Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 55

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57→Archive 60

Occupy Rose Parade

The editor has the same username as the organizer of the article subject. 72Dino (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a COI welcoming template. It's pretty clear that the edit was an attempt to make the article more favorable toward the event and its participants. I'll leave it up to the regular editors of that article to decide if those changes were warranted or not; it's possible that the article had too negative of a slant before. But the editor only made one edit so I don't think any further action is required unless the editor takes an active role at the article. -- Atama頭 17:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Introducing myself

Hello, my name is Ryan and I am working on behalf of the Bloomberg L.P. communications department. I understand the WP:COI policy, so I’ll be limiting myself to proposing any content changes on article talk pages related to Bloomberg. Another user, Ordwayen had previously been working in a disclosed manner on Bloomberg related article talk pages, and she introduced herself here in July 2011. Ordwayen is no longer going to be involved in the discussion of Bloomberg related articles and I will be picking up where she left off. I’m aware that sharing accounts is not permitted by WP:NOSHARE and wanted to come here to ensure that you all were aware of my activity. I’d appreciate your feedback on the way I am going about this. Thanks.--RivBitz (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being open about your COI. You may also find WP:BESTCOI useful. – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Qnet

This is a multi-level marketing firm which has been prosecuted for running full-blown pyramid schemes. All the above accounts seem primarily obsessed with presenting the Qnet version of the story, often using the company's own language from its websites, full of fulsome self-praise and spindoctoring. Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It has only gotten worse after this post, with at least 2 more new editors showing up to do the same thing. I semi-protected it for a week to see if it calms down. That should force these editors to take it to the talk page of the article, assuming they're interested in actual discussion. -- Atama頭 20:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deroy Murdock

Please see this archive for details; basically the IP came to the Help Desk, complained that some content had been removed from "his" article, re-added it, and claimed to be the subject. I'm not sure whether either one's identity has been verified (a username block of the second one may be necessary, but I'm not sure how exactly this works). I put a note on the talk page, but I don't think it gets a lot of traffic. Advice? NYKevin @930, i.e. 21:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As to the username, you can have the editor send an email to info-en@wikimedia.org which will confirm the identity. We can block people for using the real name of a living person without verification, but don't always do so. I'm pretty confident that this really is Murdock's account.
The COI is pretty clear, my suggestion for advice is to be sure that the editor is aware of our COI guideline and suggest that he read WP:BESTCOI and/or WP:PSCOI for suggestions. And maybe mention WP:LUC as well. -- Atama頭 20:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lil Cory

Single purpose accounts, with apparent sense of ownership. Subject's notability is questionable, with few or no reliable sources. User deletes maintenance templates. 76.248.147.97 (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Raised at WP:BLPN by me just now. This recent complaint to Google is interesting (and funny)[1]. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Still editing his own article. There's a David Beckett309 (talk · contribs) editing his article also, not sure about him. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It currently has a WP:BLPPROD tag on it. Though it has nearly a dozen references, none of the references that could be considered reliable even mention Lil Cory. -- Atama頭 20:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, per this edit and this edit at Talk:Lil Cory, I don't think this is in fact the subject. The username was apparently a poor choice. Not to say a COI doesn't exist; just it's likely not that particular variety if one does. JFHJr (㊟) 07:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Streetdirectory.com

Article has been around for some time, but in last couple of days IPs with clear inside knowledge have expanded further so it reads like an advertisment. I also notice numerous WP:SPAMish links - see [2]. I dont really have time to deal with is now, but think a cleanup is needed. Moondyne (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing minor cleanup at the moment. The IP has only made one edit since your last edit, and it was actually a good edit in my opinion (it trimmed down an excessively long section header). -- Atama頭 18:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sara Sugarman

Sarasugarman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing Sara Sugarman. I have tried to warn the editor about the dangers of editing one's own article, but it seems their response was to log out and add more dubious material as 95.148.40.149 (talk · contribs · logs). Could anyone else weigh in as it seems I am not being heard? If I had time to track down sources then I would do so, but I do not. --John (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried offering advice on her user talk page but it's ultimately up to her whether or not she wants to work with other editors. -- Atama頭 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --John (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Larry Schultz

I responded to a third opinion for the article, Larry Schultz. After reviewing the preceding argument, I made a decision to remove sections of the article that seemed unnecessary to me. However, after making a final decision, Jtbobwaysf notified me of a possible conflict of interest of Dturner as you can see at Talk:Larry Schultz#Third opinion response. Later, an uninvolved user notified me of Jtbobwaysf's possible conflict of interest here: User talk:Whenaxis/2012, as well, Dturner notified me of Jtbobwaysf's possible conflict of interest. It appears that BOTH USERS are at a conflict of interest. Whenaxis about | talk 01:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's messy. I looked at Dturner's evidence for the COI to be sure that there was no outing but the evidence derived from information voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia by Jtbobwaysf, so there is no violation (not to mention that he semi-discloses his identity in his username already). For the most part the problem is a simple content dispute, which requires neutral eyes for a fair adjudication. -- Atama頭 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bian lian

User iterates what I consider commercial spam, COI edits etc. and I rather think his name is sufficient. He has been notified of the existence of this policy, and his multiple reverts indicates that he may not think he is covered by any Wikipedia rules thereon. Notice at [3] and sample diff at [4] Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've invited the user to ask for help via his talk page.[5] —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Channel Islands National Park

Resolved: No link is necessary. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:UAA recommended I come here. Appears promotional for Fly Channel Islands Aviation, added an external link to Channel Islands National Park to that company here. 72Dino (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This one could go either way. The user has a valid point that the link points to the only air carrier providing service to the island, and that's something our readers might reasonably want to know. Furthermore, there's evidence that this link is significant. The Channel Islands National Park website itself posts the same link on its homepage. On the other hand, since this information is readily available via the subject's home page, it is perhaps not so critical that we include it here. Rklawton (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how linking to an airline's site, even if it is the only one, comes into any of the heads listed in WP:ELYES. I say no. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No' works for me. The information is easily accessible to users and it doesn't contribute directly to the user's understanding of the subject. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dave Camp

Resolved: Routine. No new edits. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple edits to the article coming from an IP address assigned the the US House of Representatives, which should be reason enough for concern. All edits are unexplained, some remove cited material, and nearly all additions are uncited. One edit, while later agreed upon by myself, removed wholesale a controversial edit without explanation.[6] Bakkster Man (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors seem to be able to contain the damage. I left a warning on the offending IP's talk page even though it's a shared IP. It's best to use this noticeboard for stuff that's out of control and requires more attention. This one was pretty routine. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Waggener Edstrom Worldwide

Resolved: Long dormant accounts, no action required. Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia consultant for companies and a contributor/project member of Wikiproject Cooperation, which aims to improve collaboration/oversight/etc. of paid editors like PR professionals. I'd like to introduce people here to the project for any who want to be involved.

One of the proposals I put forth for the project was that we not only foster positive collaborations with ethical paid editors but also pro-actively investigate unethical COI contributors. In doing so, I donated some time investigating Waggener Edstrom, a large PR firm that was identified as pubicly advertising Wikipedia services on their website.

What I found was what appears to be a half-dozen anonymous user accounts engaging in link-spam/advert on behalf of their clients and - in one instance - the removal of a fraud investigation related to a client's executive.

Here are the suspected usernames that are all undisclosed and appear to be single-purpose accounts likely owned by the agency:

Not all the edits are bad, but clearly something that could benefit from this group's intervention. King4057 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've check into each of these users. None of them appear to be a current problem. Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Latif Yahia

Resolved: Another admin blocked this user for making a legal threat. Rklawton (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Perrynio has made unsupported changes ([7][8]) to cited text and has claimed to be the subject's agent ([9]). I think this presents a clear conflict of interest. JFHJr (㊟) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Perrynio comes close to violating WP:LEGAL with an edit summary claiming "Legal action pending." ([10]) I think it's a further reason this COI situation should be addressed. JFHJr (㊟) 21:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Perrynio did not come close to violating our policy against legal threats. Perrynio made a very clear threat, stating that the information removed was "potentially libelous" and that legal action was pending. I have blocked the editor indefinitely, pending a clear retraction of the threat. -- Atama頭 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Alabama Power Company

Resolved: Per SmartSE Rklawton (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a spokesman for the company. I have suggested edits to our page to replace facts and statistics which have not been updated since 2006 or 2008.

The first of my suggestions (made on the Talk Page) was posted in June 2010, and got no response. I have added a new talk page entry that should supercede the previous one, but given the inactivity on the overall page I wanted to flag it here to see if someone would look at it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ikepigott (talk • contribs)

This has been dealt with. SmartSE (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Full Sail University Article

Resolved: Directed editor to the correct page. Rklawton (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you may recall my original post here on the Conflict of Interest board. Since that time, I have proposed a few suggestions to the Full Sail University article, the most recent of which can be seen here. As you can see in that thread, I have made several revisions based on suggestion, but have not been able to reach a consensus on the article changes in my sandbox. I have not received a response on the talk page since January 5, 2012, would anyone be willing to look at this conversation and respond with your suggestions? Or if you approve of the change I proposed, I’m open to you moving forward with implementation into the article. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. --Tylergarner (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We deal more with COI problems on this page. The page you want to use for your request is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation Rklawton (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

the grout doctor

Resolved: The article and user in question do not appear to exist. The editor creating this report appears to be making a test edit only. Rklawton (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

this is a blantant violation of conflict of interest as this is a commercial business that is using this page to promote its business. Its references are largely advertising material or paid memberships in organizations that promote franchises.

Troy Verges

Resolved: (for now, at least). Another admin has blocked this account from editing due to a user name that violates WP:UN. Rklawton (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

UMPG (talk · contribs) (short for Universal Music Publishing Group) has been making NPOV-violating and apparently copyvio edits to Troy Verges. At least one editor reverted him already, but UMPG undid it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done the following:
  • tagged the article for lack of sources
  • posted a Welcome template on the user's talk page
  • advised the editor regarding our conflicts of interest guidelines
  • and I'll probably post a note regarding choice of user names, too. Rklawton (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hospitality management studies

User is adding unreferenced promotional information to the Hospitality management studies article for the institution that their username seems to be named after. They have also edited the article for said institution. I reverted the promotional edit in the first article and the user re-reverted. When I first reverted, I placed a Conflict of Interest warning on their talk page. I haven't touched the second article. Sperril (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Communications Manager managing communications

Resolved: Conflict exists, editor is following the guidelines, all is well. Rklawton (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012. There is a major Conflict of Interest potential that requires more than mere editor input on the talk page. This issue has to have come up previously during other election campaigns. Is there a guideline or a policy or at least some history of what to do about a paid political operative editing (or even discussing entries into the article on the talk page) about the candidate for which he is the Communications Director. I've seen time and time again where Advertising Managers have been excluded because of a predisposition to be intolerant toward negative press. Will the readers of the article know that it is written by the Gingrich Campaign? How can the article remain neutral and broad based when one of the editors (even if he stays in the Talk Room) is paid to limit unfavorable comments wherever he finds them. ...Buster Seven Talk 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Added comment; Editor TFD mentions in the talk at the article that I need to point out a COI violation. To me the violation is to the hundreds of thousands of potential readers and visitors who will be unaware of the biased slant of the article. Even if Joe just comments at the talk page that alone will influence editors and future consensus discussions and all future editing input generated from the talk pages. Paid operatives do what they do. They are paid to "operate". Joe may be the greatest guy in the world, but he will be doing his job to mold the article for the benefit of his boss not doing it as a volunteer building an encyclopedia. Buster Seven Talk 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide the username of the editor and a diff where they disclose they are the communications director? You should also notify them of this discussion if you haven't already. SmartSE (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
He may be referring to User:Joedesantis, who has disclosed on his user page and on the article talk page his status as communications director. The user appears to be well aware of the COI policy guideline and is abiding by it. The communications director has made no edits to the article but, as recommended in the policy guideline, merely makes recommendations on the talk page. There does not appear to be any violation. 72Dino (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as a point of information - Wikipedia doesn't have a COI policy, but it does have guidelines. And the guidelines clearly invite COI editors to use article talk pages. As a result, it would be inappropriate to discourage the editor from doing so on the basis of a COI. Rklawton (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence whatsoever that the person has violated any rules, guidelines, essays etc. - he has been extraordinarily aboveboard, and when TFD and I agree, that should quite suffice <g>. Collect (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I have made no claim that Editor Joe has made edits to the article. Buster Seven Talk 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone with an up-front COI, who even discloses their real-life identity, is sticking closely to a strict interpretation of our COI guidelines, voluntarily restricting himself to the discussion page, and not being disruptive in the process? Are you asking for which barnstar to hand out? By the way, we're all "mere editors", there's nothing a clueful editor can't do that an admin or crat would bring to that discussion. You're asking how the article can remain neutral, that's up to the people actually editing it, which doesn't include the person with a COI. -- Atama頭 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You did give him a barnstar. That's pretty awesome of you. :) -- Atama頭 00:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who weighed in here, especially those who acknowledged I have focused my efforts on offering corrections and information on article talk pages related to Newt. I'll plan to keep doing the same. Joedesantis (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

David Oyelowo - PR agent

This user is the self admitted agent of the subject of the article and appears intent on substituting an image preferred by their client for the one currently in the article. I have explained COI and WP:OWN. Running out of patience. Additional discussion on User talk:Cquarto and my user page. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's all well and fine, but what is your basis for objecting to the image? Does the new image improve the article or not? Rklawton (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Not in my opinion. – ukexpat (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Keith Gray

KG1133 claims to have "[u]pdated information based on a submission from Robert Keith Gray himself":

Mention of a book that appears to be critical of Robert Keith Gray has also been suppressed:

I've left KG1133 a warning, but I'm not sure whether this user will return.

I'm here to ask for advice on how to handle the situation. I don't believe that I should restore it to an earlier version, since the earlier version contains serious claims, most of those claims aren't cited, and the earlier version doesn't offer any alternative references to Trento's book. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bumping. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The editor has a self-disclosed conflict of interest. I'm not sure if that disclosure was made in the interest of transparency, it's more likely that it was made with the intent to add authority behind the edits (which on Wikipedia is usually counter-productive). But the COI is clearly there. I'm not sure I agree with the autobiography tag, I don't see that KG1133 is claiming to be the author himself.
The edits are mixed, as you admit. They're clearly made for Gray's benefit, which isn't surprising for someone editing on behalf of the article subject, but some of the language that was removed clearly does not belong in a Wikipedia biography, even with sourcing: for example, stating that a person "parties and charms his way into the power elite" is inappropriate outside of a direct quotation. I think that the article needs to be cleaned up to find a middle ground between the hatchet job it was before and the whitewash it is now. Certainly something should be salvaged from the sources that were previously in the article. I can try to lend my hand to that. If KG1133 does return, hopefully they will heed the warning. But if the article isn't as negatively slanted as it was before, perhaps they won't be tempted to return. I admit, if I had a biography here and it looked the way this one did, I'd want someone to "fix" it too. -- Atama頭 19:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

David Mark Pearce

Article is about a non-notable person, and is written in a non-encyclopedic style. It reads like a biography, and indeed appears to have been copied directly from the subject's personal website [11]. -- Codeine (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the Wikipedia article predates the biography on the web site. In fact, using the Wayback Machine, the earliest version of that page I can find (from March 3, 2010) says at the end of the page, "(From Wikipedia)". So the site used to acknowledge that its information was on Wikipedia first. The Wikipedia article was created in November 2009, months before the artist's web site biography was written. So no, the information was not copied from the subject's web site, it's the other way around.
I don't think that Nmdesertrose has a conflict of interest at all. The other articles that this account created and edited don't seem to have anything to do with David Mark Pearce. The editor also never claimed to know him, or be him, or be affiliated with him in any other way. "Nmdesertrose" seems to be referencing a New Mexico desert rose and I don't know what relation that would have to a music artist in the UK. Finally, this editor hasn't edited Wikipedia since early 2010, and hasn't had anything to do with the David Mark Pearce article since 2009, so I don't know what action you'd be looking for? If you think that the article itself doesn't merit inclusion, I'd suggest going through the Articles for Deletion process. You could also try Proposed Deletion first, I don't think it would be too controversial to make that attempt. I see no reason why it should be speedily deleted. -- Atama頭 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jermaine Troublez

Resolved: Article delete, editor advised. Rklawton (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. T.Troublez (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

it says on my article that i have a close connection with its subject? how do i clean this up?

Thank you

From what I can tell, you are the subject, is that not correct? You at least give the impression that you are. In which case, you're going to always have a close connection to the subject. :)
If you aren't Jermaine Troublez, I'll have to insist that you request a username change. By using the name T.Troublez and editing his article you're representing yourself as him, which can be considered an impersonation which we don't allow.
In any case, there are a number of issues with that article that should be addressed, most especially that it is written like an advertisement, and your user page suffers from similar issues. Either page could be deleted immediately under such grounds, and to be honest I'm tempted to do so myself. -- Atama頭 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've deleted the article for being promotional and for not explaining the person's significance. The OP should probably read about why Wikipedia is not the place to post your CV. SmartSE (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

EUCLID (Pôle Universitaire Euclide, Euclid University)

There are assertions by the IP and others that this is a bogus institution, or at least one not recognized by most educators globally, and failing our usual tests and the general notability guideline. Satinmaster, on the other hand, seems to have a very favorable and defensive attitude toward this institution/entity, and asserts that the IP works for some publisher or something in the U.K. Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Note, article is now at EUCLID (university) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after I boldly moved it. – ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Brainmatrix

This editor appears to be the CEO of BrainMatriX, the company which develops eReviewbook and NoteScribe. The editor has created and/or edited articles for the company and its products inserted wikilinks to the articles of these products into the articles of several competitors' products; see the editor's contribution history for specific competitors' articles. —Bill Price (nyb) 03:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EReviewBook and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoteScribe. – ukexpat (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

sumgait pogrom

I'd like to report about a general disfunction of some so called "wikipedia liberties". Giving to people liberty to edit is a good idea, but you should consider that the people write here also about serious issues, often in harmful and irresponsible way such as ethnic conflicts, massacres and etc. There are many false infos in wikipedia pages written by various users. Here I report some of them, first of all the article "sumgait pogrom" - this article is prepared by the special virtual armenian propaganda group which keeps the strategy of disinformation harming the image of the whole nation - of azeri nation. In last days i have edited almost 3 times the articles which are obviously handled by armenian users that spread false image about my nation - azeri people. I ask the wikipedia administration to take severe and serious measures on this issue as the ethnic matters are not a joke, but bring to the wars and death...it is not about offending a single person which will sort out the problem at the court trial, believe me, it is about the support of hatred between nations. In almost all so called "armenian projects" in wikipedia the clear intent is spreading the lie about Azerbaijan, creating an eternally suffering armenian nation image. I bet nobody from wikipedia have ever checked properly the sources used by the armenian users which support each other exchanging ridiculous "honors" between them, for example see the page of user Sardur: his fans are armenians, no matter if they live in france, lebanon or elsewhere... I could write a book accusing the armenians in all possible crimes and base my speeches around on that book, it wouldn't mean that all the written staff in that book is true...almost all the sources brought by the armenian users are written by the separators with doubtful image... I start to loose my confidence in wikipedia's credibility as a source. I ask wikipedia administration to block all articles on conflicted base which touch azeri-armenian issue. However is not possible to go on long time on lies, the armenian users must know it...also it ain't a deal to prepare ground for more hate and conflict between nations spreading such unilateral doubtful information. I have also edited the article which classifies people in azerbaijan in non existent clans. This article is ridiculous and is written by somebody which has no sense of reality and loyalty. The term "yeraz" is higly offensive and shouldn't be let go on wikipedia as something "normal"...if you don't understand the gravity of this offense i'd explain it this way: for us "yeraz" is equally offensive as the word "nigger" used to discriminate colored people... I will be waiting for the feedback of wikipedia administration. I'd like to understand also how to ask protection for single articles, I have read the instructions, but it say actually nothing and there is no link to be referred as the start point of protection request. thanks poster777 

Poster777 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for issues relating to conflicts of interest. If you've tried to solve the issue yourself and still aren't happy, then Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts is the place to post. SmartSE (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

JS Group

There has been a long history of whitewashing in this article. I became involved in it as an administrator in dealing with copyright problems. I generally watchlist articles from which copyright problems are removed for a while, as those problems do have a habit of making their way back. In this case, the problems are different. There seems to be a concerted effort to diminish or remove any critical information of this group or to slant presentation in such a way that it puts the group and its key personnel into a positive light. For instance, compare the bit about the Land-grabbing case here with the presentation as of this writing: [12]. Note how our article currently concludes as fact that "They tried to defame Mr. Jahangir Siddiqui, his family members and bring his businesses into disrepute" while the source cited is about an open court case: [13].

I have just blocked a contributor who has been repeatedly removing sourced content about the Aviation Division without discussion (see [14]). I think my administrative intervention will probably continue to be needed here, so I do not think it would be a good idea for me to do much work on this article. But it looks like the company is likely employing people to manipulate its presentation on Wikipedia; see [15] by self-professed media marketer User:Xakiahmed. It would be great if somebody could give it a good going over to remove promotion and address any whitewashing attempts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite the edits made by others, looking at the article with a fresh pair of eyes, the whole thing is one overblown spamfest so I have tagged it for G11 speedy deletion - either delete it and start again or reduce it to a short non-spammy stub. – ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dieter Gerhardt

I noticed a while back that the Dieter Gerhardt article was being edited in a highly autobiographical manner, and called out my concerns with the editor in question, who confirmed that he was the subject of the article, as his WP username also suggests. I pointed him to the suggestions for COI compliance, which he has followed insofar that he has not directly edited the article again. However, the article's talk page has started to become more acrimonious as he has become more frustrated that his COI is not being edited into the article as he's wanting. I have gone to considerable length to try to find and incorporate any content that satisfies WP:V, even rare sources in Russian and Afrikaans, but my efforts rather than being acknowleged appear to have upset him further.

For now, I'm willing to overlook the personal attacks that he has made on the talk page, as I feel that he can make a valuable contribution to this article by leading other editors to sources that may shed light on some of the gaps in the subject material. But I have no intention of becoming a meat puppet, or dropping any of the usual requirements for reliable sources in order to allow unreferenced content or opinion that he has supplied via the talk page to be added. The result is that this person has now declared a conflict with me, wishes to keep me from editing the article and is canvassing other editors to his cause. Inbetween all of this, there have been some disagreements over minor details amongst the three most active editors, but I don't see this as being unworkable.

I'd appreciate an independent COI review before this escalates any further, and of course would be happy to make any changes that may be suggested through this process. Thanks in advance. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

PR company creating promotional articles

Resolved: User blocked for 100% spam Rklawton (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These articles, which are clearly promotional in nature and could probably be speedied under G11, were all created by Paulwaddington (talk · contribs): Prodoto Photographic Studios Ltd, Concateno, and Datix Limited. I'm assuming it's the same Paul Waddington who works for this marketing company, [16], so I assume something needs to be done, but I'm not sure what, so I've brought it here. SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged the Prodoto and Datix articles as G11. I'd have don the same with the Concateno article had it not already been given the{{advert}} tag, though as I read the policy, this can still be done. If this is the work of a PR company, I think the best way to deal with this is simply to treat the articles as the promotional fluff they are. There is little point in trying to persuade an editor from a PR company to conform to policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Andy, ASG. It's not appropriate to automatically assume a PR editor won't listen to reason and conform to policy. No matter your prior experience, you should always give courtesy a try. To that end, I've posted a welcome note on his talk page. Also keep in mind that it's always possible this is a Joe job, so I've also sent the real Paul Waddington an e-mail to let him know what's going on. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

SheepNotGoats: 1) NEVER out an individual's real life identity. Doing so can get you blocked instantly. 2) I received an e-mail from the person you thought it might be - and he denies knowing anything about this account. I've blocked the account because it's 100% spam. Rklawton (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, I know the rules thanks, and seriously, no admin would block me for that. I googled the username (which everyone can see and anyone with mild computer skills is capable of doing) and noted that there was someone with a similar name doing similar work. Besides, I'm not clear how you can "out" someone who is editing under their real name. SheepNotGoats (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of people with that name. What you did was attempt to narrow it down to a single individual - something he did not volunteer himself. And in doing so, you cast aspersions on a public relations professional who claims no knowledge of this account. Rklawton (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please also note what appears at the top of this page when in edit mode: "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Rklawton (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but when an editor chooses an account name that reflects their real name, they are volunteering their identity. We warn them of this at WP:REALNAME. If employment information for that person is published readily online (at some place like Linkedin for example) then it's not exactly harassment to connect the dots. There is no violation of WP:OUTING here, "once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums". That's what was done here. -- Atama頭 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

1859 Oregon's Magazine

The article was created three times, and deleted repeatedly as a blatant copyright violation. On one of these occasions, Burandela1 (talk · contribs), contesting the deletion, stated they were a member of the magazine's board. I left a note both responding to the user on that page, and on their talk page, explaining that we couldn't accept copyrighted material, mentioning the conflict of interest guideline, and pointing out the FAQ for organizations as a future help. While this current iteration is not a copyright violation, it has still been created and largely edited by the user above. The article still is largely a promotional article, and needs to be cleaned up, if it meets inclusion criteria at all. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Assange1 editing Julian Assange

We have a new editor, User:Assange1, whose contributions so far have been restricted to editing the Julian Assange page. If this user is Julian Assange, this should be confirmed using OTRS. If this user is not Julian Assange, I'd suggest that using that username is misleading, and they should be blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hard telling. What's your assessment of the quality of the edits so far? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
If someone wants to use a celebrity name, they MUST go through OTRS or they get blocked. Rklawton (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So what message should they be sent via their talk page to start the OTRS process? Oh, I see it's already been done. -- The Anome (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Going through the editor's contributions, I don't see much that should be controversial. If it wasn't for the username I doubt there would be red flags raised. Whoever this person is they seem to have some experience in editing. -- Atama頭 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not him. If the username is an issue, I don't care about keeping it - I'll just create a new account. Sorry - I started it not being aware of what you've raised here. User:Assange1 —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC).

Feel free to create a new account, as long as you abandon the one you're using now. In my opinion your edits themselves are okay. Thanks for letting us know! :) -- Atama頭 23:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Applied Food Technologies

Applied Food Technologies contains good sections which should perhaps be split off, like Applied Food Technologies#Seafood species mislabeling in the United States. But IIRC the whole article was written by User:BoathouseBob, so the sections in question should be checked for bias first. Please also see the single-purpose account User:Pleco32669's first Wikipedia edit ever. The edit summary is as follows. "Reviewed 10/6/2011 for bias, clarity and relevance. Cited properly." Reviewed for bias? Wow. Chutzpah.

I did a Copyscape check. The article has[17] 342 words matching "AFT History and Milestones" from the corporate website. It also has[18] 49 words matching "Seafood Safety: Food Allergies Prevented by Fish ID Testing" from the same site.

At Talk:Applied Food Technologies, BoathouseBob writes:

  • "I was fortunate enough to talk with the company, some of their customers, and some government officials before writing my Wiki article". And
  • "I added at least one criticism of the company today -before your opinion- that I found when the company appeared in a 'news alert'".

To see the criticism, search inside the article for the word "criticism". It's quite a weak criticism.

I'm not an admin.

IMO it'd be wise for all the edits of all the users in question to be looked at. User:BoathouseBob has added lots of links to various sections of Applied Food Technologies throughout Wikipedia.

I wonder how likely it is that the accounts and IP in question were paid to edit, and whether there are any sockpuppets that have edited other articles.

Due to lack of time, I think I'm ending my investigation here, without editing any of the pages in question or warning any of the users in question.

Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have chopped out large chunks of background content not directly about the company itself. If it belongs anywhere it should be in a separate article about mislabeling. – ukexpat (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

CIML

User is aware of conflict of interest but article is stuffed full of external links to the CIML website with no secondary sources, can someone more experienced take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just spent some time cutting them all out and getting rid of a bunch of other unsourced material. – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ecrowne



His edits only add his own name and writings to articles.

I placed a welcome message to his talk page with info about WP:PROMOTION which he deleted. I then added some info about WP:COI, and he deleted that, as well.

FYI: in the middle of this, editor changed his name from User:Emircrowne to User:Ecrowne; I don't believe that he's trying to hide his identity, but it can make the histories somewhat confusing. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Riley (cartoonist)

I originally posted this on the big admin board, but was informed that this area existed, so I'm bringing it here. I want to stress that I'm not asking for the article to be deleted, as the sources on the page seem to be enough to show notability for Riley. I'm just concerned about the potential conflict of interest posed by an editor sharing the same name as Riley creating the article, adding his name to multiple pages, and repeatedly removing the COI tag without giving any explanation as to how their edits aren't a conflict of interest. (IE, that the editor isn't Riley or someone who knows him, that they aren't spamming or being self-promotional, etc.) Below is what I posted on the admin board:

I'm writing here because of actions by an editor that are borderline as far as issues on Wikipedia goes. On January 30th User:Mikeriley23 created the page Mike Riley (cartoonist) and did several edits that include adding the author's name to various different articles. I left a conflict of interest note on his page as well as tagged the entry accordingly, as there's more than enough evidence to believe that this was the author or someone who knew him. I've noted that since I've posted that, most of the editing was done by random IP addresses (which may or may not be him), with Mikeriley23 continuing to return in order to remove the COI tag and do random edits. I've had to repeatedly replace the COI tag, as it was repeatedly removed by Mikeriley23 without the user saying anything to show that there was no conflict of interest. I've told him that it's not against the rules for him (assuming he is the cartoonist or someone who knows him) to edit his own account, but that the tag merely shows that someone with a COI has been making major edits to the page. Since nothing has really improved and the initial edits can be seen as self-promotion, I'm bringing this to the attention of the admins so they can be aware of this situation. I hate to jump all over the newbie and I'm not trying to get the article deleted, but the user has ignored what I've written and it's just time to pass it on to someone with more authority than I have.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

  • Additional: I just wanted to add that as far as the edit histories of the IPs go, the edits are all predominantly about Riley- either editing the article or adding his name to various pages. Only one of them has made edits to another article that had nothing to do with Riley and even then it was only one edit in a sea of Riley-related edits.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Your actions so far have been totally appropriate. I'm wondering whether or not coverage in a free local paper constitutes enough notability to warrant an article. I'm also wondering if we might consider enforcing WP:REALNAME, this editor may be an impersonator and it might be a good idea to ask for OTRS confirmation. -- Atama頭 07:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I was wondering about that as well, but I decided to let it go for the time being (I'd already removed the sources that were completely unusable) and didn't want to get too overbearing on the newbie. I have to admit that I'm a little curious as to the location of the different IPs and if any of them match up with Mikeriley23.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Here are where the different IPs are coming from:
  • 66.77.83.235: Chicago, Illinois
  • 174.252.104.187: Baltimore, Maryland
  • 63.146.161.85: Bridgeport, West Virginia
  • 71.179.112.220: Baltimore, Maryland
  • 174.252.32.157: Boston, Massachusettes
The two IPs from Baltimore only made a single edit each. The IP with the most edits is from West Virginia. -- Atama頭 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Cool, as long as they say that they came from different locations, that's enough for me. There's still the potential that he got a friend in another state to do it, but as long as it isn't the MikeRiley23 trying to use an IP address, that's what really matters to me. (Not that there's any rules against him getting friends or fans to do it, I just wish he'd utilize some of the editors in the Comic/Webcomic Wikiproject groups since they'd be far more experienced at this.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

COI in the NYT

I'm loth to delve into US political bios, especially in the silly season. But this article clearly states that Gingrich's Comms. director, Joe DeSantis is editing here.

"Gingrich’s communications director, Joe DeSantis, has airbrushed Callista’s Wikipedia page 23 times since 2008, often to banish unflattering details from the site, according to BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski." Dowd op-ed in today's Times

Just a heads up. The Interior (Talk) 18:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is that DeSantis has operated absolutely properly per several discussions, notwithstanding Ms. Dowd's opinions. This has been addressed enough times, in fact, that re=addressing it here is inane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
DeSantis is the third-ranked editor to the page, with 23 edits.Contributors My understanding of our best practices is that COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article itself, and are asked to use the talk page. Sorry if this has been hashed out before, I wasn't aware of it. Inanity was not the intention. The Interior (Talk) 18:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
He disclosed his COI here already and it came up again 2 weeks ago but no problems were pointed out. IIRC while they had previously edited articles, they've only used talk pages for the last few months. SmartSE (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Stating a COI is encouraged by WP:COI, but it does not forgive or allow POV editing. And the guideline specifically warns the COI editing may result in embarrassing revelations in the mainstream press.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Um -- which POV edit are you ascribing to that person? Joedesantis appears to have made 23 eduits - with all edits after 2010 being strikingly innocuous indeed (a large number are Wikignome type edits). 2 Years is surely enough for you to have corrected any POV stuff, Will! And as far as I can tell, even the "substantive edits" from two years ago hardly fit into the charge of "POV" levelled at him. In short - he has acted, as far as I can tell, in absolutely conformity with Wikipedia policy. And making this a "case" is not in the best interests of Wikipedia if the trivial nature of the accusations comes out. Sheesh - opposing a person adding "Mrs." in front of her name as a POV COI edit? LOL! Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
By extrapolation, if there's vandalism in a page and no one notices for two years then it isn't really vandalism. That's absurd. The article is a thinly edited biography of an obscure figure who is barely notable in her own right. There's no reasons to believe anyone has paid it much attention other than the person paid to pay attention to it. Rather than arguing over the editor in question let's make sure that the article is NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
"Rather than arguing over the editor in question let's make sure that the article is NPOV." That's probably a good idea. I haven't seen any actual complaints about Joe's behavior, except for a general COI concern. Joe last edited Callista's article a year ago, and hasn't edited anywhere in article mainspace since June of last year. He has pledged to only participate on discussion pages and has stuck with that. But yes, if the articles don't conform to NPOV whether because of information added last week or last year or years ago they should be cleaned up. -- Atama頭 17:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Meru Networks

This company seems to have created an article for themselves. They are trying their best to do things the proper way, and are doing relatively well in that regard. I went over the article, and trimmed it down quite a bit, but some extra eyes won't do any harm. These people really seem to try to do things right and not break any rules, and we should try to be as welcoming as we can. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Phearson (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Reporting Mmkresources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his/her username promoting mKmResources. --Ankit Maity TalkContribs 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Rosemary Altea

A SPA whose username is the same as that of the child of the subject of this biography has recently made several edits that removed criticism and made the article very promotional. [19] Other editors have jumped in and cleaned it up, but I notice no notice has been made on the user's talk page and so on. I've always focused on actually editing content and not memorizing rules, so I'm unclear on what the correct procedure is in cases like this. Could someone follow up? Thanks. Krelnik (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

SHARM Holding

PR account creating article on a business and it's three key people. Almost all editing is around SHARM Holding. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I do have serious concerns about this editor's activities, both on and off Wikipedia. One of the articles listed above was deleted, another has a proposed deletion that almost expired (and would lead to deletion). The other two articles have questionable notability. -- Atama頭 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I was prepared to delete Karen Ghazaryan since the prod expired, but as I went to the deletion page I saw that it had been deleted through prod once (back in 2010). Any article deleted and then restored is ineligible for prod in the future. I think it might not be a bad idea to bring the remaining articles to AfD, they all have similar problems in terms of COI and notability. -- Atama頭 23:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

CSR Europe

Article's creator has stated their connection to the organization. Has introduced copyright violations and promotional text, and is making some efforts to remedy the situation, but is at essence a WP:SPA with promotional interests. Coming here because there's been no response to speedy deletion nomination, meanwhile this drags on.... 99.12.241.215 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it as a G11 candidate. Despite the authors attempts to fix up the article, which I appreciate it, it was still clearly promotional in nature. Just a note, that speedy deletion isn't always immediate, except for extreme cases (such as attack pages). -- Atama頭 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I know--sometimes in an environment where editors use rollback instantaneously, I get exasperated when more subtle misuses stay up for a few hours. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nostradamus

I noticed that user PL (and earlier 80.177.208.153) have done some really extensive work (starting from like SEVEN YEARS ago) to incorporate the works of a certain author Peter Lemesurier into several articles, most notably Nostradamus. Of course, the guy appears to be a published expert on the subject of Nostradamus, so it's okay to some extent, but to me it seems he's gone a bit (or a lot) overboard with (self-)promotion.

Checking the notes and references sections of the article, it appears a very significant portion of the text is referenced from Lemesurier's publications, also the first and last external links go to his websites.

Also just recently he's added a link to his (other) blog as a reference in several articles, with a slightly advertising tone ("For details, see... [blog]").

Other:

Et cetera, you get the idea. And I noticed someone called PL a "very difficult, and very biased Nostradamus editor". And from my own experience I noticed last year that he displayed a very strange WP:OWN-like behavior about the Nostradamus article.

I think we may have an issue here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we do. In any case, whoever PL is, his edits are definitely questionable, using blogs, commentary, and a self-published book "Lemesurier, 2012: It's Not the End of the World, Derwen Press, Pembroke, 2011" - Derwen Press is just a printing firm, not a publisher. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, no, it is a publisher, but closely allied to a printing firm called Lightning Source. I was amused, though, by the comment cited above: 'PL, who only makes edits to Nostradamus related articles, has a clear conflict of interest here. He thinks he owns this article. Also, he puts his unencyclopedic OR and blatant POV into article, making essays in favor of his strong revisionist view. It is only due to obscurity of the topic that this vandal menages to destroy this article for a while, resorting to not only blatant non factual speculation in his "writting", but to personal attacks to all that do not support his agressive posturing in Nostradamus related articles.' Not only does PL contribute to a whole range of articles, but he actually wrote nearly all of the original article on Nostradamus (to which others have, of course, contributed considerably since), based it entirely on the archival facts, which he documents (and which for obvious reasons passionate believers don't like at all -- as you can see from the above comment! -- wouldn't dream of 'destroying' the article (!!) and to my knowledge has never used Wikipedia to attack anybody personally (he usually leaves that to them!)!
There may indeed be an issue here, but the problem is that PL is just about the only author who has been published in English by reputable publishers (Element, HarperCollins, St Martin's, Piatkus, Bauer, Elsevier...) on many of the somewhat arcane topics he covers (once again, he actually wrote the articles on the Traite des fardemens, the Letter to Henri II, the Mirabilis liber etc.) and who is at the same time regarded by his academic peers (Chomarat, Chevignard, Gruber et al) as 'reputable'.--PL (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, why are you talking about yourself in third person? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It's just that it's less complicated than going into questions of identity -- my 'signature' always comes up as 'PL', not 'Peter Lemesurier' (though I suppose you could guess!) -- and I don't really have any personal stake in the articles. Though I do realise, now that you point it out, that it might make me seem a bit like Julius Caesar or General de Gaulle! ;) --PL (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You really need to mind your tone when you write (in articles); maybe you can't see it yourself but you often go a tad far from NPOV. For example with a paragraph like this in Nostradamus (referenced to your own blog): "With the arrival of the year 2012, Nostradamus's prophecies started to be co-opted (especially by the History Channel) as evidence suggesting that the end of the world is imminent, notwithstanding the fact that his book never mentions the end of the world, let alone the year 2012." Its tone is critical and near-mocking, an encyclopedia wouldn't be written like that. You're basically dominating that article and have been pushing your point of view in it for seven years. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Smirnoff

Resolved
 – Obvious violation of user name. User advised accordingly and welcomed to create a new account in compliance with WP:Username

Self-explanatory. —danhash (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Prince Andrew Young-Owolanke

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Anyowo (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Prince Andrew Young-Owolanke

Born: 2nd February 1966

Place of Birth: Ukpilla, Edo state Nigeria

Nationality: Irish

Educations: Nigeria Opportunity Industrialisation Centre, Lagos Nigeria, (OND) Northern Regional College, Northern Ireland United Kingdom, (National Vocational Qualification 2, BTEC National Award, and Higher National Certificate (HNC). The Open University, (Certificate) and currently Study Degree in Health and social care Practice

Travis Haynes

User has created this article about himself (atleast I think so) and that has been listed for deletion under A7. The user was warned but still I considered to bring up the thing here. Ankit Maity TalkContribs 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's appropriate to bring it up here, sure, so that it's noted if it comes up again. I see that the page was deleted and the editor hasn't made any similar edits since, and has an appropriate warning on their user talk page so all seems good. Their user page has some personal info but no more than what would be normal on anyone's user page (heck, my user page has almost as much personal info for that matter to be honest). So I think everything is good for now. -- Atama頭 19:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Ahari

This user has identified himself on Talk:Muhammed al-Ahari as the subject of this article, so I will refer to him as Mr. al-Ahari. He has been editing his own article for a very long time, most often anonymously, using the IP address 71.201.221.218. He seems to have contributed most if not all of the content. On January 3, he defended the fact that he was responsible for contributing most of the content by saying "How can these be added if I don't add them?". After I started reverting every anonymous edit he made, he has recently reverted to using his username.

The substance of my COI complaint against Mr. al-Ahari is as follows:

1) Mr. al-Ahari got upset with me for my edits (partly under the erroneous belief that the edit in which GedUK  deleted a whole bunch of personal stuff on December 16 was made by me), and started attacking me on the Talk page.

2) In the course of one of his rants, he wrote on the Talk page:

"...such as saying I was a character in Star Wars, an asshole, gay when I think that behavior is a mortal sin, etc."

3) I added the following to his article, as a new section titled "Homophobic views":

"Al-Ahari believes that homosexuality "is a mortal sin".[1]"

(The reference link pointed to his Talk page statement)

4) He got upset at this, even though a) the statement is factually true, b) he professes this to be his sincere belief as a devout Muslim, and c) the statement is reliably sourced.

5) Since then he has repeatedly tried to censor his own article by deleting that statement, which he somehow views as slander and libel, or whitewashing it and adding editorial commentary. This is the current version:

In the text the Outline of Islam Muhammed Al-Ahari explains that Islam teaches homosexuality "is a mortal sin" and that as a practicing Muslim that he writes and teaches for the promotion of strong family values, preservation of strong cultural identity, and against any sexual activities outside of marriage.[10]

The link to his Talk page statement was removed, and replaced by this "reference":

10. Muhammed al-Ahari, Imam Adnan Balihodzic, and Shaykh Kamil Avdich (2012). The Outline of Islam. Northbrook, Illinois: Islamic Cultural Center of Greater Chicago. Muhammed al-Ahari's introduction is on page 5-11.

On February 4, he also tried to change the heading of this section from "Perceived Homophobic views" to "Muhammed al-Ahari's views on marriage and family".

6) I have asked him several times on the Talk page why he objects to his sincere beliefs about homosexuality being accurately reported in the article. He goes off into personal attacks each time, and has consistently refused to provide a coherent rationale for the edits he has repeatedly made to the "Homophobic views" section.

7) Most recently he tried to whitewash his Talk page statement, to revise it from "such as saying I was a character in Star Wars, an asshole, gay when I think that behavior is a mortal sin, etc." to "such as saying I was a character in Star Wars, an asshole, calling me gay when Islam teaches that such behavior is a sin, etc." (emphasis mine).

While he's entitled to be upset at me, if he chooses, and it's his prerogative to attack me, if he wishes, surely it is not okay for him to censor his own article to edit out or whitewash statements he wishes he had not made?

Thanks! Sarabseth (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Would be really grateful if someone would look at this. --Sarabseth (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll look into this, sure. -- Atama頭 19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Speed reading

Resolved
 – I blocked the editor as a spam-only account, another admin blocked the sockpuppet, and the autoblock should prevent IP edits. -- Atama頭 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some kind of off-wiki dispute between two "experts" in the field of speed reading that is now being brought to the article speed reading. Specically, Howardberg (talk · contribs) and Howard31 (talk · contribs) are adding material related to Howard Berg, and 99.182.201.15 (talk · contribs) is making accusations of slander. If someone with experience in dealing with these kinds of issues could take a look, that would be helpful. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be sockpuppet - filed case here.--Ankit Maity Talk|Contribs 11:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

SnaKeBit3

I just saw the first three articles up for AfD and did a little looking into the user's editing history. Almost all of this editor's additions have been articles about a specific group of people, all of which relate back to Elijah Mason, the subject of the article SnaKeBit3. The articles all appear highly promotional and I believe that the editor is one of the people involved in this group (or is Mason himself) due to the low visibility and notability of the subjects. Because of the amount of articles that Dgkera2 has created, I'm bringing it to the attention of the admins here. He's done other edits to an article for a different band/song where the information was changed to information for one of the singles, which I'm not sure was supposed to be promotional vandalism or sandbox type edits in the wrong place. Either way, this does need looking into in case the articles get deleted and the user tries to re-add them. The only non-promotional edits he's done have been to articles where he's removed large amounts of information, such as in the article for chloroplasts. [20] I almost took this to the admin board, but at this time this seems to be more of a potential COI/advertising issue. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

  • Comment. I'm adding several templates that the user has added to Wikipedia, all of which pertain to companies that Mason is part of or contributes to. The amount of templates and pages that this user has added is quite extensive considering that many of the other pages he or she has created have been already deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
I deleted his user page per WP:FAKEARTICLE. The whole thing is an obvious hoax, I'm leaning towards unilaterally deleting everything, AfD seems like a waste of everyone's time. --Daniel 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Devajyoti Ray

and many more

Vanity article gone too far. I don't mind Mr Devajyoti Ray (a young artist from India), writing about himself, but the problem is, he also changed the meaning of at least one article, Pseudorealism (difs), in order to make it conform with his own preconceptions, and comply with his art manifesto. -- Qarabaş (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've rolled Pseudorealism back to a version before edits by the named account(s) on 23 January. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Maynardox

Resolved
  • User:Maynardox The main purpose of this account is to add links to interviews by media personality Mayndard to various articles. Due to similarity in name between the user and the interviewer, I believe this is in fact Mayndard himself doing this. These links are not pure spam as they are legitimate interviews and are added to the external links of the relevant article. However, they are a huge conflict of interest. If these links are truly notable, it should be up to other people to include them. They also drive up traffic to his site. He's also made significant contributions to the Maynard (Australian media personality) which violates WP:AUTO. Also if you check his talk page, he received a warning about this very issue in 2008. I have finished removing his links from about 34 articles. I kept a few since they were used as references (even though he added them). --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
At best a very clear conflict of interest, and arguably a spam account. The user was warned about COI in 2008, and, in view of the extent of the user's spam linking, I find it astonishing that the matter has not been followed up again long before now. However, since the user had received only one warning, and that one a very mild warning a long time ago, I have now given a second warning. If the problem still continues then further action can reasonably be considered. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just added {{notability|biographies}} to the article, and started a discussion about notability on the article's Talk page. HairyWombat 05:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Alexia (Cypriot singer)

Whoo boy. Duplicated articles, even one of which is a painfully written and bloated promotional vehicle. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lucas Secon

I came across this article on a musician which I found to fall below wiki standards for several reasons - format, grammar, lack of references and content being the main ones. The article had many unreferenced superlatives and a very comprehensive discography which contained information normally beyond the scope of wiki discographies. Upon looking at the history of the article, I noticed several IPs involved with editing this article (and only this article). I did not assume or accuse COI at the time but it felt as though someone close to the subject had been responsible for the majority of the edits, and had engineered it to look favourable on the subject. I completed a re-write using the original article as my base. I found almost immediately my edits were reverted. As my edits had justified the reason for their inclusion, I then reverted the article back to my new version, specifying the parameters within which I worked (and the article should be written to). However, almost immediately changes were made by the same IP and within 24 hours, this user's preferred article had been reverted to. It seems someone is monitoring the article and defending any changes they do not agree with.

One of the edit summaries includes this tag: 'Why are you taking out productions i have done?-like Travie McCoy"Need You"?.It is not up to you what goes in.' which indicates that the editor is the subject of the article.

I'm posting this here because I don't want to be sucked into an edit war, but ideally think that this article needs much work to convert it from what currently feels like an advert for the artist to an article that is more suited for wiki.

Please advise or take action as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HallucigeniaUK (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 February 2012

A couple of recent edits might have cleaned up the worst peacock terms. I'll watch the article for a while and join in if I notice a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Newcastle College

Having recently developed the Newcastle College article, which barely contained references, and had a markedly promotional tone, I included additional material concerning some recent controversy. As discussed on the talk page, WP:UNDUE can be ratified when the article is expanded (as it has been in the last couple of days). However, three new users, whose user names (thanks to Google) suggest a connection to the company's marketing department, have attempted to remove sourced information to reliable sources (namely The Guardian and other reputable newspapers). The JPStalk to me 16:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the content that was being removed. It is well sourced and should not be removed without discussion, especially by employees of the college. I'd advise all three editors to follow WP:BESTCOI and only post suggestions on the talk page instead of directly editing the article. SmartSE (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Kenny Marchant

Single purpose accounts, trying to insert information about non-notable political opponent into this article, preferably into the lead. Standard campaign stuff, but perhaps the page will require protection if it doesn't stop. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Page has been protected for a week. If this should continue thereafter I'll move this report to the BLP noticeboard, which is probably the more appropriate venue. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

PVN Acharya

RaghuVAchary (talk · contribs) is removing merited tags from this article . All the references are to articles by the subject with no independent sources, there is a disputed tag added by User:DGG recently (with discussion on the talk page) that's also been removed. RaghuVAchary's reason for removing the 3 tags is " all links are to articles by the subject..because it is a biographical page, of which there are many on wikipedia." Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The editor's talk page makes it clear the subject is the editor's father. I've told the editor about this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

European Certification and Qualification Association

Admits to being from the company from which they are attempting to add copyrighted text from. All of their additions have now been reverted. The user could use some help with understanding the issues involved. I'd do it but I'm on a Wiki break. OlYeller21Talktome 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Serious Issues with Richard Grendell Article

One it appears many of the edits were done by Mr. Grenell himself. Two, it look another issue only edit the Grenell article extensively and that were his only edits, which also beg the question if this was also Grenell or someone close to him. This is very suspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Grenell&limit=500&action=history

--68.173.4.183 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Media Foundation

The Media Foundation article fails to alert computer users and developers of a serious failing in Microsoft´s new Media Foundation audiovisual support package. Microsoft have removed the previously succesful DShow audiovisual software support compatibility in Windows 7, forcing users and developers to adopt the new Media Foundation technology, however, unlike DShow, Media Foundation offers no support for MPEG2 and other widely used formats.

I beleive that this needs to be made know, and have edited the article to mention the lack of MPEG2 support, however, my comments are being removed as "incorrect" when in fact a quick Google search shows that there are complaints of a lack of MPEG2 support, and even Microsoft admit that Media Foundation lacks such support.

Please allow this information to be made available on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.108.10 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved
This is not a conflict of interest issue. I suggest you take the issue up on the article's talk page or with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Shared Care Pathology

The external link provided by this otherwise non-notable article lists Dr Mark Livingston as an author of approved guidelines on Southern Derbyshire Shared Care Pathology. ISTB351 (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sky News Sunrise

A new editor User:Sky News Press Office has appeared on the site. They have been editing articles relating to Sky News, mainly constructively, but in the process creating a mess of the Sky News Sunrise page. This appears an obvious COI. Uvghifds (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Cohenworthstreet

This usser has only made two edits, but both of them promote the play "The Soap Myth" by Jeff Cohen. Jeff Cohen is a playwright who is associated with Worth Street Theater Company. Due to the name and the promotional nature of the edits I believe that there is some connection between this user and either Worth Street Theater Company and/or Jeff Cohen. I have left a warning on the user's talk page. I am not sure if a stronger warning or other steps are needed. This is most likely done out of ignorance rather than maliciousness, so I believe only a warning or two are needed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Property of Zack

Two new users popped up today who appear to be editing on behalf of the music website Property of Zack. In both cases the users added reviews from the website to album articles, and both received COI warnings. The site itself doesn't appear to meet our criteria of being a "reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy": It's not even 3 years old, so it hasn't established a reputation for itself in the world of music criticism (these kinds of sites abound on the internet, so the Albums project has established some criteria and a list of vetted sites to help us stick to the ones with notability in the field). That aside, the problem is the edits seem COI and could potentially be promotional. The first is obvious just by the username, the second is a red flag because the user (possibly Michael Meeze from the site's staff) says he's "adding another review site on behalf of the site". So far these are the only 2 edits I've seen, and it may amount to nothing, but I thought I'd bring it up right away because it gives the impression that the folks who run the website have instructed their staff to add the site's reviews to Wikipedia, which throws up red flags. IllaZilla (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped it would amount to nothing, but apparently not: User:MikeLikesPunk has come back to Damnesia and also moved on to Dirty Work (All Time Low album). This is becoming a definite COI/borderline WP:PROMO. The website in question needs to be proposed at WT:ALBUMS, vetted by the community, and added to WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE before it is acceptable to go around sticking its reviews in Wikipedia articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: The reliability of the site for critical reviews is being discussed at the Albums project. User:MikeLikesPunk claims not to work for PropertyOfZack, but to be an avid reader of the site. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Argo International Forwarders Inc.

The creator of the page gives an @argo.com.ph email address here, indicative of a conflict of interest, especially given the promotional nature of the article, which is tagged for SD. ISTB351 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Little London Powys

Requesting advice please. I was thinking of posting information about the location Little London Powys, to fill an empty page on Wikipedia, that the general article on Little London placenames <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_London> links to. We run a B&B at this location but I was planning to put in information about the place and house, and then just add a link to our website at the bottom.

Information: location and history of the farmhouse; some info about the local legend of Dick Penderyn living at Little London and reference to the real story instead (Chartist rebellion in Merthyr Tydfil); link to our website littlelondonwales.co.uk

Does this sound ok?

A link to your website would not be okay - see Wikipedia:EL and more specifically Wikipedia:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. A page on LLP would probably be okay; I think we generaly accept pages on settlements, however small. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay for expert editors to post relevant WP:SELFCITEs on talkpage?

Does anyone perceive a problem with this edit?

I am a moderately well-known authority on the topic, I have long disclosed my real-world identity as such, and even though WP:COS permits me to add a relevant RS of my own to the article itself, I instead put it only on the talkpage, so that anyone could summarized it as they wished, or not at all.

Other editors, however, feel that expert editors may not offer RSs, even on talkpages[21]

To me, putting material on the talkpage just in case is the conservative thing to do. Am I off base?

Input here or at talk:Homosexuality would be greatly appreciated.

— James Cantor (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I recall you being blocked for somehow violating our COI guideline last year, so you should be familiar with how zealously (and incorrectly) people try to "enforce" it. At least people aren't going into hysterics or anything on that talk page. I'll put in a word there. -- Atama頭 02:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, what a memory you have. (!) Yes, an off-wiki problem leaked here, couched as a COI problem on my part; all but the blocking admin felt as you do and came to unblock me (albeit as the block expired anyway).
I study some very controversial topics; no matter what I conclude, there is an angry other side.
Thanks for your input.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It would have been more proper if the OP included a complete list of the talk pages his self-promotion took place on. For "this edit", there are at least two:[22][23].BitterGrey (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Neither of these edits are inappropriate. If James Cantor edited an article to include his research, that might be problematic. Noting a reliable source on a talk page is nothing but helpful. Per WP:COS, James could have integrated into the article itself without issue provided it wasn't excessive. If he wanted to strictly separate his edits, I would suggest editing on a subpage and requesting a review by outside editors to see if it was excessive.
I've got a copy and will see about integrating it. Since it's published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, an unarguably reliable source, there's absolutely no problem with citing it in the articles as it is an uncontroversial example of an expert author having a journal published in a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
WLU's statement on the talk page is more overt: "I'll read and integrate it". He is determined to cite an article that he has not even read yet. Clearly, James Cantor is not the only one with conflicts here. WLU started his multi-page, anti-BitterGrey campaign against me in February of 2011. In this discussion, he got involved only after I commented. The timing would suggest that his determination to cite this article was just to spite me. As is clear from the discussion at homosexuality, no one other than WLU and Cantor seems to think this article needs to be cited.
On the other hand, Cantor's workplace, CAMH, has already demonstrated a willingness to have heavily-involved, anonymous editors on the payroll. Cantor was first brought to this board's attention, as "MariontheLibrarian", for this reason[24]. To use a sports analogy (appropriate given the date), perhaps they've hired a blocker for their quarterback? BitterGrey (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
So, what are you alleging? That WLU is on CAMH's payroll? Or that someone else is? Murky accusations aren't helpful to anyone. A disagreement doesn't automatically indicate a bias, and especially not a COI. -- Atama頭 18:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a clear bias, even if we just consider WLU's reactive post: "I'll read and integrate it" I don't know why he shared with us that he hadn't yet read Cantor's article, but that is what he wrote. His determination to cite Cantor's article preceded his actually reading Cantor's article.
The main discussion[25], then several days old, was trending toward a consensus to not add the article. WLU didn't join that discussion, except to state his intention to cite an article he explicitly had not yet read. Unlike others involved in that discussion, WLU didn't discuss the merits of the article - the question of IF the article should be cited. He then went on to add a paragraph on James Cantor[26] and cite his article in multiple locations[27][28]. Multiple editors were needed to halt his promotion of Cantor, against consensus.
WLU's change of position, AFTER the edit war, suggests that he might finally have read the article[29]. Unbiased editors read sources before citing over them, especially if they are doing so against consensus.
As for whether his bias is mainly to promote Cantor or to oppose me, that is less clear. He had made over one hundred edits to Wikipedia in the several days between the time Cantor started these discussions, and when I commented. (I was on a Wikibreak.) However, WLU got involved right after I commented. He rushed to oppose me, not even taking the time to read the article first. BitterGrey (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
WLU said, in his opinion, that it was "a peer-reviewed, secondary source published in a scholarly journal by a noted expert" and that based on that criteria he would attempt to integrate it after reading it. You may argue that it was wrong to make such a decision before actually reading the article and determining its relevance and value, I would understand that. What you've laid out might be examples of bad judgement, but I don't see bias. Does WLU have a history of promoting Cantor or CAMH before all of this occurred? If not, I think you're jumping to conclusions here. I especially don't see any direct connection between WLU and Cantor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Short answer: WLU has added lots of citations to Cantor in at least one other article[30][31][32].
Long answer: Before WLU got involved with in the paraphilic_infantilism article, James Cantor and his colleagues were not mentioned or cited. They are known mainly for their work with pedophiles, not infantilists or masochists. After WLU got involved, three papers from Cantor and colleagues are cited a total of twelve times. These papers are Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree(#13), Freund and Blanchard(#31), and Dickey(#34). They are colleagues at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). There are a number of reasons why a dozen citations in the one article is clearly excessive:
  • Only one, CB&B, uses the term "infantilism" at all, and then only five times on one page (pg 531). F&B uses neologisms unique to F&B, as does Dickey. No neologism is used in more than one of the CAMH papers.
  • The DSM categorizes infantilism as a type of masochism[33][34]. CB&B categorizes infantilism as a type of pedophilia. This fringe theory appears in not one but THREE places[35] in the Wikipedia article, even though no independent sources are cited. (Even on-Wiki while arguing against the DSM, Cantor wrote that it was more often grouped as "paraphilia not otherwise specified"[36] - not pedophilia.) On Dec 6th, WLU toggled the text connected with these citations from asserting that infantilism was a type of pedophilia to contrasting infantilism and pedophilia, when it became clear that someone at RS/N might get involved to remove the extreme claim. This toggling is less clear from the diffs, since a large, politically-correct section had been commented out since August.
  • Neither the DSM nor CB&B provide demographic information specific to infantilism. A demographic statement sourced to the DSM was removed for this reason. A demographic statement sourced to CB&B was added[37], in spite of this reason.
WLU had no involvement in the paraphilic infantilism article before he joined a conflict between Whatamidoing and myself, at Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) in February 2011[38]. ( Whatamidoing might come up often in this discussion: When Cantor's edits are challenged in a board discussion, she is generally there defending him. ) After that conflict, WLU started making disruptive edits to most of the pages I'd contributed to: infantilism, diaper fetish, adult diapers, and paraphilic infantilism. He eventually settled down.
In August 2011, I responded to a post on WikiProject Sexology and sexuality regarding James Cantor's attempt to delete the androphilia_and_gynephilia article. Since auto_androphilia and auto_gynephilia both redirect to Blanchard's transsexualism typology, Blanchard's colleague Cantor at least arguably had a conflict of interest. (Whatamidoing argued for deletion, but the consensus was keep.) That discussion closed 28 July. On August 9, WLU was back to making disruptive edits to paraphilic infantilism. (He made only two edits between 28 July and August 9, perhaps on Wikibreak.)
Another name that might come up in discussion is FiachraByrne. Her last relevant edit was to revert WLU on her rewrite draft[39], and she has not responded to his recent prods to get involved again (eg. [40]). She appears to be a student and (then)new editor, using her real name, who no longer wants to be associated with WLU's actions.
Of course, there is still the possibility that WLU is only promoting Cantor and colleagues to get revenge on me. BitterGrey (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can respond to pretty much all of this WP:BATTLE violation, but it's completely tangential to COIN, will result in a sprawling, acrimonious and pointless thread (don't believe me? See here, here, here, here, here and here), and there's been no specific impropriety pointed out that I'm aware of regarding any actual edits I've made to mainspace regarding James Cantor's posting of a single, brief note of a new and relevant publication. Rather than importing a bunch of pointless pre-existing and completely unrelated grudges, may I suggest we simply close this section? My sole uses of the article were here and here. The first was removed, the second modified by another editor. There appear to be no further COI issues so I think we're done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Atama asked if WLU had a history of promoting Cantor, and I responded. I even took care to separate short and long answers. As for WP:BATTLE, WLU, you are the one who rushed to overrule me at multiple locations this round[41][42], and the one who wouldn't let your conflict remain just at the one location way back in Feb 2011. BitterGrey (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
But we both agree that the paper has no place on homosexuality, one of the two pages where it was presented by an editor for review per WP:COS, right? So we can pretty much consider this one done - a peer reviewed secondary source that is undeniably relevant and reliable was used once on wikipedia, and it wasn't added to the page by an account with a conflict of interest. Therefore, this section is resolved as far as I can see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No, we do not agree. I believe sources should be read and evaluated FIRST, and then included ONLY if doing so would be in the best interest of Wikipedia. I also believe that the citation was added by an editor who does have a conflict of interest, although perhaps not a financial one. While WLU has fought to cite Cantor and his colleagues on multiple pages, I have yet to find anywhere where he has done so on a page that wouldn't be disruptive to me.
(The list of diffs that I gathered last week while looking into it was deleted without discussion. The discussion to undelete the list is here. The nomination for deletion came from an admin who was "too involved"[43] to be neutral.)BitterGrey (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the noticeboard for conflict of interest, not user conduct. If you have a user conduct issue, bring it up at WQA or RFC/U. I don't believe there's any evidence whatsoever that I have any conflict of interest regarding citing Cantor or his coworkers unless you assume a priori that the researchers are not worth citing. There's no evidence this is the case, there's no reason to suggest any issue in citing specialists on paraphilias on pages about paraphilias. Particularly when the relevant scholarly population and related number of articles is quite small. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question. Surely we should encourage expert editors who have written articles or books that we would clearly consider to be reliable sources to suggest them on talk pages. There might be an issue of spam if this was being done on numerous talk pages so this has to be done with discretion. Does anyone disagree with this? Any discussion of what is done with such suggestions belongs elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, as supported by WP:COS and WP:AVOIDCOI. Really, the editors who should be made aware of this discussion are Someone963852 and Garik. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note that it was WLU who brought up the topic of WLU's determination to cite Cantor (before reading the article[44]) here. I'm really not sure why he did, just as I'm not sure why he mentioned that he hadn't read it yet. However he did. He was also having second thoughts about reliability AFTER edit warring against a number of other editors to cite it[45]. Our main concern about Cantor citing Cantor is that he might not be doing it because of the inherent value of the article, but for some other reason. Not having read the article, WLU hadn't a clue about its inherent value, but was determined to cite it for some other reason. BitterGrey (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Where is the conflict of interest in that accusation that makes it relevant to this noticeboard? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

David_Blunkett

I have some concerns about this single purpose account. All of the edits from the account are on this one page and seem to removing a lot of reliably sourced content if it is in any way critical.RafikiSykes (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A COI is certainly possible, though there's nothing obviously connecting this editor to the article subject. My suggestion would be to bring up the matter with the editor on their user talk page. Nobody has communicated with the editor aside from a welcome template left back in October. I do see that the editor uses edit summaries, which is usually a sign that they are communicative, so it might be worth asking them if they have a connection and to express concerns about the removal of content. Just try not to be confrontational either way, I don't see much actual disruption and we try to respect people's privacy if they want to remain anonymous. -- Atama頭 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
OK will work along those lines. One recent edit had very biased/problematic wording so I reverted and left a relevant note on their talk page about neutral wording. I will see how/if they respond.RafikiSykes (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1-800-GET-THIN

More eyes would be appreciated at 1-800-GET-THIN, where we have an editor named 1800GetThinCEO, followed by an IP editor, repeatedly making edits to remove information sourced in reliable sources and replace it with advertising content sourced mainly to press releases and ads. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching it - I don't think there is anything that needs attention at the moment though. SmartSE (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, and thanks also for your well-judged improvements to the lede.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Artist Management

The user is apparently from Zeitgeist Artist Management who manages these three bands (and a few others). The user has made edits to all three articles. I only glanced through the edits as I'm on a Wikibreak (or supposed to be) but their edits don't look problematic. I added COI tags until the edits can be thoroughly checked. I have also left a COI info template on the user's talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 22:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't believe that their username is a WP:USERNAME violation (WP:CORPNAME specifically). Their username indicates that they are a person who works for the company, not that they are the company. OlYeller21Talktome 22:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think opinions are divided on such names. – ukexpat (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The "I believe" portion was meant to imply that it's my opinion. I wish we (WP contributors) could come to a consensus on that issue. OlYeller21Talktome 23:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
User has been indefinitely blocked. Besides wishing that we could work out that issues, the block hasn't really solved the problem and has probably made a potentially problematic users harder to identify. I'll report back if I see any suspicious behavior in the near future. OlYeller21Talktome 04:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael siemsen

I noticed that the article for Michael Siemsen has been put up for deletion. Since the book is self-published through Amazon's CreateSpace and there's very little about the author or his book on the internet, I suspected that the editor that created the page was either the author himself or someone who knows him. (In other words, an involved party.) I did a little sleuthing and discovered this page [46] where the author has an account under the same login name. Jestermeister's sole edits to Wikipedia has been to create this article and edit other entries in order to insert his name and book into them. (See [47]) I have tagged the author's page and Jestermeister's page accordingly. I am trying to assume goodwill, but the edits so far appear to be more promotional in nature. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Service Uncle is an ideal directory for Service Providers

This is a user who uploaded an article to the AfC that was so blatantly an advertisement that I wanted to bring it up to this noticeboard. It's very much a non-ambiguous promotional account. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

User:Dannilou and Superbreak

User appears to represent the article in question. Account appears to have been created with the sole purpose of promoting or advertising Superbreak. --MonkeyPhysics (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the style, single-purpose, and timing of the edits, a COI is highly likely. I've heavily edited the article to remove the promotional language and link spamming, tagged it for {{primary sources}}, and left a comment at Talk:Superbreak, as well as note on the edior's talk page. Note there was another obvious prior COI editor, User:Superbreak, blocked per their corporate username in December. The editor here, seems to have taken up where User:Superbreak left off. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

circumcision

There is an editor of the circumcision page. He or she professes strict neutrality. No articles which conflict with his or her opinion, however, get through. He or she is a published author, with 6 co-authored pieces to his or her name, on the subject of circumcision, according to Microsoft Academic Search. Though not a medical professional, he or she has been published in the American Journal of Public Health, the International Journal of Std & Aids, twice in the British Journal of Urology, and in Sexually Transmitted Diseases. He or she has been cited 7 times in 6 publications. The difficulty comes in in that his or her articles all point to the same non-neutral conclusion. His or her wikipedia edits, if analyzed, all point in the direction of the articles, with no room for variation or dissent. If he or she cites a primary source, there is an acceptable rationale. No one else is allowed. His or her death grip on the circumcision article amounts to one man or woman rule. Newcomers to the page are harrassed. I personally was harassed, not by the aforementioned editor, but by someone who had been pointed to postings outside of wikipedia in which there was conflict between the editor and me, in comments made to published articles. Quotes outside wikipedia of my words were posted on the circumcision talk page, and I was mentioned by user name, with it being implied that 'people' were sent by intactivist groups to penetrate wikipedia. I find the inference laughable, but when there is a strong reaction from editor B as if I am a danger to be neutralized, it creates a less than level playing field. Please let me be clear. In the complaint of harassment, I am not singling out the editor/author. I am stating that there appears to be a tag team, where one person riles another, and the secondary editor goes on the offensive. Between the two of them, there is a tremendously hostile atmosphere projected to newcomers. You may have to go back a month. I see that all postings I wrote on the circumcision talk page have disappeared.

Back to editor A. You can't profess neutrality, and then have every expression be on one side of an issue or subject. Any truly neutral analysis of editor A's postings would show that numerically, statistically, his or her posts, and the posts he or she allows, only support one conclusion. Best regards, tftobin Tftobin (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  • tftobin, I've moved your signature to the end of your message where it belongs. WP:TALK has more guidance on how to format messages on discussion pages (it's not done the way it is on internet forums). I had a look at the article's history and at least three different editors have reverted you. Holding a particular point of view doesn't equate to a conflict of interest, any more than your point of view on the subject (which you clearly have) equates to a conflict of interest. What matters is that the content of the article is as neutrally presented as possible, backed up with high quality resources. I see no evidence of any of the other editors you seem to be talking about linking to their own publications or using them as sources for the article. This seems to be a content dispute between several editors, and more specifically over the appropriate kinds of sources to be used and the application of the guidelines for sourcing medical articles. Furthermore, the quoted message from an outside forum posted by one of the editors gave absolutely no indication of who had written it, nor had they connected it to any other Wikipedia editor's name.
This whole issue of a putative "conflict of interest" by one of the editors in that article has already had a lengthy discussion at Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents last summer where the consensus was that there was not a CoI issue, but a content one. Concern was also expressed there at a possible canvassing issue with respect to this external site. There is a current Request for Comment open at Talk:Circumcision with a variety of editors participating. I suggest you continue to participate in that, but stick to commenting on content issues rather than on other editors. I also note that this same issue has been repeatedly brought up at at Wikiquette assistance [48], [49] and a currently open one in which you have also participated. The general view of outside editors there seems to be once, again, that this is a content dispute. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards like this is generally not an effective way to reach consensus. By the way, your messages haven't "disappeared". The article's talk page is archived automatically by a bot. You'll find your most recent past messages in Talk:Circumcision/Archive 70. Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It is permissible for a wikipedia editor to go outside of wikipedia, in effect stalk a person, come in, and post their writings in a talk page while insinuating they are a sock puppet, and sent by an outside organization to infiltrate, as long as they merely insinuate, and don't connect the name directly, all the while mentioning the person by name in a group of names? I have zero affiliation with http://www.facebook.com/pages/Make-Wikipedia-Recognize-Male-Circumcision-As-Male-Genital-Mutilation/241713385868218, or any other group trying to change wikipedia. I am having a hard time reconciling all this, with 'don't bite the newbies'. It is OK for a wikipedia editor to object to everything he or she doesn't agree with, even if he or she has 6 published works on the subject, merely by stating NPOV imperially, even though the talk page has 4-6 objections to his or her moderating? How is this neutrality? I don't object to being reverted as a newbie editor. One did it with politeness and grace, Doc James. I'm new, and I make newbie mistakes. What I object to is that someone non-medical who has published 6 articles of one viewpoint is allowed total editoral control of what goes in, or does not go in, whether it meets the standards or not. Witness ThereWillBeFact's struggle to get a secondary source in, on the talk page. One editor is allowed to use primary sources as references. No one else is. It's not about me, or what I would like to see. It is about a non-level playing field. It is about total control in the hands of a tiny number of people, who all share the same viewpoint, and effectively have a lock on the article. One of whom is a published author, who always takes the same viewpoint, in their articles, and in their wikipedia edits of what they will allow, or not allow. Tftobin (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tftobin (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
How does all this equate to "newbie biting"? You've been editing here since 2009. In any case, this noticeboard is not for content disputes particularly those involving multiple editors who disagree with each other. You're simply not going to get a lot of traction here by characterising everyone who opposes you as having a conflict of interest, any more than your opponents would. There's an open Request for Comment at Talk:Circumcision. It will be closed 30 days after it opened by an uninvolved administrator. I suggest you await the outcome of that, and if you are still not satisfied, try one of the other dispute resolution processes. The Conflict of Interest noticeboard is not one of them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
When I said 'newbie', I meant newbie to attempting to edit circumcision. No deception intended. I also didn't realize that the Wikiquette_assistance was still open. Thank you for letting me know. That actually makes me feel better.
My intention is not to be a jerk, or to seek revenge, or to take the place of anybody. I doubt I'll even be contributing, since I find it nearly impossible to find secondary sources which confirm that healthy body parts work. I simply want what everybody wants, a little fairness.
Does editor A have 6 published papers, on the topic of circumcision, or not? Do they all have the same outlook on the subject at hand, or are they neutral? If both are true, is his or her editing statistically slanted to one side, or is it consistently neutral, when counted, edit by edit? If so, does COI apply, or not? Tftobin (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Once again, this editor does not seem to have pushed for his own articles to be added as references or linked in the article, and indeed they aren't. In my view the article uses very high quality references. Obviously he has a particular point of view, as do you. But that doesn't equate to a conflict of interest on either side. Nor does it necessarily equate to the article itself not having a neutral point of view. That's an issue for discussion on the talk page, not here. I note that multiple editors on that talk page agree with him on various points and there are some who agree with your stance. That's what the RfC is for, to seek consensus. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience, and your clarity, Voceditenore Tftobin (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

FortressCraft

This page has been going through a heavy edit war between editors and Projector Games staff members. For example, 87.194.139.68 has revealed himself to be the game's lead designer, KingFredrick VI runs the FortressCraft Wiki and HereticKiller6's only edits have been reversions about information that might portray the game in a less than favorable manner. This has been going on far too long and I believe intervention is necessary. Now, I haven't been the biggest contributor to the page, but when I have, I've been caught up in this ridiculous edit war. I think that after ten months of this, we need some administrative attention to this page. DarthBotto talk•cont 04:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see something done about this, namely the banning of the listed users (as the reasons why are very clear). I've been watching from the sidelines for quite awhile and I did revert one of Heretic's edits, but Cluebot reverted my revert. The article itself is now highly biased (or whatever the correct term is) towards the creator of the game, thanks to numerous ungodly edits from the listed-above editors. 209.159.183.132 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Side note: If I remember correctly, KingFrederick also seems to favour editing the CastleMiner. Might wanna examine that article to see how biased it is. 209.159.183.132 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Lights

In the Pheonix Lights article a report published by Dr. Bruce Maccabee contains information on his page 5 is missing coordinates for the location of the Lights viewed by Hamilton and King on March 13, 1997 at my home. I had invited the MUFON investigators to my house to review tapes I had recorded of the lights each of previous three nights. They filmed the lights and Maccabee produced his report without reviewing the full tapes in 1998. He made some assumptions based on a frame of film showing a light that appeared 5 minutes prior to the large array. In 2007 I, Steven Blonder, contacted Dr. Maccabee about the omission of my coordinates which would have changed his triangulation of all 4 videos (including the one shot from my home). His triangulation only shows the other 3 videos coordinates he visited in Phoenix. In 2010 Dr. Maccabee agreed to take my sighting into account with new photographic evidence and a submission of coordinates. In March 2010 a Phoenix based investigative journalist shot new twilight pictures which were used with pictures shot in 1997 by Bill Hamilton to use to create film composites of the sighting to determine the span and line of site coordinates using Google Earth. The investigator and I worked together on the project for two years and shared the results with the National Geographic producers who planned to interview the investigator and myself in January for a new two hour show on the history of UFOs. Neither of us did not appeared due to limited time and budget. I've provided a link to the storyboard we drafted on my site and have provided the public with all the data so they could check the results for themselves since the data points to at least two true unknowns in videos shot at my home by Tom King and video shot by Dr. Lynne Kitei (owner of the Phoenix Lights Network site and also linked to from the Phoenix Lights article besides Dr. Maccabee's report, Bill Hamilton's report and others who have been intimately involved in the Sightings. While my site promotes an e-book (by donation) the link I've provided is to all the data collected and processed by Lowe and myself for education and scientific purposes. While I understand that this Sighting has been highly politicized over the years, adding data should not be viewed as self-serving. My book is about my reaction to the Sighting and is not dependent on any findings one way or another. My goal has been, and continutes to be to make sure the coordinates of my key location be included in the study which has been used by many debunkers to prove that all lights seen by all witnesses at 10:00 pm were definitively flares. The data my site is providing challenges that conclusion. Dr. Maccabee has already revised his coordinates for the other witnesses based on the implications of my coodinates and line of site. I would appreciate it if my link can remain on the Wiki entry because it presents the hardest evidence available today from any one witness. Sblonder (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian Defence League biased rewrite attempt

I have just started the section Talk:Norwegian Defence League#Possible COI major rewrite reverted about what may appear to be an underhanded attempt at slanting the article by removing mention of information that could be seen as damaging to the article's subject. I'm also notifying the NPOV noticeboard. I have ventured to revert the contentious edit. I have also requested on Filippusson's talk page that any COI issues be disclosed (I'm unsure whether it is appropriate to notify both boards, but I'm unsure which is the more correct one). My own connection to the subject has been declared on the article's talk page. __meco (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some reason to believe the user has a COI, more than the POV of the edit? Babakathy (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you realize just how horrid an article it is at this point? Including obvious COATRACK issues and violations of WP:BLP even if the people are the most horrid people in the world, Wikipedia policies still apply. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Clothianidin / USEPA James

Someone please have a look at what has been going on at Clothianidin, a pesticide linked with honey bee colony collapse disorder which has been heavily edited by User:USEPA James -- who has said from the outset that he works for the Environmental Protection Agency -- to remove and downplay the connections, contrary to what appear to be very strong statements in secondary peer reviewed sources. After being reverted, there is now forum shopping on noticeboards and attempts to establish "consensus" in his userspace by soliciting opinions of editors who haven't edited on the subject and don't claim to have any particular expertise pertaining to it. Unfortunately, the EPA has been involved in several lawsuits pertaining to honey bees and clothianidin, which USEPA James did not disclose before he started making major revisions to the relevant parts of the article. Guidance from more experienced editors would be helpful here. 66.225.195.47 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This would appear to be a content dispute, rather than a COI issue. I can't any way that an employee of the EPA could stand to benefit from that article being a certain way. It looks as if there are already experienced editors involved too. SmartSE (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems very unlikely that the editor is actually with the USEPA. Given that similar editing patterns have been occurring on the closely related Imidacloprid article from a variety of IPs and an editor who showed up at about the same time, a sockpuppet investigation would be prudent. 222.165.255.198 (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching this develop. If you were a public relations contractor assigned to protect a $1 billion insecticide business facing the nightmare that is http://google.com/search?q=neonicotinoid+bees why would you not try to focus on Wikipedia, which seems to have the only suggestion that the case is not already closed among all the sources of all quality on the first five pages of those Google results? 82.192.79.139 (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting removal of a sentence on Dairy Management Inc. Wikipedia page

Dairy Management Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am an employee of Dairy Management Inc., writing on behalf of the organization in regards to the Wikipedia page posted for Dairy Management Inc. I am requesting removal of a sentence that misrepresents the organization and how it is funded.

The misrepresenting sentence is in the second paragraph; specifically the second sentence. This sentence reads “It is funded by a tax imposed on dairy farmers administered by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board”. Dairy Management, Inc. is funded by a weight assessment fee charged to dairy producers, as depicted in the following sentence, “The corporation has 162 employees and a budget of about $140 million mostly funded by fees charged to dairy producers. It is headed by longtime chief executive Thomas P. Gallagher.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseDMI (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "diary producer" and "diary farmer"? Rklawton (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Dairy farmers have cows; dairy producers, actually dairy processors, process dairy products, see Dairy Promotion Program. There is little overlap. I think I probably put the language Rose is complaining about in the article. Wrong, someone else reverted my edits and put in their unsourced POV opinion see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dairy_Management_Inc.&diff=448161042&oldid=448100715 . I can remember having a great deal of trouble researching the matter. Not sure what is right. There is a dual structure though, I remember that, which confuses things. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
All edits made after my last edit, and the edit complained of have an anti-marketing POV. Whether commodity checkoff is tax is more a bone to chew on than a fact. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit is particularly perverse; I am no friend of animal fat and find a vacuous slogan promoting it, "Offering the products consumers want, where and when they want them." just the ticket. No criticism is more devastating than one's own words emphasized. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC on COI guideline

People here may be interested in a current request for comment regarding the COI guideline and this noticeboard: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. SmartSE (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Seth Morgan Romero

The article for Seth Morgan Romero was created by Malvinworks, who I believe is the subject of the article itself. (See these links which shows that Malvinworks posted on IMDb under the original name, which was later changed to match the name of the article subject: [50] [51] [52]) The article has also been edited by two other users whose sole edits have been to the Romero article and to defend the article in its AfD discussion. There has been repeated deletion of the AfD template as well. I've warned the users by posting the COI template and tagged the article accordingly, but I'd like it if someone could check to see if all of the editors are from the same IP or area. I have a suspicion that due to the extremely limited notability of the article subject, that they're either all one person or are several of Romero's friends editing to try to keep the article. I do want to say on their behalf that they are merely arguing the deletion and are not trying to flood the discussion with "keep" votes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Lipton Brisk

I work for PepsiCo, and I have observed some inaccuracies on the Lipton Brisk page. I would like to provide clarification in hopes of correcting some of these, but I am not sure what course of action to take. Let me disclose that I did make significant edits to the page (which has since been reverted to a prior version); I thought I was following protocol by first disclosing my relationship with PepsiCo on the Brisk talk page and then citing reliable sources for each update. I was not aware of this discussion board and otherwise would have posted here instead. Where can I discuss the inaccuracies and request that a neutral editor make the changes? Scd269 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate place is the article's talk page at Talk:Lipton Brisk. Please be prepared to provide reliable sources to substantiate your changes. – ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The user has been very cooperative and requested that an edit be made via the talk page. I'm attempting to clean up COIN today but I'll address the edit request unless someone else does in the meantime. OlYeller21Talktome 15:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I've done maybe half or so of the needed work here. It was one of those lazy, wholesale reversions of sourced material that was 90% appropriate and mostly just needed the occasional marketing word removed. Glancing at the talk page, there are still a few factual errors that need to be corrected. I don't see any reason why Scd269 shouldn't be free to do that himself (or herself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

Two other editors keep deleting material that I post on the Department of Corrections (New Zealand) website. They appear to have a significant conflict of interest. Beeblebrox has already deleted an entire conversation on the talk page where discussions about the conflict of interest took place and one of them outed me. These two editors are continuing to delete material that I have posted on this page now claiming that it is a coatrack. The material they deleted in the last two days has been up there for weeks - but they didn't make this claim that it represented a coatrack until Beeblebrox intervened. Offender9000 (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I assume that I am one of those editors. I would like to see your evidence of significant conflict of interest please. That or clarify that I am not one of the editors you refer to. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User is a WP:SPA with >1000 edits on this page and related pages. The user pushes an pro-rehabilitation viewpoint, to the point of turning articles into attack pages. Many references were originally to a book which the user says they wrote and appears to have self-published, more recent references are to popular press articles. The user often says that feedback isn't exact and asks for specifics, by which they appear to mean small scale copy-editing. Tellingly this response has appeared in completely different conversations with completely different editors. The user appears to think that WP:BALANCE and WP:ATTACK issues can be fixed by minor copy-editing even when the page largely consists of controversies and negative press related to the topic. The page is currently locked, the the user has been warned for WP:3RR, recently material was removed from the talk page under WP:OUTING. In short a complete mess. Minor secondary issues include (a) the user appearing to be unwilling to learn to cite properly and (b) the users preference for popular press references with no personal by-line over authoritative primary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, see above. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There's certainly a lengthy dispute going on here and one can easily question the motives of editors involved. All of that is ultimately unimportant here unless someone can prove a close connection. To me, this looks like a POV issue. I'm not going to get into who is right or wrong here because I don't have hours to pour through the conflict discussions.

As I don't see a clear connection, I suggest taking this report to WP:NPOVN where editors will be able to join the discussion and hopefully come to some sort of conclusion/compromise. OlYeller21Talktome 16:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that. I didn't realize that the section was placed here three times (I only saw it twice). I need to read through the first report to better understand the issue. OlYeller21Talktome 16:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Tareq Salahi

Since December a user with names that infer a relationship with the subject of this article has been making edits to the article on Tareq Slahi. I'd appreciate some eyes on the article to check to see if there is anything there that violates WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Considering the public drubbing Salahi endured after the 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches and that this is a BLP, I think the situation needs to be handled with care. AniMate 20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Both usernames have been indefinitely block but the problem hasn't been solved (only the symptoms). The page still has SPAs editing regularly and making very large changes to the article. All editing issues seem to be related to a Journey for the Cure issue of some sort.
AniMate, does the article need attention from currently uninvolved editors? OlYeller21Talktome 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffree Star discography

This discography page (especially the Singles section) keeps on being changed by the artist User:Jsteininger and User:Jeffreesworld, their fan page, which states that the information that's currently on the page is truth, but sources state that the information is false. User:Jeffreesworld has tweeted me on Twitter stating, "It doesn't matter what research you've done, it's what Jeffree wants up there that will be up there." I thought that the articles on Wikipedia weren't supposed to be ran by the person themselves, ie What if User:KatyPerry ran the page Katy Perry and all of it's sub pages? That wouldn't be right. There's no notability when a person edits it themselves. Jeffree Star/User:Jsteininger has even tweeted me saying that I've "REPEATED made [stuff] up and caused problems" and in another tweet he stated "STOP changing my photos and info." I didn't do anything wrong. I just changed a spelling error and removed a deleted photo and added a new one. Devin Davis (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This "edit war" is still going on. I've fixed Jeffree Star discography to being more notable but User:Jeffreesworld keeps on editing it stating false information. I don't know what to do. I've confronted User:Jsteininger and User:Jeffreesworld about their edits stating that their edits aren't up to Wikipedia standards. I really have no idea what to do about them. Do I report them for vandalism or what? I need someone that knows what their doing to monitor all of Jeffree Star's subpages for me. Devin Davis (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I really need help you guys. There's a content dispute between me and User:Jeffreesworld on Twitter about what's on Jeffree Star discography. I've obviously have done the research while they haven't. They're saying that if it's not on iTunes then it must not be true. I think not because iTunes isn't a reliable source. Devin Davis (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm on a Wikibreak but I'll take a look at the situation. I will say though that there's little chance that I'll be reading through Twitter feeds as we don't have any jurisdiction over Twitter and more importantly, I'm not even sure that we can link a Wikipedia account to a Twitter account unless the person admits to owning the Twitter account on Wikipedia.
User:Jsteininger has no talk page edits and has never admitted to a connection through edit summaries. I personally believe that if they are not Jeffrey Steininger (Jeff Star, the subject of the article in question), they are violating WP:USERNAME and should either change their username or be blocked. User:Jeffreesworld has one talk page edit and no edit summaries but in that one talk page edit, they claim to represent Jeff but indicate that they are not from "his label/management to get involved because it's time consuming". They also asked for Devin to be banned from editing. Regardless of the COI, Jeffreesworld is the name of an organization and given the nature of their edits, I believe that account is also in violation of WP:USERNAME and should be blocked if they don't change their name. Given the edit history, I believe that these are two different people. Ultimately, even if both accounts are blocked for a username violation, the users themselves are unlikely to just go away. An indefinite block of those accounts would solve a symptom of a problem but not the problem itself. On top of that, I'm not exactly sold that Jeffreesworld actually has a connection to the subject as they may just be a fan who wants people to believe that they do.
I'll look through edits and report back. OlYeller21Talktome 05:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Jeffreesworld has violated WP:3RR today. They should be blocked accordingly but again, that wouldn't really solve the problem here but it might get them to use the talk page in the future. I'm stopping my investigation at this point. Devin, neither you nor the accused accounts have used the talk page for discussion one single time. If I were you, I would ignore a Twitter feud all together because ultimately, it has no bearing on how decisions are made about article content on WP. You should start a discussion on the talk page about your opinions on the content in question and go from there. At that point, if either of you are making arguments that don't align with WP's policies and guidelines, we can actually do something about it.
Lastly, I would just relax. If the article says something incorrect for a day or two that doesn't violation WP:BLP, so what? We'll get it worked out but the best way to do that is through discussion on the talk page of the article and not on Twitter.
An admin is welcome to take action on the policy violations I pointed out if they wish. I need to get to bed. Hope this helped a bit. OlYeller21Talktome 05:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm positive that Jeffreesworld and @JeffreesWorld are the same person. By looking at this it states that they run a fan site. On their Twitter page it states that they run a fan site. I don't know about you, but that's putting two and two together and I'm sold on the idea that they're the same person.
I have requested Jeffree Star discography to be fully protected for up to 7 days just so that if there's any content dispute, like there already is, it can be brought to the talk page.
Since they're both in violation of WP:USERNAME, should I report them? Devin Davis (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
An admin here may take care of it. I think it's safe to assume that the person has an interest in the subject which may cloud their decision making ability but as I mentioned before, linking the account to the Twitter account accomplishes nothing.
On a side note, your comment he:re that Jeffreesworld "[has] no say in what goes on the page because they have a close relationship to the artist" is false. You may want to read through WP:COI to get better acquainted with our guideline regarding COI editing.
If your goal is to make a better article and therefor improve Wikipedia, you need to start a discussion on the talk page of the article. At this point, this just looks like an argument off-wiki between two people who want the page to look the way they want it to. If you want others to help and support your opinions, the best way to do that is to explain to others why you're correct, while citing relevant WP policies and guidelines, on the talk page of the article. OlYeller21Talktome 06:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I did and I figured out that WP:COI#Close relationships would be the closest thing to this case because Jeffreesworld has a close relationship with the subject in matter, Jeffree Star. Therefore, there's no notability when they're adding on to an article of his because it's all first hand knowledge from Jeffree Star himself. That's the way that I see it and I'm standing by it.
But I do believe that the subject, a living person, does have a say as long as there's a notable source to back up there information.
How would one even start a discussion on the talk page? By stating things that I've stated above with Wikipedia links to policies and guidelines? I know that the main argument on here would be the artist's singles and I could argue about how what I say is correct, with sources linking to that song stating that it's a single like I've already done, without argument, on the discography page... I'm sorry. I just got way off topic. I'm just thinking out loud. Devin Davis (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Jeffreesworld has been blocked due to edit warring and disruptive editing. So, I think this case is closed or unless someone wants to addon to this. Devin Davis (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Having a close relationship doesn't bar one from editing. WP:COI states, "COI editing is strongly discouraged" meaning that it's not inherently banned so again, the statement I linked is flat out incorrect.
You keep referencing "notable sources" and I'm not sure that you really understand that. notability is a guideline that deals with inclusion of a subject on Wikipedia (having an article or not). It specifically does not limit content in an article which is covered by WP:N#Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. I believe you're referring to reliable sources in which case, you've argued that iTunes isn't a reliable source and in my opinion, that's also incorrect. That's the kind of argument that would take place on the talk page. You would create a section named something like "Inclusion of Singles" and then state your argument as to why it should or shouldn't be included (such as your "iTunes is not a reliable sources" argument). At that point, others could respond.
This is not the place to have that argument.
Lastly, in my experience, the issue has not been solved. A block has been placed on an account, not the person. If they're such a fan that they started a fanclub, what are the chances that the block is going to discourage them forever? If/when the issues do pop back up, don't bring the case here again. Use the talk page of the article and discuss the issue with the editor. OlYeller21Talktome 15:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just checked out the block. It's an indefinite username block and "isn't intended to be punitive" meaning that the user could be back at any time under a different username to edit. OlYeller21Talktome 15:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when is iTunes a notable/reliable source? I've always heard that it wasn't so I've always used it last when trying to source something in an article. That's all that I'm going to say on this subject matter.
Jeffreesworld could be back as a different username but if they do make the same edits and one compares their edits, could they be blocked for sock puppetry? I thought that there was supposed to be one user account under one IP address rule. I know that there's an exception, when two people are living in the same household, user the same IP address, both have Wikipedia accounts, but they have to have different edits. Devin Davis (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It's important to distinguish that a person is not their account. A person uses an account. Only one person may use an account but one person may have several accounts as long as they don't intentionally try and appear to be more than one person although having multiple accounts is discouraged. See WP:MULTIPLE for info about having multiple accounts.
It wouldn't be socking, exactly, unless they came back and claimed to not be the person who ran the now-blocked account but shared their opinion. It's not exactly a black and white scenario, though. In the end, banning a person from using Wikipedia is not something that's done lightly or quickly. The person is not banned from editing Wikipedia. Their username has been blocked from being used.
Since when isn't Apple a reliable source? They're one of the largest companies on the planet but again, this isn't a discussion for this noticeboard. If you wish to discuss it on the talk page of the article, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you there. OlYeller21Talktome 21:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, also "notable" and "reliable" are not interchangeable. A notable source is a source that itself has been covered by independent and reliable sources (or satisfied some other inclusion guideline). A reliable source is a source that, when they say something, we can assume that it's true. OlYeller21Talktome 22:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

American Third Position Party

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) A number of IPs have appeared to edit the article and post to the talk page claiming that they are supporters or members of this party, threatening edit war and saying that the article is POV because it calls the group white supremacist (Americans and American groups given this label usually deny it saying they are white nationalists). So I took the issue to NPOVN as it's a pov issue. However, a number of the complaints are that sources are COI (eg the ADL) and the only response so far at NPOVN is one of the supporters, who says " The only sources either are from, or linked directly to, the ADL/SPLC and similar organizations who make money by scaring donations out of little old ladies by claiming white supremacists are under every bed in America. Clearly the conflict of interest exists." The IP has been making similar complaints on the article's talk age, where another IP has also said "Also having sources from the ADL, a Zionist entity, is the biggest conflict of interest I can think of." (Actually I'm not sure how many individuals are involved, as one IP clearly isn't static). So I'm bringing it here so that the COI issue can be determined. Other eyes on the article would be nice as well as the number of supporters may be outnumbering the number of regular editors watching the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yikes. It's clear that the IPs don't have a good understanding, if any, of WP:COI.
Determining a close connection may not be worth the trouble and it seems like it would be a lot of trouble. I'm not sure that being a member of a party actually constitutes a conflict of interest unless they're part of the organization itself but that's certainly debatable. It looks like there are some eyes on the article but page protection might be the next step. I would also try asking for help at a related Wikiproject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics or one of its subgroups. The editing habits seem more like POV issues as evidence of a close connection would be hard if not impossible to establish. Asking for neutral editors to help contribute will be your best bet. I would be careful about asserting your position though, as people may consider it canvassing even though I think you're probably justified. OlYeller21Talktome 21:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was really trying to get others to comment on the coi claims of the IP(s) about the ADL etc. Someone has protected the page now. This is being discussed at the [[Stormfront {website}[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t870653/]. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Jeez. I could only get through a few posts on that website.
The IP's claims are completely baseless, in bad faith, and normal for someone who is adamantly supporting their cause and believes the world is out to get them. To keep your sanity, I suggest ignoring those claims; if the people making them wish to take action in the appropriate locations (ANI, COIN, NPOVN, etc.), they're more than welcome. Sticking to WP:V and WP:RS for restoring cited information is going to be the easiest plan of action right now. Until they start canvassing or ballot stuff opinions on the talk page, they're not going to accomplish anything. OlYeller21Talktome 19:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
To answer the question about sources having a COI: the WP:COI guideline only applies to editors, not to reliable sources. It is not possible for the ADL to violate the COI guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

American Humane Association

User AHA1877 has completely rewritten the article for the organization that he/she works for. I'm not sure if a full revert is in order but I don't think the article complies with Wikipedia's guideline for neutral point of view anymore. For An Angel (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Note self-out here I'd suggest reverting and discussing it on the talk page. Certainly the entire paragraphs introduced without WP:RS need to be nuked. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I concur it should be reverted. Way too breathless and ra-ra-ra. Doubtless there's good stuff in the edits which could then be brought back should someone wish to do the work; as it stands it has massive problems of tone, POV, reliance on primary sources, etc. I've added Hero dog awards as equally problematical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There are all sorts of issues here. Editing with a close connection, external links in the body, huge lede, possible WP:USERNAME violation, removal of maintenance templates without addressing the issues listed, leaving a first person message in the article, fanpage like writing (at best, at worst it's a full on advert), waaay too much detail, and possibly a copyright violation towards the bottom of the article.
I have nominated Hero dog awards for deletion as it's a copyright violation. AHA1877 would theoretically be able to get permission to use the text but even then, it's not usable in my opinion.
I support fully reverting AHA1877's edits to the AHA article and inviting them to discuss the issue on the talk page. I suggest trying taking a very diplomatic approach as I'm guessing they feel very strongly about their position. Inflaming the situation won't help anyone. I can talk to them if needed. OlYeller21Talktome 04:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The AHA was founded in 1877. I've put a {{causeblock}} on them, for obvious reasons (WP:NOBLECAUSE and all that). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added three (admittedly old) single purpose accounts to the list above. You may want to block AmericanHumane, since I recall one of the redirects added by AHA1877 suggested AmericanHumane is an accepted name of the AHA. It's very disappointing that AHA1877 has been editing today but declined the invitation on his talk page to discuss the issue here; very disappointing indeed. We can only make progress with good faith interactions with AHA1877; absent that, we might as well get on with answering the question do we want a simple revert or some sort of oversight deletion of what I suspect will in some part be copyvio? My vote would be to remove everything added since 06:32, 26 February 2012‎. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't disagree with you Orange Mike. I just hope they're easily identifiable if/when they come back.
I've reverted to an older version of the article as can be seen here. It's a 30,334 byte difference.
I had an edit conflict with Tagishsimon and his last post. I hope my revert is adequate. If not, feel free to revert me. OlYeller21Talktome 18:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I just checked and I chose the same place you did, Tagishsimon. OlYeller21Talktome 18:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have updated my username account from AHA1877 to Ava Harper. I have not intentionally been unprofessional, I am just not aware of the protocol. I edited the article today to try and address some of the concerns brought up here. I respectfully ask for your forgiveness in doing so, as I did not realize I was further exacerbating the situation. I realize now that I should have commented here. I will do nothing further on the page, but would really appreciate any advice on how to edit the American Humane Association page from a neutral perspective that reviews our programs in their totality. I'm not even sure I've just now addressed this appropriately or if there is some other protocol I should be following. Please advise, if you don't mind. Ava Harper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC).
Thanks Ava, much appreciated. We'll talk to you on your talk page - User talk:Ava Harper. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Themacor

All contribution of this user is limited to adding external links to a website entitled utakmica.rs. This website provides only statistics for footballers from Serbian SuperLiga from only last two seasons and is really nothing special, there are many websites around the web that provides such information from more than two seasons.This user was warned in the past for spamming, see diffs [53] and [54]. Despite this, he continued massively adding links to that website, added a lot of them today. Oleola (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look today but I'd make a post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football as well. Is there any evidence that they're from the website or have any connection with the information they're editing? OlYeller21Talktome 17:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The entire website is not in English and has no translations. We'll probably have to elevate this issue and possibly get the link blacklisted. I haven't done that for a while so I'll read into it now. OlYeller21Talktome 17:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I submitted a report over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. I'll make sure it gets cleaned up. Unless anyone has any evidence, I don't see any way that we can conclusively prove a conflict of interest although it seem obvious that the editor has a vested interest in increasing traffic to the website in question. OlYeller21Talktome 18:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
In the future, you might consider taking issues like this to the WP:External links/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Management Institute of Canada

MIC, an unaccredited university in Montréal serving as a front for the (also-dodgy) DIU in Louisiana, was recently the subject of an Enquête TV newsmagazine report on Radio-Canada, our national terrestrial French-language broadcaster. That report cites an access-to-information request in which Québec's ministry of education indicates this entity is unlawfully selling degrees despite being ordered repeatedly to cease and desist. There have already been multiple sockpuppets blocked for editing MIC and DIU (or their associated talk pages) as single-purpose accounts to claim what amounts to "of course it's a real school, their own website says so". As the Enquête piece aired on the 1st of this month, the related pages are attracting a bit of attention (DIU is semi-protected, MIC is not) and the creation of a new user whose first and only two edits are to Talk:MIC and Talk:DIU looks a bit suspect as this user is a little too eager to trust the subject's own website and discount a reliable, established national broadcaster. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I also invite folks to have a look-in at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stevemanagement. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like we've been lucky in that they generally change the information in one edit. The pages look fine at this point. Are the socks very active at this point or do we just need some more watchlisters for future socks? OlYeller21Talktome 18:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Liberty Fund

Article previously had problems with copyvio with the organization's web site. SPA removing critical material (although it is poorly worded). Could benefit from additional editors. a13ean (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that there's a connection between the users and the subject of the article. I don't see anything for Android1961 other than they added some copyrighted material at one point. Uncoverer has a much more intricate history so I haven't been able to go through it all. OlYeller21Talktome 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed that Uncoverer hasn't edited since December 2008. Android1961 picked up editing a few months later on the same article. Android1961's edit history, if it is the same person, suggests some crafty track hiding but I won't assume that to be the case (assuming good faith).
Unless there's some more substantial evidence of a close connection besides a strong interest in one topic and addition of copyright material, I think this case will be better served at WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a good point, I've been blurring together spa's that seem to advocate for a single issue with users which have a demonstrable coi. I guess part of this is that I sometimes warn the former with uw-coi which says something along the lines of "you may have a conflict of interest". In retrospect, NPOV/N would have been a more appropriate place for this. a13ean (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The addition of material based on an internal memo does suggest some connection. It isn't just pov, it's blanking material with an edit summary saying that it doesn't relate to the Liberty Fund when the source explicitly discusses the Liberty Fund. That's not just pov. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Where is the addition of an internal memo? This is where adding diffs with a report helps to avoid issues. Someone's opinion, however wrong it may be, doesn't implicitly prove a connection. It just doesn't. The removal, which I personally disagree with, straddles the line between opinion and vandalism. Again, neither of which prove a close connection. OlYeller21Talktome 19:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Instead of making an assumption in what I consider to be bad faith, I have asked Andoird1961 if they have a connection to the subject of the article in question. OlYeller21Talktome 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, a diff would have been useful, but it's mentioned in an edit summary. As I said, I raised this at NPOVN but the IP was saying that the sources used, eg the ADL, had a COI so we should not be using those sources. I wasn't trying to say that the IP had a COI - as I understand it, COI might apply to someone identifying as an official of a party, but not necessarily to members of a party. If we can just clarify that the ADL does not have a COI here then I'm happy. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm not picking this up quickly. I've got a lot going on at the moment. What does ADL stand for and what IP? Do we think either of the listed accounts belong to the IP? OlYeller21Talktome 20:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The ADL is the Anti-Defamation League, originally the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Some ultra-conservatives and "white nationalists" claim that they are scaremongers and prejudiced against "pro-white" politicians and radical right organizations in general. The same accusations are leveled against the more obscure but highly outspoken Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is accused by its opponents of tagging as "racist" or "neo-Nazi" every gunbearing conservative organization with a penchant for strong rhetoric and a tendency to draw support from racists (one of Niven's Laws applies here). (Full disclosure: I've given money to the SPLC in the past, and belong to many of the organizations that those who hate the SPLC and the ADL also hate.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Android 1961 has posted to my talk page:

Hello, Dougweller,

My name is Andrew Duncan with Liberty Fund in Indianapolis, Indiana.

I was recently advised from our President of the company that there is content on the Liberty Fund Wikipedia page that is incorrect. Someone outside of the Foundation has added material about a book to our conference section. Liberty Fund does not publish the book or is affiliated with the book in any way whatsoever.

Every time I remove the material it re-appears by someone. Can you please advise as to how we can successfully update this material?

Thanks - Andrew (android1961) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Android1961 (talk • contribs) 9:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

So I think that this is good faith editing with a basic misunderstanding of how WIkipedia works. If anyone else wants to reply to him feel free, otherwise I will in a few hours. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like an accurate assessment of the situation. Thanks for looking into it. a13ean (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Jamie P. Merisotis

The article on the president and CEO of the Lumina Foundation is in large parts identical to the bio posted on the foundation's web site. The article was created by MatthewJenkins, and the latest edits are by the same editor. The editor does not make a statement about potential conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, the staff of the foundation includes a person with a similar name. The article had POV tags placed by other editors, but the potential issue of conflict of interest has not been raised previously by the editor in question or by others as far as I know. Theislikerice (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I placed a copypaste template on the article. It looks like the text used to be under a creative commons license but I can't find any evidence of that now. Regardless, that's Moonriddengirl's area and she's aware of the article.
The article could use a little work but it's not overly POV. I think it's safe to assume that MatthewJenkins is Matthew Jenkins and they appear to be attempting to write in a neutral way. I think that more people who have the article on their watchlist the better but it doesn't look like anything needs to be done right now besides addressing the copyright issue. OlYeller21Talktome 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I added another article to the list but it looks fine. OlYeller21Talktome 22:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The user has also reached out to others asking for help reviewing their neutrality. OlYeller21Talktome 22:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. It makes me queasy that the entire article is based on sources that are under control of the foundation, either written by them or written based on press releases. Also, I thought that if you copy entire sentences, you have to put them in quotation marks. If you are citing yourself, I think there is always a potential conflict of interest. If the self-citation is not evident, either because the cited source has no author associated with it, or because the real name is not given in wikipedia, this is a red flag to me.--Theislikerice (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The text has had its license updated. I'm going to edit the article a bit. OlYeller21Talktome 14:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Promoting ‪Paul Kasmin Gallery‬ with links, mentions and external links. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Username has been blocked indefinitely. I'll check out the articles and see if they have come back or if the articles need any work. OlYeller21Talktome 16:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like Qworty has reverted all of the problematic edits. The user's name was previous Pkgediting and they were blocked due to a username violation}} and have admitted to being assigned to edit the page by Paul Kasmin Gallery. The editor also mentions that "we" were assigned indicating that there may be another user doing the same thing or that more than one person was using the account. My guess is the latter. They're attempting to be unblocked at this point. OlYeller21Talktome 17:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BrisWikiFixer

Editor is using Wikipedia for promotion.

BrisWikiFixer has repeatedly attempted to introduce a page for Ben Preece (manager). As seen from BrisWikiFixer's latest attempt to create a page for Preece (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ben Preece (manager)), Preece runs Mucho-Bravado and is the manager of Hungry Kids of Hungary, Ball Park Music, Tara Simmons and Andy Bull. All of which the editor has edited.

BrisWikiFixer is responsible for the creation of pages for bands Ball Park Music and Hungry Kids of Hungary and releases Escapades, Happiness and Surrounding Suburbs, Hungry Kids of Hungary (EP), Mega Mountain and All You Can, all by artists above. (See also repeated attempts to create an article for one before they were notable (Hungry Kids of Hungary, Hungry kids of hungary, HUNGRY KIDS OF HUNGARY)) Editor love to introduce mentions of Preece into articles [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].

Emma Dean was also a client of Preece and BrisWikiFixer has edited her article in a promotional manner [60] (note addition of line "Emma Dean is currently managed by Ben Preece.") [61] and in a negative manner after "Preece and cellist Laura Driver were both sacked" [62]. Also created article for her release Real Life Computer Game and edited article on her Face Painter (EP). Also appears to have started Cocaine (Emma Dean single)

Other articles BrisWikiFixer has started include Hot Liquid Sex who are managed by Preece, Unexpect the Expected album by Hot Liquid Sex, Ange Kohler of Mucho-Bravado and Hot Liquid Sex, Briony Luttrel who plays with Tara Simmons and Rick Chazan ex of Mucho-Bravado? [63].

As shown in the AFC page Preece drummed for Edward Guglielmino. This is another page BrisWikiFixer has edited in a promotional manner. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ready Flowers

Fairly brutal accusations and counter accusations: of puffery, of cover-up, of self-dealing (T. Hegarty is apparently the name of a former or current owner of this company), of vandalism, of sabotage by competitors, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Now an IP has admitted to being a party in a lawsuit brought by the subject and T. Hegarty, and wants to insert information sourced to his own court filings! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup. A mess. There seems to be little in the way of sources to justify the article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Lightning rod

Over at Talk:Lightning rod, User:Borealdreams has been in full attack mode against User:Wtshymanski. Borealdreams appears to be in the business of selling lightning rods a product that is advertised as an alternative to lightning rods, and does not seem to be able to be objective on the topic because of his COI.

Wtshymanski has a peripheral interest: one of his clients recently installed lightning rods, but Wtshymanski was not involved in the selection. I have identified no COI edits by Wtshymanski. (Full disclosure; I have had multiple conflicts with Wtshymanski over his deletionism and incivility, but never over COI violations.) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Any idea who Hengistmate is? OlYeller21Talktome 20:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
What a mess. Can anyone summarize the situation here? OlYeller21Talktome 20:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Amazing, since when is applying logic and reason a form of attack? I don't sell ****ing Lightning Rods, what part of this does no one understand? Wtshymanski portrays himself with much more credibility than just someone with "peripheral" interest, as his edits and removals do not require any justification for his decision. This process is a laughable, the Troll with the loudest voice is who is "right". Borealdreams (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Example of Guy Macon's definition of "peripheral interest".... "Could you tell me which product I'm supposedly hocking? I want to plan how to spend the money. How could you have walked so many miles of right of way and not known how many thousands of miles of OPGW are installed each year?" (posted by User:Wtshymanski6 March 2012 (UTC)) That one client sure bought a lot of "lightning rods", we are talking wire here, which was my original point, it was not lightning rods at all, so why include it?
Yet another attack by Wtshymanski "Does it pay better than the Twisty Bulb Cartel and the wind-turbine promoters?)" Borealdreams (talk) 21:14 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I can see that this situation has been escalating. I'm not seeing anything here past an assumption that someone is lying which is not assuming good faith. I'm not saying we should all blindly believe that people don't have a connection but is it impossible that Wtshymanski doesn't have a connection?
The size of this issue seems large so I'd like to ask if those involved can provide diffs for their claims and keep their copy/pasted evidence to a minimum. I mean no offense but the addition here from Borealdreams is difficult to follow. It will be easier to follow if someone just says, "Here (provide a link) is where <user> shows his conflict of interest."
Lastly, if I'm understanding this right, Borealdreams works in the industry (do we have proof of that?), Wtshmanski has a peripheral interest as one of his clients recently purchased a lightning rod, and Guy Macon is a 3rd party who claims to have no interest (I only say "claim" to be neutral, I mean no offense). Is this correct? OlYeller21Talktome 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
No offense taken. You (OlYeller21) appear to be correct. I am entirely uninvolved in anything to do with lightning protection, and only got involved in this page when requested to do so by Borealdreams.
Hengistmate appears to be an editor who is still upset over an unrelated issue. Otherwise uninvolved.
Borealdreams comment here leads me to believe that he is involved in the industry. It is a lengthy edit, but the part I am referring to is this:
"There are 69 companies selling our products, with installations at over 3000 sites worldwide, and they are protecting refineries, data centers, no-shutdown allowed factories, chemical plants, power plants, even nuclear plants in your country to the north of mine, by not allowing strikes to the protected facilities. If they weren't protecting the facilities, multinational companies would be telling us to get our 'fringe' technology off their multi-billion dollar facilities, but they are not."
There is an underlying content dispute. Here is a quick summary of the dispute for non-engineers: Lightning rods protect buildings by being hit by lightning instead of the building being hit. They are mainstream technology. Dissipation Arrays allegedly prevent lightning strikes. this is very much a WP:FRINGE view. (I am prepared to cite reliable sources establishing this on the article talk page if we can get the behavior issues under control).
Wtshymanski tends to be rather sarcastic when dealing with [Self-deleted], a practice I have criticized him for several times. Borealdreams appears to take the sarcasm literally and then uses it as a springboard for some rather vicious personal attacks. The result is a form of inadvertent goading. I don't see it as being Wtshymansk's fault; I am also being personally attacked, despite my entirely different (calm, fact-based) writing style. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
O woe. Not a lightning rod. I work for a large company (that has nothing to do with making or selling lightning rods...our primary product is sheets of paper). Another very large company, which from time to time retains our services, as part of a large project, bought OPGW (optical ground wire) for installation on 230 kV transmission lines. This wire is part of the lightning protection system for the project, but it is not a lightning rod. It's also part of the 60 Hz grounding system, and by virtue of its fiber-nature, part of the communications and control for the project. Aside from a drawing that I signed off on that says "Transmission line goes here" and discussion with the client on how to get their fibers into the building that our organization designed, I have nothing to do with it. The connection with the Lightning rod article is only in the heated prose of our correspondent. OPGW is a pretty common part of lightning protection systems and a comprehensive article should tip the hat in that direction. A professional in the area of lightning protection systems would have at least some accquaintence with utility transmission-line protection and would not have found a mention of OPGW remarkable. I should also disclose that I have seen a lightning rod and I have also seen a lightning storm. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As Requested..... Lightning rod - (I don't know how to link to Revision history)
22:39, 5 March 2012‎ Wtshymanski: (our client thinks these are for lighting protection and who are we to argue? Undid revision 480395879 by Borealdreams)
read through revisions and note all his 'reasons", and I am attacking?
we are not talking a lightning rod here... this is about "1000s of miles of cable" going between cities, that is placed on the large high voltage towers. Wtshymanski, as Guy attests, is not buying some $10 item, this is millions of dollars we are talking about.
Read the final section of this Talk:Lightning_rod. I defend my points, Wtshymanski just does whatever and basically says "eff you, I'm right, you're wrong" and this is a "peripheral role"?
Sure sounds like I am lying here User:Borealdreams, as I clearly state I work within the industry, my company is pushing me to promote our products and I am refusing to do so.
And here User:Borealdreams/sandbox is where I am attempting, and requesting assistance, in preparing an objective, non-biased Lightning Protection System (NOT LIGHTNING RODS) page for submission to Wiki, once it is substantially intact. Borealdreams (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
(Reply moved to Talk:Lightning rod. This page is for discussing editors with conflicts of interest, not lightning protection.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Guy. I don't mean to sound like I have some high sense of self importance but I don't think anyone has the time to read that much text. Things will be a lot easier if the discussion here is focused on a close connection and if that close connection is causing problematic editing.
I may make a few more edits tonight but I won't be back until tomorrow. OlYeller21Talktome 23:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and luckily, I have three engineering degrees. I'm not familiar with dissipation arrays but if I'm deducing what they are from the name, I'm already skeptical but my opinion won't matter much. I'll read more and come back later. OlYeller21Talktome 23:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you OlYeller21 for already passing judgement and arriving at conclusions prior to reviewing the evidence. 3 engineering degrees? The ivory tower within which you reside, WOW simply WOW is all I can say. But be assured, you won't need to come down to our level down here, as Guy has already solved all problems, by the simple labeling as "fringe" because his lack of a background in the industry gives him the credibility to make such determinations.

Beyond disappointed, status quo maintained, objectivity? heck who needs that! Borealdreams (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Borealdreams, My mentioning of my educational background wasn't intended to put others down, somehow. I'm sorry if I've offended you, that truly wasn't my intention at all. OlYeller21Talktome 14:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt a bit of a reboot here.

The end-game to the conflict of interest in this case, in my opinion, can only lead to a topic ban. We can use this noticeboard to bring in fresh and neutral eyes but I don't see there being a lot of action that can be taken in between. I don't think we're near a topic ban yet and I'd like to go in the opposite direction by taking this discussion to the talk page of the article.

I must note that I agree with Guy's interpretation of the issue. Using the word "fringe" seems to have caused some problems but I don't think that's the root cause of the problems related to this issue. Before we move to the talk page, I'd like to ask one thing each from Borealdreams and Wtshymanski. Can we agree to alter the rhetoric here? I don't believe that anyone involved is right or wrong, exactly, but I think it's easy to see that some things need to change for this to move forward.

Wtshymanski, I see you are using sarcasm and sometimes hyperbole in your arguments. I get it. I think I can see your point of view and why you would respond in such a way. Ultimately, right or wrong, it's not helping things. Can you please tone it down a bit so that we can have a productive discussion on the talk page? I think it's best for the article and WP but I would also consider it a personal favor. Borealdreams, Again, I'm sorry if I upset you earlier. I shouldn't have made an off-the-cuff interpretation of a name. I should has known better than to do that. It's not difficult to sense that you're upset and I think I can see why you react the way you do. Before we start discussing on the talk page, I'd like to request that you change the way you address others. Again, I think I understand why you're frustrated and why you would respond the way that you have but I think that for us to move forward and improve the encyclopedia, that tone will need to change. Lastly, I'd like to request that anyone involved try to assume good faith and focus on what's best for Wikipedia so that we can move forward. I believe that focusing on what has been said in the past or proving others wrong, isn't going produce the best results. Is this something that we can all agree on? I believe that if we agree on these terms, we can come to a consensus on the content of the article. OlYeller21Talktome 16:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize in advance this is not short, but please read fully.
OlYeller21 I can accept your apology, but I'm not going to engage in discourse on this matter any more if there continues to be no attempts by either Guy or Wtshymanski to be objective and neutral, in the rework of this article. Without "attacking" I will state my issues with their approaches as an observer;
  • Wtshymanski - setting outward attacks in his "edit comments" aside , his decisions to add, remove or edit content apparently never requires an objective justification. It is simply (how I see it), "I know this, I have experience with this, I do not have to justify myself". That would be fine, if we were discussing an article on "paint by numbers", but we are not, we are discussing a highly complex process, where scientists & research will never ultimately provide all the answers. So, like anyone, justify your rational for doing something without an attack, and your justifications can be weighed objectively. If he would like to continue "Acting" as though he need not justify his decisions, then I will be required to think that he is "an expert" in the subject matter based on years of experience. But then, when called out (by myself) and exposed, he claims he has very limited experience in the subject matter, and merely signed a paper once as an accessory participant. Which is it, "person experienced with subject matter claiming to not have any" or "person with no knowledge, here with other personal motivations"? Objectively & with experience in the industry, I believe he is the combination of both. Either way, this is someone that should be banned from the discussion, as he is not clear of his intentions & does not demonstrate the ability to be objective in the discussions.
  • Guy I am not sure about. I did seek him out, as I tracked him down as having prior problems with Wtshymanski, and I was desperately looking for someone willing to engage in an objective discussion, and be a 3rd party observer in this "warring". Guy instantly sided with everything Wtshymanski did, and then made it his obligation to declare Wtshymanski someone with no COI, completely unrelated to the subject matter and I was the one attacking. Also that I was "hocking" a product, which I've stated from day one I have no interest in doing, and I only put that paragraph in because I was being attacked and labeled fringe as a way to get rid of me and discredit anything I had to say. Guy's neutrality I now have to question, as he knew exactly where to go to get the "so called damming information", with little effort.
The reality is, this is a subject matter as complex as particle physics, but moneyed interests are deeply engrained so it is difficult to discuss with civility. It is truly a religion, and it is extremely political and discussions will always be like lighting a flare in an ammo dump. :(
My main intent is to discuss the principles behind Lightning Protection Systems. If we have a pyramid of hierarchy, the point would be the problem - "Lighting Strikes Things". The first level would need to be Terminology (as this is a complex subject matter and we have to agree how to discuss the subject concisely). Next level down would be "What are the properties of lightning when it strikes things" and "What are those things it strikes, how do they react." Building downward, building a pyramid, all these different things are discussed and their relationship to one another is put in perspective.
If this is the manner in which it was discussed, I would never have to name my products, the science would do that for me, because everything we are discussing is not mutually exclusive to Lightning Rods, it is however the basis for any Lightning Protection System, fringe or mainstream. By having Lightning Rod at the top of the pyramid, they are claiming [mainstream] Lightning Protection Systems are mutually exclusive to Lighting Rods, and thereby can label everything else "fringe" and discredit it. They can also say, Ben Franklin and his experiments are mutually exclusive to lightning rods, hence the name Franklin Rods, and by such claim all "science" is in favor of the Lightning Rod, which it is not... all science is in favor of describing the problem "Lightning Strikes Things, how do we understand it, how do we address it, how do we protect our things best, etc., etc., etc.
And this is what I am attempting to do here, as this fallacy that is being propagated will not allow for this discussion as they know the science is not clear anywhere, but the myth and religion that Ben Franklin made the Lightning Rod and that is the only thing that will protect you, continues to dominate the discussion.
This is the reality in the Lightning Protection Industry...
To reconcile a natural phenomenon with an experiment in the laboratory is a difficult task, as is shown by the history of lightning research. Evaluations and knowledge obtained by model tests on a small scale are often incorrect, but survive for a remarkably long time.1Uman, Lightning, p. 203
Humbly submitted:Borealdreams (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Re "'Guy's neutrality I now have to question, as he knew exactly where to go to get the 'so called damming information', with little effort'", I am an electronics engineer. Unlike most here, I choose to post using my real name and to let anyone who is interested see my resume. Being an experienced electronics engineer, of course I know where to go to find information about engineering topics. I find Borealdreams' insinuations to be insulting. He owes me an apology for questioning my neutrality based upon such flimsy evidence. As for his conspiracy theories about "moneyed interests", he has yet to provide any citations backing up this claim or any other claims. BTW, I have a long history of disagreeing with Wtshymanski, and I did not side with him. I sided with what reliable sources say.
I am going to stop interacting with Borealdreams rather than being subjected to any further personal attacks. Any further comments by him, here or elsewhere, will not be read by me. Here is my opinion as to how this case should be resolved:

Suggested Remedies

It is an established fact that Borealdreams has a conflict of interest. It is clear to me that Borealdreams is incapable of remaining neutral while editing any page that is related to Lightning or Lightning protection, and it is equally clear to me that Borealdreams is unwilling to collaborate with other Wikipedia editors or to even attempt to provide citations to reliable sources for his claims.

[Comment self-deleted: Borealdreams has expressed a desire to make a fresh start.] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable start. a13ean (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
[Comment self-deleted: Borealdreams has expressed a desire to make a fresh start.] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

[to Guy Macon, I don't know how to intent to you now that A13ean has posted below you]

Again you attack me, and defend Wtshymanski. Instead of commenting on my proposal, you set forth to block me because you see the true neutrality I am attempting to establish here, and that neutrality is that Lightning Protection Systems are not Mutually Exclusive to Lightning Rods. What source do you require to know a part in a system is not the main topic? "Reproductive appendage" is Wtshymanski's own words in his user page, where he considers all others he does not agree with to be just that. You seem to have no problem finding items to link to me, yet you've never acknowledged once, Wtshymanski came right out and said he is selling the product he is pushing...
  • "22:39, 5 March 2012‎ Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (48,513 bytes) (+94)‎ . . (restore; our client thinks these are for lighting protection and who are we to argue? Undid revision 480395879 by Borealdreams (talk)) (undo)"
Wtshymanski is an adult, why are you so vehemently defending him? He has obviously in the past shown his ability to be his own man and take care of himself, so what is your purpose of covering for him and not asking any of the objective questions that need to be answered?
You're an electrical engineer, so what? If I went out and asked any electrical engineer I found on the street, 90% would not know there is a battle between Lightning Rods & everything else, 99.999%% would not know exactly what the defining damning evidence was, yet you knew exactly where and what it was!
So again, you ignore my suggestions for improvements, and attempt to get rid of me. Why is this? Borealdreams (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User Wtshymanski erases his Talk Page in the last 3 days. Why is that?

Revision history of User talk:Wtshymanski
  • (cur | prev) 23:09, 7 March 2012‎ Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (138 bytes) (-1,273)‎ . . (old business) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 10:46, 7 March 2012‎ DPL bot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,411 bytes) (+1,111)‎ . . (dablink notification message (see the FAQ)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 20:41, 6 March 2012‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (300 bytes) (+162)‎ . . (→‎FYI: new section) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 19:44, 6 March 2012‎ Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (138 bytes) (-3,845)‎ . . (old business) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 19:41, 6 March 2012‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,983 bytes) (+813)‎ . . (→‎Heads Up) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 14:07, 6 March 2012‎ Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,170 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (English doesn't have that word...yet) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 14:06, 6 March 2012‎ Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,172 bytes) (+394)‎ . . :*(→‎Heads Up: Undermining the objectivity of Wikipedia for 7 years now, in my hideous subliminal advertising campaign) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 04:56, 6 March 2012‎ Guy Macon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,778 bytes) (+457)‎ . . (→‎Heads Up: new section) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 14:21, 5 March 2012‎ Wtshymanski (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,321 bytes) (-3,446)‎ . . (talk about articles on their talk pages ; old business ; sp error) (undo)
"This page has been blanked. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) ..again."
Is he lying about when it was blanked?... "This page was last modified on 7 March 2012 at 23:09."
Why the deletion of an entire page, only when attention has been brought upon you? I've left my disclaimer of who I am and what I do up. Last night I even adding multiple sources that I will start to use to prepare a neutral page. Borealdreams (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because of the Good Ole Boy conversation they had... Borealdreams (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've spent all the time I'm going to on this situation. Incivility on both sides, not surprisingly, makes coming to a consensus virtually impossible. I support moving to blocks and possibly a topic ban if necessary. OlYeller21Talktome 16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Because of the ongoing "quote mining" used in personal attacks, could you clarify whether "Incivility on both sides" includes me? Is there anything I could have handled better or done differently? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Not you, the other two. I should have been more clear. I don't know that there's anything that you could have done any better. In my experience and opinion, having two outside and neutral sources offer to mediate a discussion between two editors who bait and attack each other is more than generous. The rhetoric used in the conversations needs to change for there to be any sort of progress and I don't see it changing unless more extreme measured are used (asking nicely didn't work). OlYeller21Talktome 16:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I move to mothball or expunge this from the system. I can work with Guy Macon, and I can also offer an apology in my questioning of his neutrality, based on his statements above acknowledging my attempts at reworking the pages in a critical manner. That was all I was looking for, was validation of my desire to discuss this matter in a civil and constructive manner for the betterment of increasing the public's understanding of an extremely complex phenomena.
On a side note, while attempting to have a simple dinner out last night, I was pulled into a conversation with another patron (one who worked for a state transportation department) who asked me what I did. Upon describing it, he went into a "tirade" calling me a snakeoil salesman, using "my philosophy" do describe the science, he knew better than I did even though he repeatedly said "we can't predict what god does" and he tried to liken me to a "storm chaser" out praying on homeowners after natural disasters. All along, his buddies were mocking him & trying to get him to eat something other than the "liquid diet" he was consuming. That said, I can remain civil in these discussions if others wish to counter my positions with reasoned/sourced arguments, not slander and name calling. PS, please don't use the term "psuedoscience" as a defense for your position, as all lightning "science" is psuedoscience and none of it can be proved to the point of being law based on scientific principles of theory development. Thank you. Borealdreams (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I have responded to this at User talk:Guy Macon#Olive Branch. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Avertano Furtado

All the editors contribs relate to the same page in which article that was not present in the sources was added. (I cleaned up that page a bit). Further doubt was raised upon seeing this image. The license reads it had been released by the name of the person in question and is from facebook. Its user upload was then the said user above. Someone needs to also check out the copyright status of the picture.

That said per COI the article doesnt have to automatically go...unless a notability deletion discussion deems so. (seperately, id think)Lihaas (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The user does say that they are "Avertano" in the image upload which would allow them to give permission to use the photo, although simply linking it to Facebook doesn't really help. Notability is certainly asserted. I haven't checked the references but as it stands, he would satisfy WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:NSOCCER.
As for the COI, the page has been cleaned up well and the user has stopped editing. I've watchlisted the article and the user's talk page. I'll report back if anything pops up again. OlYeller21Talktome 05:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Philip Press

Can someone help with this article? The IP is removing the template and actually doing an okay job cleaning the article up, but it's far short of an encyclopedic entry. I don't have the time to sort it out, which is why I'm bringing it here. tedder (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Philip Press as there is no need for a disambiguating title.--ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin Welz

Apparent WP:SPA account that has been updating the Martin Welz article with highly POV and/or personal information that could only be known to the subject himself or someone closely connected with him. Some of the edits that I have concerns about include:

  • 1 - added favourable details about a court case won by Welz, including an unreferenced quote by him.
  • 2 - middle name added. Highly personal, unreferenced information that no-one else would care about.
  • 3 - added father's full name - who other than the subject would care to update the WP article with personal details of their father?
  • 4 - added favourable info about a press award (with a self reference that does not back up the claim)
  • 5 - more favourable information about court cases. The wording "self-styled Cape Town fashionista" is not in the supplied reference about the court case, and therefore appears to be WP:POV.
  • 6 - Welz flagged as a "notable" alumini of Stellenbosch University.

Lastly, there notably no contributions by this editor that portray Welz in an unfavourable way, despite the subject of the article being controversial. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ [64]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_55&oldid=1148049264"