the accuracy of sources. Please get your facts straight. --Zanthorp (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad math, there were at *least* 8 active editors on the talk page around the time this came up, 2 (you and Terry) liked it. Even if you were correct (which again, you aren't), 2 out of 5 does not make for evidence of your statement that "This does suggest that he is able to edit neutrally.". Please try not to muddy the waters further with claims that it's now about chronology. That's not what we are discussing here and please get your facts straight. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good math. 5 editors were involved in that particular discussion, and the main issues discussed were chronology and accuracy of sources. Those are the facts. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If I say "Bad math" again, does that make me right? As I said in my previous edit summary, anyone who cares to, can go to the talk page and look at the history and count all the active editors around the time that "neutral" lede (the one before Terry edited out the worst parts) was written and see that other editors (oh, I dunno...say *8*!) were active on the page at that time. Absence of an opinion in that particular section cannot not be construed here as an agreement that his lede was neutral, they may simply have agreed with the ones that did respond, and since it was clear that this lede was not very good, chose not to beat a dead horse. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik Wright2 mentions below how TPRF was the ultimate owner of the conference facility of which Terrymacro was director. One of the principle changes that Terrymacro proposed to the "neutral lede" was to expand the material devoted to TPRF, adding that it was established as "a vehicle for humanitarian work and to spread his message." This organization is very obscure compared to the DLM or EV, yet he was seeking to expand the space devoted to it. His proposed text does not, in itself, show that he can edit neutrally on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The TPRF addition to the lede you are referring to was merely a condensed version of a passage from 1983-2000 section of the article. Your objection noted. Leave it in or leave it out; it isn't a major issue, and somewhat off topic here anyway. The point being overlooked is that his suggested edit included unaltered criticism of Rawat. --Zanthorp (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the original lede proposed by Terry, I see lots of promotional material including a plug for TPRF. Where is this "unaltered criticism" that you refer to? The last sentence, which has been in the lede for over a year, and wasn't even part of the paragraph we were working on? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the last sentence of Terry's proposal was unaltered criticism of Rawat. You have restated my point. But, you comment, "lots of promotional material" is totally misleading. I think this discussion may be reaching the point of incivility. Lets not continue it. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagee, and stand by my statement that the original "neutral lede" of Terry's contains lots of promotional material (did you even bother to re-read it?!). Is it the idea of someone disagreeing with you that you find incivil? Or something else? Either way, I suspect that if you were to stop inflating your arguments so that they seem to be convincing, it's likely I would stop responding to your misrepresentations, and we wouldn't have to continue it. I guess it's up to you. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Facts Relevant to the Case in Question (Divine Light Mission and Associated pages)

Concern with broader problems of COI policy is obfuscating the issues as they relate to Terrymacro as an editor of Wikipedia . The key facts are:

• 1. The focus of the question of COI is the article Divine Light Mission, and from that article Prem Rawat and other related articles in which Divine Light Mission is an integral part.

• 2. Divine Light Mission is not a single entity but the name given to a number of nationally discrete entities. In the US, the organisation (now renamed Elan Vital) is a non profit Corporation, recognised by the IRS as operating as a Church; however there are ample sources reporting representatives of Elan Vital/DLM stating that:it is not a religion.

• 3. In Australia the Divine Light Mission (now also renamed Elan Vital) was created as a membership Association with corporate status, it does not claim religious status.

• 4.The editor Terrymacro has held the position of Director (i.e a publicly and legally accountable person) of a Corporation owned by the Australian Elan Vital/DLM. Terrymacro has made various contributions on the talk pages of the DLM and Prem Rawat articles about the history of the DLM, even claiming that it was a defunct organisation.

• 5. The Corporation of which Terrymacro was a director, operates a Conference Centre, which has been developed at the cost of several tens of millions of dollars, on land, stated by that Corporation’s ultimate owner, to be vested with The Prem Rawat Foundation. TPRF has provided support funding for, and has personnel links with the publisher of a controversial source which Terrymacro has recommended as a reference for articles about Prem Rawat.

• Conclusion: there is no obvious issue of religious freedom or entitlement in this case. The matter hangs on the public and legal position held by an individual who edits Wikipedia. Whether the relevance of that position is rendered void by the passage of time is a question to be answered. Additionally, as Terrymacro, in attempts to influence article content, has made some dubious claims about the organisation in question, it might be thought appropriate to at least request clarification from him over any continued association with connected Corporations, their officers and others active in the promotion of those Corporations or of Prem Rawat. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether Rawatism is a religion or not. As you know, it is generally classified as a religious movement in reliable sources: [9], etc. There are multiple reliable sources backing up Terrymacro's assertion that the DLM is "defunct": [10][11] I'd be prepared to concede that Terrymacro would have a COI with regard to the conference centre he once managed, but am not convinced that it should go further than that. JN466 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting that arguing 'sources' is a basis for sorting out a COI ? The fact that 'some' individuals have classified Rawatism a religion, doesn't make it a religion. In this case, is Terrymacro saying his connection to the Ivory's Rock Conference Centre is a religious affiliation, or that Prem Rawat is a religious leader ? The issue is simply one of Corporate record - the Colorado SoS Business listings [12] and the Australian SEC [13]listings provide definitive documentation that the US and Australian Divine Light Missions are still functioning as they were created in 1971 and 1976, in both cases under the name Elan Vital. It doesn't matter how many incompetant or lazy Sociologists of Religion that you quote to the contrary - those Sociologists are wrong and the Colorado SoS and Australian SEC, are right. Quite honestly Jayen I think you've tried to hijack this issue for some other agenda, and what you are prepared to concede is irrelevant. The question is whether Wikipedia is going to allow itself to be used by sectional interests or whether COIs are going to be properly challenged.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik, as you know, there is exceptionally broad agreement in reliable secondary sources that Rawat led a religious movement. Anything else, even if a DLM spokesman said it, is a fringe view (actually, what the spokesman said was that it was a "church" rather than a "religion"). Your original analysis of two primary sources – one the DLM's articles of incorporation in the United States from 1971, and the other an Australian name change document – concluding that the DLM in the US and Australia "are still functioning as they were created in 1971 and 1978" is contradicted by the entire literature on the topic, which see the "DLM" and "Elan Vital" stages of the movement as distinct, not least because Elan Vital only had a fraction of the staff that the old DLM had, closed all the ashrams where followers lived communally in the DLM days, dispensed with the explicitly Indian religious trappings that marked the DLM stage, etc. Will explained the problems with primary source analysis to you here. JN466 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that the DLM and EV are the same legally entity (at least in the US and Australia), and regardless of the fact that many sources treat them as separate entities, there are also numerous sources that treat them as part of the larger Rawat movement, which has contained many subentities and businesses. The editor has held seniotr positions in two of those entities, was an early follower in what was a fairly small religious movement, and has been a follower for at least 34 out of the 38 years that the "new" movement has had a presence outside of India, and still professes that it is his great passion. Those factors combine to paint a picture of someone who is deeply involved and committed, both officially and personally. Since Jayen also opined on the affidavit matter, I'd like to hear how he thinks that it's OK for someone intimately involved in the background of the dispute to comment on it without making any disclosure.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's okay to be committed to a religious path and contribute to WP, isn't it?

Having said that, I agree with you, after rereading the affidavit, that Terrymacro may have been intimately involved with its background. The affidavit related to a lawsuit which the conference centre was a party to. I have already conceded that Terrymacro would likely have a COI for any matters related to that specific centre.

Terrymacro's responses at the RS/N thread are here: [14][15] He didn't actually say much beyond reiterating WP policy, and asking editors to look at the affidavit in light of that policy. It should also be noted that at the time, he had made less than 350 edits to WP. Wikipedia always encourages new editors to be "bold"; I think we do not do enough to warn new editors that their "bold" actions may be brought up as evidence against them years later.

As for the significance of the affidavit, I believe the situation can be summarised as follows: an ex-follower had written a very negative article about Rawat in an Australian weekend magazine, which included a number of exceptional claims. He was sued and by his own account lost several court battles related to the article, some of which the Australian conference centre was a party to. [16] He subsequently stated in the affidavit that his article had been designed to defame Rawat, that he had been encouraged to make it as negative as possible (by a group of people that includes active WP editors), and that he had taken liberties with the truth in it.

To my mind that history cast doubt on the article's status as a reliable source for a BLP. If an author expressly recants, and loses court cases, it is not a good sign, and certainly disqualifies such an article as a source for exceptional BLP claims. Repeating its allegations would expose Wikipedia to the same legal risks that the author suffered. That is all the significance I accord that affidavit; being an affidavit not referred to in secondary sources (as far as I know), it is not itself a reliable source for statements about third parties and should not be used as a source in Wikipedia articles. JN466 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, it's important that you get your facts straight. The author of that article was not sued because of any of the content of the article. The legal action was completely unrelated to the article he wrote. Furthermore, the publisher of the article was never sued by Prem Rawat or his organizations, nor was the author or any of the sources for the article sued, myself included. The publisher of the article never retracted one word of that article and it stands as a published piece today in a reliable source. Moreover, the link that you provided has already been deemed long ago to not be a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia because it is a discussion forum. Your comments above are far afield of the subject of Terry's COI. The whole point of any COI is disclosure by a party (or lack thereof in Terry's case) by a person of their conflict of interest on a given subject matter. It's really quite a simple ethical concept. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the acknowledgement that Terrymcro has a COI regarding he conference center where he was a director, and that he violated that COI when he commented in regard to the affidavit. (I don't think the affidavit and the magazine article are otherwise relevant to this discussion, beyond the fact that Terrymacro has had a close, and undisclosed assoication with the author.) Why does he not have a COI in regard to the owner of the conference facility, TPRF? Why does he not have a COI in regard to the organization for which he was National Finance Director, the #2 official? As far as the issue of religion goes, do you acknowledge that there is a difference between a Christian today, one who holds no position of authority in his church, and either an early disciple, like Saint Peter, or a senior official, like a top ranking cardinal?   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure. I have commented elsewhere in this thread today, taking my cue from your "Joe Cardinal" example, that the closest analogy I can think of would be someone who held a job in the Vatican ten years ago, and remains a passionate Christian today. Note that quite apart from people who held a church position ten years ago, we have even active vicars in Wikipedia working on articles about bishops, archbishops, church history etc., without accusations of COI arising ipso facto. Yes, they too would have a declarable COI if they write or comment about their own church where they are the vicar, but not if they write about the archbishop of Canterbury or the Queen, even though they're organisationally linked to them. JN466 00:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If I saw an entry on this noticeboard about a church official writing about their church then I'd be concerned. In this instance, Terrymacro has worked on the article about the organization in which he was the second ranked official in Australia, the Divine Light Mission. As for the other analogy, wouldn't you consider Saint Peter, were he alive, to have a conflict if writing about Jesus Christ? He was a senior follower, there almost from the beginning. That type of situation is covered in WP:COI#Close relationships.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, how do we know that we have vicars editing actively? Is it because they disclosed it? that's part of what this is about, making a reasonable disclosure, as called for by the guidelines, so that a user's contributions and input can be judged in light of their COI.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry is Terry, not St. Peter; Nik is Nik, not Judas. Let's note that with these proceedings, reasonable disclosures have been made. I hope and trust they are as complete as they should be. Perhaps we can leave it at that and move on? JN466 12:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that reasonable disclosures have been made. A new editor, seeing a posting or edit, should be able to find out that Terrymacro is not an uninvolved or impartial observer. This page will be archived before long and then it would take concerted sleuthig to find. At the moment, there is no disclosure on Terry's page or on the talk pages he's been contributing to that indicate his depth of involvement or POV. If he'd simply add a line like, "I've been practicing Knowledge for over 30 years and served the movement in various capacities", or something similar, that would go a long ways towards resolving this. The guideline links to this disclosure as an example.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've blanked-out the COI/Disclosure statement that I recently placed on my user talk page because I'm angry that no one is going to require TerryMacro to make a clear disclosure about his two COIs. This COI Noticeboard page is just absolutely ridiculous. What on earth is the point of having a COI noticeboard when it has no teeth? And why should I voluntarily expose details about my private past on Wikipedia, when someone like TerryMacro has held high-level positions of authority and decision-making in the Rawat organizations, but he isn't going to be required to declare a COI, disclose his former involvement and bias, or in any way be limited in his editing in the areas of his very clear COI? Have you people never heard of the word recusal? It's a simple legal concept that doesn't need reinvention by Wikipedia. Furthermore, over the past five years here I've limited my editing on the Rawat series of articles to only commenting on the talk pages, and not making any major edits to the articles (unlike others who have made plenty of edits when they even had a declared COI!) that were substantive and especially controversial. The only edits I've attempted to make on the articles were to correct grammar, punctuation, and style. When are Wikipedians going to get their stuff together and demand that people with COIs limit their editing on the articles where they have an obvious conflict of interest? And I don't want to hear from anyone about "single purpose accounts" because that's just a red herring and another excuse for certain people to try to use negative innuendo to smear fellow editors. I simply cannot understand why it's so utterly difficult for Wikipedia editors to understand a simple, basic concept of conflict of interest and apply it! It's not as if this is a new concept to the world. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely understandable Sylviecyn. While I would strongly encourage everyone with an obvious COI to make a disclosure statement on their talk page, it's grossly unfair and misleading/prejudicial to have those that play by the rules go up against those that refuse to. If Terry doesn't think he has a COI, based on his reasoning, it doesn't seem possible that you have one either. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not asking for anyone's support. You may not want to associate yourself with me, since there is a NRM/cult faction, including Jayen, who considers me a hate-group member and will do anything to obfuscate and throw wrenches into rational discussion to avoid any critical writing about their NRM/cult leaders. But, as far as I'm concerned this entire, very strange ineffectual COI noticeboard page is a bunch of baloney -- it's a farce, a total waste of everyone's time. And guess what? I have full intentions of editing the Rawat articles (and not just the talk pages anymore) just like everyone else has, who is an adherent of Prem Rawat, who have claimed so much ownership over over five years with all of their self-claimed entitlements to do so, using sockpuppets and fake IDs. Go ahead and block me over it, like I care. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Allegation of Probable COI by User:Terrymacro Part A

Will Beback alleges two probable COI, one pertaining to the Astrological Ages, the other involving Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission topics. Though most attention is directed at my involvement in the latter two topics I am first addressing the alleged COI involving the Astrological Ages otherwise it may be used to support by insinuation the alleged COI on the Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission topics. I have a long term passion for the astrological ages, and I am very knowledgeable in the topic. I initially became a Wiki editor for the purposes of assisting in editing of this topic as part of the Wikipedia astrology project. Before I learnt the rules of Wiki extensively, I was made aware that the main aim was producing material with a NPOV. I was not cognizant at the time of the details of COI, as initially there are far too many rules to take them all in and I never discovered the WP:COI section as a new editor. Though I probably would have modified my editing approach if I had my current knowledge when I was a new Wiki editor, the material I produced was a NPOV and any semi alert editor on these topics would have readily seen my strong association with the topic.

For the whole of the period March 2008 to May 2009 my user page clearly indicated my association with the subject. Nearly all of my significant edits occurred in 2008 up until August when any other editor wishing to contest my edits could easily see my historical associations with the subject. However I worked in a non-combative and collegial fashion as, at the time, I believed this to be the spirit of Wikipedia editing. I had advised Wikiproject astrology on 20 March 2009 about what I was doing in the topics, and my user page clearly showed my association with the subject matter. There was no excessive self-citation. Any content included that involved me was notable. No peer in Wikipedia astrology group has objected to the content and I entered the following information on the Wikiproject astrology page: “My research speciality is the astrological ages and I am widely published on the subject. I also interface with acheoastronomers on the subject.”

In retrospect I probably should have made some appropriate statements on the Talk page but I was unaware of this at the time being a new editor. During and after the period of my most intensive editing, a wide range of editors have also edited the page without edit wars and it was not until Will Beback followed me to this topic that the editorial disagreement intensity has significantly increased. This followed an edit I made on the Prem Rawat topic that was obviously not to Will Beback’s liking.

It is also worth noting as a side issue that Will Beback also followed me to another topic, the Age of Aquarius, and deleted on July 1 2009 a section detailing my published views on the Age of Aquarius. Matching various astrologers in the same section with Age of Aquarius in Google results in an average number of hits to me compared to the other astrologers included in this section. That topic no longer provides the former comprehensive divergent viewpoints on the Age of Aquarius and is missing the inclusion of one notable astrologer in the field. Wikipedia will be less due to this.

The only consequence of my editing of the astrological ages (and Age of Aquarius) is that the articles are far superior. Though I was unaware of the details of WP:COI in early 2008, in retrospect I did not contravene the following "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged.”

In conclusion, I don’t believe that the allegation of probable COI made against me in relation to the Astrological Ages topic is anything other than the side result of long term editorial disagreements on the Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission and related topics. It seems that these editorial wars are common in many Wikipedia topics but I did not experience this at the Astrological ages and Age of Aquarius topics until very recently. I think my record at the Astrological Ages (and Age of Aquarius) topics demonstrate that in circumstances where I could have easily abused the situation and produced biased and weighted articles involving self-promotion, that instead I produced balanced, NPOV and far more explanatory material compared to what existed previously. Terry Macro (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Post script: I have been extensively referring to Wiki for a long term project I am engaged in. I have noticed that many topics are edited by people with a high calibre of knowledge in the topic. I have not done any research to ascertain if these same editors bring a POV, but as an educated guess, I am sure that this is often the case. I have brought a POV to the Astrological Ages and Age of Aquarius and other related sites. My extensive and long term study of the subject matters means that I have a high calibre of knowledge on these subjects. Though I have a POV I know how to present any material associated with my POV in a NPOV way as I am very knowledgeable on all aspects of these topics and have a mature understanding of the situation. In my experience, Wiki depends to a great extent on editors like me that have a high level of knowledge on the subject matter. The fact that I have probably been stalked, hounded and outed by a Will Beback does not inspire me to waste my time in ensuring that the Astrological ages, Age of Aquarius and related topics maintain their high level of integrity and continue to improve. Already the Age of Aquarius topic is reverting to the gibberish which I saved it from over a year ago.
  

It is unlikely that Wikipedia will get another editor with my calibre of knowledge on the subject matter in the Astrological Ages area. Why would someone like me put up with the gross immaturity clearly demonstrated by Will Beback? Just because Will Beback cannot get his own editorial view on the PR, DLM and related sites using legitimate Wiki methods, he abuses his impressive and high knowledge of Wiki rules and guidelines, and hiding behind these he engages in intimidating, bullying and harassing behaviour to further his own prejudicial ends. If Wiki is to be taken over by legalistic editors of Will Beback’s style at the expense of editors that have extensive knowledge of the subject matter, then Wiki can only suffer as a result.

Will Beback’s behavior towards me discredits Wikipedia. He did not come to the astrology topics I focus upon to aid or assist me, but to plainly attack me. However I am sure that over a period of time Wikipedia will evolve approaches to deal with such abuse as I am sure it cannot afford to have keen, inspired editors that can produce high quality NPOV on mainstream or arcane subjects harassed and hounded out of Wikipedia. I have been informed that I can lodge various complaints but I am neither a legalistic editor, nor do I have the time. I have taken great pleasure in voluntarily helping Wikipedia produce high quality articles in my area of expertise, and I do not blame Wikipedia for Will Beback’s abominable behaviour.
Terry Macro (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• One extra point re the COI leveled against me in relation to the Astrological ages topic. The following is an excerpt from the weekly ezine of the International Society of Astrological Researchers, one of the largest astrological organisations in the world, with its headquarters in the USA. Apart from being emailed to all of its members, it is also accessible by all the members of the UK based Astrologers Association.

ASTROLOGICAL AGES AT WIKIPEDIA from Terry MacKinnell, US (note: The US was a mistake by ISAR) As a member of the Astrology WikiProject team I have been editing the Astrological Ages topic at Wikipedia. …. The Astrological Ages topic was in a bad state. My main task has been removing from the main body of the topic fringe, extremist and oddball ideas and opinions about the ages. To smooth this transition I have created a sub-section called ‘New, Alternative & Fringe Theories' and moved much of the existing content to this sub-section. I have rewritten 80% of the Introduction and Overview but have left the rest much the same except for cleaning up.

I have followed a simple approach to the editing. The bulk of the content is focused upon those ideas of the astrological ages that have consensus in the astrological community (i.e. the ages proceed in retrograde fashion compared to the normal order of the zodiac). Considerable attention is given to majority opinion about aspects of the ages where there is dissension but there is a fairly defined majority opinion on the subject (i.e. most astrologers think that Jesus Christ marks the beginning of the Pisces age). Minority opinions are mentioned lightly as these are generally points of view that are established but only by a minority of researchers (i.e. each astrological age coexists with its opposite sign so that the Aquarian age is actually the Aquarian-Leo age). Nearly everything else gets relegated to the new fringe ideas sections which are basically new or innovative ideas not yet established (i.e. Walter Cruttenden's hypothesis that precession of the equinoxes is not caused by the wobbling earth but by the solar system existing within a binary pair of stars where our own Sun is one of the stars - this has not been added to the topic yet).

The main criteria for adding material to a topic at Wikipedia is that it is backed up with references to published books, articles etc. The inclusion of opinion without reference to a publication in the public domain can be challenged and it will be deleted - this is Wiki policy. There is still a lot of material at the Astrological Ages topic that falls into the area of opinion or speculation without references and will be deleted in the future. There is still a lot of work required at this topic. Apart from requiring more references for the early ages from the Ages of Leo onwards, the topic needs a history section and a sub-period section. If anyone has time to look at this topic at Wikipedia and discovers errors, omissions or you want to make a comment about how to improve the site you can email me …

Ref: ISAR International ezine Volume 485 April 13, 2008

The purpose of including the above extract is to show that whether or not I have transgressed Wiki’s COI guidelines in this instance, I have widely publicized what I was doing both within and without Wikipedia. I did get some input from some astrologers recommending some further inclusions indicating they were knowledgeable of this specialist area. No one complained that I had produced a distorted view of the Astrological ages. I believe firmly that I have produced NPOV for this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrymacro (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding links to your blogs and creating an entire section devoted to your ideas was excessive, but the other, smaller mentions you added were less problematic. I think if you just avoid citing yourself in the future then that'll be fine. The notable views of MackInnell are likeliest to be those that are cited in secondary sources. You can post those sources on talk pages with a request that other editors add relevant material. That's a good approach in any COI situation, including Prem Rawat.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry says above that "I was not cognizant at the time of the details of COI,...Though I probably would have modified my editing approach if I had my current knowledge". But just two days ago Terry said that "In my understanding a COI can only exist when someone is presently on the payroll of an article subject, or presently carries functions in this organisation(s)."[17]. I doubt you were ever on the "Age of Aquarius" payroll, so why would you "have modified my editing approach if I had my current knowledge"?. After editing since March 2008, you still don't seem to understand the COI page. It makes sense that if you don't understand it, you may not realize you are in a COI. I hope this process can shed some light on this situation. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your postscript, Terrymacro, if you edit alongside Will Beback a little longer, you will find that the motives and behaviour you have attributed to him above are not what he is about. I say that as someone who often fails to agree with Will. ;) Assume good faith, and you will not be far off the mark. JN466 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Allegation of Probable COI by User:Terrymacro Part B

In summarizing Will Beback’s argument for my alleged probable COI it appears that according to WB I run foul of three specific areas.
1. I was a former senior official in the PR movement and more recently served as a director of a major facility owned by the movement
2. I have a long time association with the movement
3. I commented upon the validity of a legal affidavit affidavit involving the organizations of which I had been an officer and his colleague

Point 1. – Firstly, does a former official of an entity have a COI when issues related to that entity arise in Wiki? My understanding is that a current official would probably invoke COI, but a former official, and from nine years ago? There was nothing in WP:COI that I could find to support this. Where does Wiki draw the line? Secondly the claim I was a ‘high official’ of the ‘movement’ is WB’s claim. My role in the 90s at a commercial conference centre associated with the movement was finance manager due to my commercial experience. The conference centre was managed independently of Elan Vital (EV) and I played no role in EV whatsoever other than my involvement with the day to day operation of the commercial conference centre. It could certainly be construed I was a ‘high official’ of the conference centre, but I was not a high official of EV in the 90s, and in the movement at large I was at best a ‘functionary’. Furthermore I find it hard to believe that my former role in an out of the way outpost of the movement in the 1970s could evoke a COI thirty years later.

Point 2. – Does a long term association with a movement invoke COI? Does a short term association with outside interests associated with the subject invoke a COI? WP:NPA says that affiliations should not be held up to invalidate another editor's views.

Point 3. - I possibly did contravene COI by commenting on an affidavit involving my former employee. This affidavit is dated 2007, six years after my involvement, and all I did was reiterate WP policy, and asked editors to look at the affidavit in light of that policy. I will leave this point to Wiki officialdom but when I did make the input on the Talk page I was relatively new to Wiki. With my present knowledge in retrospect I probably should have not have made a comment on the affidavit or I should have stated a COI in relation to the document.

In conclusion, my initial major understanding is that underlying much of the Wiki guidelines is the necessity to produce articles with a NPOV. I think I have adequately demonstrated my ability to produce a NPOV at the Astrological ages and Age of Aquarius topics as examples. My last proposal for a NPOV lede to the PR topic included as the last sentence: “Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses[9][17] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[10][“ I have been accused of only making positive edits for the subject, but I have made so few edits on the PR page, and I don’t believe I have made any edits on the DLM page, that no one could reliably state anything about my pattern of editing on these topics. Terry Macro (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The independence of the Amaroo/IRCC facility from Elan Vital is questionable. This website seems to blur that distinction further.[18] (Note that the site's content is copyrighted "Elan Vital", but the domain is registered to IRCC.[19]) As for Australia being an "out-of-the-way outpost", due to the IRCC facility that continent has become a center of movement conventions. Regarding this project, at least three, and perhaps four, of the editors on the Prem Rawat topic over the last year have been followers from Australia, at least two of whom were close associates in the movement. Two of those editors have been topic banned in part due to their combativeness. So geographic isolation does not improve editorial neutrality. Terrymacro's work on astrology, which has involved adding a long reference to his own work which he described as "innovative", is not a good example of NPOV editing. Again, there is more than enough evidence that Terry has had substantial, longterm involvement with the topic, and that it is a topic he feels very strongly about, to show that a COI exists. The guideline itself shows how to deal with such a COI and how to avoid problems. Does anyone see a reason why Terrymacro shouldn't follow that guideline and its common-sense suggestions like disclosing ones COI?   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we shouldn't ask the various ex-premies to have such COI statements on their user pages as well then, just to level the playing field. Some of them are former functionaries too, with similar personal involvement.

Long-term, I have my doubts that the topic area will ever be peaceful, as long as both premies and ex-premies go at it. I recall that the arbcom's Scientology decision topic-banned the most POV-driven people on both sides of the dispute. That topic area has become a lot more civilised since. JN466 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that everyone who has held a position of authority in the movment, regardless of their current views pro or con, should disclose their involvement. I am concerned that new users are appearing who may be making further efforts to conceal their COI, including denying any involvement in the movement whatsoever. This topic has seen too much of that kind of behavior already.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposal that Will makes seems eminently sensible. Could this requirement be included on article talk pages ? I have made a COI statement on my talk page and addressed some points raised by Jayen on the page. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also made a COI and disclosure statement on my talk page. Please note that I don't have any intention of making regular contributions to the Rawat talk pages (I don't edit the main article spaces) but I think that it's reasonable to expect editors to make disclosures about their past and/or current employment with organizations that support Prem Rawat. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made a COI or disclosure statement as I'd never heard of Prem Rawat until last year or had any interest in religous movements. However, in the spirit of openness I have expanded my user page to provide some background to my involvement in this topic. --Savlonn (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not really matter if Will says that "everyone who has held a position of authority in the movement, regardless of their current views pro or con, should disclose their involvement" as this is not Wiki policy - and i seriously doubt that Wiki would even consider going down that path as it will create a nightmare for Wiki. Rules are like laws, every new law increases the number of criminals, every new rule increases the number of rule-breakers and possible conflicts. I am sure Wiki has no plans of going down the path of conflict escalation. Will's proposal, as usual, is biased in favour of Will's position. Because Will and some other editors represent, one way or another, formally or informally, the interest of outside groups, associations or whatever opposed to the subject, you can bypass the need for any disclosure because opposition group(s) to the subject are in general informal and probably don't have officials of any kind, which does not make its adherents and sympathisers any less passionate than supporters of the subject. Wiki will never be able to prevent people coming to Wiki with a POV and this does not appear to be Wiki policy unless its a clear violation of COI with someone employed by the subject as part of the subjects PR department or significant capacity etc etc. The only problem with a POV is if it undermines Wiki's requirement for a NPOV. The necessary end result needs to be a NPOV for the success of Wiki. From what I understand, contentious disagreements between opposing blocs or opposing points of view about the subject matter are very common in Wiki. If any new rules are made, it would have to address this polarisation, but I am sure Wiki is not interested in increasing the number of rules. What I think is necessary is promoting the spirit of Wiki. The goal of producing high quality NPOV articles that reflect positively upon Wiki in the wider community must be the primary goal - not the production of biased or weighted articles representing the interest of outside interests, whatever shape or form these outside interests may take, or whether these outside interests align with or oppose the subject. It is the Wiki spirit or ethos to produce NPOV articles that is the most important point. I believe I have captured this spirit of Wiki in my editing of the astrology topics referred to in the COI, and I have every intention of the same in the PR, DLM and associated topics. I am looking forward to the results of the COI, which I will accept either way, as I support the Wiki spirit, ethos and process. Terry Macro (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You have disclosed on your user page your involvement in astrology. Your involvement in the DLM and Prem Rawat is just as substantive if not more so. Is there a reason why you are not making a similar disclosure?   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia rules is that it is not required in my case as in general, I don't have a COI in these topics. Terry Macro (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And there were and remain a number of reasons why my astrological background was included on my User page and no mention of any other involvement in any other area. Firstly there is my privacy, such as I am sure you expect re your religious involvement. Though my understanding of COI in the astrological area may or may not have been adequate in hindsight, I was instinctively aware I was including material that could be construed as `too close to home' so I plasted my background in the astrology topics for any semi-alert editor to see and on the Wiki astrology project page. If I had read the suggestion in the Wiki guideleines in detail of also including this information on the Discussion pages of these astro topics i would have done so. I follow the 'read rules, street directories etc when all else fails' approach. However without this detailed knowledge of the Wiki suggestions re COI, I broadcasted far and wide what I was doing at the astrology topics as i thought this necessary just from common sense. The other main reason for the limitation of personal details to the astro topics, apart from privacy, is that I am not in the habit of prosletising in the 'religious' area. What I enjoy engagement with is my personal choice, I don't think it is polite to push my experiences or viewpoints on such matters onto other people. Finally I realised some time ago that putting PR or K on the same page as astrology was insinuating that there was some connection between the two when no connection existed. It could be contrued that astrology was part of the parcel associated with PR which is not the case. Though from my casual observations PR does not ridicule astro, he certainly satirises it, and definitely I have never heard PR encourage anyone to take it up etc. Therefore I have removed as much as possible any online references to both subjects in the same area as I don't wish to mislead people in thinking that there was a relationship between the two areas. If the Wiki powers-to-be deem that I did in fact have a COI, I would have to create a second user account to keep these two areas separate if I was to continue editing in the astro area. I hope that answers your query. Terry Macro (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Terry Macro (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Several involved editors and at least one uninvolved editor have all said they believe you have a conflict of interest. You continue to assert that you do not, and that you have edited neutrally in the past and will continue to do so. The WP:COI guideline specifically says that editors who have a potential COI should not remove sourced material from their topic of interest. See WP:COI#Defending interests. If Terrymacro engages in deleting sourced material, especially any that is critical of his field of interest, then I will seek further remedy. I hope that he is now fully familiar with WP:COI and the core policies, and that there won't be any future problems.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds fair enough to me. JN466 01:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So what would an edit like that look like? Exactly like this? Would that be an example? Or because he self-reverted shortly afterwards, with the reasoning that "OK, I have undone my edit for the sake of avoiding edit warring" it doesn't qualify as an obvious COI edit? He didn't revert because of COI concerns, and only after a mediator raised the "edit war" issue. Who makes the rulings on these COI's? I've seen a lot of words used to defend Terry's non-COI on astrology-related issues, which is by far the least obvious COI to me, where are the reasons he doesn't have a Prem Rawat COI? If a National Finance Director for his movement with a staff, and continued student of Prem Rawat's (oh ya, and he also ran an 800 hectare conference center of Rawat's for years, until as recently as 2001, as well), doesn't have a COI, we may just need to go ahead and mark COI for speedy deletion since, apparently, no one will qualify imo. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • There's generally no "ruling" to make regarding a COI. This isn't an administrators' noticeboard, it's just a place where people can ask for advice on how to handle COI issues. WP:COI itself is a guideline and a tentatively-worded one, you'll notice there are no absolute rules in it, only suggestions. That's because having a conflict of interest itself isn't necessarily bad, it's what an editor with a COI does that matters. The COI is just something to take into consideration when reviewing an editor's actions, and it makes infractions seem that much more of a problem. For example, if two people add pro-POV language into an article but one of the two was the owner of the company and the other person was an involved person, the company owner might be dealt with more harshly. -- Atama^chat 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, Maelefique is a single-purpose account in Wikipedia, focused on Rawat articles and usually voicing the critics' view. [20] His interest in working on Rawat-related articles here appears to be greater than his interest in all other Wikipedia articles combined.
• Single-purpose accounts have been a long-standing feature with the Rawat articles, on both sides of the debate, though especially so on the "critical" side of it. JN466 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ...And? What does that have to do with this debate? We're supposed to be discussing possible COIs, not how wide an editor's interest is in various Wikipedia topics. Being a single-purpose account shouldn't discount their opinion, why would you bring that up? -- Atama^chat 22:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • WB, you have a distinct advantage over me as you are like a Wiki lawyer while I feel like a member of the general public that has accidentally stumbled into the legal chambers of some high level law firm who have told me I will be sent to jail for muddying their doormat on a rainy day. Therefore I will take what you have said piece by piece to get it right, and if I am wrong you or someone else can correct me. If I understand what you have said is correct “that editors who have a potential COI should not remove sourced material from their topic of interest” means that if I am accused of COI infractions I am guilty until proved innocent? Once accused of a COI I must behave like I have a COI? Now I am not a lawyer but this does seem a little strange. I have read the WP:COI and I don’t believe that it applies to me, though I am leaving it open re John McGregor’s statutory declaration as it is not clear to me. Is it Wiki policy that someone is presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent when accused of a WP:COI or is just being charged with a WP:COI makes me guilty of a COI??? Who or how is it decided that I have a COI? It seems strange that I am presumed guilty as the default, and must behave like I have a COI just because I have been accused of a COI by some editors. Perhaps I need a Wiki lawyer to defend me? Terry Macro (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If your peers at any time in the future should examine your editing and conclude that it has a tendency primarily to serve outside interests, then they will probably see that as confirmation of the accusations made here, as per WP:DUCK. In my view, some of those (not Will) who are accusing you arguably have COIs themselves, because they are involved in offsite advocacy and are SPAs here. I guess it doesn't matter much right now; it looks like we are entering formal mediation, so let's focus on that. But note that every single edit you make here is retained in Wikipedia's memory and may be brought up in evidence against you to demonstrate non-neutral editing, even months or years later. JN466 11:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Terrymacro, the nature of Wikipedia noticeboards is that they are a place for uninvolved editors to give their views. So the judgment here isn't from me or Jayen466, it's from folks like Atama. As for being able to edit neutrally, the line I remember from my youth was "by their fruits ye shall know them". The details of a conflict of interest are ultimately unimportant, as the proof is in the editing.   Will Beback  talk  12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Jayen466, I am trying to reconcile what you and WB have said and WB's previous statement that if I continue to remove sourced material WB said he "will seek further remedy". What is this remedy - perhaps an Inquisition? The COI notice board appeared to behave like a kangaroo court - from my perspective it seems extremely hard to believe that that was it? Do we count the yeas and nays and the greatest number wins? Are involved editors removed from the vote? From my perspective, WB makes his COI allegations against me, all and sundry respond, WB pronounces judgement? Somehow I feel an ingredient or two are missing in this process. Terry Macro (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
        • It's not a "kangaroo court"; it's not a court at all. You're not on trial, Terry. As it says at the top of the noticeboard, "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics." That's it. The "remedy" would be taking things to dispute resolution, which can eventually lead to something resembling a "court" of sorts, but that generally occurs when other dispute resolution methods have failed. -- Atama^chat 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Atama, thanks for outlining the process, you are the first editor to provide me with a clear picture of the process. I must admit it was a little dissappointing as I thought the current process was some kind of dispute resolution. Terry Macro (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
            • This matter is becoming split between three threads (I've responded more fully at Talk:Prem Rawat#Questions). Mediation on the topic is starting and I believe we'll be discussing this there, so perhaps it's time to bring this thread to an end if not a conclusion.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Good idea, let's move the discussion to Talk:Prem Rawat#Questions as its been getting diffcult to synchronise the various discussions on the same subkject. Terry Macro (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

VT iDirect

• User:Photoguy11579/VT_iDirect (edit | [[Talk:User:Photoguy11579/VT_iDirect|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been trying for some time now to post an article about a satellite communications company in herndon, va - VT iDirect. This page has gone through several different versions. It started with something that sounded very corporate-like and was obviously getting deleted. I've gone through multiple revisions to make the article neutral and added more sources. Before I repost the article, I wanted to get feedback here so I don't have to go through another round of deletions. Many thanks. User:photoguy11579

I just wanted to present some background (I had to do some poking around to figure it out myself. The article has been deleted 4 times, alternatively due to its promotional nature and/or because it was a copyright violation of company literature. The article was at AfD once where it was deleted, but only because of the aforementioned reasons and not because the subject itself didn't merit inclusion. On the contrary, it was mentioned more than once that the article should meet notability requirements for a company, but the article was deleted on speedy deletion terms. It should be possible to recreate the article if done properly. This editor (photoguy11579) does seem to have a COI with the company in question, and was advised to ask for advice here. -- Atama^chat 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It still looks spammy to me, needs some footnotes per WP:CITE and removal of most if not all of the external links from the body of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've removed most of the links, made it neutral and cited sources. How does it look now? I'd like to post it again, but don't want to have it deleted again or run into other issues. Thanks in advance for your feedback. User:Photoguy11579 —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Can anyone else provide feedback or review the page again? Thanks a lot! User:Photoguy11579 —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

Circumcision

• Jakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been accused by me and others of having a COI. See my talk and his. Recently someone has tried to place a COI tag on the page and Avi an involved admin has reverted and protected the page claiming BLP NPOV and NPA policies. Please help. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note. This incident involves what I see as an unfortunate, and potentially dangerous, conflation| of POV and COI in order to marginalize an editor. To start implying that people with POV's are automatically subject to COI is, in my opinion, both incorrect and against our policies, and I recommend that this not be taken up here on the COI board where it does not belong. WP:ANI#Request review of administrative action is background to the most recent incident. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And where should we discuss COI? You disagree and others agree which is why I have brought the matter here. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • COI's get discussed here. Jake has no more COI than you, Blackworm, Tremello22, and Michael Glass do, and it is disturbing to see what I perceive to be a shift to casting aspersions on the messenger being that attacking the message has failed. -- Avi (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Just because you disagree does not make it so. It's in the wider communities hands now. Let us see how others weigh in on this. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I perceive you as having a similar POV as Jake regarding circumcision. If I'm confusing COI with POV why have I not accused you of a COI? I'm not attacking anyone. My concern for the project is genuine. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm a completely uninvolved editor who hasn't had any previous contact with any of the editors involved here (that I can recall, at least recently) and haven't edited in the disputed article. I've read the discussions given on the user talk pages linked above and I think I can understand what the dispute is. Let me first point out that WP:COI is not the same as WP:NPOV; a conflict of interest is noted in Wikipedia because it makes it difficult or impossible to maintain a neutral point of view, but not everyone with a certain point of view has a conflict of interest. It's the same as saying that all apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples. Having said that, WP:COI is somewhat wishy-washy (by design I suppose) and it even states "there are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists". But it does cite examples to give an idea of what might constitute a COI.

I don't believe a COI exists here. The examples given in the guideline include having a "close relationship" with the article subject (or being involved in a legal dispute with the subject), being paid to edit to promote an organization, self-promotion, editing your own autobiography, or campaigning on behalf of an organization that is trying to advocate a POV regarding the article subject. The "autobiography" and "close relationship" criteria just don't apply to this article because it's neither about a person nor an organization or product, but a medical procedure. I don't see any evidence or even allegations that Jakew is being paid for his edits, that he is trying to promote himself, or that he is trying to campaign for an organization (such as an anti- or pro-circumcision group). He wrote some papers discussing circumcision, but while those papers might reveal a potential POV they don't in any way show a real conflict of interest.

I'll give some examples of where POV doesn't mean a COI. If a person was a dedicated neo-Nazi, that doesn't mean he shouldn't edit on a race relations page, though any POV edits he made could and probably should be reverted. If a person had a userbox on his user page stating that he believes that the Earth is flat, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to edit articles regarding planetary physics. It's only when a person has a proven connection to a person or organization that is directly related to the article subject that a COI can be established. I really don't see it in Jakew's case.

I know that some editors have wanted to apply a looser interpretation to the COI guideline than what I've given, but I'd like to caution against that. Establishing a COI can be difficult, and generally requires either an admission on the part of the accused editor or some solid evidence. Simply showing that a person has a bias, or that a person has made edits that promote a particular POV are not proving a COI at all. Keep in mind that there is a POV noticeboard that deals directly with POV problems in articles, and if you feel that Jakew or others have added material in violation of WP:NPOV that your report might be better suited there. I'm not an admin, these are only my opinions, so take them or leave them as you wish. -- Atama^chat 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts on this matter Atama. The problem for me is that it kinda of looks like " that he is trying to campaign for an organization (such as an anti- or pro-circumcision group). " for all the reasons I've listed on our talk pages. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, (1) name the organization and (2) give evidence that Jakew is associated with it. Again, that is what is needed for a COI allegation such as that. Simply stating "this editor looks to have a POV, I bet he's a member of a circumcision group" is insufficient and is definitely not assuming good faith. The COI noticeboard should not be used as a tool to attack an editor without sufficient cause in order to prevent his contributions to an article to settle a content dispute. -- Atama^chat 17:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well now you are not assuming good faith. I came here for clarity on the COI issue and do appreciate your opinion but to accuse me of using this board to attack another editor is simply unfounded. Your conditions are not listed in WP:COI and it is purposely vague on the definition. I have agreed to not press the issue further as long as neutrality is adhered to. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of attacking, per WP:NPA making accusations about an editor's personal behavior without evidence is considered a personal attack. I don't understand at all when you say "my conditions are not listed in WP:COI", as it should be obvious that when you accuse someone, you should actually back that up with some kind of proof as opposed to saying that it "kinda looks like" he is guilty. I'm relieved that you're not going to press the issue further. -- Atama^chat 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't come here and say "Hi I think user Jakew has a COI." The matter had been on our talk pages along with a myriad of reasons which you stated you read. You may disagree with those reasons but that is no excuse for you to say I have used this board to attack said user. This back and forth of AGF and NPA looks silly and childish and I am discontinuing this thread. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAtama&diff=302329809&oldid=302301438 for discussion which resulted in removal of resolved tag. Personally, I believe Atama went out of his way to try and explain the issue civily and clearly to Blackworm, who either does not, or does not want to, understand the difference. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Does not want to" = personal attack, as part of a pattern of harassment. I believe I have been just as patient and civil in expressing my interpretation of the guideline (not "explaining" the guideline, a word I find presumptive and belittling in this context) to Avi and Atama. I would not be so rude as to imply that Atama does not "understand there is no difference" or indeed "does not want to." I invite the reader to read the entire discussion there and comment. Blackworm (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In reply to User:Atama's latest comment in [21], reproduced here:

[Atama:] If "campaigning for an idea" could be a COI then COI would be redundant, any time you make an edit that is slanted toward a particular POV, you're "campaigning for an idea", so what would be the difference between WP:COI and WP:NPOV? COI is specifically for someone editing to the benefit of a person or organization that they are tied to, that doesn't include someone editing for the benefit of an ideal. Simply put, it's along the lines of a McDonald's CEO editing the McDonald's article and writing "McDonald's is great according to most people" in the lead. But, if you still think that Jakew has a COI despite all that I've said, that's no problem, I'll remove the "resolved" tag because clearly the issue isn't, and you can bring up any arguments you like there. I don't think I'll participate any longer because I believe I've said all that I have to say on the matter. Thank you. -- [signature]

No, whether an edit slanted to a particular POV is evidence of that editor's "campaigning," or merely an unbalanced edit, an edit touched by the editor's inherent bias, or an error, depends on the intention of the editor who made it. CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive. Whether Jakew is campaigning here, or merely repeatedly making non-neutral edits bolstered by the support of other editors bold in reverting and threatening, is a question of WP:AGF -- but my understanding of WP:COI is that if there is reason to think an editor may be campaigning, and that editor definitely campaigns as part of a campaigning group outside Wikipedia, then a COI exists. I'd be interested in hearing more opinions on the subject. Blackworm (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, my understanding of the difference between WP:NPOV and WP:COI is that the former refers strictly to article content, steering entirely clear of issues that necessitate evaluations of editors, especially of editors' off-wiki activities and associations and correlation with their areas of editing and the points of view advanced by those edits. The latter does indeed refer to this evaluation. Blackworm (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I will spare the regular respondents to this noticeboard my reply to Blackworm, which may be found here Talk:Circumcision#COI tag. However, it remains pretty obvious to me, and others, that Blackworm is conflating POV and COI, and my years of experience with him and his edits makes it harder and harder for me to assume this is an innocent mix-up on his part. If anyone has an extreme POV on circumcision, it is Blackworm. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blackworm. I must commend Atama for his patience, civility, and perseverance, trying to explain this at length to Blackworm. I would invite other uninvolved editor opinions as well. -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi users come here to this notice board on their own volition, just like you. One swing at the bat does not make an average. Just because one uninvolved editor agrees with you does not make it gospel. The reason I originally brought the matter here was to try and get a wider community response. I respect Atama's opinion but one editor does not stand for the entire community. I 2nd Avi's request to others please look at Blackworms RFC and his talk page. Compare Jake's, Blackworm's, Avi's and my own edits over time and use sorrels tools to see edits counts and time spans. Let's be civil and stop attacking one another and let the readers decide for themselves. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. As things stand, I don't see where the COI would lie. A COI exists when an editor advances outside interests over the interests of Wikipedia. To accuse Jake of COI, you'd have to indicate which outside interests he is advancing, and not only advancing, but advancing over the interests of the project — because it's possible that outside interests and WP would both want the same information included in an article. Having a strong POV is not in itself evidence of preferring outside interests, though people with a strong POV should be careful to bend over backwards to be NPOV — for example, by making sure they edit regularly from both perspectives, or from a disinterested one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin "A COI exists when an editor advances outside interests over the interests of Wikipedia." That's where my concern lies.

• Blackworm states "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive."
• Jake has also worked closely with notable circumcision advocates.
• Written and published material and letters to editors promoting circumcision.
• An extremely high edit count twice that of the next user (Avi) on Circumcision and related articles.

Is it not possible that with all these factors combined Wikipedia is being unduly influenced with Jake's POV? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What you listed above is evidence of a point-of-view. Looking at Jake and Blackworm's respective history, it seems that Blackworm has been pushing a specific point-of-view much more than Jake, so I am not certain as to why you are not chasing after Blackworm with the same zeal. The fact that Jake happens to be reputable enough to have his work published in peer reviewed journals is a good thing, in that it establishes that he has an expertise in this field that others of us lack. As long as his edits are withing the grounds of NPOV, and I maintain it is easy to see that they are, there is no issue. If Van Howe were to create a wiki id and start editing, should be toss him out because he is the author of strongly anti circumcision papers? I'd hope not, as long as he edited appropriately. All the points you list, Jake's expertise, respectability in the field, and commitment to the article are good things, Gary. As long as the high edit count is of edits that are not POV violations, that is a plus and a benefit to wikipedia. It is only "campaigning" to Blackworm, in my opinion, since Jake's strict adherence to the POV rules prevents Blackworm from skewing the article to reflect circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii. -- Avi (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide one diff showing where I "[skew] the article to reflect circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii," or strike the above factual error. Blackworm (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, Jake's adherence to NPOV prevents that. We do know how you feel on the matter. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point with your two (2) Talk diff links from two years ago. As you've said for Jakew, how I feel and how I express it in Talk doesn't harm the article. Jakew's non-neutral edits to the articles, as evidenced by the diff links I provide, hurt the articles. Again, please either provide a diff link to the articles that you believe violates NPOV and which "reflects circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii," or strike that unfounded accusation. Blackworm (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[ edit conflict. ]

SlimVirgin, respectfully, by whom were you asked to comment here and on AN/I, and have you worked with that editor in the past?

I outline above what I consider to be the evident outside interests of Jakew, how I believe those interests are closely related to those of Wikipedia (they both publish authoritative material) and why I believe they are viewed by several editors as being advanced over the interest of the project. Do you have a comment on that?

Distinct from merely having a POV, Jakew is open with the fact that he founded an outside organization, an outside group, as a means to publish authoritative material, which he appears to admit has a higher proportion of such material supportive of circumcision that the collection of such material: Jakew writes, "It might be more accurate to talk about 'papers that assert a benefit', etc. It's true to say that there are more of these, though, partly because that's true of the literature in general, and partly because of the history of CIRCS."[22] More pro-circumcision material partly because of the history of CIRCS? The explanation for the latter: "One of the main reasons for creating CIRCS was my irritation at the one-sidedness of CIRP, in particular my view that it seemed superficially to be so comprehensive, yet presented such a distorted selection of the literature. It created what I suppose you could call a kind of "information availability bias"[...]".[23] He was countering what was perceived as an unbalanced representation of circumcision by providing an unbalanced representation of circumcision in the other direction, essentially. That interest enough appears incompatible with prolifically editing circumcision (#1 in number of edits). Furthermore, some editors in circumcision are concerned because they feel that Jakew seems to often present a questionable account of a source, or a perfect account of a source putting circumcision in a favourable light, rarely if ever integrating sources putting circumcision in a negative light, and almost invariably fighting against inclusion of the latter. Repairing these issues takes considerable effort, and Jakew defends his edits with long, often tangential discussion, always claiming no consensus against him. Some appear to blindly support Jakew's edits with one-line expressions, and rarely seem to check the sources he brings to make sure Jakew's summary is appropriate. That appears to be the source of the concern. Jakew states that in 2003 he "became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision."[24] I think he openly publishes this as his raison d'être at Wikipedia, as he proudly displays barnstars commending him for "dealing with the onslaught by anti-circumcision activists," i.e. referring to certain Wikipedia editors. Can anyone imagine a barnstar commending anyone for "dealing with the onslaught by pro-circumcision activists?" That kind of enthusiasm when supposedly adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines might be considered distasteful, and even bigoted in the case of preventing extreme pro-circumcision editors from editing, as circumcision is a requirement of some religions. As it happens, it is so considered by some; suggestions of the bigotry of those having a different point of view[25] is a recurring theme,[26] having great potential to thwart civil discussion and bias article content. No one likes to be accused of bigotry, few have the personal conviction to continue to argue their points when the accusations are made, and few want to be associated with people who are viewed by powerful administrators to "come off as" bigots, or even be seen supporting them despite the correctness of their interpretations of policy -- especially if they have aspirations of adminship themselves. But I digress.

Atama's criteria, which seems limited to a set of examples presented in the article, is precisely the legalistic interpretation of this policy I feel plagues discussions invoking various policies and guidelines. If it's against the spirit of the guideline, it's against the guideline. The guideline says, "This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." Note "your own interests."

Atama appears to boil down the criteria to a set of specific examples, instead of applying the spirit of the guideline here. I suspect Avraham's biased comments about editors deceptively attacking an editor poisoned this discussion early. I don't blame Atama if he was influenced by Avraham's comments, as Avi is a Wikipedia bureaucrat after all, and greatly respected outside circumcision and related articles, biasing any attacks he makes greatly in his favour. Anyway, Atama said, "you'd have to indicate which outside interests he is advancing, and not only advancing, but advancing over the interests of the project — because it's possible that outside interests and WP would both want the same information included in an article." Yes, we do want some of the same information, but we want it interpreted neutrally. We don't want Jakew to read the following quote in a British Medical Association paper, "medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven," then edit a circumcision-related article to quote them as saying "medical harms [...] have not been unequivocally proven," (note the intentional redaction of "and benefits") as he did here apparently to create a counterpoint. We don't want to consistently have to have someone, usually me, checking the sources and making sure Jakew's edits are fixed to adhere to the Neutral point of view, which I did when I noticed it four days later. We can't have editors skewing what the British Medical Association says, advancing a proven personal interest. In the dispute over this addition (even properly quoted, its relevance is disputed in a statement on psychological effects), Jakew's defense of his edit rests on the novel assertion that "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects."[27] And no editor apparently has equal time or interest in the topic to verify the sources behind all of Jakew's prolific editing. Sadly, those who evidently have the time to do lots on Wikipedia, but not the inclination to oppose Jakew anytime, instead hound me on my contributions anywhere, on any topic, to the point of RfC'ing them: see here and here. Apparently for some high-level Wikipedia administrators, edits by Jakew are always right and don't need checking, and edits by Blackworm are always wrong and need immediate opposition.

We don't need to go through the examples to see that if Jakew is promoting his own interests (his proven interest being the publishing of authoritative material in a biased way in other to counter other perceived bias). It's not an exhaustive list. Whether he is doing it intentionally isn't the issue. Whether he is doing it over the interests of Wikipedia is ultimately up to Wikipedia. Maybe it is Wikipedia's interest to counter perceived existing bias (or perceived deception) with bias, as WP:CSB apparently suggests (and I also oppose, on the grounds that it is better to "avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another."WP:SOCK). Blackworm (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[This comment split my prior comment in two, so I moved it out. -Blackworm] Funny you bring that one up; firstly we ended up agreeing on the matter. Secondly, it may pay to see who devoted significantly more time to bring that article up to wikipedia standards. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please point to the diff where we ended up agreeing on the matter. We apparently implicitly agreed only that Jakew's redaction of "and benefits," apparently to avoid any unfavourable light cast on circumcision by his invalid counter-point, was in violation of WP:NPOV and inappropriate (though not you, Jakew, nor Coppertwig has ever commented on the redaction itself). Whether that article is "up to wikipedia standards" seems in dispute, so your second sentence is nonsensical. A nice clean, referenced pro-circumcision pamphlet isn't any improvement from a dirty mess of OR, or indeed a blank page. Blackworm (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you are. -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so glad I asked; I assumed you were referring to the "medical harms and benefits have not been proven" as a concocted counter-point to a statement on psychological effects. In the case you provide, you argued back and forth for at least four posts, posted an RfC, and only changed your mind after unanimous support for my position from others in the RfC. I'm glad you avoided appearing as the lone dissenter in a dispute -- it's quite marginalizing and no one wants to experience that. Blackworm (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that your first edit to that article came 17 minutes after my first edit to the article,[28] strongly suggesting that you watched my contributions and followed me to that article. You claimed that this odd case of countering me to an article unrelated to the topic of any of our previous interactions was due to our "overlapping interests;" that "we have many of the same pages watchlisted."[29] Since your first edit to the article came after mine, I praise you for your claim of watchlisting pages you've never edited, despite your already huge workload. Do you watch and read every edit to those articles, or just those by editors you claim "don't like" you?[30] Blackworm (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I believe Blackworm has mischaracterized what Jakew said. Blackworm said (in a comment above of 02:35, 16 July) "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive." I don't think Jakew said that. Blackworm, you may paraphrase what another editor said and introduce your paraphrase with "As I interpret it" or "My paraphrase is", etc., or you may say what the person actually said (same verb, same phrases etc) and introduce it with "as stated by" etc., or you may state that someone said something and provide words that would be acknowledged by the person themself, or by typical uninvolved Wikipedians, to be an accurate representation of what they said (though I don't recommend attempting this when discussing someone with a different POV; it's too difficult to get it right) but please don't do what I think you've done here: present your own paraphrase after "as stated by", as if that was what he had said. Since the option of verbatim quoting is always available, there is no excuse for mischaracterizing what Jake has said. If uninvolved editors make comments here based on such statements (which I believe to be incorrect), those comments may be invalid. Blackworm, your sentence may be ambiguous and confusing because it's not clear how much of the sentence is supposed to be described by "as stated by"; would Jake really state that he would counter "websites providing authoritative material", or would the "authoritative" part be your own description, rather than "as stated by" Jake? Please try to avoid writing sentences with those sorts of ambiguities. I'm not aware of Jake having made any statement about the purpose of CIRCS in which he called another website "deceptive". If Jake did say that, please provide a quote and link or citation.

I believe Blackworm is also mischaracterizing what Jakew said in this comment: "Jakew is open with the fact that he founded an outside organization, an outside group": I'm not aware of Jakew having stated that he founded an organization or group. I believe he has a website where he himself posts material, not an organization or group as far as I'm aware. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of mischaracterization, perhaps you should (a) note that Jake refers to himself as the "founder" of CIRCS,[31], and that (b) the "contact" link on www.circs.org has a page which says, "To contact us, please email [address]."[32][emphasis mine] The latter implies a group, not just Jake, unless Jake is using the "royal we." Also note the CIRCS contains both reproductions of sources, and original material putting circumcision in the best light: for example, "Anti-circumcision groups claim significant detrimental effects, though offer only anecdotal evidence."[33] The site refers to this original material penned by Jakew as "unbiased reviews of the literature."[34] One of the references he cites here (presumably part of what Jakew considers "the literature") suggests, "THE ONE AND ONLY LINK! "The Vacuum Pumpers Site."[35]

In partial reply to Blackworm's question: SlimVirgin was asked to comment here by Garycompugeek [36] as a result of SlimVirgin having posted at the ANI thread; I don't know who had asked SlimVirgin to comment at the ANI thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Who asked SlimVirgin to comment on the topic first, which you say you don't know, is the relevant question. Is someone in a position to inform us who it was? I appreciate the disclosure that one was asked to join a discussion, but it seems incomplete without saying by whom it was, and what prior work if any was done with that editor. Blackworm (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE WITH BIGGER AND BOLDER LETTERS: I believe Coppertwig is misrepresenting what I said. (For disclosure: User:Avraham works closely with Coppertwig and nominated Coppertwig for administrator here.) I said, "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive." Jakew said "One of the main reasons for creating CIRCS was my irritation at the one-sidedness of CIRP, in particular my view that it seemed superficially to be so comprehensive, yet presented such a distorted selection of the literature."[37] Is this "one-sidedness" of CIRP, while seeming "superficially to be so comprehensive," evidence of "deceptive activities?" If CIRP is "presenting such a distorted selection of the literature," is CIRP engaged in "deceptive activities?" I don't think it's any stretch to label what Jakew said about CIRP an accusation of deceptive activities. I believe your verbose comment above may be diverting attention away from the real issues. Please comment on Jakew's redaction of "and benefits" from a BMA quote put into the article, referred to above, instead.

Is CIRCS a group, or just Jakew? Does anyone else help run the website or does he do it all himself? Unknown to me. I admit I assumed it was a group or organization. As it turns out, it doesn't matter. Whether it's an interest of an organization, a group, or a personal interest taking precedence over Wikipedia's interest, it's a COI, per WP:COI. Maybe Jakew's personal interest stops at using his own resources to create a website and publish selected authoritative material in order to counter real or perceived anti-circumcision bias in other online sources: he wrote, "So I decided to focus, in general, on papers that were not available at CIRP, the idea being that for any given subject, the index pages for CIRP + CIRCS should be complete (or if not complete then at least not leave out too many important papers)."[38] The importance of the papers "completing" the online sources, of course, being judged by Jakew. But how is Jakew's judgment?

We recall the BMA quote redacted above as evidence of what Jakew considers important and unimportant. As you also may recall, Jakew states for example, while arguing an edit, "The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept that very few reliable sources even mention, let alone pay significant attention to."[39] In contrast, the British Medical Association states, "In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."[40] User:Avraham deleted the latter BMA quote when it was referenced in the article, pointing to Jakew's argument, which boils down to "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects."[41]. That novel assertion is the basis for the current disputed article content. Apparently, if Jakew was not able to make this concocted counter-point (in which Jakew just happened to redact the words "and benefits," avoiding the BMA stating that medical benefits have also not been proven, and getting in the way of his created counter-point), Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether. I personally don't believe either of them should be judging what is appropriate for any circumcision-related articles, based on these proven failures of neutral presentation. Blackworm (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bigger and bolder letters , you do make me chuckle, Blackworm. Nice attempt at argumentum ad hominem above. And yes, it was primarily Coppertwig's demonstration of the patience of Job when dealing with you that convinced me of Coppertwig's appropriateness as a sysop; and I'd be honored to renominate whenever Coppertwig wants. I recall that you yourself supported Coppertwig, praising an "outstanding neutrality." Have you changed your mind? -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. And by the way your trademarked one-line dismissal suffers from the usual complete lack of substance -- it's not at all ad hominem, and the diff links above prove it, to any editor who hasn't already assumed that you must be right since you're a wiki-bureaucrat. The patience of dealing with me? On the contrary, Coppertwig helped me defend myself from the very similar accusations of inappropriate behaviour levelled at me by a novice editor in female genital cutting, who was attempting to edit Wikipedia in violation of core policies. He chose to instead aid the attack against me when yourself and User:Jayjg, two senior administrators, were the ones accusing me of inappropriate behaviour while themselves editting Wikipedia in violation of core policies. That was a sad day indeed. Blackworm (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And yes, the point of "bigger, bolder note" was to show how Coppertwig's prior "Note" at the start of his post in bold, apparently says to the reader, "this is more important than what was previously said, so read this first." I did not appreciate it. There is no reason for the reader to particularly "note" Coppertwig's comment, which further as I show above seems tangential and irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So now you are saying that when someone prefaces their comments with a header saying NOTE that it calls into askance what came before? Thank you for once again demonstrating that you prefer to deal in semantics as opposed to content. -- Avi (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, I said it served to draw undue attention to one's comment. Why does Coppertwig believe we should particularly note his disagreement? It's not that big an issue, however. Blackworm (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, someone e-mailed me initially to draw my attention to the issue. I believe they wanted someone uninvolved to look at it. I can assure you that I believe I can see both sides of the issue here. I'm not at all educated about circumcision, but I feel I do know enough about the COI guideline. Can you say more about what Jake is doing exactly in real life that you feel gives rise to a COI? (But please only post information that you know Jake is comfortable with having revealed; otherwise, please e-mail it to me.) As things stand, there really is no evidence that Jake is putting his own interests above those of Wikipedia. I agree that the edit you linked to above is not ideal—I can't find it now, but it's the one where an ellipsis was used to replace a relevant word—but it's the kind of error that anyone can make. You'd need to show a series of such edits before it would be fair to call it anything but an error, and even then, you wouldn't necessarily have shown a COI. POV can exist without a COI, and COI without a POV. It seems that your main beef here is non-neutral editing, and (not commenting on whether it's an accurate allegation) it might be better to address that through mediation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Who was it that e-mailed you? What is your prior relationship to them, if any? I've already detailed Jakew's conflicting interests above, as I said the first time you asked the question, and so I'm hard pressed to understand why you are asking the question a second time after it was answered. Blackworm (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Blackworm, this is neither Dragnet nor are you Perry Mason. Frankly, your obvious grasping at straws for anything to buttress your repeatedly repudiated attempts to create the image of some kind of conspiracy has now sunk to the level of impugning other's integrity, yet again. If you would like some evidence of an open coalition bent on trying to affect public opinion, let me direct your attention here, here, here, and here, for starters. For someone who is quick to claim NPA at times when multiple other editors agree there were none, you do not seem phased about making accusations, implied or otherwise, yourself. Are there different standards for genital integritists and all others? -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped not to comment on this thread, but I feel that I must correct some misrepresentations made by Blackworm in this edit. According to Blackworm, Avraham deleted the BMA quote, pointing to my argument. This would have been impressive, given that Avraham's edit was made some 5 hours before my argument was made! And the facts flatly contradict, for example, Blackworm's claim that "if Jakew was not able to make this concocted counter-point [...] Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether". Let's briefly examine the actual course of events.

What actually happened was that an edit war took place between 20:18, May 24, 2009 and 05:55, May 25, 2009, involving Blackworm, Avraham, and an IP.[42] [43] [44] [45] [46] In essence, the dispute was over (initially) Blackworm's addition of an selected quote from the BMA, which Avraham reverted, arguing that "quoting one part of the BMA and not the other is improper". Meanwhile, a discussion was taking place (at, oddly, Talk:Circumcision). The relevance of the "medical harms or benefits" sentence seems to have first been mentioned in talk at 20:47, May 24, 2009, but this was also mentioned in an edit summary at 20:46, May 26, 2009 20:46, May 24, 2009 (fixed 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)). My first involvement with this dispute was at 08:57, May 25, 2009. Here I made the edit Blackworm mentions, hoping to find a compromise between the two extremes. My edit summary reads: "let's quote both parts, shall we?" Shortly after, at 09:42, May 25, 2009, I also made my first comment on the issue. Blackworm later edited to (among other things) replace the ellipsis with the full quotation at 09:13, May 29, 2009.

As the above diffs show, Blackworm's version of events is misleading, to say the least. And although Blackworm has done his best to portray my edit as rogue POV pushing on my part, I believe it is clear from the context that it was, in fact, an attempt to calm an edit war. Since I view Blackworm's objections to my edit as fundamentally a content dispute, I don't intend to discuss the edit itself here, but I would be pleased to discuss it with anyone at the appropriate place. To my knowledge, Blackworm has not raised the issue of the ellipsis at any article talk page; I am somewhat disappointed that he raised the issue here without apparently making a good-faith attempt to discuss the issue first. Jakew (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A 3K response, and you still haven't enlightened us as to why you read a major source saying "medical harms and benefits have not been proven" and chose to quote them as saying "medical harms [...] have not been proven." I think there's a simple answer, that is that you believe that "The medical benefits of circumcision include [list of benefits]",[47], in contrast to the BMA's position. Seem logical. Your POV is better represented than major medical organizations' views throughout the articles, through carefully chosen misrepresentations of this sort. The "compromise" "between the two extremes" seems to be between your POV on what the BMA should be saying, and what the BMA actually said. The edit, along with many others like it, shows POV editing; your outside one-sided circumcision-related lobbying shows there is a COI between your personal interests and Wikipedia's.

Nothing above shows anything misleading on my part. I pointed incorrectly to your argument (and not the link you included after "According to Blackworm" -- talk about misleading). Fact is it was Avi's own argument, which you then defended saying "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects," which is the novel interpretation you use to concoct the counter-point you both felt was necessary. I'll amend my previous statement to say, "if Avraham was not able to make this concocted counter-point, Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether."

"An attempt to calm an edit war" -- how hilarious. Your edit served precisely one side of the edit war: Avi's side. I don't remember in the hundreds of edits both of you have made to circumcision, a single disagreement between you, or a single case where one did not express complete support for the other when any of your edits were disputed. You are the #1 and #2 editors of the circumcision article, unanimous on all edits, including massively non-neutral ones like this. Your argument is Avi's argument and vice-versa; they are invariably interchangeable as you invariably defend each others' contested edits and tag team the opposition. But you are right, Avi did not point to your argument; he pointed to his own flawed argument that you defended with a nonsensical assertion about psychological effects being medical effects. Not really a relevant difference.

There was no need to "discuss" that edit as it was clearly a massive NPOV violation that Avraham was not going to correct (thus not an isolated "error"). The only need was to fix your misrepresentation of the BMA's position immediately. Secondary, there exists a less immediate need to remove your and Avi's counter-point, premised on WP:OR ("psychological is medical!" (paraphr.)) that is quite easily shown to be false (as I showed using reliable sources).

And to you, Avi, the only thing creating an image of conspiracy is the refusal of SlimVirgin to say who directed SlimVirgin to this dispute, combined with your indignant attitude toward the mere asking of the question. My experience is that in 95% of cases, when one editor asks another editor to comment on a dispute, having a prior relationship with that editor, the second editor will agree completely with the first. I thus tend to consider such references as "involved" rather than "uninvolved." Is that the case here? Perhaps we'll never know. Blackworm (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, classic Blackworm, when faced by facts, attack the messenger. Now the claim is I *am* Jake? /sigh. I'm simultaneously glad and sad this had to spill over here. Glad, in that your pattern of mixing content and ad hominem attacks, accusing others of things you do (NPA etc.) can be seen by editors outside genitalia-related articles, but sad that we had to inflict thousands of bytes of this stuff on editors who are trying to wade through COI reports. Once again, in a nutshell, you Blackworm, are vividly and incorrectly conflating POV with COI. No one else has; all other editors responding here have been clear. I'm not certain what else there is left to do. -- Avi (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please strike or refactor your statement that I claim you to be Jakew, as it is unfounded. I didn't claim you are Jake, I said your argument is Jakew's argument, in the general case. You have been vocally unanimous for years (along with User:Jayjg, who I've not seen around recently), both about content and the claimed misdeeds of editors, always or virtually always, in a milieu with lots of controversy otherwise. If "no one else has," what is the mistake the other two editors claiming a COI are making? Has Garycompugeek not responded here as well? Is he part of the "all other editors" you are referring to? Why do you often claim I'm alone in my view when it's documented to be false? Blackworm (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you seem to agree that Jakew edits the articles to reflect his (and your) POV, however. Blackworm (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi your personal attacks and belittlement to Blackworm does little to help this situation. I agree that you and Jake appear to tag team and control this article and I feel your status as an admin/crat scares others off who might otherwise confront you. Yes the article is influenced by your combined POV violating NPOV in subtle ways as Blackworm points out above. You say we are confusing NPOV with COI while I say the NPOV is a direct result of Jakes COI. Your strident defense of Jake whom you always support is no surprise and merely strengthens our tag team argument. Tremello also has supported the COI allegations although it seems always the same lines drawn in the sand. Pro circ editors (Jake, Avi, Coppertwig, and sometime Jayjg) against the con circ editors (Blackworm, Tremello, myself, and sometimes Tip when he hasn't lost his temper and gotten blocked). Where do we go from here? I would like some outside comment on this thread and think maybe a RFC at the village pump or ANI should bring in some outside comments. I will post any RFC request here so everyone knows where others maybe coming from. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's another, related issue that I'd appreciate outside opinions on here.

It's one thing if the Wikipedian community decides that someone has a COI and, on that basis, decides to ask them respectfully to follow certain specified restrictions. It's another thing entirely if an individual editor decides that someone they're in a content dispute with has a COI, and, on that basis, decides to post a comment to the article talk page speculating on the person's inability to see an alleged imbalance (for example here; a ridiculous comment, in my opinion, given Jake's egregious (in my opinion) intelligence and detachment; and tantamount to impugning his ability to think clearly).

As I explained at ANI, I don't think there's a problem with COI, but I think there's a serious problem at the circumcision pages with repeated accusations of COI.

Wikipedia is supposed to be welcoming to experts, but instead of a pleasant working environment, Jake has been subjected to a long series of comments and insinuations, for several years, about his alleged motives, alleged POV, alleged COI and now alleged inability to see imbalance. He has already at one point been driven away from the project for about two or three months [48] by such comments. Given Jake's extremely detailed knowledge of the scientific literature about circumcision, the extensive work that still remains to be done writing the circumcision subarticles, and also Jake's contributions in other areas of the project, it would be a significant loss for Wikipedia if Jake were to leave. I've been trying to encourage editors to comment on content, not on the contributor; WP:COI says "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."; I would appreciate comments from uninvolved editors as to the application of this principle in this situation.

To save space here, I've posted responses to some comments by Blackworm and Avi on my own talk page. [49] By the way, if Jake has a COI, in my opinion several other editors of the page have even more of a COI, judging by apparent extremity of POV, dedication to their POV, and tendency for their POV, rather than solely information solidly based on sources, to be evident in their article edits Re Gary's comment: Jake doesn't consider "pro circ" an accurate label for himself [50] and I don't consider it an accurate label for myself. (I am an involved editor. Avi, Blackworm, Garycompugeek, Jakew, Tremello22 and myself are regular editors of the Circumcision page.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost

• DreamHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs)
• Judas278 (talk · contribs)

DreamHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a long-running dispute over the nature of the information presented. As part of that dispute, one of the other editors and I have been accused of having a conflict of interest. We're both customers of DH, and Scjessey (talk · contribs), the other editor, is a sysop on their wiki. Does this present a COI? Likewise, does declaring yourself as a disgruntled ex-customer present one? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a totally unfounded accusation. I've followed a bit of the DreamHost dispute, in reading arguments from both sides, both in the recent AfD and on the talk page of the article, though I've stayed out of that dispute. I see that there has been some long-term animosity going on between editors and it's really unfortunate. But WP:COI gives a pretty good idea of what constitutes a conflict of interest in Wikipedia and I can't see even a hint of that here. All that being an ex-customer, or current customer, might mean is that you might have a POV regarding the company from your experiences, but that POV doesn't equate to a COI. Neither does being an editor of a wiki devoted to DreamHost (as long as the wiki isn't run by DreamHost and the sysop isn't a DreamHost employee). Let's set aside for a moment what it is that the COI guideline says and just use a little common sense here. If any of the editors were determined to have a COI based on that criteria, then that would mean that someone who runs a Naruto fan wiki can't edit a Naruto article, or someone who owns or once owned a cell phone from Verizon can't freely edit the Verizon article. With no offense to any editors involved, that's possibly the weakest claim of a COI that I've seen on this board and if that claim was accepted it would set a dangerous precedent as to who could and couldn't freely edit certain articles on Wikipedia. Not to mention that people who have had direct experience with a company or product are often going to be the people most interested in editing the article, or most able to make informed edits in the article, and as long as they follow WP:NPOV no harm is done. On the contrary, telling such people that they can't contribute to the articles would cause many articles to go dormant. -- Atama^chat 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also add that I read the bit about accusing Scjessey of a COI because of "compensation". As long as he isn't specifically paid to promote DreamHost there shouldn't be any COI, just being compensated for referrals isn't that unusual. I fail to see the logic; so supposedly Scjessey intends to keep the Wikipedia page free of criticism, to make it easier to get his friends to join the service, so he can get some cash, that's the suspicion? That's really pushing it. I have to say, too, with no criticism against any specific editor involved in that dispute but you couldn't pay me to get involved on that article's talk page. It would be like getting involved in an argument between two bitter divorcees. Feel free to quote me over there but I don't want to visit! -- Atama^chat 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. "Disgruntled" is the term used by pro-company editors. Ex-customer is the term used by ex-customers.

Scjessey is a sysop of DreamHost's own company documentation wiki, not of a fan site.

More than this independent editor: recently concluded he edited as though he Owned the DreamHost article.

He benefits financially from the company's success. He promotes their referral codes on his own web sites and DreamHost's discussion forum. Presumably he recommends DreamHost to his web development clients.

He is creator of an off-wiki web site intended to influence or discourage participation, including at Wikipedia, by “outing” personal information and user names of those who disagreed with him.

He recently apologized for recruiting meat puppets in 2006.

In 2007, rlparker, another DreamHost wiki "sysop", defended Scjessey against COI claims, and went on to get hired by the company.

He is known as one of their biggest fans.

He has publicly lobbied the company for a job with them One, Two, Three.

Distinguishing his edits from an editor paid to edit would be difficult, in my opinion. If this isn't an example of COI, I can't imagine what is, other than editing your own (auto)biography. Judas278 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While some of these facts are true, many are false and most are presented in a ludicrously one-sided or deliberately misleading manner. I am not sure "he is known as one of their biggest fans" will hold up to much scrutiny, for example. For the convenience of interested parties, I have created this document (which I have linked-to from my user page) to explain my position. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Judas278, you are doing nothing to advance the position that WP:COI applies here. What you're presenting amounts to saying "Scjessey is a bad person". Even being "one of their biggest fans" doesn't show a COI. Please re-read what is in the guideline. This isn't WP:AN and bringing up a laundry list of misdeeds doesn't have anything to do with a conflict of interest. I'm not at all defending anything that Scjessey has done, or the way he has edited the DreamHost article, all that I am saying is that the specific accusation of a conflict of interest does not seem to apply here. If his edits show that he is trying to own the article, or has a pro-DreamHost POV, those are certainly bad but again don't show a conflict of interest. Either Scjessey would have to disclose that he has a conflict of interest by being associated with the company itself, or you'd have to "catch" him in some kind of close association and nobody has done this. A COI could derive from a person being paid to promote the company (not simply to be paid for signing people up like every other DreamHost customer), or by him being an employee or having any other solid self-interest in the company, but not because he likes the company. In other words, if pushing a POV would directly benefit him there is a COI. No direct benefit, financial or otherwise, can be shown. -- Atama^chat 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He was one of only a few customers granted sysop status of the company's own wiki. This is a close association. Concrete example: One day an owner of the company says "the wikipedia article for dreamhost refers to our panel pretty negatively". Right away, Scjessey tries to delete the sourced info with the dubious edit summary "removed inaccurate info". Judas278 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The information was incorrect. I removed it, and later replaced it with properly-sourced, more accurate information. You insinuate that I was performing some function on behalf of DreamHost, but you can offer no proof that this was the case - just a guess. All I was doing was improving the quality and accuracy of the article, which is entirely appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article history shows another editor prevented your complete deletion, and subsequent versions were substantially similar to what you attempted to delete. The circumstantial evidence shows you attempted to do exactly what the company owner asked. Judas278 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Back at Talk:DreamHost, another uninvolved administrator appears to disagree with your interpretation on this specific edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The example given here is two years old, correct? Scjessey has admitted his previous COI, and more editors than ever are currently watching and working on this page. A COI tag isn't a scarlet letter, and since I've been watching the page, Scjessey seems to be working for consensus. I don't see what the current complaint is, other than he made a mistake two years ago. This seems like an SPA determined not to let a productive editor live down an old mistake. Dayewalker (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He wants a job with the company. Being their wiki sysop and defending the company here at wikipedia is part of a demonstrated path to a job. That's a direct benefit he hopes to gain by pushing the POV. Judas278 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd better watch it Judas278, that's close to libel. I'd suggest redacting that ASAP. Look, here's the thing, I'm just a regular editor, my only "qualifications" in this matter is that I have no attachment to that company, the article, or to any of the editors here, and I think I have a decent grasp on WP:COI. Disagree with me or not, but I gave my opinion. Maybe someone else who's uninvolved will chime in. In any case these attacks don't belong here (or probably anywhere else on Wikipedia but definitely not here). -- Atama^chat 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but it seems safe to say he has no problem with what's said. Sorry it looks like attacks, but POV pushing happened, and plausible reasons appear. The fact he refuses in advance to boldly state how much he earns from DreamHost indicates it could be conflicting amounts. Judas278 (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How much I earn is none of your business, and it makes no difference to how I edit. As a former DreamHost customer, you will also have been enrolled in the same referral scheme (and perhaps still are, since becoming an ex-customer does not cancel your rewards account). It would be no more appropriate to demand an exposure of your earnings than it would be to demand an exposure of mine. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Judas278, he said he didn't have a problem with people knowing that he'd like to work at DreamHost. He didn't "admit" that he's scheming to improve the DreamHost article in some desire to impress DreamHost enough to hire him. Frankly, that's the worst case of a failure to assume good faith that I've seen for some time and it's shameful. I have no interest in any of this mudslinging, but it seems to me that your insistence on a COI is motivated by your personal grudge against him and has no place here. I don't think any uninvolved editor could see your agenda as anything more than that. -- Atama^chat 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking to Sarek's original question: If anyone involved will realize a real-world benefit from how the article appears, then they have a potential COI. Note that a real world benefit can also involve having the article reflect poorly on the company as well as having appear free from all criticism. Being a self-declared "disgruntled customer" can place one in the former category, but more likely than COI is the difficulty in maintaining a neutral tone if you are admittedly disgruntled. Being the Sysop of the company Wiki, to me, starts to tread the line of "close relationship to the subject", as there is a demonstrable business connection, paid or not. If the wiki is independent of the company, but dedicated to it, then its a grey area... I'd want to review the wiki for how neutrally they present things. (I've seen this wiki referred to both as the company's wiki, and an independent one, so I'm talking in somewhat general terms here).

I tend to see freely acknowledging such connections, as he has done in this case, to be evidence of a desire to contribute in good faith however. On the flip-side, trying to drill into one's motives too deeply treads the line on WP:OUTING, and leads to personal attacks which have no place here.

The proverbial acid test would be to ask yourself (using the general "you") honestly: Do you "want" the article to appear a certain way for any reason other than to provide a neutrally written, factual, verifiable article? Whether another reason is to "get" the company for whatever past reasons, or to make the article balance out with what the company's official line is... any other reason means your interests are split between Wikipedia and another entity. Arakunem^Talk 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

View by an uninvolved administrator

I think Scjessey needs to be careful not to attempt to overwhelm other editors at DreamHost, and not to become a means for the company to perform any sort of whitewashing. With due care, they should be allowed to continue editing the article. I have seen no recent diffs evidencing persistent violations of WP:NPOV. (But feel free to point them out to me if they might exist). Scjessey has revealed their identity and connections for all to scrutinize. That is a strong sign of good faith. Next, I will look at the Judas account to see how they stack up. Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Judas278 is a single purpose account that tendentiously advocates an anti-DreamHost POV. They have repeatedly crossed the line into personal attacks and have helped create a battlezone environment at the DreamHost article. I believe they should be blocked indefinitely to prevent further disruption, at least until such time as they agree to change their editing habits. This assessment in no way exonerates the editors Judas278 has been in conflict with. It is quite possible that there have been faults on both sides. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While reviewing Judas, you might want to review my question about a possible previous account and his response that he was "await[ing] direction or questions from Arbitrators or impartial authorities."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, Judas278 (talk · contribs) does appear to be related to Guantanamo247 (talk · contribs). This does look strongly like a single purpose account for harassing and wikihounding Scjessey. Again, these findings do not exonerate Scjessey from any of their faults. Jehochman ^Talk 17:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment above. I can assure you that there is no motivation for me to "whitewash" anything, and there is nobody pulling my metaphorical strings. With respect to ownership concerns, I think you will find that I am a very prolific editor on any of the articles on my watchlist, and the small number of regular editors at DreamHost increases my "presence percentage", if you get my drift. With all that said, I would be happy to scale back my involvement once conflicts and disputes have been resolved. Wikipedia is a huge playground, and I have no wish to monopolize the monkey bars when all sorts of other attractions are available! By the way, just to clarify my "sysop" status on DreamHost's wiki - it is almost entirely associated with vandalism problems (spam pages being deleted, etc.). You can see from my recent contributions that my role is very minimal, and I receive no compensation for it (other than the glorious satisfaction of blocking a spammer from time to time). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Guantanamo247 is a known sockpuppet of a longtime troll on the DreamHost boards. Interesting.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Typingwestern015 self-advertising

Resolved

 – There seems to be no malicious intent, editor will use another site for his novel information. -- Atama^chat 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Typingwestern015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using his userspace as a webhost for a raft of tables and other data about a science fiction novel he is writing, and has now inserted ads for the novel into the talk pages of a couple of articles. See the links from his talk page for the painful details. Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that this editor is abusing Wikipedia, possibly because he doesn't understand our policies. He's using it to promote his novel, as a place to work on his novel, and as a place to request feedback from other Wikipedia users about his work in progress. Especially telling is his complaint on his talk page that nobody is visiting "his site". Someone seriously needs to set him straight about the fact that Wikipedia is about the encyclopedia and only about the encyclopedia and nobody has the freedom to use it to advance any personal projects they have that are seperate from the encyclopedia. Trying to make his subpages look like stub articles isn't going to hide what he's doing; those aren't potential articles, they're notes for his personal work. I'm sure there are other places on the web that will accomodate what he's doing but Wikipedia isn't one of them. -- Atama^chat 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I get it. It isn't right to post personal info on articles or spam on any page. I never unknowingly plagarized before. I almost decided to quit, but no. I will press on with only editing useful articles, instead of creating useless beyond belief articles. In fact, delete these articles for me, as they are also associated with my novel:

User:Typingwestern015/The War Amongst the States/The Disadvantage of Digital · User:Typingwestern015/Nuclear volcanic meltdown · User:Typingwestern015/The War Amongst the States/Timeline · User:Typingwestern015/Zantrax System

If it's possible, can I still post novel info on just my master user page? If not, I will not. I am sorry for this problem. But remember, my science fiction novel will still be published, so don't forget that. Typingwestern015 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's something of a grey area. WP:UP gives you an idea of what should and shouldn't be allowed on your user page. Specifically, WP:UP#NOT gives you an idea of what shouldn't be there, and it includes "substantial content ... that is unrelated to Wikipedia". So I would be tempted to say a brief blurb about your book is fine, the key word from above being "substantial". I think the fact that you're an author is relevant to Wikipedia, I see people talking about their pets and favorite TV shows on their user pages so it doesn't necessarily have to be all about Wikipedia things. Just don't go into long detail about the book and you're probably fine. Somebody else might take a stricter view and demand you not mention it at all but I don't think you'd have to worry about it too much. Oh, also if you want those subpages deleted (which is probably a good idea) just put {{db-author}} on the top of the page and that adds a template that says the author of the page is requesting a deletion. An administrator should come by before long to delete it. Thanks for coming here and commenting! -- Atama^chat 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of sentences to the effect that you are writing a book would be OK, a detailed summary or the novel itelf, definitely not. It matters not that the novel with be published, so long as you do not use Wikipedia to promote it, directly or indirectly. – ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add, good luck with the novel, I hope it's a best-seller! -- Atama^chat 21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And if it is, someone will probably write an article about it! – ukexpat (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But the problem is, where can I put up my book info? Do I have to start a new website or something like that? Typingwestern015 (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All I can tell you is not here, here means wikipedia and the wiki project as a whole. If your book is a best seller and someone wrote about it in multiple reliable sources, then an wikipedia page could be set up for your book. If not, you can use a blog or website or facebook or something other than wikipedia. You can also try wikia, a lot of people started their own wikipedia-like site over there, I do not know their policies, but seems like you can at least try. MythSearcher^talk 16:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're in Madison, right? Do you attend the local S.F. fan gatherings, from the Wednesday night meetup to OddCon and Wiscon? That's where you'd make the industry contacts. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I live in Tulare County, in California, so I can't be in Wisconsin anytime soon. So far, the only book written about anyplace near my location is Lucifer's Hammer, in Porterville, California, and, at that time, Porterville became a swampy marsh. It will just be a matter of time before Tulare County is recognized for something good. Typingwestern015 (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ihor Podolchak

Ihor Podolchak seems to be extensively edited by the subject, as Ihorp (talk · contribs) and several IP addresses. Also affected is Las Meninas (film), his first film. I don't really know how to treat this sort of thing, so I will leave it to those of you more experienced in the subject. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This was reported before on this board, months ago. Nothing was really done at that time. Right now it looks like Ihorp isn't editing much anymore. The best way to proceed would just be to clean up the articles, which are a huge mess, and keep an eye out to be sure that the IP addresses and Ihorp don't get involved any longer. -- Atama^chat 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

J.E.S.Lawrence

J.E.S.Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has been almost exclusively authored by User talk:Jeslw who has edited only one other page (see below) and could reasonably be presumed to be the same person. From their Talk Page they look to have been previously responsible for creating /being the main editor of John E.S. Lawrence which was speedily deleted in 2007. The current article was also reported on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2009, Apr 11 and is only linked from one other article, Human Resources where there is also reference to an academic article which appears to be authored by the same editor and which has been also added by them. Please could someone advise on the appropriate next steps, thanks Tmol42 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To be complete here I should have also referred to the request for clarification on Talk:J.E.S.Lawrence from User talk:Jeslw about the tagging of the article as being poorly sourced in October / November 2009Tmol42 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a COI warning on the editor's talk page, and I've tagged the article for COI issues and self-published references. The article, by the way, is now being redirected to John E.S. Lawrence. The article itself is a mess and I wonder about its inclusion, an AfD might be in order. Maybe. There's nothing in GNews about the man, but he has a presence in GBooks and GScholar so might meet WP:BIO. I'm not sure at this point. -- Atama^chat 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicolas Pompigne-Mognard

• Nicolas Pompigne-Mognard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nicolaspm1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The notability of this person is questionable, but more importantly, the article appears to be an autobiography. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rawhide Boys Ranch

Rawhide Boys Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On (or around, depending on local time) 3 July Rawhide1683 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a WP:SPA) introduced a large amount of information (approx 1k→11k) copied from the Rawhide Boys Ranch's website (www.rawhide.org) to this article. After a couple of bot-reverts & a revert of mine suggesting COI, this user stopped editing (and was later blocked as a promotional username) and Bingo478 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (another, newly-created, SPA on this article) took over restoring the same material ([51][52]), indicating that this new editor was likely a WP:SOCK of Rawhide1683. The article was eventually speedy deleted (now restored to allow me to link to the edit history) as blatant advertising. Bingo478 has now recreated this article, sourced almost entirely to the Rawhide Boys Ranch website. I would suggest that this is fairly strong evidence of COI on Bingo478's part, and suggests that the main purpose for the recreated article is probably WP:ADVERT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest taking this to WP:SPI, it's obvious that Bingo478 is a sock. I'm removing the proposed deletion tag from the article because the deletion is being contested by Bingo478, and you can't WP:PROD an article if anyone has a serious objection. I've restored the G11 speedy deletion tag instead, because it clearly qualifies, and G12 could also apply. -- Atama^chat 19:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than the COI aspect on this one topic/article, I'm not sure that the sock aspect is really that problematical. It is inherent in blocking a username as 'promotional' (as Rawhide1683 was), that creating a new, non-promotional username is permissible. So what would the effect of a successful WP:SPI be in this case? In any case, the deletion of the article (and thus its edit history) effectively vanishes the evidence of the relationship between the two, making a SPI problematical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave it some more thought, along the same lines you've suggested. They just created a new account with a non-promotional username, which is appropriate. In that sense, the new account isn't even really a sock, it's more like a username change, so a sock investigation isn't appropriate. It's probably not appropriate to call the editor a sock puppet either. The article has been deleted in any case. I hope that settles this issue. -- Atama^chat 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It has occured to me that Bingo478 was created five days before Rawhide1683 was blocked, making its creation far less innocent-looking. In any case, given the continued shenanigans over this article, I have made a SPI report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rawhide1683. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has just been recreated again, via a request at WP:AFC, in an apparently identical form. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawhide Boys Ranch. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP that requested the WP:AFC recreation (and had also edited previous incarnations), 12.54.62.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), is registered to "RAWHIDE INC". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Cansolv

Resolved

 – Editor indef blocked. -- Atama^chat 21:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This user attempted to create a company article, which I promptly deleted on copyvio and ad grounds, but his account name and username are the same. I left a message on his talk page explain the problem with his username and his article, and suggested he read through WP:USERNAME before doing any more editing. I'm hoping that he will ask for a name change, but as it is better to be safe then sorry I am serving notice of the account here on the off chance its operator attempts to recreate the Consolv company article. If that happens, then block the account. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suspect they are planning to recreate it sometime, as seen at this page where they've recreated the article on a subpage. The real issue is this; does Cansolv (the editor) plan on contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way or is their aim merely to promote the company? If the former, they deserve the benefit of the doubt but if the latter they should be blocked. We'll have to see what they do next I suppose. -- Atama^chat 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll never know, that subpage was speedily deleted as G11 and the user is indef blocked. It's probably for the best, their aims seemed bent on promotion from the beginning. -- Atama^chat 21:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but I was trying to assuming good faith; even the best of us were new and awkward once upon a time. I suppose that being blocked is for the best, but all things considered I would have preferred we wait and see if he came around. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Serena Harragin

• Sharragin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Promotional account, as the user has edited exclusively in Serena Harragin, while including unsourced edits on other actors' articles by wikilinking to her page. User reverted my cleanup and neutrality of the article (since restored) without any explanation in the edit summary. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sharrigan has added, then re-added some inappropriate external links to the article, which you've done a good job of cleaning up. Your warnings on their talk page seem appropriate to me. If they protest your changes or continue to try to revert, further warnings would probably be warranted; it might merit a mention at WP:AIV if they persist past a final vandalism warning. It does depend on the exact nature of their edits, however. Repeatedly adding inappropriate external links after warnings could certainly be considered vandalism. -- Atama^chat 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

FNC, Inc.

→ See also: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FNC, Inc. (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Could someone please take a look at the article on my user page. I have revised it several times due to conflict of interest and open marketing or something like that. I am open to any suggestions and my main concern is contributing this bit of information.

Please let me know if I should make more changes or if I am now complying with Wikipedia. I feel like this article is good to go now but I can't be sure.

Wfgillis (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wfgillis first asked me for advice about this in May. I restored and userfied the original FNC, Inc. page then as User:Wfgillis/FNC draft, but he (she?) did not edit it during the following weeks and I re-deleted it in June.

I invite other administrators to use the view/restore function via the page log to compare previous revisions of the article to the current userpage version. — Athaenara ✉ 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

[see this log for user page — Athaenara ✉ 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)]

(edit conflict) It's tough. I took a look at it, and while it's not worded to be incredibly promotional, it just doesn't seem all that "encyclopedic". It's clear you put a lot of work and thought into it, but honestly if you're involved with the company the best way to comply with Wikipedia is to not try to get the article created at all. The advice I see given to editors with a conflict of interest who want to have an article created, is that if the company is notable enough an article should appear. The real question is, "Why?" Why do you want the article created? If you were an editor with no ties to the company, who wanted to add information about it just because you thought it would be of interest to readers, then you could proceed, but if you want to add it because you think that the world should know more about the company, that's advertising no matter how you write the article. Having said that, your desire to comply with Wikipedia's COI guidelines is commendable. I'll look up your company to see if it's notable per WP:CORP. I'm not saying your company shouldn't have an article, not yet, but it doesn't seem right for you to create it. -- Atama^chat 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. My main concern is complying with Wikipedia's guidelines. This is not about marketing or trying to get the name out there, that part is already taken care of. My main reason was to inform. So I was wondering about the language. What do you think I could change to make it more "encyclopedic". Now that I understand more about Wikipedia, and what it stands for and its goals, I simply want to comply. Thanks again for your help and I am hoping we can continue to move forward with this.

Wfgillis (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just had my userpage deleted. Not sure how to fix this but I thought by putting my info there, I could make it accessible to admins to view and help me. Let me know if I did something wrong. Wfgillis (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's great that you are being cooperative, thanks for that. Here's my suggestion... Go to the Articles for Creation page. Put in your request, and explain that you are an employee of the company and feel that the article deserves to be included but that because of COI concerns it isn't appropriate for you to create it yourself. If someone agrees with you that the company deserves to be created then they can do so without any COI concerns. From that point on, if the article is created, you can certainly suggest whatever changes you feel should be made on the article's talk page, if you see something incorrect that should be removed or changed or if you have additional information to add. Generally it's fine if you notice blatant vandalism on the main article page you can remove it, as well as fixing minor typos, but editing the page beyond that might be questioned due to your conflict of interest. I wish you luck! -- Atama^chat 21:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Integration Point, Inc., et al

Jmiles1107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created a whole pile of articles using sources which are either written by Integration Point, by employees of Integration Point, or seem in some other way to be related to Integration Point:

• Integration Point, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (previously deleted)
• Global Classification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 10 + 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Entry Visibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Denied Trade Screening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In addition, s/he has copies of most of these (or parts of them) in his/her userspace:

• User:Jmiles1107/10+2
• User:Jmiles1107/FTA
• User:Jmiles1107/SCC
• User:Jmiles1107/DTS
• User:Jmiles1107/GCS
• User:Jmiles1107/EV
• User:Jmiles1107/Integration Point, Inc. (I moved this one there as it was previously at his/her userpage)

It appears likely that Jmiles1107 is somehow directly connected to Integration Point, and is therefore here only to promote the company and closely related topics created by this account. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Robertredfern (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User edited twice more after warning and is now indef blocked. Rees11 (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Robert Redfern makes a living selling Serratiopeptidase, and has bee blocked repeatedly for attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise this product.

He has recently continued this behaviour. [53].

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you happen to know why there's a sockpuppet template on that editor's user page? I can't see where an SPI case has been opened and there are no indications of which accounts are supposed to be sockpuppets. -- Atama^chat 21:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he might have IP socked to avoid a block. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo Flash

• Bflash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buffalo Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kimberly Brandão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User's name and contributions seem to suggest an SPA for the Buffalo Flash soccer team. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Prometheus Group

Prometheus Group is attempting to create a wiki page to enumerate our ties to SAP, however, in the creation of this page, the original editor was not aware of Wikipedia's COI policies and filled the article with advertising/promotion.

I'm trying to rectify this page and remove all advertising/promotion, however, in the midst of the fight my account has been flaggged as a sock puppet of the original user who violated the COI policy). Both deletion of the article and flagging of my account was by the administrator Athaenara who suggested that I bring this issue before this noticeboard.

I simply wish to have my account unflagged as I am NOT a sock puppet of JI437, and as it follows, a chance to create an unbiased, informational page on Prometheus Group as fellows software firms in our market niche have.

K3nsanders (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:USmarcomm & Mayer Brown

• USmarcomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User seems to be involved in marketing function for Mayer Brown, a large law firm. I have indefed the user with a note to review WP:COI and tagged Mayer Brown as COI. Just looking for a sanity check here. Ronnotel (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The entire article seems to have been cut-and-pasted from various promotional pages for the law firm; the versions from before the marketer was involved are too out-of-date to be useful. So I've speedy nominated it. I'm wondering if the firm hasn't violated the lawyer-advertising ethics rules by doing this without disclosing its involvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

IP claiming to be Ricco Rodriguez's manager removing sourced (negative) content from article

• Ricco Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 24.27.49.203 (talk · contribs)

I'm about to leave and would appreciate it if someone could keep an eye on this. Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gave him a 3RR warning. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)